tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-114250592024-03-13T10:51:57.017-04:00Wolfish MusingsSome notes on the frum community from a local wolf.BrooklynWolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.comBlogger775125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-53390299832518585072016-06-07T07:55:00.001-04:002016-06-07T07:55:50.601-04:00Apparently, I'm still remembered...It's very odd. Four people have contacted me this week about past posts and a relative mentioned the blog to me at a simcha recently. Perhaps I should resume writing...<br />
<br />
The WolfBrooklynWolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.com25tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-50596801488238006362015-10-28T12:03:00.001-04:002015-10-28T12:03:25.553-04:00What New Square Stands ForI was following the coverage of yesterday's decision to grant Shaul Spitzer, the young man convicted of assault in the arson attempt against Aaron Rottenberg. As I watched the coverage, I found my utterly appalled and disgusted. <br />
<br />
What disgusted and appalled me was not the fact that Spitzer was granted youthful offender status and will likely be released very soon. I may disagree with the decision, but it's something that I would just call a mistake. Perhaps Spitzer conned the judge into believing that he's been reformed. Heck, maybe he actually was reformed and will be a model citizen from here on in. All that's really beside the point.<br />
<br />
What really bothers me, above all else, are the morals and values that have been displayed by the New Square community throughout this entire affair from the very beginning.<br />
<br />
This began when Rottenberg decided to help form a minyan at a nearby nursing home, to help an resident there to say kaddish. This ran afoul of the rule in New Square that everyone had to daven at the Rebbe's shul (or someplace approved by him). As a result, Rottenberg became an outcast in the community. He was harassed and his property vandalized, so much to the point where he had video cameras installed around his property and had household members continually monitoring them. <br />
<br />
All this culminated in the early morning hours of May 22, 2011 when Spitzer attempted to firebomb the Rottenberg home and was only prevented from doing so when Rottenberg himself came out and physically stopped him. In the ensuing scuffle, Rottenberg was severely burned. Spitzer was arrested, convicted and imprisoned. From the start, the New Square community has rallied around Spitzer and supported him. After yesterday's court decision, <a href="http://matzav.com/video-photos-skver-celebrating-early-release-of-shaul-spitzer/" target="_blank">they danced victoriously in New Square</a>, celebrating Spitzer release and return to the community.<br />
<br />
This whole episode has underscored to me, just how immoral the community of New Square has become. This is a community that felt that it's perfectly justified to harass and terrorize a man and his family for the "sin" of helping someone say kaddish. This is a community that would probably throw someone out for the sin of having unfiltered internet, a television or an unapproved newspaper or book, but someone who commits arson and attempts to murder a family in their sleep is welcome back not only with open arms, but with singing, dancing and celebration.<br />
<br />
New Square purports to be a community where they hold to the traditional values of the Torah, keep its commandments and follow the traditions of our Sages. But that's all a lie. There's no commandment in the Torah to harass someone for davening in a different shul. There is no tradition from our Sages to sneak up on a family and attempt to burn them in their sleep. There is no custom to celebrate when someone who attempts murder is released from jail. So, no... this is not a community based on the Torah.<br />
<br />
This is a community based on the values of control and conformity. The entire community is beholden to the word of the Rebbe and everyone must conform to that, in speech, in language, in dress and in comportment. No one may deviate in any respect without the approval of the Rebbe -- regardless of whether or not the Torah permits (and perhaps requires) it. And no act, if done for the Rebbe or the community, is bad -- even if it goes against everything the Torah stands for.<br />
<br />
The WolfBrooklynWolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-52327870955948201452015-09-06T17:00:00.001-04:002015-09-06T17:00:38.836-04:00Glad To See Some Sanity In LakewoodAt the start of Elul, three prominent Rabbis in the Yeshiva community - Rabbis Shmuel Kaminetzky, Mattisyahu Salomon and Malkiel Kotler, distributed a letter stating that yeshivos must accept children who are unvaccinated. <br />
<br />
The letter itself is flawed in several ways. First, and foremost, it's flawed in that it presents the idea that not vaccinating your children against dangerous diseases is an acceptable lifestyle choice. But even beyond that, it has other serious flaws.<br />
<br />
Below is the letter, as presented on Matzav.com:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-L_QHW_5vKXk/VeygTJvLc2I/AAAAAAAABC8/Amw4R5gIz0I/s1600/kami.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-L_QHW_5vKXk/VeygTJvLc2I/AAAAAAAABC8/Amw4R5gIz0I/s640/kami.jpg" width="480" /></a></div>
<br />
In the second bullet point, they raise the point that vaccines present risk and that the United States Supreme Court stated that they are "unavoidably unsafe." Since they are "unavoidably unsafe," no one has the halachic right to force vaccination.<br />
<br />
Let's take a closer look at this and start with the first statement. When something is described as "unavoidably unsafe," it sounds downright dangerous. But, in reality, that's not the case. In fact, it's a product that, while potentially unsafe, *should* be used due to it's great utility and that the benefits outweigh any potential risks.<br />
<br />
An "unavoidably unsafe" product is, perhaps, best defined by a <a href="http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Courses/drugsf02/comment_k.htm" target="_blank">comment</a> that defines them in the Second Restatement of the Law of Torts, section 402A.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><i>Unavoidably unsafe products. There are some products which, in the present state of human knowledge, are quite incapable of being made safe for their intended and ordinary use. These are especially common in the field of drugs. An outstanding example is the vaccine for the Pasteur treatment of rabies, which not uncommonly leads to very serious and damaging consequences when it is injected. Since the disease itself invariably leads to a dreadful death, both the marketing and use of the vaccine are fully justified, notwithstanding the unavoidable high degree of risk which they involve. Such a product, properly prepared, and accompanied by proper directions and warning, is not defective, nor is it unreasonably dangerous. The same is true of many other drugs, vaccines, and the like, many of which for this very reason cannot legally be sold except to physicians, or under the prescription of a physician. </i></span></blockquote>
<br />
The point being made here is that (as in the example) the treatment for rabies has some very serious side effects. Nonetheless, since the disease itself otherwise leads to a near-certain horrible death, the use of such products is fully justified. And, as the final sentence says, the same is true for other drugs and vaccines. <br />
<br />
In other words, a product that is "unavoidably unsafe" is not a product that is in any way defective or dangerous. On the contrary, it's a product that, due to it's importance, should be used, despite the potential for side effects. Much like laypeople confuse the term "theory" when it comes to evolution, not realizing that it has a specific meaning when it comes to science, so too, people misunderstand "unavoidably unsafe" when it is used in law.<br />
<br />
In addition, it must be pointed out that I find it highly interesting that these Rabbis are willing to put so much weight behind the words of the Supreme Court (as they misunderstand them). The justices of the United States Supreme Court are experts at law. They are not experts in medicine. If they were to proclaim that the measles vaccine were the most dangerous thing ever invented, that would not make it so -- especially if, in the opinion of virtually the entire medical establishment, the vaccine were safe. I find it very telling that they chose to base their decision on whether or not schools should mandate vaccines for attending children on the basis of a Supreme Court statement rather than on the basis of the medical establishment who are far more knowledgeable about vaccines. <br />
<br />
Fortunately, there are those in Lakewood who are not taking this silently. This week's <a href="http://thevoiceoflakewood.com/3dissue/090315/index.html" target="_blank">Voice of Lakewood has a full-page advertisement</a> (page 266) from medical professionals in the Lakewood community.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GnLKnr2uJM8/VeyoyG9rc6I/AAAAAAAABDM/bUbrK376u7Q/s1600/Lakewood%2BImmunize.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GnLKnr2uJM8/VeyoyG9rc6I/AAAAAAAABDM/bUbrK376u7Q/s1600/Lakewood%2BImmunize.JPG" /></a></div>
<br />
It is certainly heartening to see responsible professionals standing up and making a public statement to protect children from preventable childhood diseases. Hopefully, people will learn to put more trust in doctors when it comes to medical issues than they do in Rabbis who do not have the training or knowledge to deal with issues such as these.<br />
<br />
The WolfBrooklynWolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-30132109391914471232015-03-09T11:55:00.004-04:002015-03-09T11:55:56.872-04:00I Don't Like What I've BecomeAs I'm finishing up <i>Shacharis</i>, the two dollar bills, tired and worn from circulation lay on the table in front of me.<br />
<br />
I put those bills there before <i>davening</i> started. It's my daily "<i>tzedaka</i> fund." When people come around during or after <i>davening</i> to collect, I will usually give them one of the dollars. When they are gone, then that's all I give for that session of <i>davening</i>. Sometimes there might be only a single dollar, sometimes as many as four or five. It depends on how much financial pressure I'm feeling lately and how many bills of each denomination I have in my pocket. Today it's two singles.<br />
<br />
One thing that I like about this <i>shul</i> is that there is usually very little collecting during <i>davening </i>itself. Yes, they pass around the <i>pushka</i> for the <i>shul</i> during the Repetition of the <i>Amidah</i>, but very few actual beggars. They usually wait until the end of <i>davening</i>.<br />
<br />
Towards the end of <i>davening </i>(usually right before <i>Aleinu</i>), one of them will be allowed to make an thirty or sixty second "elevator pitch" to the congregation before they actually go from person to person. Some of them have supporting documentation, some don't. Sometimes it's overwhelming medical bills. Other times it's a plea to support orphans. Sometimes it's just a person who is down on his luck. To me, it doesn't matter too much -- I don't check the documentation too closely (or, often, at all). If they're actually cheating me, it's usually only going to be a buck anyway. I'd rather err on the side of mercy. <br />
