Deliciously sarcastic, and spot on.
The Wolf
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Mama, Where do Jewish Doctors Come From?
Mama, where do Jewish doctors come from?
What?
Where do Jewish doctors come from?
Why do you ask shaifele?
Because my rebbe told us today in class that you're not allowed to go to college.
Well, he's right. College is a horrible place where they teach you all sorts of things that are against the Torah. A good yid never goes to college.
So, then where do Jewish doctors come from. Don't doctors have to go to college?
Yes, you have to go to medical school, which is an advanced college for doctors to become a doctor.
So, then if it's assur to go to college, how did Dr. Goldberg become a doctor? He's such an erliche yid - he wouldn't do something that's assur, would he?
No dear. He wouldn't. We all know that Dr. Goldberg is such a nice man and a shomer Torah u'Mitzvos.
So then, how did he become a doctor without going to college?
I guess he was born a doctor, shaifele.
Oh. It's too bad I wasn't born a doctor - I wanted to be one too.
===============================================
Of course, the above conversation never (to the best of my knowledge) took place. However, the underlying point remains - if, in some circles, going to college is assur for any reason, then how are there frum doctors in those circles?
Obviously, the question is one that is easily answered - the doctors come from those who obviously don't see gaining a higher education as an absolute prohibition. But then one must wonder - if they do maintain that (frum) Jews should not go to college at all, are they then conceding the point that frum Jews shouldn't become doctors (or lawyers, dentists, etc.) ? Do they *really* think that there is value is having no Jewish professionals? Do they really see that as a good thing?
The question that must be asked is this - is the frum community richer (and I don't mean in a monetary fashion) by the presence of professionals among their ranks? Are we better off that there are frum doctors to give advice on halachic questions, frum lawyers and politicians to guide our community and individuals through legal and political obstacles, and frum researchers, engineers and other professionals?
Personally, I believe the answer is an unqualified yes; we are better off for the presence of these people in our communities. However, if the absolute college-naysaysers also say that we should have professionals among our ranks, I'd love to know how they plan to that without allowing them to go to college.
The Wolf
What?
Where do Jewish doctors come from?
Why do you ask shaifele?
Because my rebbe told us today in class that you're not allowed to go to college.
Well, he's right. College is a horrible place where they teach you all sorts of things that are against the Torah. A good yid never goes to college.
So, then where do Jewish doctors come from. Don't doctors have to go to college?
Yes, you have to go to medical school, which is an advanced college for doctors to become a doctor.
So, then if it's assur to go to college, how did Dr. Goldberg become a doctor? He's such an erliche yid - he wouldn't do something that's assur, would he?
No dear. He wouldn't. We all know that Dr. Goldberg is such a nice man and a shomer Torah u'Mitzvos.
So then, how did he become a doctor without going to college?
I guess he was born a doctor, shaifele.
Oh. It's too bad I wasn't born a doctor - I wanted to be one too.
===============================================
Of course, the above conversation never (to the best of my knowledge) took place. However, the underlying point remains - if, in some circles, going to college is assur for any reason, then how are there frum doctors in those circles?
Obviously, the question is one that is easily answered - the doctors come from those who obviously don't see gaining a higher education as an absolute prohibition. But then one must wonder - if they do maintain that (frum) Jews should not go to college at all, are they then conceding the point that frum Jews shouldn't become doctors (or lawyers, dentists, etc.) ? Do they *really* think that there is value is having no Jewish professionals? Do they really see that as a good thing?
The question that must be asked is this - is the frum community richer (and I don't mean in a monetary fashion) by the presence of professionals among their ranks? Are we better off that there are frum doctors to give advice on halachic questions, frum lawyers and politicians to guide our community and individuals through legal and political obstacles, and frum researchers, engineers and other professionals?
Personally, I believe the answer is an unqualified yes; we are better off for the presence of these people in our communities. However, if the absolute college-naysaysers also say that we should have professionals among our ranks, I'd love to know how they plan to that without allowing them to go to college.
The Wolf
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Challange Of Creation Book Launch
Tonight was the book launch for Rabbi Slifkin's new book, The Challange of Creation. The lovely eees and I both attended. There was certainly a better turnout tonight than there was when he spoke in Brooklyn last year.
