Over on ChabadTalk, I was persuing a long thread on the subject of whether or not Tzadikkim are infallible.
One poster said:
Did Hashem ever punish David HaMelech for doing anything wrong? Yes, more than a couple times. Nathan HaNavi went to rebuke David and David said one word - Chatati.
There should be no need to remind ourselves of these Jewish ideas-- that our most G-dly Tzaddikim are still human beings, not all-powerful and not all-knowing, and if they aren't vigilant enough, they can have a yerida (a fall). This is one of the first lessons in the Torah-- that a person on the level of Adam at the highest peak of wisdom and closeness to Hashem, if he is not careful, he can lose his level and fall. To reject these ideas, is to subscribe to a different religion.
In response to this, another poster responded (emphasis mine):
even if the general point you make is valid, about Tzaddikim erring etc, with which i disagree, the examples you brought are from Chazal and Tanach which seems to say the Tzaddik erred etc.
How relevant is this to our discussion, where ploni almoni wishes to give HIS own opinion that This or that Tzaddik, in his opinion erred, even to the point of saying his own "alleged" Rebbe erred. You call that another religion. I say that saying that about your Rebbe is kefira ( and dont ask me for the source).
Scary, isn't it? Saying that your Rebbe is fallible is not simply in error, but is kefira!
Sigh.
The Wolf
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Sunday, May 14, 2006
It's Really G'naiva
I posted two months ago about Mordechai Ben-David "borrowing" music from Dschingis Khan for his song "Yidden."
Well, a fellow named Rob put together a video (click on the link below) by combining elements from the Dscingis Khan song and an MBD public service announcement. The production quality is quite low and he used a trial version of editing software (and hence the words across the front). However, the message is quite sharp.
Enjoy!
The Wolf
P.S. The original MBD PSA can be viewed here.
Well, a fellow named Rob put together a video (click on the link below) by combining elements from the Dscingis Khan song and an MBD public service announcement. The production quality is quite low and he used a trial version of editing software (and hence the words across the front). However, the message is quite sharp.
Enjoy!
The Wolf
P.S. The original MBD PSA can be viewed here.
Monday, May 08, 2006
On The Fear of Heaven and Honesty
I have, for a long time, had aspirations of becoming a sofer. Being a long-time ba'al kriah, I've seen a wide variety of sifrei torah and megillos and have come to appreciate the craft and work from a close-up perspective. Alas, time and lack of someone to teach me has kept me from following up on this task.
One prerequisite for being a sofer, however, is being a Yarei Shamayim (one who fears Heaven). This isn't mere religious blather - there is a very good reason for wanting someone who has the fear of God on him. Specifically, there are errors that one can make while writing tefillin or mezuzzos that will invalidate the writing and yet never be noticed by anyone. For example, there is a well-known halacha that tefillin and mezzuzos have to be written k'sidran - in order. If a sofer were to finish making a set of parshiyos and then realize that in the first one he left out a letter - he cannot go back and fix it. Doing so would cause the tefillin to become pasul (unfit). A sofer who was not afraid of Heaven might be tempted to go back and fix it, knowing that the error would never be known by anyone. That's why we want people who are Yarei Shamayim to do safrus - since they know that God will know why the buyer has been putting on pasul tefillin for years.
Which brings us to my experience yesterday.
My oldest son (S1) is currently twelve years old. Since he is getting closer to his Bar Mitzvah, he needs a pair of tefillin to wear. So, yesterday I went to the sofer (actually a safrus shop) in Brooklyn to commission the writing of a set of tefillin. The store clerk showed me a several different parshiyos and, finding one with nice k'sav (script) and in a price range that I can afford, I went ahead and placed the order. I asked him about the sofer who would do the actual writing (he's not employed by the shop but is an independent) and about how long it would take.
We then went to the counter where I was going to place a deposit on the work. I pulled out my credit card (actually, a bank debit card) and gave it to the clerk. He said to me:
"You know that with a card I have to charge you tax?"
Now, I'll be the first to admit that I don't know the sales tax regulations off the top of my head. But my hunch is that the purchase of religious items in New York City is subject to both state and local sales tax. The fact that the clerk was willing to let me get away without paying sales tax if I paid with cash bothered me very much. If he was the actual sofer, I might have actually walked out the door without making the purchase. Even so, considering the fact that when it comes to safrus we essentially rely on the word of the sofer and safrus dealer (do I *know* that the parshiyos are written k'sidran?) I found it unsettling that there was this public acknowledgement of dishonesty and that it was so casually displayed without any shame or remorse. What should have been a happy occasion left a somewhat bad taste in my mouth.