<br />
This morning, however, was different. This morning's tzedaka collector made me think twice about even giving the buck.<br />
<br />
The man made his pitch in Yiddish, which I don't fully understand. Yet, I was able to make out enough of it to understand that he was from Israel and that he was collecting money for his daughter's wedding. He has six daughters, he told us -- presumably this was the first and he would need more funds further down the line.<br />
<br />
When he mentioned needing money for a wedding, I began to wonder what, exactly, he needed it for. Did he need it for the actual expenses of the wedding (food, a dress and so on), or was it because he had to promise support to his future son in law or buy them an apartment or what not? If the former, I would give with a full heart? Whose heart would not melt when presented with a story of a young woman who wants to get married but lacks the funds for even a modest wedding?* If the latter, however, well that's a different story.<br />
<br />
Like many families, we're under a bit of a financial crunch at the moment. Nothing so serious that we can't keep a roof over our heads or food on the table, but still, money is tight. If one of my kids were to get married tomorrow, I would have a great deal of trouble coming up with the money for the wedding. I certainly wouldn't be promising them a house or apartment or that I would support them in total for years on end. And it's not because I wouldn't want to help them out where I can, but just because, at the current moment, I can't. And if I can't do so for my own kids, why should I be contributing to someone else who is doing so for their kids? Why should I spend my money to someone who made promises he couldn't possibly keep? <br />
<br />
In my mind, I imagined the conversation I would have with him. I'd ask him about the man his daughter was going to marry. Was he a <i>Ben Torah</i>? What were his plans for the future? How much did he cost?<br />
<br />
And, as those thoughts went through my head, I had the contradictory feeling of being both disgusted by them and justified in them. I was disgusted that I would even think of asking such questions -- aside from the last question being incredibly crass, it's truly none of my business, even if he's asking for my money. But yet, the objections of the previous paragraph keep coming back to my head. Why should I be part of buying an apartment for his future son-in-law if I'm having under pressure meeting the day-to-day expenses for my own kids?<br />
<br />
Part of the problem, I suppose, comes from my opposition to the way <i>shidduchim </i>are done in some <i>Chareidi </i>circles, where, in many cases, you have to literally buy a son-in-law for your daughter. Yes, the dowry is an old idea, but, from a practical, everyday point of view, it's a concept that is totally alien to me. I simply can't imagine not marrying a perfectly suitable girl simply because she can't come up with a down-payment, and, because I can't wrap my head around the concept, I have trouble empathizing with someone who is actually in that situation. <br />
<br />
But is that the situation here? Or is it simply the case of a poor person who needs funds for the most basic and simplest of weddings? I don't know. I'm certainly not going to ask.<br />
<br />
In the end, I handed over the bills to him. As I said, I tend to err on the side of giving rather than not giving. But I find myself troubled -- not by the question of whether or not to give, but by my reaction to it. I don't like that I've become suspicious of such requests and nosy about details that I have no right to inquire about. I don't like the idea that I'm judging others as to whether or not they're worthy of my charity. I don't like the fact that I have to even question this in my mind. I'd rather just give with a full heart.<br />
<br />
The Wolf<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
* Yes, I know that, technically, to get married, you don't really need all that much beyond a ring and a rabbi -- but I believe that every bride deserves at least a modest wedding.BrooklynWolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-46665523934131744702015-01-13T17:16:00.002-05:002015-01-13T17:16:23.185-05:00HaMevaser Fails At Journalistic EthicsOnce again, the Chareidi news is in the news.<br />
<br />
There has been quite a bit of discussion in the past about the deletion of women from pictures in some Chareidi publications. The issue has come up yet again as HaMevaser, a paper published by MK Meir Porush, <a href="http://www.vosizneias.com/190873/2015/01/12/jerusalem-israeli-haredi-newspaper-removes-two-female-global-leaders-from-paris-unity-picture/" target="_blank">deleted the females from the picture of world leaders</a> who assembled in Paris to protest the recent violence there.<br />
<br />
Many people have decried the policy, asserting that it is tantamount to erasing women from history. They resort to calling the editors of the paper names such as "Taliban" or the like. Personally, I think it's irresponsible overkill to compare the editing of pictures to the killing of people, but I do understand their feelings.<br />
<br />
For me, however, there is a much more fundamental problem here. While I disagree with the paper's policy, I also respect their right to have such a policy. If they don't want to publish pictures of women, then that is their right. It's also the right of the consumer to vote with their dollars (or shekels, as the case may be) and not purchase the paper and boycott its advertisers.<br />
<br />
What really troubles me is these publications seem to have no sense of journalistic ethics. We rely on the press to tell us what happened in a given place at a given time. Implicit in that is a responsibility on the part of the press to tell the truth and to not fabricate the news, nor to alter it. No self-respecting newspaper would edit a photograph in that manner. The fact that they do so, and do so openly, tells me that the editors of the paper have no compunctions about altering the news to fit their theological worldview. As such, I find it hard to understand how anyone can trust what they say.<br />
<br />
Of course, there was a way for the paper to follow its policy vis-a-vis pictures of women AND maintain journalistic ethical standards. That would have been to publish a different picture or simply not publish a picture at all. It's a shame that they chose to take the very worst of the options available to them.<br />
<br />
The Wolf<br />
<br />
(Both pictures can be viewed <a href="http://judaism.walla.co.il/item/2819142" target="_blank">here</a>.)BrooklynWolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-29087884639334123262014-09-18T13:59:00.000-04:002014-09-18T13:59:16.770-04:00A Lashon Hara Video That Completely Misses The Point.A YouTube video was recently released dealing with the dangers of telling Lashon HaRah on the internet. However, the video completely misses the point and fails to identify the real problem.<br />
<br />
First of all, here's the video:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/go64XCodp5k?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
The narrator blames all this on Lashon HaRah (evil speech) and, in truth, that's a part of the problem here. However, it's a very small of the problem. The real problem (which the video does not address) is the community itself.<br />
<br />
<div id="stcpDiv" style="left: -1988px; position: absolute; top: -1999px;">
It seems to be made up of people who are <br />
– busybodies (whose business is it what the Rebbe or anyone else in the community buys at the butcher>) <br />
- judgmental (because you eat chicken the Rebbe isn’t entitled to ever eat anything better?)<br />
- selfish (heaven forbid that someone else actually have something that they, themselves don’t have)<br />
– unable to be dan l’kaf z’chus <br />
– superficial in their understanding of what makes someone moral (the
Rebbe isn’t a good role model because he bought a rack of lamb?)<br />
– idle (really? In half an hour all these people have nothing better to do than bash someone online?)<br />
– gossip mongers (well, it is a part of the problem, but clearly not
the most important part. If the people in the community didn’t have the
above traits, this last bit wouldn’t matter as much).<br />
Lashon Harah is not the real problem here. The real problem is the attitude of the people in this community.<br />
The Wolf<br />
- See more at:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/ywn-videos/259254/watch-a-rebbes-life-is-destroyed-in-minutes.html#comment-633995</div>
<div id="stcpDiv" style="left: -1988px; position: absolute; top: -1999px;">
It seems to be made up of people who are <br />
– busybodies (whose business is it what the Rebbe or anyone else in the community buys at the butcher>) <br />
- judgmental (because you eat chicken the Rebbe isn’t entitled to ever eat anything better?)<br />
- selfish (heaven forbid that someone else actually have something that they, themselves don’t have)<br />
– unable to be dan l’kaf z’chus <br />
– superficial in their understanding of what makes someone moral (the
Rebbe isn’t a good role model because he bought a rack of lamb?)<br />
– idle (really? In half an hour all these people have nothing better to do than bash someone online?)<br />
– gossip mongers (well, it is a part of the problem, but clearly not
the most important part. If the people in the community didn’t have the
above traits, this last bit wouldn’t matter as much).<br />
Lashon Harah is not the real problem here. The real problem is the attitude of the people in this community.<br />
The Wolf<br />
- See more at:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/ywn-videos/259254/watch-a-rebbes-life-is-destroyed-in-minutes.html#comment-633995</div>
It seems to be made up of people who are<br />
<br />
– busybodies who should just mind their own business (why is it their concern what the Rebbe or anyone else in the community buys at the butcher?)<br />
<br />
- judgmental (because you eat chicken the Rebbe isn’t entitled to ever eat anything better? You're happy you didn't end up married to him because he bought a rack of lamb?)<br />
<br />
- selfish and envious (heaven forbid that someone else actually have something that they, themselves don’t have.)<br />
<br />
– unable to be dan l’kaf z’chus (judge favorably -- he could have gotten the money as a gift or from some private tutoring or any number of other legitimate ways.)<br />
<br />
– superficial in their understanding of what makes someone moral (the Rebbe isn’t a good role model because he bought a rack of lamb or because he might have splurged once in a while?)<br />
<br />
– idle (really? In half an hour all these people have nothing better to do than bash someone online?)<br />
<br />
– gossip mongers (well, it is a part of the problem, but clearly not the most important part. If the people in the community didn’t have the above traits, this last bit wouldn’t matter as much).<br />
<br />
Lashon Harah is not the real problem here. The real problem is the attitude of the people in this community. I'm tempted to think that if the Rebbe gets kicked out of this community, it just might be the best thing that ever happened to him.<br />
<br />
The WolfBrooklynWolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-14392611416429406702014-07-03T11:39:00.000-04:002014-07-03T11:39:35.448-04:00To Every Thing There is a Season, and a Time to Every Purpose Under the HeavenMy parents raised me to believe that one must take the feelings of others into account when speaking and doing things. Before you open your mouth to speak, think about how the message is going to be received on the other end. Is this the right thing to say -- and, if it is, is it the right time/place to say it?<br />
<br />
I'd be lying if I said that I always lived up to that ideal. There are times when I've said things that did hurt others. While I can't remember saying things that were intentionally meant to hurt others, there were things that were said that, in retrospect, should not have been said -- or at least not when I said them. As Shlomo taught us, there is a time and a place for everything. There is a time to speak, and there is a time to be silent.<br />
<br />
Yesterday -- just a day after the three murdered teens in Israel were buried, Aron Teitelbaum, the Satmar Rebbe, launched into a speech where he placed the blame for the murder of the teens on their parents. He stated that the community is required to state that the parents are guilty for the deaths of their sons and that they must do <i>teshuva</i> for living in such an unsafe area.<br />
<br />
One of the hallmarks of a Jew, the Talmud teaches us, is that they are compassionate (Yevamos 79a). They take the feelings of others into account. They do not inflict unnecessary pain and, when pain must be inflicted, it is kept to a minimum. <br />
<br />
I understand (even if I don't agree) with the Satmar Rebbe's position vis-a-vis the legitimacy of the State of Israel. I understand his positions (again, even if I don't agree) regarding living in certain places. But there is a time and a place for your personal theology and in the faces of grieving parents a day after they bury their children is not it.<br />
<br />
It doesn't matter if the Satmar Rebbe is right or wrong regarding his <i>hashkafah</i>. Let's say, just for the sake of argument that he is correct. It doesn't matter. Let him save his comments for another day. If a parent is (God forbid) sitting <i>shiva </i>for a child who died in a bicycle accident, the shiva house is not the time or place for a lecture about the rules of the road. If someone loses a child (God forbid) in a car accident, you don't say to them at the <i>shiva</i> house "See, I told you they should always wear seat belts!" To do so is to just pour salt into the already festering wound. There is a time and a place and a way to talk of these things, but in a fiery speech on the day after the burial is not it. Save it for another day, another venue and another form. <br />
<br />
May the families of the teens be comforted among the mourners of Zion and Jerusalem.<br />
<br />
The Wolf<br />
<br />
BrooklynWolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-33358561616082242862014-06-01T15:16:00.002-04:002014-06-01T15:16:41.618-04:00When Quoting Pesukim (Bible Verses) Is Heretical.I suppose it's one thing to be afraid of heretical ideas (supposed or actual) that might cause one to lose faith in their principles. It's not an approach I approve of (I was never a believer in burying your head in the sand), but it is one which is common in yeshivish circles.<br />
<br />
However, I find it puzzling that the modertators of the Yeshiva World CoffeeRoom are not only afraid of heretical ideas, but they're actually afraid of actual verses from the Torah.<br />
<br />
Take, for example, the recent thread titled <a href="http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/what-exactly-did-we-get-on-shavuos" target="_blank">What exactly did we get on Shavuos?</a> In the thread, one person stated the following: <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
According to the opinion that it was bit by bit ("megillah, megillah
nisnah") Moshe wrote down the Torah from Breishis until Matan Torah
right then.
</blockquote>
<br />
I pointed out that even the portion of the Torah leading up to Mattan Torah could not have been written with the exact text that we currently have. When asked to elaborate, I did so. The post I responded with was as follows:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Sh'mos chapter 16 (the chapter discussing the gift of the manna) is before written before the chapter of Mattan Torah and takes place chronologically before Mattan Torah. Nonetheless, the text of the chapter as we have it today must have been written during the last year in the wilderness -- not at Sinai.<br /><br />The proof of this, comes from verse 35 where it says that they ate the manna for forty years until they arrived at the land of Canaan. At the time of Mattan Torah, they had not yet been sentenced to wander the wilderness for forty years.<br /><br />Obviously, at a minimum, you have to say that that verse was inserted before Moshe's death in the fortieth year.</blockquote>
<br />
To me, this seems obvious. If chapter 16 of Exodus were given as we currently have it on Sinai, then wouldn't the Israelites have asked Moshe "Hey, what's this business about not getting to the Land of Canaan for forty years?" Clearly, this verse at a minimum (and perhaps the entire chapter) was written, at the earliest, in the fortieth year in the wilderness.<br />
<br />
Apparently, however, even this is unacceptable to the moderators at the CoffeeRoom. Apparently they are so wedded to the notion that everything from B'raishis until Yisro had to be written as we have it at Mattan Torah that they seem willing to completely ignore the verse that testifies to the fact that it could not have been written before the last year in the wilderness. My response was deleted. <br />
<br />
I then followed up with a simple question to them:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Really?! Is what I posted such kefira that it had to be censored? Is it not something that a normal person could determine simply by reading the pesukim?</blockquote>
<br />That, too, was deleted without response. My guess is that the moderators of the CoffeeRoom view reading and quoting the pesukim with their simple menaing as heretical.<br />
<br />
The Wolf <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />BrooklynWolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-67693493957313558172014-03-12T13:50:00.000-04:002014-03-12T13:50:10.543-04:00Remembering My BlessingsI've been going through a bit of a rough patch in my life. Things aren't exactly going according to plan in various circles of my life and, truth to tell, it's been getting me down of late. I sometimes (probably selfishly) bemoan (largely to myself) how my life isn't exactly the rose garden I thought it would be. <br />
<br />
Truth to tell, it's not nearly as bad as my emotions would tell me. I do have a roof over my head. I'm not going hungry. I have a good job. Eeees and I are still madly in love with each other after all these years. I am relatively healthy, as are the members of my family. There are lots of people who would love to have all my problems, as long as they came with the good parts of my life as well.<br />
<br />
I was given a reminder of this point recently, when I volunteered to work at the annual TAFKID Purim carnival. TAFKID is an organization that is devoted to helping the families of children with special needs (both physical and mental). They provide support and advocate for these children. At the carnival, I get to interact with the children -- of all levels of disability. I see those that are high-functioning, and those that are confined to wheelchairs and barely able to communicate. <br />
<br />
In many ways, it hurts to see these children. It hurts to see that many of them will not have the opportunity to have the things that I have come to take for granted in my life -- the ability to walk; to marry and have children; to hold a job; the ability to express myself and make my wants and desires known without too much difficulty. They and their families face hardships and challenges that I, thank God, do not know.<br />
<br />
It's sometimes very easy to focus on our own problems and forget the blessings that HKBH has given us. Perhaps it's a good thing that I volunteer here and, at least once in a while, am reminded that, despite my own personal problems, I still have it pretty good in life.<br />
<br />
The Wolf
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/38l37SKy-5c?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>BrooklynWolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-40707529862173487772014-02-12T14:05:00.003-05:002014-02-12T14:05:50.821-05:00Fighting Smoking Is A Battle Worth FightingRabbi Yair Hoffman wrote a recent editorial (publish on <a href="http://5tjt.com/stopping-the-madness/" target="_blank">5TJT</a> and republished on <a href="http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/editorial/213560/yeshiva-boys-smoking-stopping-the-madness-once-and-for-all.html" target="_blank">YWN</a>) about the dangers of smoking among our youth. He starts out with an over-the-top picture of a young widow-to-be who is losing her husband to cancer because he smoked when he was younger. Yes, it's a sappy scenario, but the bottom line is that smoking does kill. It's really that simple.<br />
<br />
Rabbi Hoffman places a good portion of the blame on the boys in <i>Beis Midrash</i>, whom the younger <i>bochrim </i>look up to. Because they smoke, he posits, the younger kids want to emulate them and smoke as well. Their activity is undermining any anti-smoking message that the school or parents are hoping to communicate.<br />
<br />
Maybe it's because I was never one of the "cool kids" in school, but I could never quite understand what drives someone to smoke. It always seemed to me that it was a dirty, smelly habit -- aside from any health problems that it may cause. My mother is a long-time smoker, and, fortunately, as much as I look up to her, I never once thought to follow in her footsteps in this matter. Even at a very young age, I was able to understand that smoking is simply bad.<br />
<br />
You wouldn't think that there could be anyone who would actually defend smoking. Even the smokers that I know would never tell a person "It's okay, smoke, you'll be able to quit if you want to." And yet, someone actually <a href="http://matzav.com/the-matzav-shmoooze-let-them-smoke" target="_blank">wrote into Matzav.com</a> in response to Rabbi Hoffman's editorial, defending smoking.<br />
<br />
Y.W. actually defended the practice on the grounds that "it is one of the only permitted outlets for our young men, our <em>yeshiva</em> boys." He observes (rightly) that we should pick our battles when it comes to our kids and not say "<i>assur</i>" (forbidden) all the time. However, he (wrongly) chooses smoking as something to let slide.<br />
<br />
He goes on to state:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Having been involved with youth for many years, I can tell you with
certainty that the large majority of boys who smoke stop after they are
married. Don’t believe the propaganda that the activists will try to
sell you about young husbands dying from smoking. It’s a lie. Again,
most boys who smoke stop after matrimony.</blockquote>
<br />