The first speaker was Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, Executive Vice President of the OU. He spoke about the need for a book of this type. Specifically, he mentioned that there were three types of people who were in danger of dropping out of the Orthodox community because of questions of science and Torah - specifically, (a) ba'alei teshuva, who often have these questions and may "drop out" if they are told to close their minds to them, (b) the young, who also may rebel if they are not allowed to ask questions and (c) the layman, who has questions such as these, and will not simply close his mind to them and pretend that they don't exist.
The next speaker was Rabbi Gil Student, the publisher of Yashar Books. Rabbi Student spoke about why the book is being published in spite of there being a ban against it. He gave three reasons why there can be such a book after a call for a ban against it - (a) there are authorities who permit it, (b) one is allowed to follow an authority in one's community and (c) these matters should be decided on a communal basis (since it is the communal rabbis who know best what the community needs) and that a one-size-fits-all p'sak should not be given in these matters.
Lastly, Rabbi Slifkin himself spoke. Rather than address issues that are in the book, he spoke about why he chose to put a picture of a dinosaur on the cover of the book. Aside from the fact that he personally likes dinosaurs (and yes, he mentioned the dinosaur that belives in itself - the apikorusaurus), he used it as a symbol to show readers that the book isn't meant for everyone - if you're troubled by the concept of dinosaurs and fossils, then the book isn't for you.
Overall, it was a very nice evening. Aside from Rabbi Student (obviously), I'm curious how many other bloggers were there.
The Wolf
On Our Students
A website, RaisingSmallSouls.com, has a presentation based on a text by Artscroll/Mesorah entitled Animal School. The presentation shows how different animals might perform in an "animal school."
In it, they decry how we don't live up to the concept of Chanoch LaNa'ar Al Pi Darcko (teach a child according to his nature) by using the example of the duck. They also decry that original thinking is devalued and looked upon as improper (the eagle and the kangaroo).
Of course, I find this very ironic considering that the main audience for Artscroll supports schools where the spirit of this message is roundly ignored. Children are taught with a "one size fits all" mentality in many yeshivos and original thinking is not rewarded -- indeed, it is often roundly criticized and can cause one to be labeled an apikorus (heretic).
Sigh.
The Wolf
In it, they decry how we don't live up to the concept of Chanoch LaNa'ar Al Pi Darcko (teach a child according to his nature) by using the example of the duck. They also decry that original thinking is devalued and looked upon as improper (the eagle and the kangaroo).
Of course, I find this very ironic considering that the main audience for Artscroll supports schools where the spirit of this message is roundly ignored. Children are taught with a "one size fits all" mentality in many yeshivos and original thinking is not rewarded -- indeed, it is often roundly criticized and can cause one to be labeled an apikorus (heretic).
Sigh.
The Wolf
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Ushpizin Isn't Kosher? Whod've Thunk It?
A poster on ChabadTalk (who admits that he, himself hasn't seen the movie) attempts to find fault with the picture. His complaints:
1. The two main characters are husband and wife in real life. Thus, there would have been a significant amount of lack of tznius in the production of the film, because the couple are seen passing objects to each other in almost every scene. Thus, it would have happened regularly that the couple told the others doing the filming, “err, sorry, we’ll have to leave doing that scene for another two weeks.” Then, “err, now we can do that scene.” Vedal.
Maybe. Maybe not. Perhaps they scheduled the scenes in advance so that it wouldn't be a problem? Perhaps she (gasp!) was on birth control and therefore wasn't niddah for an extended period of time. Perhaps she never becomes niddah?
2. There are a number of scenes where the couple (don’t engage in any physical contact whatsoever, of course, but) speak to each other romantically, which is licho’oiro a clear issur.
Speaking to one's wife/husband romantically is a clear issur?! Oy vey.
3. There’s something inherently non-tznius about a woman acting knowing that men will be watching her.
You're right. So, let's keep all of our women behind closed doors forever where men cannot watch them.
4. The non-frum characters are seen without any head covering in many scenes.
Firstly, who says the actors were even frum? Or even Jewish at all (there are non-Jews who can speak Hebrew, you know)? And even if they were frum, one is allowed to not wear a kippah for professional reasons -- and an actor playing the part of a non-frum person definitely qualifies as a professional reason.
5. The main female character is seen smoking on occasion, vos dos past nisht.
So, she smokes. She also leaves her husband. She also gets angry during the movie. In other words, she's a human being with faults. Heaven forbid there should be any of those in K'lal Yisrael.