I'm not going to sit here and tell you that I've never lied or cheated before - I'm only human and, like every other human, I've had my weak moments. But at least in public I try to maintain the highest standards of honesty; and, I try to make it a point to raise my children to be scrupulously honest. For example, my nine-year-old daughter had been saving up for quite a while to buy a Build-A-Bear. She scraped together all her pennies and silver and bills and finally announced that she had enough. So, I took her to the Build-A-Bear center in Manhattan. She found a bear she liked, had it stuffed and bought an outfit for it. She took it to the "dressing room" and put the outfit on the bear. Then we went to the cash register. The clerk rang up the purchase and quoted me a figure that was suspiciously low. I realized that while she rang up the bear, she did not ring up the outfit that was on the bear. I could have just paid for the bear and gotten the outfit for free. Nonetheless, I said to the clerk "Are you sure that's right?" She thanked me for finding the error (it could have cost her her job, she said). Afterwards, while we were eating lunch, we discussed the incident and, thankfully, she did not say to me "Daddy, why'd you do that - I could have gotten the outfit for free?" Rather, she understood that it would have been stealing and that it would have bothered her every time she looked at her bear.
Again, I understand that people aren't angels and that they are sometimes tempted to do things that are dishonest. But it was the open, flagrant dishonesty (even if it's a "widely accepted" dishonesty) that I found distressing.
The Wolf
One prerequisite for being a sofer, however, is being a Yarei Shamayim (one who fears Heaven). This isn't mere religious blather - there is a very good reason for wanting someone who has the fear of God on him. Specifically, there are errors that one can make while writing tefillin or mezuzzos that will invalidate the writing and yet never be noticed by anyone. For example, there is a well-known halacha that tefillin and mezzuzos have to be written k'sidran - in order. If a sofer were to finish making a set of parshiyos and then realize that in the first one he left out a letter - he cannot go back and fix it. Doing so would cause the tefillin to become pasul (unfit). A sofer who was not afraid of Heaven might be tempted to go back and fix it, knowing that the error would never be known by anyone. That's why we want people who are Yarei Shamayim to do safrus - since they know that God will know why the buyer has been putting on pasul tefillin for years.
Which brings us to my experience yesterday.
My oldest son (S1) is currently twelve years old. Since he is getting closer to his Bar Mitzvah, he needs a pair of tefillin to wear. So, yesterday I went to the sofer (actually a safrus shop) in Brooklyn to commission the writing of a set of tefillin. The store clerk showed me a several different parshiyos and, finding one with nice k'sav (script) and in a price range that I can afford, I went ahead and placed the order. I asked him about the sofer who would do the actual writing (he's not employed by the shop but is an independent) and about how long it would take.
We then went to the counter where I was going to place a deposit on the work. I pulled out my credit card (actually, a bank debit card) and gave it to the clerk. He said to me:
"You know that with a card I have to charge you tax?"
Now, I'll be the first to admit that I don't know the sales tax regulations off the top of my head. But my hunch is that the purchase of religious items in New York City is subject to both state and local sales tax. The fact that the clerk was willing to let me get away without paying sales tax if I paid with cash bothered me very much. If he was the actual sofer, I might have actually walked out the door without making the purchase. Even so, considering the fact that when it comes to safrus we essentially rely on the word of the sofer and safrus dealer (do I *know* that the parshiyos are written k'sidran?) I found it unsettling that there was this public acknowledgement of dishonesty and that it was so casually displayed without any shame or remorse. What should have been a happy occasion left a somewhat bad taste in my mouth.