Personally, I find it a bit hard to believe that the "large majority" of boys who smoke manage to stop before marriage. I've seen plenty of people smoke after marriage and I know how difficult a nicotine addiction is to overcome. But, for the moment, let's grant him the point and say that the majority can quit cold-turkey. There are still two relevant points:<br />
<br />
1. There's a way to help even the minority who can't quit -- simply don't start. How about instead of saying "you can quit anytime" (which, according to Y.W. helps only the majority), we say "Don't start smoking" which helps almost everyone.<br />
<br />
2. Even if they can stop after marriage, the damage may have already been done. Smoking during an early part of a person's life can affect them even long after they quit. I, personally, know someone who died of lung cancer decades after he quit smoking. Leonard Nimoy (the actor who portrayed Spock in the Star Trek franchise) recently announced that he suffers from chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder -- and he quit smoking thirty years ago! Why should we allow our young men to damage their bodies now, even if they can stop adding damage later?<br />
<br />
We, as parents, should certainly be picking and choosing our battles. We should not be saying "assur" all the time. But there are issues to give in on and issues where we *should* draw a red line -- and smoking, which can cause lifetime addiction, illness and death, should be one of the latter issues. <br />
<br />
The Wolf<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />BrooklynWolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-82954046058696066192014-02-11T14:03:00.003-05:002014-02-11T14:03:45.993-05:00New TemplateI hope you will all forgive me... but I've had the same template since I began this blog back in 2005. I think that it's time for an upgrade. <br />
<br />
Feel free to provide any feedback.<br />
<br />
The WolfBrooklynWolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-43868997606334051572013-12-23T16:18:00.005-05:002013-12-23T16:18:56.721-05:00Wages And Attitudes In LakewoodOf late, I've begun reading the Coffee Room section of the Voice of Lakewood. In it's pages, various issues of importance to the residents of Lakewood are debated back and forth. The current "hot issue" is whether or not the elementary schools should translate Chumash into Yiddish, even if the kids don't understand it. But that's not the issue that brings me back to my blog today.<br />
<br />
Another debate that has been going on for the last few weeks is the rising price of cleaning help in Lakewood. Various people have put forth suggestions including capping the salaries of cleaning ladies. <br />
<br />
What I find interesting is the complete one-sidedness of the attitude of those who seek to restrict the salaries of cleaning ladies. In the Nov 14 issue, a writer complains that her cleaning lady had the nerve to ask for more money (after having gotten a raise) because she received a better offer elsewhere. The money quote (pardon the pun):<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I would like to know when everyone will realize that cleaning ladies shouldn't be allowed to be in control. If we keep on giving in to them, they will keep requesting more per hour. Let us put a stop to this bidding game. There has to be a specific amount that is approved to be the ceiling amount. Why can't $10 be the ceiling amount? No one should give more than this ceiling amount. Otherwise, we will be constantly wrapped around the cleaning ladies' fingers. We must stop this before it spirals out of control.</blockquote>
<br />
It would seem, based on this letter and similar ones like it, that there is a shortage of good, reliable cleaning help in Lakewood. The fact that cleaning ladies are in demand for higher and higher rates indicates that there may not be enough cleaning help to go around. This is basic, simple economics. The letter writer wants to impose a wage ceiling on cleaning ladies, thereby circumventing the natural equilibrium between price and demand.<br />
<br />
Of course, as most people know, these types of mechanisms tend not to work very well. There are several things working against the imposition of a wage ceiling, including the fact that there's no enforcement mechanism, there is probably a market for cleaning help outside the yeshivish community and the fact that the cleaners may choose to find other work to do if their wages are capped (which would further exacerbate the underlying existing problem).<br />
<br />
What's troubling about the letter, however, is that the letter writer advocates something for the cleaning help that she would never accept for herself. Imagine if she went for a raise and was told that not only can she not have one, but that all the employers in town have agreed to limit the salaries. Would she agree that this is fair and proper? Would she be willing to accept that for herself or for her husband? My guess is that the answer is no -- she would not. But when it comes to (presumably) non-Jewish help, then it's all well and good.<br />
<br />
To be fair, there has been another writer in the Voice trying to make the point that there is an equilibrium between supply and demand and that the community cannot (and should not) be capping salaries. I'd be very curious to see how the "cappers" respond to this person in the coming weeks.<br />
<br />
You might think the attitude expressed in the letter above is sickening and silly, but believe it or not, it actually gets worse. In this week's (Dec 19) issue, a writer pens the following:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Dear VOL,<br />
<br />
Recently there was a back and forth about putting a ceiling price on cleaning ladies to avoid losing your help. However, the real issue is that it's become accepted to take someone else's lady!! Why is this normal? It's outright stealing!<br />
<br />
Don't take someone's cleaning lady the same way you wouldn't take their money or possessions...<br />
<br />
Signed,<br />
<br />
Messed Over Many Times</blockquote>
<br />
I'm utterly shocked and flabbergasted that she views a cleaning lady as her own personal property. In the letter writer's eyes, she no different (other than the fact that you have to pay her) than a car, a toaster or any other possession. So outraged is she by this that she's willing to label as a thief someone who makes *her* cleaning lady a better offer. She would advocate that no one be allowed to hire someone's cleaning help without first obtaining their permission. <br />
<br />
Again, however, the issue of fairness comes into play. How would she feel if she found that her employer was allowed to preemptively block and other offers of employment for more money? How would she feel if that was done to her husband? You can bet she'd be outraged, and rightfully so. But when it comes to someone outside the community, virtual indentured servitude is seemingly okay.<br />
<br />
The fact that there is a segment of the Lakewood population that thinks that fairness is a one-way street and that seek to impose oppressive economic rules on others that they would never accept on themselves is just sad. <br />
<br />
The WolfBrooklynWolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.com18tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-45209101565970251862013-08-02T11:43:00.002-04:002013-08-02T15:35:46.524-04:00Look In The Mirror Rabbi Birnbaum.<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
In the Yated, <a href="http://www.yated.com/in-search-of-ahavat-chinam.7-1017-7-.html" target="_blank">Rabbi Avrohom Birnbaum finds himself in search of “Ahavat Chinam.”</a> He laments the fact that the American Modern Orthodox community expresses “unprecedented enmity” towards the <i>Chareidi </i>community. According to him, we have <i>Ahavat Chinam</i> (baseless love) for those to the left of us, but for those to the right, only contempt.<br />
<br />
It’s ironic, of course, that in the course of the article, instead of searching to find common ground between his community and the left upon which to build a foundation of love, he instead engages in bombastic “we’re better than you” chest thumping. Instead of finding something good to say about the left, he instead chooses to accuse them of baseless hatred.<br />
<br />
What Rabbi Birnbaum fails to realize is that one of the key issue at hand is legitimization. Very simply, we recognize <i>Chareidim</i> as legitimate in terms of their observance of Judaism. Yes, we may not choose to lead such a lifestyle ourselves, but that doesn't mean that we don’t think that learning Torah, restricted modes of dress or following the strictest possible interpretations of <i>halacha</i> are bad things – they’re just not what we do.<br />
<br />
It’s too bad, however, that you don’t see the same tolerance from Rabbi Birnbaum’s community. How ironic is it that he asks “Is there no baseless love left for Torah observant Jews who have a different view than you?” when it is this very same baseless love that is completely absent on a communal level from his side of the aisle.<br />
<br />
While we on the left may have complaints on the way the <i>Chareidi</i> community does things, we don't seek to delegitimize the movement. We view it as a fully valid form of Judaism, albeit one we do not observe ourselves.<br />
<br />
Imagine the following scenario: a nineteen year old Modern Orthodox youth, about to move out and embark on his own, goes to his parents and says in a serious voice “We need to talk.” He then sits them down on the couch and says “I’ve decided to become more frum. I’m going to learn more, I’m not going to have a television or cable in my home. I’m going to keep <i>Cholov Yisroel</i> and dress only in standard yeshivish clothing.”<br />
<br />
What would the parents’ reaction be? Would they weep and cry and ask themselves the soul-searching question of “where did we go wrong?” The answer, of course, is no. They may have concerns about the welfare of their child (which parent doesn't?), but, on the whole, there isn’t going to be any real anguish over the situation, because the parents see <i>yeshivish</i> as a valid, <i>frum</i> lifestyle.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, many <i>Chareidi</i> parents practically insider their kids "off the Derech" if they wore a <i>kippah s'ruga</i> (you know,<a href="http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/article.php?p=177575" target="_blank"> the article of clothing that makes you partof Amalek according to Rabbi Shalom Cohen?</a>) or didn't keep the strictest standard of <i>halacha</i> or even believed that there was value in secular learning for its own sake. The <i>Chareidi</i> parents whose children become Modern Orthodox would likely spend the rest of their lives wondering what went wrong with their kid.<br />
<br />
It’s ironic that Rabbi Birnbaum talks about intolerance of the left for the right when, in fact, the reverse is far more common. You don't have those on the left screaming at little girls because they keep their particular brand of <i>tznius</i> in dress. You don't see those on the left yelling at women who chose to sit in the back of the bus. You don’t the Modern Orthodox community protesting against or threatening to shut down stores where there are separate shopping hours for men and women. You don’t see the left causing a <i>chillul HaShem</i> at the <i>Kotel</i> by protesting <i>Charedi</i> women who don’t wear a <i>tallis</i> and choose to <i>daven</i> by themselves.<br />