I suppose that if you want, you can find fault in almost anything. I suppose the poster would have liked it had the female character been played by a male (as was done in Ancient Greece and in Shakespearean times), been portrayed only as a perfect tzadekkes (much like an Artscroll biography) and with the non-frum characters (can they be shown?) wearing a kippah (or, even better, a black hat) and tzitzis in every scene. Oh yes, and the "couple" must pretend to act like roommates - we can't have them showing any affection that might lead us to believe that they are actually married to each other.
Sigh. Sometimes you just can't please somebody no matter what you do.
The Wolf
1. The two main characters are husband and wife in real life. Thus, there would have been a significant amount of lack of tznius in the production of the film, because the couple are seen passing objects to each other in almost every scene. Thus, it would have happened regularly that the couple told the others doing the filming, “err, sorry, we’ll have to leave doing that scene for another two weeks.” Then, “err, now we can do that scene.” Vedal.
Maybe. Maybe not. Perhaps they scheduled the scenes in advance so that it wouldn't be a problem? Perhaps she (gasp!) was on birth control and therefore wasn't niddah for an extended period of time. Perhaps she never becomes niddah?
2. There are a number of scenes where the couple (don’t engage in any physical contact whatsoever, of course, but) speak to each other romantically, which is licho’oiro a clear issur.
Speaking to one's wife/husband romantically is a clear issur?! Oy vey.
3. There’s something inherently non-tznius about a woman acting knowing that men will be watching her.
You're right. So, let's keep all of our women behind closed doors forever where men cannot watch them.
4. The non-frum characters are seen without any head covering in many scenes.
Firstly, who says the actors were even frum? Or even Jewish at all (there are non-Jews who can speak Hebrew, you know)? And even if they were frum, one is allowed to not wear a kippah for professional reasons -- and an actor playing the part of a non-frum person definitely qualifies as a professional reason.
5. The main female character is seen smoking on occasion, vos dos past nisht.
So, she smokes. She also leaves her husband. She also gets angry during the movie. In other words, she's a human being with faults. Heaven forbid there should be any of those in K'lal Yisrael.
I suppose that if you want, you can find fault in almost anything. I suppose the poster would have liked it had the female character been played by a male (as was done in Ancient Greece and in Shakespearean times), been portrayed only as a perfect tzadekkes (much like an Artscroll biography) and with the non-frum characters (can they be shown?) wearing a kippah (or, even better, a black hat) and tzitzis in every scene. Oh yes, and the "couple" must pretend to act like roommates - we can't have them showing any affection that might lead us to believe that they are actually married to each other.
Sigh. Sometimes you just can't please somebody no matter what you do.
The Wolf
Monday, July 03, 2006
Are They Girls, Or Is It An Meat Auction?
I've been re-reading SephardiLady's post on the "Shidduch crisis" and was struck by the fact that it seems that in some (many?) cases, the shidduch market has turned into a meat auction, with sons "selling themselves" to the girls whose parents can give the most money in support. In the post mentioned above, Sephardi Lady quotes a letter that was written to the Yated where several parents of marriageable-age girls are complaining that they cannot get shidduchim for their daughters because they don't have the means to support their future sons-in-law to be for X number of years. In one particularly egregious case, a young man rejected a girl out-of-hand because her parents didn't have the funds. But once a neighborhood person was willing to kick in some money for her, all of a sudden the doors were wide open.
Personally, I find the whole attitude a bit sickening. Are we actually going back to the concept of dowries and marrying for money? What ever happened to looking for someone who has good middos, someone who shares your outlook on life, or even someone whom you fall in love with? Have we become so shallow now that money is the primary focus?
Of course, this sort of thing doesn't go on (generally speaking -- of course there are exceptions) in the secular world. You don't often find a fellow who wants to focus his attention on genetics, for example, who will hold out until he finds a father-in-law who is willing to support him while he gets his Ph.D. Such a thing is practically unheard of -- and we'd all roundly criticize (and rightly so) a prospective future geneticist who did so. Of course, some may marry spouses who are willing to support them - but that's a decision of the prospective spouse and not one that her father and mother are held "hostage" to.
Of course, this is a problem that has more than one root. Part of the problem lies in the fact that earning a living is considered "pas nisht" in some communities. Part of the problem lies in the fact that in some communities girls are told that the only way they'll matter in life is by being the wife of someone who learns full time. And part of the problem lies in the fact that if a girl decides that she does want to marry a full-time learner, it seems that even if she says she's willing to support him ( a commendable goal, if one is capable of doing so), she *still* can't get the go-ahead without a large bank account in her or her parents' names.