I'm not going to sit here and tell you that I've never lied or cheated before - I'm only human and, like every other human, I've had my weak moments. But at least in public I try to maintain the highest standards of honesty; and, I try to make it a point to raise my children to be scrupulously honest. For example, my nine-year-old daughter had been saving up for quite a while to buy a Build-A-Bear. She scraped together all her pennies and silver and bills and finally announced that she had enough. So, I took her to the Build-A-Bear center in Manhattan. She found a bear she liked, had it stuffed and bought an outfit for it. She took it to the "dressing room" and put the outfit on the bear. Then we went to the cash register. The clerk rang up the purchase and quoted me a figure that was suspiciously low. I realized that while she rang up the bear, she did not ring up the outfit that was on the bear. I could have just paid for the bear and gotten the outfit for free. Nonetheless, I said to the clerk "Are you sure that's right?" She thanked me for finding the error (it could have cost her her job, she said). Afterwards, while we were eating lunch, we discussed the incident and, thankfully, she did not say to me "Daddy, why'd you do that - I could have gotten the outfit for free?" Rather, she understood that it would have been stealing and that it would have bothered her every time she looked at her bear.
Again, I understand that people aren't angels and that they are sometimes tempted to do things that are dishonest. But it was the open, flagrant dishonesty (even if it's a "widely accepted" dishonesty) that I found distressing.
The Wolf
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
On Chai Rotel
Both Orthonomics and DovBear have posted about Rabbi Horowitz's excellent letter concerning people who give to causes such as Chai Rotel rather than to more urgent, pressing needs in the community. However, in his comments, Lakewood Yid (who is rapidly becoming one of my favorite posters to pull apart now that Heshy is gone) suggests that this isn't necesarily the case. Concerning the examples that Rabbi Horowitz bring, LY suggests that perhaps the people who should have received the money that went to Chai Rotel should have given to Chai Rotel for yeshuos!
Now, I don't know if the "yeshuos" that the Chai Rotel people promise are real or bunk (although, admittedly, my bunk-o-meter is in the red zone). Nonetheless, I'm willing to keep an open mind about this. Therefore, I'm asking Lakewood Yid (or anyone else who wants to step up to the plate) for something to back up the claims of the Chai Rotel people. Specifically, I'm looking for one of two types of evidence:
1. A study showing that people who give to Chai Rotel have their wishes fulfilled more often than those who don't. (Please note that anecdotal stories do not make a study) Studies must show the methodolgy used to be considered.
2. Some source in classic Jewish literature showing that giving Chai Rotel for people to drink in Meron on Lag B'Omer conferrs "yeshuos" to the one giving. Preferably, such source should be over 100 years old. Such sources will not automatically be considered authoritative, but will be evaluated accordingly.
Any takers? Or is Chai Rotel just a modern scam?
The Wolf
Now, I don't know if the "yeshuos" that the Chai Rotel people promise are real or bunk (although, admittedly, my bunk-o-meter is in the red zone). Nonetheless, I'm willing to keep an open mind about this. Therefore, I'm asking Lakewood Yid (or anyone else who wants to step up to the plate) for something to back up the claims of the Chai Rotel people. Specifically, I'm looking for one of two types of evidence:
1. A study showing that people who give to Chai Rotel have their wishes fulfilled more often than those who don't. (Please note that anecdotal stories do not make a study) Studies must show the methodolgy used to be considered.
2. Some source in classic Jewish literature showing that giving Chai Rotel for people to drink in Meron on Lag B'Omer conferrs "yeshuos" to the one giving. Preferably, such source should be over 100 years old. Such sources will not automatically be considered authoritative, but will be evaluated accordingly.
Any takers? Or is Chai Rotel just a modern scam?
The Wolf
Monday, May 01, 2006
On The Definition of Reality
Sometimes a poster or commentator says something in such a clear and succinct manner that at once you know he's managed to capture the very essence of what he's talking about in one sentence.
Lakewood Yid did just that on Friday. His statement:
The backbone of charedism. Believing in the "metzius" defined by the Gedolim.
If that's the backbone of charedism, then I'm want no part of charedism.
Let me make it clear that I respect Gedolim when it comes to their knowledge of Torah and Halacha. I certainly can accept the fact that they know more about such subjects than I do.
But that's not what LY is talking about. It seems to me that he ascribes reality-altering powers to Gedolim - to the extent that if they say it, it's so, regardless of any independent outside validity or verification.
Just to give one example that I've used on this blog before: the validity of the heliocentric model of the solar system. I've had it out with Jewish fundamentalists (not LY) over whether the sun is the center of the solar system and that the earth (and other planets) revolve around it or whether the Earth is the center of the solar system. One of the proofs that they brought was from the Rambam (Hil. Yesodei HaTorah 3), which describes a geocentric model, with the Earth in the middle, being orbited by (in order from closest to furthest) the moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and the stars.