<br />
The real issue at hand is the very fact that, in the eyes of many <i>Chareidim</i>, we may as well not even be <i>frum</i> Jews. I've heard of instances where people who aren't dressed as <i>Chareidi</i> or <i>yeshivish</i> weren't even counted as part of a <i>minyan</i>.<br />
<br />
A friend of mine told me of a time when he was in an airport and a group of <i>Chareidim</i>/yeshivish people went looking for a <i>minyan</i>. When they finally had one, one of the men asked if anyone was a <i>chiyuv</i>. My friend said that he was. The person asked again if anyone was a <i>chiyuv</i>, hoping to find someone more acceptable to him. Again my friend said he was a <i>chiyuv</i> and was ignored. The man then went ahead and began to <i>daven</i> for the <i>amud</i> himself. Yes, this was only one incident and only one person, but it is this type of attitude toward those on the left and in the Modern Orthodox community that is pervasive in the <i>Chareidi</i> world.<br />
<br />
Rabbi Birnbaum spends a great deal of time talking about the institutions that the <i>Chareidi</i> world has built – and, yes, they are great institutions. No one argues that organizations such as Hatzalah, Misasksim and Tomche Shabbos are wonderful things, and no one seeks to take the credit away from the <i>Chareidim</i> and <i>Chassidim</i> who built and run those institutions. Kudos to them and may they continue to do great things. But that’s not really the issue here. The issue isn't who does more <i>chessed</i>. The issue is “do you really love us enough to consider us as Torah-observant Jews?”<br />
<br />
We've all heard the expression that there are <i>shivim panim laTorah</i>. However, the <i>Chareidi</i> community tends to take the Henry Ford approach to that maxim. Ford was famous for saying “You can have the Model T in any color you want, so long as it’s black.” Well, the <i>Chariedi</i> community is a bit more open than that. They’ll recognize a different form of <i>frum</i> Judaism, as long as it’s black, onyx, obsidian, jet or ebony.<br />
<br />
Until the <i>Chareidi</i> community learns to accept those on the left as legitimate, I can’t see how Rabbi Birnbaum can preach about <i>Ahavas Chinam</i>. It is those on his side who do not love the left as a whole. Yes, they may love us as individuals, but as a community, Rabbi Birnbaum’s claim of <i>Ahavas Chinam</i> for us falls flat.<br />
<br />
I agree with Rabbi Birnbaum on one point - it is better to Look for <i>Ahavas Chinam</i> than to look for <i>Sinas Chinam</i>. But perhaps, he should first tend to his own house before projecting his feelings towards others onto those saw others. So, how about it Rabbi Birnbaum? Can you bring yourself to say that Modern Orthodox Jews are fully Torah-observant Jews and that the movement is a perfectly valid form of Judaism? Can you bring yourself to publicly state that there is nothing wrong with living a Modern Orthodox lifestyle? I'm not asking you to state that the movement is perfect -- heck, just as you acknowledge that the <i>Chareidi</i> movement has it's problems, I'll be more than happy to acknowledge that the Modern Orthodox community has it's own issues. But will you recognize us as we recognize you? If not, then perhaps you had better look at yourself before asking where the <i>Ahavas Chinam</i> is.<br />
<br />
The Wolf</div>
BrooklynWolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-34408424731591857122013-07-11T15:19:00.004-04:002013-07-11T15:19:39.140-04:00It's The Summer... Which Means It's Time Again For The Biannual Visiting Day BellyAcheIt's comforting to know that there are some events that are so certain to occur that you can set your clock (or calendar) by them. One of those events is the annual letters/complaints in the <i>frum </i>media about camp visiting day. This one comes to us from <a href="http://matzav.com/the-matzav-shmoooze-visiting-day-blues#comment-222825" target="_blank">Matzav.com</a>. A reader writes:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
On the issue of visiting day in summer camps, for the most part, the
men have been in favor of abolishing visiting day, while mothers and <span id="more-90786"></span> grandmothers are often up in arms over even suggesting something as horrible as not visiting their children. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I am not going to take a side here. I will, however, share a shocking statement that someone made to me last Sunday, when I did <em>not</em>
go to visit my children in sleep-away camp simply because it was too
difficult for me to do so. The comment was, “Well, then, don’t be
surprised when your kids go off the <em>derech.”</em> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em><br /></em>Huh? Dear Matzav readers, is this how far we have come? That my children will go off the <em>derech</em> because I did not <em>shlep</em> for three hours each way to visit them in camp? Have we lost our sanity?</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Of course, his correspondent was being ridiculous. Not visiting one's kids at camp on visiting day will not, in and of itself, send one's kids off the <i>derech</i>. However, it does send a message to the child that s/he's not worth the <i>shlep </i>up for a few hours.<br />
<br />
Personally, I find it difficult to understand how a parent can miss visiting day at camp. Yes, granted, sometimes there are <i>bona fide</i> reasons for not going (medical emergency, must work, live an excessive distance away, etc.). But to not go simply because you feel it is "too difficult" is, in my humble opinion, simply wrong. It tells the kid that they are not important enough to bother yourself for a few hours. <br />
<br />
My kids are older now, but when they were in camp, I made sure to make the <i>shlep </i>from the city to the country every visiting day. Yes, there were times that I dreaded the trip itself, the traffic and the crowds, but I still went anyway. It's important for kids to feel that they are wanted and appreciated. Not going to visit on visiting day (again, absent some <i>bona fide</i> reason) just sends the message that they're not worth it -- even if that's not the message you're trying to spread.<br />
<br />
And perhaps, the extra positive message that you send by visiting will help to keep them on the <i>derech </i>after all.<br />
<br />
The Wolf<br />
<br />BrooklynWolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-54906369605702604262013-07-10T13:07:00.002-04:002013-07-10T13:16:30.975-04:00Not Answering The ObjectionA common debate tactic (especially, I find, in <i>frum</i> circles) is the practice of not actually answering an argument or objection, but instead deflecting it. Very often, this takes the form of "don't you think Gadol X thought of that?" or "surely he knew about your objection but if it didn't bother him then obviously it's not a valid argument." Personally, I find it infuriating when people do that, as it violates any number of logical fallacies.<br />
<br />
A variation of this <a href="http://www.vosizneias.com/135645/2013/07/10/new-york-bishul-akum-upgrading-our-kashrus/" target="_blank">appeared today in a column on Vos Iz Neias</a>. Rabbi Yair Hoffman, a regular correspondent on the site, wrote a long article advocating stricter observance of the <i>halachos</i> of <i>Bishul Akum</i> in restaurants. <i>Bishul Akum</i> is the rule that a Jew may not eat cooked foods (with certain exceptions) that were not prepared by a Jew. This rule was enacted centuries ago as a preventative measure against intermarriage.<br />
<br />
All in all, Rabbi Hoffman's article was cogent and well-written. However, at the end of the article, he says the following (emphasis his):<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong>A counter-argument.</strong> One might counter that in a
restaurant setting, it is not highly likely that bishul akum would
result in intermarriage. While this may be true, we must consider that
the sages who enacted the protective fences of Judaism were much wiser
than we are. Aside from the respect that we must have for halachah
itself, there are also farther-reaching repercussions to consider. The
issue of laxity involving the bishul akum of household help is serious
and has, unfortunately, led to some serious lapses.</blockquote>
<br />
Here, Rabbi Hoffman raises a very powerful counter-argument for loosening the rules of <i>Bishul Akum</i> in restaurant settings. Yes, <i>Bishul Akum</i> may work as a preventative measure against intermarriage in residential and social settings, but if I'm dining in a restaurant, I'm not likely to go looking to socialize with the chef who made my steak. <br />
<br />
However, rather than address the very objection he raises, he simply goes ahead and pulls the "they're much greater than us so we can't question/change anything" card. Personally, I find that very unsatisfying. Perhaps the <i>halachos</i> of <i>Bishul Akum</i> *can* be relaxed in a restaurant, as modern restaurants didn't exist when these <i>halachos</i> were codified. Perhaps there are valid reasons to continue to apply these <i>halachos</i> to restaurants. Personally, I'm not enough of an expert to have a valid opinion one way or the other. But if you're going to bring up the objection, at least answer it with a well-reasoned rational answer. Rabbi Hoffman, on the other hand, chose to answer it with "they're so much wiser than we are..." I find that to be a very poor answer. <br />
<br />
Again, I'm not saying that the <i>halachos</i> of <i>Bishul Akum</i> should be loosened in restaurant settings. I don't know enough about the <i>halachos</i> to make that sort of statement. But I do know enough to know that if you're going to try to head off an objection that your opponents may make, you should actually try to answer that objection with valid arguments.<br />
<br />
The Wolf<br />
<br />
(PS: Just for the record, I don't know if Rabbi Hoffman's suggestions vis-a-vis <i>Bishul Akum</i> are correct or not -- I'm not an expert in these <i>halachos</i>. My main point is not the article itself, but his failure to address his own objection/)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />BrooklynWolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-90281336607564323492013-07-02T13:19:00.000-04:002013-07-02T13:19:06.534-04:00PSA: Bone Marrow Drive -- Help Save a Life (Brooklyn, NY)I was asked to post this as a public service announcement:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
=======================================</div>
Save a life today at a bone marrow donor compatibility drive for<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: purple; font-size: x-large;"> <b>Mordechai Fastag לרפואה שלימה</b>.</span></div>
<br />
If you are 18-60 years old and have never been tested before please come in for a simple cheek swab test to check genetic compatibility to cure Mordechai who is suffering from Leukimia.<br />
<br />
There are two venues for the test. Both are in the Midwood section of Brooklyn:<br />
For men @ Rabbi Landuas Shul corner of Avenue L and East 9th Street from 2 PM-11 PM<br />
<br />
For Women @ 1325 East 5th Street Between Avenue L and M from 6 PM-10 PM<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="color: purple; font-size: large;">רחמנים בני רחמנים</span></b></div>
<br />
Please have a heart and, possibly, save a life.
BrooklynWolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-76324253161105205002013-05-29T18:45:00.000-04:002013-05-29T18:45:11.566-04:00Can Someone Please Explain To Me The Big Fuss Over Daylight Savings Time In Israel?It is being<a href="http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Daylight-Saving-Time-to-be-lengthened-by-a-month-314706" target="_blank"> reported in the news</a> that daylight savings time is being extended in Israel the end of October, as it observed in many European countries and in the United States.<br />
<br />
The situation with daylight savings time in Israel has been a contentious issue for a number of years. In past years, the religious parties fought to have DST end before Yom Kippur -- the reasoning behind it being that having one less hour during the end of the fast (i.e. ending the fast at 6:00 instead of 7:00) makes it easier for people.<br />
<br />
Of course, the entire argument is nonsense. The fast of Yom Kippur lasts approximately 25 hours, regardless of whether it falls during daylight savings time or not. If you're going to end the fast an hour "earlier," then it's going to start an hour earlier too. And the idea that the hour is somehow shifted from the end of the fast to the beginning is just as fallacious -- if you're going to feel a certain degree of hunger and weakness after 25 hours of fasting, then you're going to feel that same weakness at the end of the fast -- whether it's 6:00 or 7:00.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, let's argue, for the sake of argument, that the chareidim are correct -- that the fast is somehow easier if it occurs outside of DST. Well, there's a simple solution for that as well -- just pretend it doesn't exist. During Yom Kippur, it's not like you have any outside appointments to keep, buses to catch or meetings to make. On Yom Kippur, you're most likely going to be in only two places -- in shul and at home. So, simply pretend that, for Yom Kippur, DST doesn't exist. Turn your clocks back an hour (or simply pretend to). If sunset happens at 7:00, you call it 6:00. If you would normally daven Shacharis at 8:00AM on Yom Kippur, then start at 8:00 standard time (which would be 7:00AM DST). <br />
<br />
It's not like there's an official government official going around checking the shul's clocks to make sure they adhere to DST. So simply change your clock, or mentally subtract an hour from it for the day. This way the chareidim can have Yom Kippur their way and everyone else can be on DST as they wish.<br />
<br />
So, why is this such a political battle every year?<br />
<br />
The WolfBrooklynWolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-24602999541554689362013-05-09T14:11:00.000-04:002013-05-13T13:35:43.936-04:00Will Recognizing Yeshiva Study As A College Degree Solve Problems In Israel?<b><u>UPDATE (5/13/2013):</u></b><br />
<br />
Man, oh man, did I blow it with this one. Obviously, I was completely ignorant of the nature of college education in Israel and just assumed it was like the US model. Thanks to my commentators for correcting me on this. I'll make sure my next post isn't nearly as flawed.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Original Post:</u></b><br />
The <a href="http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/General+News/167498/Eichler%3A-Limud-Torah-Should-be-Recognized-as-an-Academic-Equivalent.html" target="_blank">following news item</a> appeared on YWN:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
MK (Yahadut Hatorah) Rabbi Yisrael Eichler presented a query to Minister
of Industry & Trade (Bayit Yehudi) Naftali Bennett. He explained
that Israel’s civil service does not recognize yeshiva study, and as a
result, chareidim are barred from apply for many jobs. He explains they
are told that since they lack a bagrut (matriculation) diploma and an
academic education, they are not qualified to apply for civil service
positions. Eichler feels that limud Torah should be credited as an
equivalent for in most cases, the chareidim are indeed qualified for the
public sector positions but lack the paperwork under the current
requirements.</blockquote>
<br />
Rabbi Eicher certainly has a point. Torah study (especially in Israel) should be no worse than studying history, music or art. The study in many yeshivos can certainly be intense and there is no question that in the more elite yeshivos, the level of study could certainly qualify one for an undergraduate degree.<br />
<br />
Rabbi Eichler then goes on to state that because yeshivos cannot issue degrees, their "graduates" earn less in the marketplace and this is a form of discrimination. <br />
<br />
However, there are two problems that I find with Rabbi Eichler's query:<br />
<br />
1. Undergraduate degrees are designed to produce well-rounded students. For example, an accounting major does not *only* study accounting. In most universities, an undergraduate student has to take a set of courses in various subjects (English [in the US], history, arts, basic sciences, etc.) regardless of their major. There are no accredited schools that I know of that give an undergraduate degree in Biology (just to pick an example) while allowing the students to only take Biology (and other science) courses. To meet this requirement, a yeshiva would have to teach other non-Torah subjects as well to produce a well-rounded student - something I don't see most (if any) Chareidi yeshivos in Israel doing.<br />
<br />
2. Let me preface this part by saying that I could be wrong here simply because I don't know about Israeli employment matters -- so if I'm wrong, please feel free to chime in and let me know. <br />
<br />
If I understand correctly, the Israeli government does not mandate higher salaries for college graduates. If a company needs someone to answer phones, they are going to pay an employee whatever they feel is appropriate -- regardless of whether or not that person has a college degree. Simply having a college degree does not necessarily produce higher salaries. What produces higher salaries, ultimately, is a demand for the skills of the worker and the relative scarcity of those skills. Simply possessing a college degree in Talmudic studies will generally not lead to higher salaries for that person (unless, of course, the person is applying for a job where their Talmudic studies are relevant and germane to the job). Recognizing four years study as a college degree will not magically open up doors for chareidim in the marketplace.*<br />
<br />
The Wolf<br />
<br />
<br />
* That being said, I do realize that there *are* benefits that may come with simply having an undergraduate degree with regard to some government jobs and the ability to apply to graduate schools. But I don't see many chareidim applying to graduate schools outside of the yeshiva system and I doubt there are enough government jobs to employ large swaths of the chareidi society.<br />
<br />
<br />BrooklynWolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-57915287853414743052013-01-29T10:51:00.001-05:002013-02-01T10:46:50.317-05:00Rabbi Manis Friedman on Being Molested (Get Over It And Move On)<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">This is
part of the reason why molestation is a big problem in our community. </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cZhMLLC9iNk" width="560"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">No, the
man in the video is not a molester. To
my knowledge, he has never actively
tried to shield molesters either.
But his attitude towards molestation is simply horrific.</span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">In the
video, he sits and jokes -- JOKES -- about molestation. He apparently believes
that being molested is no big deal. At
one point he compares it to having a case of diarrhea. At another point, he claims that it's worse
to miss saying <i>Al HaMichya</i> (the blessing said after eating grain-based
products) than to be molested.</span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">It would
be bad enough if the person were just an ordinary person. However, this isn't just anybody. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">The man in the video is Rabbi Manis
Friedman, a prominent figure in the Chabad-Lubavitch community.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"> This is
a man who is a leader in one of our communities. </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">Personally,
I find it repugnant that anyone can take the issue of molestation so cavalierly
that he can smile and make wise-cracks about it. I find it doubly so when they do so in
public. I also find it repugnant how he
seems to feel that molestation victims have no right to be upset about what was
done to them, or that it's no worse than having a teacher who unfairly picks on
you.</span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">Personally,
I find it amazing that Rabbi Friedman takes this position. About six years ago,<a href="http://wolfishmusings.blogspot.com/2007/09/are-children-conceived-through-ivf.html" target="_blank"> Rabbi Friedman wrote an article</a> making the implication that children conceived through IVF or other
similar methods are spiritually and emotionally deficient. He took the position that if a child is conceived
in other-than-ideal circumstances (i.e. parents who are angry with each other
or drunk at the time of intercourse, or worse, when there is no sexual
intercourse at all), then the child born under such circumstances can be
negatively impacted. He stated that such
children can feel unloved or unwanted.