Sigh. I cannot tell you how happy I am that I never had to put up with the shidduch world. I was fortunate to meet my wonderful wife at a young age, before we ended up in the shidduch scene. My mother was broke, my father wasn't wealthy. Her parents weren't wealthy either. When we got married, I went to work to support our family. That's not to say that her parents didn't provide some help - they did (and still do!); but it was never a condition of my marrying their daughter and it was never asked for outright. I could not see asking my in-laws to support our family full time, even if it was because I wanted to go into learning full-time.
But, to get back to the point, I think we need to change our attitude toward matrimony. We need to focus more on the positive reasons to marry someone, and not on the size of the in-laws' bank accounts.
The Wolf
Personally, I find the whole attitude a bit sickening. Are we actually going back to the concept of dowries and marrying for money? What ever happened to looking for someone who has good middos, someone who shares your outlook on life, or even someone whom you fall in love with? Have we become so shallow now that money is the primary focus?
Of course, this sort of thing doesn't go on (generally speaking -- of course there are exceptions) in the secular world. You don't often find a fellow who wants to focus his attention on genetics, for example, who will hold out until he finds a father-in-law who is willing to support him while he gets his Ph.D. Such a thing is practically unheard of -- and we'd all roundly criticize (and rightly so) a prospective future geneticist who did so. Of course, some may marry spouses who are willing to support them - but that's a decision of the prospective spouse and not one that her father and mother are held "hostage" to.
Of course, this is a problem that has more than one root. Part of the problem lies in the fact that earning a living is considered "pas nisht" in some communities. Part of the problem lies in the fact that in some communities girls are told that the only way they'll matter in life is by being the wife of someone who learns full time. And part of the problem lies in the fact that if a girl decides that she does want to marry a full-time learner, it seems that even if she says she's willing to support him ( a commendable goal, if one is capable of doing so), she *still* can't get the go-ahead without a large bank account in her or her parents' names.
Sigh. I cannot tell you how happy I am that I never had to put up with the shidduch world. I was fortunate to meet my wonderful wife at a young age, before we ended up in the shidduch scene. My mother was broke, my father wasn't wealthy. Her parents weren't wealthy either. When we got married, I went to work to support our family. That's not to say that her parents didn't provide some help - they did (and still do!); but it was never a condition of my marrying their daughter and it was never asked for outright. I could not see asking my in-laws to support our family full time, even if it was because I wanted to go into learning full-time.
But, to get back to the point, I think we need to change our attitude toward matrimony. We need to focus more on the positive reasons to marry someone, and not on the size of the in-laws' bank accounts.
The Wolf
Theme Challas, part II
Last Channukah, I posted about my wife's dreidel challahs. Well, last month, our fifteenth anniversary came out on a Friday. So, to celebrate, my lovely and talented wife (eeees) made 15th anniversary challahs!
While they were delicious, I'm glad they weren't made out of crystal (the traditional 15th anniversary gift!).
The Wolf
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
I'm still around
My apologies to everyone for my seeming absence. I've been very busy of late, looking for (and securing) a new job. I plan on resuming posting in the next few days. Thanks for sticking around.
The Wolf
The Wolf
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Did I Miss The Announcement?
From Frumteens (emphasis and brackets mine):
Stating that Chazal’s knowledge is based on the reality, not mere scientific observation, he [Rav Briel, the rebbe of the Pachad Yitzchock] assures his Talmid that without a doubt the rabbinic science is more accurate than the science of the scientists, and even if currently it appears one way, the rabbinic view will eventually be proven correct. He mentions that in the disagreement between the sages and the scientists regarding whether the sun revolves around the earth or vice versa, the sages conceded to the scientists, but centuries later, it was proven that the Torah sages were right all along.
Oy yoy yoy...
The Wolf
Stating that Chazal’s knowledge is based on the reality, not mere scientific observation, he [Rav Briel, the rebbe of the Pachad Yitzchock] assures his Talmid that without a doubt the rabbinic science is more accurate than the science of the scientists, and even if currently it appears one way, the rabbinic view will eventually be proven correct. He mentions that in the disagreement between the sages and the scientists regarding whether the sun revolves around the earth or vice versa, the sages conceded to the scientists, but centuries later, it was proven that the Torah sages were right all along.