As proof that this model is incorrect, I showed him the picture at right. This is a picture taken from Mars on Jan 12, 2005, which shows Mercury (that little black dot) passing in front of the sun. Now, in a strict Platonic system (as described above), such a picture should be impossible, as Mars and Mercury are on opposite sides of the sun from each other. There is no way Mercury could ever come between Mars and the Sun. (For a heliocentric example, think of Jupiter coming between the Earth and the Sun.) This is fairly clear proof that the model of the solar system described by the Rambam is flat out wrong.
Nonetheless, my disputant didn't buy it. His basic approach to the matter was that proof doesn't matter - if the Gedolim said it, it must be so.
While I haven't argued with LY about this particular item (I'm curious what he holds as a model for the solar system), he nonetheless seems to take this approach whereby the Gedolim determine reality. This, of course, is simply ludicrous. The Gedolim determine the current state of Judaism (within reason). They determine the current state of halacha. But they do not determine reality.
There are people who will quote to you the famous Midrash on the pasuk of לֹא תָסוּר, מִן-הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר-יַגִּידוּ לְךָ--יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאל (you should not turn from the words they [the Rabbis] tell you right or left - Duet 17:11) that you should listen to the words of the Rabbis even if they tell you that right is left and left is right. However, there is also a Yerushalmi (Horiyos 1:1) that says just the opposite:
יכול אם יאמרו לך על ימין שהיא שמאל ועל שמאל שהיא ימין תשמע להם ת"ל ללכת ימין ושמאל שיאמרו לך על ימין שהוא ימין ועל שמאל שהוא שמאל. (I might think that if they [the Rabbis] tell you that right is left and that left is right that you should listen to them, the verse, "to go right or left) comes to tell you that [you should listen to them only] when they tell you right that is [really] right and left that is [really] left.
The point is that there is a source that advocates listening to the Gedolim only when what they say is grounded in reality. If they were to tell you something that is completely counter-factual, you don't have to believe them. If they tell you that the Mercury and Mars orbit the Earth, you don't have to listen to them. Of course, one must still respect them for their knowledge of Torah and halacha. If they are known to be paragons of middos tovos, that, too, must be glorified and learned from. But blind alliegence on matters that are not Torah-related? No.
The Gedolim do a lot. But they don't define reality.
The Wolf
Lakewood Yid did just that on Friday. His statement:
The backbone of charedism. Believing in the "metzius" defined by the Gedolim.
If that's the backbone of charedism, then I'm want no part of charedism.
Let me make it clear that I respect Gedolim when it comes to their knowledge of Torah and Halacha. I certainly can accept the fact that they know more about such subjects than I do.
But that's not what LY is talking about. It seems to me that he ascribes reality-altering powers to Gedolim - to the extent that if they say it, it's so, regardless of any independent outside validity or verification.
Just to give one example that I've used on this blog before: the validity of the heliocentric model of the solar system. I've had it out with Jewish fundamentalists (not LY) over whether the sun is the center of the solar system and that the earth (and other planets) revolve around it or whether the Earth is the center of the solar system. One of the proofs that they brought was from the Rambam (Hil. Yesodei HaTorah 3), which describes a geocentric model, with the Earth in the middle, being orbited by (in order from closest to furthest) the moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and the stars.
As proof that this model is incorrect, I showed him the picture at right. This is a picture taken from Mars on Jan 12, 2005, which shows Mercury (that little black dot) passing in front of the sun. Now, in a strict Platonic system (as described above), such a picture should be impossible, as Mars and Mercury are on opposite sides of the sun from each other. There is no way Mercury could ever come between Mars and the Sun. (For a heliocentric example, think of Jupiter coming between the Earth and the Sun.) This is fairly clear proof that the model of the solar system described by the Rambam is flat out wrong.
Nonetheless, my disputant didn't buy it. His basic approach to the matter was that proof doesn't matter - if the Gedolim said it, it must be so.
While I haven't argued with LY about this particular item (I'm curious what he holds as a model for the solar system), he nonetheless seems to take this approach whereby the Gedolim determine reality. This, of course, is simply ludicrous. The Gedolim determine the current state of Judaism (within reason). They determine the current state of halacha. But they do not determine reality.