He even speculated that much of the unexplained dysfunction that we see
with children has its roots in the circumstances of their conception. </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">I find
it mind-boggling that Rabbi Friedman believes that the circumstances of one's
conception, which the person cannot possibly know, feel or remember in any way,
should negatively impact a him or her, but molestation, which the victim
certainly knows, feels and remembers, should simply be brushed off as a lesson
learned about whom to not trust. </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">How
anyone can be so clueless about molestation is beyond me. The fact that he believes that molestation
victims should just forget it and move on shows him to be incredibly ignorant
on the subject. The fact that he smirks
and jokes about it shows him to be uncaring and unfeeling. The fact that the leaders of our community can be so clueless and callous about it as to sit and crack jokes about molestation and its victims, goes a long way to explaining why molestation is still a problem in our community.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">The Wolf</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"><b><u>UPDATE</u></b>: (2/1/13 10:45 EST) Rabbi Friedman <a href="http://www.jewishjournal.com/bloggish/item/rabbi_manis_friedman_who_downplayed_damage_caused_by_sexual_abuse_apologize" target="_blank">has apologized for his remarks</a>. The full text of his apology follows.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"><br /></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I want to apologize for my completely inappropriate use of language when discussing sexual abuse. I have always believed in the importance of empowering victims of all kinds to move forward in building their lives. In my zeal to reinforce that belief, I came across as being dismissive of one of the worst crimes imaginable.</span><span style="font-family: inherit;">For that I am deeply sorry.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Molestation is a devastating crime, violating the intimacy and innocence of the pure and defenseless. The victim is left feeling that there is something wrong with the world in which they live. Perpetrators of molestation should be reported to the police and prosecuted appropriately. Any person, organization or entity that stands by silently is abetting in the crime.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">From now on, I will make sure to make those points absolutely clear. This is about more than regret. The subject can't be neglected.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">I hope over time to earn the forgiveness of those who were hurt by my words.</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
BrooklynWolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-22841024530286604122012-12-11T22:11:00.000-05:002012-12-11T22:11:16.975-05:00I'm Sure There's A Message...On the lighter side of the news, it has been reported that the New York Yankees have signed third baseman Kein Youkilis to a one year contract.<br />
<br />
The beginning of his career was described, in part, in the book Moneyball. In the book, Youkilis is referred to as the "Greek god of walks." (Get it? Youkilis -- Eucilis) by Oakland A's general manager Billy Beane.<br />
<br />
So, you have a Jewish ballplayer described as the Greek god of walks signing a contract to play in the city with the largest Jewish population in the country during a festival which commemorates the victory of the Jews over the Greeks.<br />
<br />
I'm sure there's some message to be learned out of this. I just don't know what it is.<br />
<br />
The WolfBrooklynWolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-28153321670318018082012-12-06T15:06:00.000-05:002012-12-06T15:06:15.042-05:00The Weberman Trial and the Mixed-up Morals of the CommunityI've been following the Weberman Trial in the news and on Twitter the last few days and I must say, it's been quite... instructive, to learn about Mr. Weberman and his occupation, as well as what goes on in the Satmar community.<br />
<br />
Just in case you're not familiar with the case, I'll present the basics here:<br />
<br />
There was a girl in the local Satmar school was not conforming to the standards of behavior in the community. The principal of the school ordered her parents to have her see Nechemya Weberman, a local "counselor." They were also ordered to pay about $12,000 up front in fees to Mr. Weberman for his services. Failure to comply would result in her being expelled from the school.<br />
<br />
The girl saw Mr. Weberman over the next three years, from ages 12 to 15. She alleges that, during that time, she was sexually abused by Mr. Weberman in locked-room sessions. Mr. Weberman denies all wrong-doing with regard to the issues of sexual abuse.<br />
<br />
However, there are several facts that are not in dispute, which make me wonder about the goings on in the community and with Mr. Weberman in particular.<br />
<br />
Let's start with the fact that he took his "client" on a 14-hour trip to Monsey. They took this trip alone and did not arrive back home until midnight. Granted, this is no proof that any abuse took place on the trip, but I've got to say, it certainly does not pass the stink test, *especially* for someone in a community where separation of the sexes is such a high priority and where they take every practical precaution against unmarried/unrelated men and women being together. <br />
<br />
There is also the fact that, it came out in trial, that Mr. Weberman runs a non-profit organization. <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/weberman-testifies-sexually-assaulted-children-article-1.1214350" target="_blank">He admitted on the stand that he used funds from the non-profit to pay for yeshiva tuition for his kids</a>. Prosecutors also showed that purchases from the non-profit went to purchase items at at least three lingerie shops. <br />
<br />
It was also confirmed in trial that the Williamsburg Va'ad HaTznius (Modesty Committee) exists (despite one defense witness's attempt to deny the existence of such a body, another defense witness confirmed it) and that they engage in practices such as invading the rooms of girls to look for (and confiscate) contraband, such as cell phones. <br />
<br />
In addition, there is also the fact that <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21/nechemya-weberman-case-4-men-accused-bribe-witness_n_1616520.html" target="_blank">four men are now awaiting trial</a> for witness tampering, bribing a witness and coercion, after they tried to pressure the girl into not pressing charges. It is also alleged that they wanted to pay her and her then-boyfriend $500,000 to leave the country and let the matter drop. There are also four other men who have now been charged with witness intimidation by taking photographs of her in court. <br />
<br />
You could easily argue that there are simply some bad apples in the community. Yes, it's been shown that Mr. Weberman is not exactly what one would call a morally upright person. In addition, it's very obvious that there are others in the community who are willing to break the law and do whatever they feel is necessary to prevent the case from running it's course. But that doesn't speak to the entire community, of course. <br />
<br />
But there is one point which can be made regarding the leadership of the community. <a href="http://wolfishmusings.blogspot.com/2011/06/misaligned-moral-compass-in-new-square.html" target="_blank"> It's something that I noted back</a> when Shaul Spitzer was awaiting trial on arson charges for attempting to burn down a New Square house with its residents asleep in their beds. It speaks to what the true values are of the leadership of the community and where they truly stand on the moral compass.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2012/12/9000-satmar-schoolboys-pray-for-accused-child-molester-456.html" target="_blank">9000 schoolboys in Satmar were given a prayer to say for Nechemya Weberman</a> and instructed to say it. In short, they were asked to pray that this man, who has admitted to stealing charity money and who engages in 14-hour trips alone with an underage girl. Apparently, however, none of that matters to the leaders of the community, as they view him as an upstanding member of the community. However, had he done something such as owned a television, shaved his beard, espoused Zionist beliefs, or even been seen eating Hebrew National hot dogs, he'd likely be written off as a bum or a heretic and not someone who is worthy of the time to utter a prayer. <br />
<br />
It's actions such as these that show the moral leadership of the community. In New Square, <a href="http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/06/06/3088037/in-new-york-shtetl-where-arson-attack-occurred-the-rebbes-word-is-law" target="_blank">Aron Rottenberg found his daughters expelled from school</a> for the "crime" of their father davening in another shul, yet Shaul Spitzer was <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rjsdbnNX4G8#!" target="_blank">welcome in the yeshiva</a> following his arrest on arson charges. It's almost incomprehensible -- daven in another shul, you're a social outcast; attempt to burn down a house with people sleeping inside -- you're welcome back to the yeshiva with open arms. The moral values of the leadership of the community are so wrong that I'm just left to scratching my head in bewilderment. <br />
<br />
The same thing applies here with regard to this case. You can steal from charity, you can do things that would otherwise shock the community and, as long as you had the endorsement of the leadership, you're a moral person worthy of the community's support. But if you were to do something such as shave your beard, wear the wrong clothing or even own a TV, you'd be an outcast and a social pariah.<br />
<br />
The mind just boggles.<br />
<br />
The WolfBrooklynWolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.com26tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-9392927160263794072012-08-13T10:50:00.004-04:002012-08-13T10:54:40.287-04:00Losing Sight of What's Important In ShidduchimThe <a href="http://www.thefjj.com/" target="_blank">Flatbush Jewish Journal</a> has a regular column titled "Ask the Flatbush Shadchan" by Mrs. Chana Rose. The following letter appeared in a <a href="http://www.flipdocs.com/showbook.aspx?ID=10002477_985102" target="_blank">recent issue</a>. Any typos are mine and mine alone.<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Dear Mrs. Rose,</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We have a fabulous daughter in shidduchim. She went to the right schools, seminary, camps. She is a <i>baalas midos</i>, involved in <i>chesed</i>, smart, focused, etc. We are a <i>balabatish</i> family, also involved in the community. After seminary in Israel, she opted to pursue her studies in Brooklyn College. After much soul searching, asking <i>hadracha</i>, and much davening, we agreed to let her pursue her studies there. Everything has been going well, except for the fact that she is not in shidduchim anymore!</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
She has found "Mr. Right," or so she thinks, on her own. Now, what is she thinking? We are not that kind of home, this is not how things are done, not in our family, not in our community. Mrs. Rose, how can we allow this? And if we do, how can we legitimize the situation so that it does appear to be a Shidduch? Truth be said, he does happen to be a great boy. However, we feel like the "rug has been pulled out from under us." We did not have the option or privilege of checking him out nor his family. We did not have the experience of setting that grand table in anticipation of a boy's arrival for a date. We did not wait up for hours till she came home. All the dating was done on school time. We were presented with a done deal! How should we proceed now?</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This letter typifies one of the things that has gone horribly wrong with the world of shidduchim today. This woman* is completely missing the forest for the trees. The goal of shidduchim isn't to "set a grand table" or "wait up for hours till she comes home" or to have the "privilege" of checking out another family. The point is to find a match that will make the bride and groom happy. Everything else, if it needs to be done at all, is just secondary. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In this letter, the daughter has found someone who will make her happy. Furthermore, the mother even agrees that he's a great boy! Instead of being happy for her daughter and her happiness, she's contemplating having her daughter throw it away ("How can we allow this? And if we do...") just so that she won't feel cheated out of what she feels is her due (the ability to set the table, wait up for her, check out the family, etc.). She needs to realize that the shidduch process is not about her and her ability to do these things, it's about her daughter and her daughter's happiness and future. She's completely lost sight of this, and instead is so focused on the little play rituals that go on that she's forgotten the end goal.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The Wolf</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
* At least I'm assuming it's a woman. The letter sounds like it was written by a woman.</div>
BrooklynWolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.com25tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-8580735112476069822012-08-06T14:18:00.001-04:002012-08-06T14:18:43.580-04:00Did Someone Declare A Jewish April Fools Day and Not Tell Me?I'm beginning to wonder if someone instituted a Jewish equivilant of April Fools Day and forgot to inform me, because, I'm having a hard time believing a story <a href="http://www.vosizneias.com/111273/2012/08/06/jerusalem-blurred-glasses-are-the-latest-tool-in-the-arsenal-of-charedi-men/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+vin+%28Vos+Iz+Neias%29&utm_content=Google+Reader" target="_blank">that VIN is reporting</a> as fact.<br />
