Going Overboard on Tzniyus

Baseball Fans love to argue over who belongs in the Hall of Fame. Every fan has his or her own opinion both on players who are not yet in the Hall and on players who are actually in the Hall. We can spend endless hours arguing over the merits of Phil Rizzutto vs. Pee Wee Reese, whether Don Mattingly or Bert Blyleven really should be inducted or if we should induct players who were undoubtedly great on the field, but had off-field problems.

Part of the problem, I suppose, comes from the fact that there is no clear definition of exactly who a Hall of Famer is. Bill James, the noted baseball writer and statistician, said in his book Politics of Glory “The Hall of Fame is a self-defining institution that has by and large failed to define itself.” Since the guidelines of what, exactly, a Hall of Famer is are vague and ambiguous, there will always be arguing about who belongs in the Hall.

A similar problem exists with regard to the Orthodox Jewish community and the concept of tznius. When we hear the word “tznius,” the first thing that pops into our heads is a myriad of restrictions regarding clothing, appearance and behavior – with about 90% of the regulations aimed at women. And yet, the very first mention of tznius (as a concept) has nothing to do (specifically) with women… it has to do with the way we behave in general. The prophet Michah (6:8), exhorted us to “walk humbly with God.” From the context of the paragraph, it’s fairly clear that he wasn’t thinking of skirt lengths when he uttered his famous phrase. It’s clear that the idea was meant in terms of one’s behavior and that it applied to everyone -- men and women.

For good or for bad, however, the concept of tznius has morphed over time, to include restrictions on how women (and, to a far lesser extenet, men) dress and behave. However, as with the Hall of Fame, there is no clear definition of tznius, but rather one that varies greatly over time and distance. It’s kind of funny in a way – no matter where (or when) we come from, we all agree that a esrog is the fruit indicated in the verse pri etz hadar and we all agree that tefillin need to be black and have four parshiyos. Yeah, we may disagree in some minor details (the order of the parshiyos, etc.), but we agree in the main details. And yet, when it comes to tznius, the definition of how women are to dress varies greatly from one community to the next. In some communities a wig is the only acceptable head covering. In others, a wig is forbidden, only a kerchief or a turban is acceptable. In some communities, women shave their heads completely upon marriage, thus making absolutely sure that no one sees their hair (including, I guess, their husbands). And on and on it goes. Since we’ve failed to establish some universal standards for tznius (beyond, I suppose the bare minimum) each community argues for what it thinks is the proper standard.

However, of late, I think that we’ve been taking things a bit too far. We’ve taken the concept of tznius, as it relates to women’s dress and behavior, and begun carrying it to an extreme. Whereas at one time it may have meant simply being modest in dress and behavior, it is now approaching the point where we have ever-increasing restrictions and regulations. It has been noted in more than one place that black seems to be the newest fashion trend among Orthodox Jewish women. However, it that because it is just the “fad of the season” or is it because we’ve become afraid to wear any other color because it might be ruled “untzniusdik?”

There are things that are happening today in the name of “tznius” that would have been unheard of fifteen years ago. Consider the following paragraph from Miraim Shaviv’s recent article in the Jewish Chronicle:

Firstly, standards of modesty are becoming increasingly stringent and require increasing effort to follow. A CD recording by a top rabbi from Lakewood, New Jersey, for example, reportedly asks women not to swing their arms while they walk and not to allow their daughters to wear colourful banana-clips in their hair. Women know that if they wear skin-coloured stockings, they must include a seam so it is clear they are not bare-legged. Schoolgirls do not wear shiny shoes that could “reflect their underwear”.

Shiny shoes that reflect their underwear?! Who thinks these things up?! I can't remember the last time I heard something so bizarre! Do shiny shoes reflect underwear? And even if they do, who looks at girls’ shoes to see their underwear? Swinging their arms? This is a problem?! Colored banana clips is a violation of tznius? Where do these things come from? We’re going from the idea that a woman should dress modestly and not call undue attention to herself with immodest dress to the extreme where she can’t wear anything that is the least bit out of the “ideal” and behave in any way that causes them to be anything other than completely socially invisible.

The extreme example of this, of course, is the recent case of the followers of Rabbanit Keren in Ramat Beit Shemesh in Israel who have chosen to completely cover themselves and wear multiple layers of clothing in a manner similar to the Afghan women under the Taliban. Thankfully, there have been some rabbis that have called her approach unacceptable and extreme. But as popular culture has sometimes shown us with immodesty, what is extreme today will be “in” tomorrow. Considering the fact that her following (by most accounts) seems to be growing and the general direction that tznius regulation seem to be taking, I wonder when (not if) this will become more mainstream. Rabbi Falk’s book, Oz V’Hadar, which is often criticized for being overly stringent, will one day be looked upon as a book that only “loose girls” follow. “Truly proper tzniusdik girls” will one day go far beyond the restrictions in Oz V’Hadar.