There are people who will quote to you the famous Midrash on the pasuk of לֹא תָסוּר, מִן-הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר-יַגִּידוּ לְךָ--יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאל (you should not turn from the words they [the Rabbis] tell you right or left - Duet 17:11) that you should listen to the words of the Rabbis even if they tell you that right is left and left is right. However, there is also a Yerushalmi (Horiyos 1:1) that says just the opposite:
יכול אם יאמרו לך על ימין שהיא שמאל ועל שמאל שהיא ימין תשמע להם ת"ל ללכת ימין ושמאל שיאמרו לך על ימין שהוא ימין ועל שמאל שהוא שמאל. (I might think that if they [the Rabbis] tell you that right is left and that left is right that you should listen to them, the verse, "to go right or left) comes to tell you that [you should listen to them only] when they tell you right that is [really] right and left that is [really] left.
The point is that there is a source that advocates listening to the Gedolim only when what they say is grounded in reality. If they were to tell you something that is completely counter-factual, you don't have to believe them. If they tell you that the Mercury and Mars orbit the Earth, you don't have to listen to them. Of course, one must still respect them for their knowledge of Torah and halacha. If they are known to be paragons of middos tovos, that, too, must be glorified and learned from. But blind alliegence on matters that are not Torah-related? No.
The Gedolim do a lot. But they don't define reality.
The Wolf
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
On Valis, Science and Prevailing Attitudes
Much has been written about the alleged crime of Yisroel Valis. Rumors are flying in all directions that range from Valis being a psychotic child-killer to being a distraught father who accidently dropped his baby.
I don't have the evidence at hand, and, as such, I'm not going to make a call on this one way or the other. However, DovBear makes an excellent point:
The trouble with the "accident defense" is that it is see-through. Every accused child abuser trots out that line, but a competant medical examinar can tell very easily the difference between a beating and an accident. They leave different injuries. A child who was dropped on the floor won’t look like a child who was beaten, or thrown against the wall.
I'm assuming that those who have already proclaimed him innocent of all charges are not forensic specialists and have not viewed all the evidence. And yet, there is still a huge push for his release and exonoration.
I made the following comment at DovBear's website:
The problem is that you are dealing with a segment of society where "science" is an evil word. As such, any forensic "evidence" that shows the child was abused is clearly false since it originated with evil, athiest "scientists."
I think that this bears repeating. These are the same people who are quick to dismiss any scientific idea that doesn't fit into their worldview, no matter how demonstrable it is and how much actual evidence can be brought to bear on the subject. Even "non-controversial" scientific findings that can be directly observed and proved in a labotory (the revolution of the Earth around the sun and microevoltuion come to mind) are dismissed with the attitude that the scientists are either lying, stupid or engaged in some massive cover-up.
As I said, I haven't seen the forensic evidence with regard to the Valis baby. But don't be surprised if the report comes back that the baby was abused and people will just willy-nilly disregard it because it's based in "science."
The Wolf
I don't have the evidence at hand, and, as such, I'm not going to make a call on this one way or the other. However, DovBear makes an excellent point:
The trouble with the "accident defense" is that it is see-through. Every accused child abuser trots out that line, but a competant medical examinar can tell very easily the difference between a beating and an accident. They leave different injuries. A child who was dropped on the floor won’t look like a child who was beaten, or thrown against the wall.
I'm assuming that those who have already proclaimed him innocent of all charges are not forensic specialists and have not viewed all the evidence. And yet, there is still a huge push for his release and exonoration.
I made the following comment at DovBear's website:
The problem is that you are dealing with a segment of society where "science" is an evil word. As such, any forensic "evidence" that shows the child was abused is clearly false since it originated with evil, athiest "scientists."
I think that this bears repeating. These are the same people who are quick to dismiss any scientific idea that doesn't fit into their worldview, no matter how demonstrable it is and how much actual evidence can be brought to bear on the subject. Even "non-controversial" scientific findings that can be directly observed and proved in a labotory (the revolution of the Earth around the sun and microevoltuion come to mind) are dismissed with the attitude that the scientists are either lying, stupid or engaged in some massive cover-up.