Oy yoy yoy...
The Wolf
Searching for Man and Beast
As Rabbi Student pointed out, Rabbi Slifkin's newest book, Man and Beast, is currently for sale. In his announcement, he said the following:
Note that some bookstores will receive resistance from one or two customers about their selling this book. Your support, by verbally requesting the book and thanking the store manager for stocking it, will serve to counter this resistance. In the end, the loudest customer wins. So please take the time to ask for this book in your local bookstore, and register your concern if the book is not sold.
I decided to do an informal survey of some Jewish booksellers in Brooklyn. The first one I went to was a very popular store in the heart of Midwood. I looked around the store to see if it was in stock. Not finding it, I went to a clerk.
"Hi!" I said. "I was wondering if you can help me. I'm looking for a specific book."
"Sure," he said with a smile. "What book are you looking for?"
"Man and Beast" I said with a completely straight face, without giving the author's name. I could see him stiffen as I said the name of the book. The smile disappeared from his face.
"We don't carry that." he said.
"Do you plan on carrying it anytime in the future?" I asked.
"No," came the curt reply.
I travelled around the corner to another bookstore. After not finding it on the shelves, I asked the clerk for the book. He said that he had never heard of it and went to check on his computer. After a few minutes, he found it. "It looks like an interesting book," he said. I wasn't sure if he meant it seriously or sarcastically. "A very interesting book."
"Will you be getting it in stock anytime soon?" I inquired.
"I don't think so," he said.
My third stop was at another bookseller which opened a few years ago. Looking around I found a few of Rabbi Slifkin's books (although none of the banned ones) and asked the clerk about the book. He never heard of it.
My last stop was at a store further south in Flatbush. This store had most of Rabbi Slifkin's non-banned books and even had a copy of Mysterious Creatures on the shelf. There was no sign, however, of Man and Beast. The clerk knew who Rabbi Slifkin was and was well aware of the controversy. Nonetheless, he didn't have the new book and said he wasn't sure when it would be available. However, he didn't rule out carrying it.
When the time comes, I'll probably get my copy directly from Rabbi Student. But, nonetheless, I found the reactions I got to my informal search very interesting. Maybe I'll even expand it to a few more stores in the coming days.
The Wolf
Note that some bookstores will receive resistance from one or two customers about their selling this book. Your support, by verbally requesting the book and thanking the store manager for stocking it, will serve to counter this resistance. In the end, the loudest customer wins. So please take the time to ask for this book in your local bookstore, and register your concern if the book is not sold.
I decided to do an informal survey of some Jewish booksellers in Brooklyn. The first one I went to was a very popular store in the heart of Midwood. I looked around the store to see if it was in stock. Not finding it, I went to a clerk.
"Hi!" I said. "I was wondering if you can help me. I'm looking for a specific book."
"Sure," he said with a smile. "What book are you looking for?"
"Man and Beast" I said with a completely straight face, without giving the author's name. I could see him stiffen as I said the name of the book. The smile disappeared from his face.
"We don't carry that." he said.
"Do you plan on carrying it anytime in the future?" I asked.
"No," came the curt reply.
I travelled around the corner to another bookstore. After not finding it on the shelves, I asked the clerk for the book. He said that he had never heard of it and went to check on his computer. After a few minutes, he found it. "It looks like an interesting book," he said. I wasn't sure if he meant it seriously or sarcastically. "A very interesting book."
"Will you be getting it in stock anytime soon?" I inquired.
"I don't think so," he said.
My third stop was at another bookseller which opened a few years ago. Looking around I found a few of Rabbi Slifkin's books (although none of the banned ones) and asked the clerk about the book. He never heard of it.
My last stop was at a store further south in Flatbush. This store had most of Rabbi Slifkin's non-banned books and even had a copy of Mysterious Creatures on the shelf. There was no sign, however, of Man and Beast. The clerk knew who Rabbi Slifkin was and was well aware of the controversy. Nonetheless, he didn't have the new book and said he wasn't sure when it would be available. However, he didn't rule out carrying it.
When the time comes, I'll probably get my copy directly from Rabbi Student. But, nonetheless, I found the reactions I got to my informal search very interesting. Maybe I'll even expand it to a few more stores in the coming days.
The Wolf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)