Lest you think that I’m being alarmist, please consider the case of the Mehadrin Buses in Israel. While some may think that it is a good thing to have women sit in the back of the bus, there is certainly no halachic problem with men and women sitting together on a bus. It’s done in communities all over the world without a word of Rabbinic protest. You may decide to choose for yourself not to ride on a mixed bus, but you have no right to try to force the matter on others who do not want to accept this stringency upon them. And yet, a woman was beaten up for refusing to go to the back of a non-Mehadrin bus.

Lest you think I’m being alarmist, we’re approaching the point where we are delegitimizing any forum where women and men might possibly appear in the same place at the same time. Concerts with family seating (as the famous Lag BaOmer concert in Beit Shemesh), weddings, school functions, etc. are being phased out. More and more fundraisers (such as Chinese Auctions) are becoming either gender-segregated.

Lest you think I’m being alarmist, we’re reaching the point where the very image of a woman is a problem. Major newspapers such as the Yated and HaModia have a long-standing policy of not publishing pictures of women. This has, in turn, forced book publishers to no longer put women’s faces on the covers of books, since books with pictures of women could not be advertised visually in a display ad. Women’s faces are being “Photoshopped” out of official photographs. Oorah put an ad in last week’s Yated, saying that if there was enough demand, they would publish their auction catalog without women’s pictures. Is it any wonder that some women have gotten the wrong impression and began wearing face-concealing burkas?

Lest you think I'm being alarmist, we have now come to the point where rabbis issue hechsherim on clothing stores(!) and people commit violence against stores which sell clothing that is in their opinion, immodest.

As with just about all things in life, there is a key word that one must apply to one’s actions and thoughts – moderation. In all things, one must be moderate. Going overboard on anything is a bad thing – and that includes tzniyus. Going overboard on tzniyus regulations to the point where you begin measuring how thick stockings have to be, or how shiny your shoes are or what color banana-clip you can wear in your hair only serves to alienate women from Judaism, not to attract them to it. And when you alienate women from Judaism, it's usually the tzniyus restrictions that are the first thing to go.

The Wolf

Off Topic: What Happens When You Post Something To Your Blog?

I found a fascinating chart by the Frank Rose, of Wired Magazine, that details everything that happens on the Web once you submit a blog post. Everything from spiders to spam bots, to aggregators to search engines get in on the act. Oh yeah, and the readers too. :)

Check it out.

The Wolf

So, Who Do We Vote For?

Rabbi Yehuda Levin, of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the U.S. and Canada, issued a statement regarding the coming election (bolding mine):

“It is very important for our community to demonstrate its appreciation for our wonderful country by exercising our civic obligation to vote. However, it is even more important that we do not support any candidate whose position is in any way antithetical to our Torah based morality. Candidates who support abortion on demand, the “toeiva” agenda, liberal attitudes towards pornography of any sort - are antithetical to our way of life and it is forbidden to support or vote for them.

“Our former president, internationally acknowledged as the premier legal decisor, Rabbi Moshe Feinstien was most vigorous in condemning abortion on demand and the “toeiva” agenda and we take his legacy as our guide.

“If one has to vote in an election or primary where both candidates are anti-Biblical family values, G-d forbid, that they use the “lesser of two evils” approach. Rather, let the voter cast a write-in protest vote, but do not compromise by voting for the “lesser evil”. If we value the purity and holiness of our children and grandchildren, we dare not compromise.

“It is our sincere hope that not only our own Jewish community, but our fellow citizens of all faiths, and their leaders, will draw a line in the sand and institute policies forbidding voting for anti-traditional family- values candidates. We are confident that were this policy instituted, within one or two election cycles, we would find many more pro-family candidates on every level of government.”

OK, my question is as follows:

Since freedom of religion is antithetical to Torah-based morality (after all, Avoda Zara [idol worship] is forbidden even to non-Jews according to halacha), just whom are we to vote for? I don't think any candidate favors restricting the worship of any deity except the Jewish Deity. As such, they are *all* have positions that are antithetical to our Torah-based morality and hence, according to the proclamation by Rabbi Levin, it is forbidden to vote for any of them. So, stay home everyone!*

The Wolf

Source: Yeshiva World

*I'm kidding. Go out and vote.

When Monopoly meets Chassidic Fundamentalism...

Blog in Dm brings us this Yiddish "version" of Monopoly, called Handel Erlich (deal fairly). The game purports to teach Torah values to children. I'll skip over the obvious paradox of teaching Torah values by violating patent law. What I found hysterical were some of the cards (meant to duplicate the Chance and Community Chest) that are included in the game. Here are some of the gems (translation and transliteration by Blog in Dm):

"Yiddishe tokhter! Du hust dikh gerukt in a zayt ven a mans perzon iz gekumen antkegen" (Jewish daughter! You moved to the side when a man was approaching." "A tzniyusdike gefil un a khoshevkayt fun di neshome."