As I said, I haven't seen the forensic evidence with regard to the Valis baby. But don't be surprised if the report comes back that the baby was abused and people will just willy-nilly disregard it because it's based in "science."
The Wolf
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Our Trip To The Museum of Natural History... my rants
1. To the Chassidish family who sat behind us while we watched Galapagos in the IMAX theather:
I understand that the younger members of your family don't speak English. But that doesn't give you the right to sit behind me and my family and disturb our watching of the show by your providing a running translation of the movie in Yiddish. And since the majority of the movie deals with Darwin and the evolution of species on the Galapagos islands, why did you even bother coming to watch the film if you're going to ignore the main point and not translate the important parts of the film?
2. To the man who asked me to watch his kid while he went into the bathroom:
Just because I'm wearing a white shirt, kippah, slacks and have four days' growth on my face and chin does not mean that your child is safe with me. How could you possibly think of leaving your child with a stranger, even if only for a minute? Just because I'm Jewish as you are doesn't mean that I couldn't be a psychotic murderer or kidnapper. (For the record, I'm not!) Consider yourself lucky that it was me and that your kid was there when you got back.
3. To my son (S1):
Let me get this straight - we go to the American Museum of Natural History. We see all sorts of interesting stuff ranging from animals on the African savannah to artifacts of ancient cultures in Africa, to huge totem poles from the Pacific Northwest Native American cultures, and when we get to the gift shop, you buy books on what? Wizards and dragons???
Why on earth does a museum even have books on wizards and dragons???
The Wolf
I understand that the younger members of your family don't speak English. But that doesn't give you the right to sit behind me and my family and disturb our watching of the show by your providing a running translation of the movie in Yiddish. And since the majority of the movie deals with Darwin and the evolution of species on the Galapagos islands, why did you even bother coming to watch the film if you're going to ignore the main point and not translate the important parts of the film?
2. To the man who asked me to watch his kid while he went into the bathroom:
Just because I'm wearing a white shirt, kippah, slacks and have four days' growth on my face and chin does not mean that your child is safe with me. How could you possibly think of leaving your child with a stranger, even if only for a minute? Just because I'm Jewish as you are doesn't mean that I couldn't be a psychotic murderer or kidnapper. (For the record, I'm not!) Consider yourself lucky that it was me and that your kid was there when you got back.
3. To my son (S1):
Let me get this straight - we go to the American Museum of Natural History. We see all sorts of interesting stuff ranging from animals on the African savannah to artifacts of ancient cultures in Africa, to huge totem poles from the Pacific Northwest Native American cultures, and when we get to the gift shop, you buy books on what? Wizards and dragons???
Why on earth does a museum even have books on wizards and dragons???
The Wolf
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Al Bi'ur Chametz
I seem to have this mental problem every year when it comes to Bedikas Chametz (the search for Chametz). For the last two weeks, my family and I have been cleaning our house from top to bottom, removing all traces of chametz from the house. By the time we're done, there will be nothing left. It's a lot of effort and exertion to clean the entire house and get rid of all the chametz.
Then, when it's time to do the B'dikah, what do I do? I say a bracha (blessing) on the search for chametz that I am about to do. But isn't that what I've been doing for the last two weeks, including in the hours leading up to the actual "search?" It almost seems to me that I should have made this bracha two weeks ago (or at least earlier in the day while still searching!). It always feels so "wrong" to me to say the bracha at the time for the search (especially when I'm still cleaning when the time for the search comes).
I wish for all my readers a Chag Kasher V'Sameach!
The Wolf
Then, when it's time to do the B'dikah, what do I do? I say a bracha (blessing) on the search for chametz that I am about to do. But isn't that what I've been doing for the last two weeks, including in the hours leading up to the actual "search?" It almost seems to me that I should have made this bracha two weeks ago (or at least earlier in the day while still searching!). It always feels so "wrong" to me to say the bracha at the time for the search (especially when I'm still cleaning when the time for the search comes).
I wish for all my readers a Chag Kasher V'Sameach!
The Wolf
Friday, April 07, 2006
On Overritualization
My wife observed something while shopping for clothing on Pesach, which led to an interesting discussion (and disagreement) between us.
She was trying on clothing in a dressing room when she noticed a sign hanging on the wall. The sign stated something to the effect of "please have in mind while buying clothing that you are being m'kayim the mitzvah of tznius" (you are observing the commandment of modesty). She thought that it was a nice thing. I wasn't so sure of it. To me, it represented the creeping over-ritualization of things.