<br />
As we all know, some chareidi men in Israel go to great lengths to avoid any possibility of contact between the sexes. Among the measures that have been tried (with varying degrees of success) include separate sidewalks, signs telling women not to walk in certain areas at certain times, separate checkout lines (or even hours) in stores, and so on. <br />
<br />
The newest development on this front has now arrived. Someone in Israel has developed a pair of glasses that purposely obscure vision. The glasses are designed to prevent the person who is wearing it from seeing more than three meters ahead. If the person already wears glasses, they also sell stickers that you can put over your lenses to provide the same effect.<br />
<br />
Normally, I would have a hard time believing that this could be true. My first natural reaction is to dismiss this as a joke. However, after what I have seen over the last few years, I have to say that I just don't know.<br />
<br />
If this report is, indeed, true, then I feel very sorry for the direction that we are headed. Aside from the complete absurdity of the concept of hindering one's eyesight, there is also the issue of public safety to deal with. How does one know whether it's safe or not to cross the street if you can't see more than three meters in front of your face? Does the admonition to protect yourself from physical harm no longer apply?<br />
<br />
Personally, I find it very ironic that this news story is reported right after we read on Shabbos the verse of וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם, וַעֲשִׂיתֶם--כִּי הִוא חָכְמַתְכֶם וּבִינַתְכֶם, לְעֵינֵי
הָעַמִּים: אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁמְעוּן, אֵת כָּל-הַחֻקִּים הָאֵלֶּה, וְאָמְרוּ
רַק עַם-חָכָם וְנָבוֹן, הַגּוֹי הַגָּדוֹל הַזֶּה.<br />
(Rough translation: and you will observe them [my laws] and do them, because they are your wisdom and knowledge in front of the nations that they will hear of all these laws and say "surely this is a wise and understanding nation.")<br />
<br />
I find it hard to believe that a single non-Jew reading this story would think that, by doing this, we are being wise and understanding. On the contrary, they will look at us and say "what a foolish people they are..."<br />
<br />
The Wolf<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />BrooklynWolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-29147655395978688232012-06-03T16:51:00.003-04:002012-06-03T16:51:58.000-04:00What's Important To Us As a Community? We Need To Decide.<br />
This week's Mishpacha magazine has an article about Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel, the executive Vice President of the Agudath Israel of America. In the article, Rabbi Zwiebel gives us an interesting insight into the priorities that exist in the chareidi mindset.<br />
<br />
In discussing blogs and bloggers, Rabbi Zweibel makes the following statement:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I do believe that among them are people who are deeply pained about certain issues and feel that this is the way they can express their pain. I will even go a step further and say that through the pressure they've created, communal issues that needed to be confronted were moved to the front burner and taken seriously. A case in point is abuse and molestation issues. The question is, if the fact that they've created some degree of change is worth the cost. At the very least, it's <i>rechilus</i>, <i>lashon hara</i> and <i>bittul z'man</i>. That's a high price to pay."</blockquote>
<br />
A high price to pay? Really? I'm just utterly flabbergasted at the statement. Does he truly believe that there is any possibility that it's better to not pay the price and keep the molesters in a position where they continue can abuse children? In my opinion, if one could engage in those sins and wipe out the instances of child
molestation among us, I'd engage in it all day long and call it a
bargain.<br />
<br />
He goes on to discuss another potential price to be paid by the recent attention that bloggers have put on the issue of molestation: <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Then there's is the damage wrought to the hierarchy of Klal Yisrael. We've always been a <i>talmid chacham</i>-centered nation, and it's dangerous to ruin the fabric of Klal Yisrael by denigrating the ideal of<i> daas Torah</i> and by allowing personal attacks on<i> gedolei Yisroel</i>."</blockquote>
<br />
I agree with Rabbi Zwiebel. There has been considerable damage being done to the reputation of the <i>gedolei Yisroel</i> -- but the primary cause of that damage are the <i>gedolim </i>themselves -- not the bloggers. Had the <i>gedolim </i>chosen to confront the issues early on, there would never be a need for a bloggers such as OUJ to point out that the <i>gedolim </i>and <i>yeshivos </i>have long since failed to protect the abused among us. Our communal leaders thought that they would be able to keep abuse issues silent forever and that no one would ever be any the wiser about what goes on. By covering up cases of abuse, they left the abused and their advocates with no other choice but to go public to force change. So, yes, the damage to the <i>gedolim </i>is a high price to pay -- but, again, one that needed to be paid and paid willingly to protect those who are being abused and to prevent further abuse. The protection of children is worth more than the honor of <i>gedolim</i>; and the protection of children is worth more than <i>rechilus</i>, <i>lashon hara </i>and <i>bittul z'man</i>.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, however, it's how we make these decisions that define us as a people. We will not, ultimately, be judged by the deviants in our midst -- any large enough population will have its share of deviants -- but rather how we decide to deal with these deviants and how we protect those who would be victimized by them. We will be judged on how we prioritize our resources and attention as a community, and how we decide which problems are important enough for us to address publicly and with force. And, sadly, we are failing that test miserably. When the executive vice president of a major rabbinical body in America can publicly state that there's even a possibility that<i> lashon hara</i> about actual abusers is worse than the abuse itself, we are failing the test. <br />
<br />
Our priorities are so messed up that a part of our community is so determined to prevent a person from seeing a woman's forearm or breast that they can fill a major sports stadium with people, but cannot muster the same will to gather and send a message that people who actually touch, abuse and rape children in our community will not be tolerated. Clearly, we see which issues are important to the people who purport to be our leaders -- and in their choice, they show the failure of their leadership.<br />
<br />
The sad part about all this is that the choice shouldn't even be necessary. Were a <i>gadol </i>to get up tomorrow and announce that he is taking abuse and molestation issues seriously -- and then publicly follow up on it by taking active steps to expose and rein in molesters and see that they actually pay for their crimes, they would have the honor that they deserve and there would be no need to publicly talk about their failures on the issue. They would be honored for their handling of the problem and we would have protection for children. The fact that they do not seem to consider this to be a viable course of action is a further sign of the failure of our community.<br />
<br />
It's up to us to make a choice. Is it more important to keep the honor of the <i>gedolim </i>intact by being silent about incidents of abuse, or is it more important to bring attention to those incidents? Is the honor of a <i>gadol </i>worth more than the soul of a child? It's up to us to decide. Heaven help us if we make the wrong choice. <br />
<br />
The Wolf <br />
<br />
<br />
Hat tip: <a href="http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2012/06/agudath-israels-executive-vp-wonders-whether-actions-taken-by-bloggers-to-save-kids-from-abuse-were-123.html" target="_blank">Failed Messiah</a> <br />BrooklynWolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-28292002720445249552012-05-15T13:07:00.000-04:002012-05-15T13:07:24.420-04:00From The Mailbag: The Fins-and-Scales Proof<br />
A reader named David sent me the following email:<br />
<br />
<i>Dear Wolf,</i><br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>I wanted to sincerely tell you how much I appreciate your website, a good example of the way the Internet can be used for the good.</i><br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>I also wanted to ask you about a particular point that you make in your "Torah proof" section.</i><br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>I appreciate the work done, and I should say that I came to pretty much the same conclusions about those "proofs".</i><br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>Except for the animal signs; you write that it doesn't stand as a valid proof of the veracity of the Torah, because Chazal could have guessed it right.</i><br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>What you don't seem to see is that the argument is so strong because if their statements had been shown incorrect in the future, the entire credibility of Chazal – the belief in their inspired way of reading the Bible, and thus Judaism itself, would have crumbled.</i><br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>Moreover, these assertions were unnecessary, they seem to have been made only to prove the validity of torah shebeal peh ; and, seriously, what were the chances that no one would ever find something in the water that has scales but doesn’t have fins ?</i><br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>I may be wrong somewhere, but I don’t see it.</i><br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>Kol Tuv,</i><br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>David</i><br />
<br />
David was following up on a post of mine regarding one of the proofs to the divinity of the Torah. The proof that David is referring to goes something like this:<br />
<br />
The Torah mentions that in order for a fish to be kosher, it must have fins and scales. The Mishna in Niddah goes on to point out that all fish that have scales also have fins. The halachic inference from this is that if you find a fish that has scales but no fins, it is kosher, because all fish that have scales have fins. Thus, if you find a part of a fish with scales but no fins attached, you may eat it since it definitely had fins at some point (which may have been removed by a predator or some other agent).<br />
<br />
The proof* then continues in a similar vein to the four-animals proof: How could Chazal have made such a statement? Were they ichthyologists who knew every species of fish on the planet? Since they made this statement, and it has proven to be true to this day**, surely the information must have come from a Divine source (from He who knows all the species of fish on the planet). <br />
<br />
I addressed this proof by stating that making accurate statements are not proof of divinity. The Mishna's author could have simply extrapolated from the sample of fish species that they had at hand and created the general rule that all fish that have scales also have fins. Anyone can do this... including you and I.<br />
<br />
For example, I'm going to state right now that all stars (except collapsed, dead stars) perform nuclear fusion at their cores. And now let's suppose that 10,000 years from now, someone digs this statement up and, lo and behold, the rule still holds true -- every star that was ever found was powered by nuclear fusion. Now, let me state up front that I am not an astronomer. There's no way I could have known that all the stars that are out there. Does the fact that I made such an accurate statement make me divine? Does it mean that my wonderfully accurate statement was of divine origin? The answer, obviously, is no. I simply extrapolated a general rule based on the sample of stars that we currently know about -- something that could have just as easily happened with regard to the Mishna in Niddah and fishes.<br />
<br />
This brings us to the point of David's letter. He counters this by stating as follows:<br />
<br />
<i>What you don't seem to see is that the argument is so strong because if their statements had been shown incorrect in the future, the entire credibility of Chazal – the belief in their inspired way of reading the Bible, and thus Judaism itself, would have crumbled.</i><br />
<br />
But here David is making assumptions that are not in evidence. He's assuming that the author of the Mishna was concerned that their statement might have been disproven in the future. However, there are several other possibilities. Perhaps the author of the Mishna simply thought they were right and that they didn't entertain the possibility that they were wrong (as I did in my statement about the stars)? Perhaps he never considered the possibility that, even if he was in error, that it would cause Judaism itself to crumble (I don't think it would, but that's another post for another time). Perhaps they were simply trying to offer advice to people regarding kosher fish and didn't give any thought whatsoever to the broader implications of such a statement. In short, David is <a href="http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question">begging-the-question</a>. He's starting with the assumption that the statement is of Divine origin and that the author of the Mishna was, in fact, making a proof to the divinity of the Torah. <br />
<br />
The Wolf<br />
<br />
<br />
*Technically speaking, this proof cannot be used to prove the divinity of the Torah, but rather the divinity of this one particular statement of the Mishna. But let's leave that aside for now.<br />
<br />
** Well, not really, but, for the sake of argument, let's say that it is 100% true today.<br />
<br />BrooklynWolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.com17