My initial rebuttal was "does this mean that when you buy lingerie, you are violating the mitzvah of tznius?" Her response is that it depends on how you're going to use it. If you're going to use it in the bedroom, then you're not. My response to that is that the "mitzvah" of tzniyus should be decided at the time you are wearing it (and any mental declerations should be made at that time).
She tried another tack - that it doesn't hurt; it does no harm. My answer to that was that hopping up and down whenever I buy a box of tissues doesn't do any harm either - but that hardly makes it a valid Jewish practice.
What do you think? Valid, or just part of the trend toward overritualization of everyday events?
The Wolf
She was trying on clothing in a dressing room when she noticed a sign hanging on the wall. The sign stated something to the effect of "please have in mind while buying clothing that you are being m'kayim the mitzvah of tznius" (you are observing the commandment of modesty). She thought that it was a nice thing. I wasn't so sure of it. To me, it represented the creeping over-ritualization of things.
My initial rebuttal was "does this mean that when you buy lingerie, you are violating the mitzvah of tznius?" Her response is that it depends on how you're going to use it. If you're going to use it in the bedroom, then you're not. My response to that is that the "mitzvah" of tzniyus should be decided at the time you are wearing it (and any mental declerations should be made at that time).
She tried another tack - that it doesn't hurt; it does no harm. My answer to that was that hopping up and down whenever I buy a box of tissues doesn't do any harm either - but that hardly makes it a valid Jewish practice.
What do you think? Valid, or just part of the trend toward overritualization of everyday events?
The Wolf
Thursday, April 06, 2006
On Ultra Silly Chumras
We've all seen chumras that, while we don't agree with them, we wouldn't denigrate others for using them. Then we've also all seen chumras that people have that arise out of a lack of basic halachic knowledge.
Then, of course, there are the ultra-silly chumras - those that arise out of that special combination of a lack of basic halachic knowledge and a lack of common sense. My wife provided me with just such an example.
She was in a supermarket buying items for Pesach, along with just about every other Jewish woman in Brooklyn. While there, she observed a woman who
-- lined her shopping cart with plastic
-- very meticulously made sure that every item she put into her cart was in a plastic bag (aside from the plastic that she lined her cart with)
-- if an item fell on the floor, she not only didn't put it back in her cart, she didn't even want to put it back on the shelf so that others could take it (we're talking about pre-packaged stuff, not produce) because it might have become chametz.
With my perverse sense of humor, I told my wife that if I was there I would have gone over to her and said "Psst! You know that those bags were in a box that was touched by truck drivers who ate chametz the day it was delivered," or "Psst! You know that those bags are touching the shelves which touch the floors which touch other shelves that have chametz on them!"
(To be honest, I wouldn't have done that; there's no need to further confuse the already confounded.)
I shudder to think what Pesach cleaning at this woman's home consists of. I'm willing to bet that if she had just a little more knowledge on the halachos of chametz, she could make her life (and the life of her family) so much easier.
The Wolf
Then, of course, there are the ultra-silly chumras - those that arise out of that special combination of a lack of basic halachic knowledge and a lack of common sense. My wife provided me with just such an example.
She was in a supermarket buying items for Pesach, along with just about every other Jewish woman in Brooklyn. While there, she observed a woman who
-- lined her shopping cart with plastic
-- very meticulously made sure that every item she put into her cart was in a plastic bag (aside from the plastic that she lined her cart with)
-- if an item fell on the floor, she not only didn't put it back in her cart, she didn't even want to put it back on the shelf so that others could take it (we're talking about pre-packaged stuff, not produce) because it might have become chametz.
With my perverse sense of humor, I told my wife that if I was there I would have gone over to her and said "Psst! You know that those bags were in a box that was touched by truck drivers who ate chametz the day it was delivered," or "Psst! You know that those bags are touching the shelves which touch the floors which touch other shelves that have chametz on them!"
(To be honest, I wouldn't have done that; there's no need to further confuse the already confounded.)
I shudder to think what Pesach cleaning at this woman's home consists of. I'm willing to bet that if she had just a little more knowledge on the halachos of chametz, she could make her life (and the life of her family) so much easier.
The Wolf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)