"Yiddeshe Tokhter! Du host aroys gelakht ven mener hoben gehert! Zeyer a groyse pritzus! Shtel dokh in 'mikhutz lamakhane' un blayb aroys 3 gang." (Jewish daughter! You laughed when men could hear you. Very immodest! You're excommunicated! Lose three turns.)

"Geredt English tzuvishin zikh! Yiddish redn taylt up fun di goyim! Shtel dokh in 'mikhutz lamakhane' un blayb aroys 3 gang." (You spoke English amongst yourselves. Speaking Yiddish separates us from the Gentiles! You're excommunicated! Lose three turns.)

"Getantzt mit shtrik in gas! Vi iz dayn gefeel fun tzniyus? Batzol shtrof $50 un blayb aroys a gang." (You jumped rope in the street! Where is your modest sensibility? Pay a $50 fine and lose a turn.)

"Geleynt a treyfene bikhl! Tomey, Tomey! Arayn in Gehenom un blayb aroys 2 gang."Ungevoren di 2 tayereste pletzer vos du host." (You read an unkosher book. Unclean, unclean! Got to Hell and lose two turns. Lose your two most valuable properties!)

"Geholfen di Tziyonistishe medinah! Fun a shaykhes tzu reshoim kumt keyn guts nisht aroys! Nor shoden! Tu teshuvah! Zitz in a yeshivah 2 geng, un tzol far di yeshiva vifel es kost far yededn aroys gebliben gan $50 far tzedokoh!" (You helped the Zionist country! No good can come out of an association with evil people, only bad! Repent! Sit in a yeshivah for two turns, and pay $50 tuition per day to charity).

Oh yeah, and there are spaces for "michutz lamachane" (outside the camp) and Hell. No, I kid you not!

Go over to Blog in DM where he has the entire rule set, the cards, a good photo of the board and far more "gems" on this game.

The Wolf

Get A Life, Part II

As I said yesterday, this week's Yated has a wealth of blog material in the "Readers Write" section. Yesterday's letter was about science. Today's letter was going to be about parenting, but it seems that Sephardi Lady has beaten me to the punch on that. So, I'll go on to the next one. I've transcribed it below. Any typos are my own.

The Yated editors titled it "False Titles." I would have gone with "Get A Life."

Dear Editor,

I recently noticed a certain advertisement for a yeshiva dinner in your newspaper. Among the honorees are two couples being honored as "Parents of the Year." There are pictures of both husbands, but not their wives. Incredibly, under the pictures of the husbands is the title "Mr. and Mrs...." When did a man become both husband and wife?

Seriously, I understand your policy not to display pictures of women and I commend you for it. Nevertheless, if you are not prepared to show a picture of the wife as well, it would be better not to show a picture at all. Above all, it is sheker to give a title "Mr. and Mrs..." underneath a picture of only the husband. No chumrah should ever override an issur from the Torah, in this case midevar sheker tirchok.

To be frank, I don't hold of the chumra of not posting photos of women. But then again, it's not my paper, so my opinion doesn't really matter. However, I don't think anyone is being deceived by the Yated posting a picture of a man and labeling it as "Mr. and Mrs..." What next, call it sheker if someone uses an idiom because some idiot might understand it literally? Oh wait, we already covered that...

The Wolf

Science, from a Yated Reader

Oh, man, there are some weeks that the Yated is a gold mine of blog material. This week is one of them. I could probably spend the whole week blogging on this issue, but I’ll restrict myself (for now) to one letter to the editor. Here is a letter, titled “Science” (with the quotes) from yesterday’s edition. All typos are mine (with the exception of the misspelling of the word “pursue” at the end).

A. Stone was dead-on in his observation regarding the arrogance of weather reporters. This arrogance is not limited to weathermen, but extends to all scientists in all fields of science. This is a profession where most scientific data is disproved within a decade of their release, yet, in each generation, these people somehow delude themselves to believe that they are different, that their ideas stand at the pinnacle of science.

This cycle has been going on for thousands of years, yet none of these scientists have ever learned their lesson. They are constantly correcting their own mistakes. To realize this, all you have to do is open up any science publication and you will notice the phrase “Now we know….” Written over and over, year after year! If you look closely at science, most successful scientific discoveries are trial and error discoveries, or “recipe” discoveries. We took patient A who had disease B and gave him medicine C and he recovered; therefore substance C treats malady B. This prompted Paul Valery, a noted French essayist, to write that “science means simply the aggregate of all the recipes that are always successful. The rest is literature.”

When scientific theories are not based on trial-and-error techniques, they are almost always wrong. For example, if a scientist would have been asked exactly how medicine C would affect the patient, he would invariably be eventually proven wrong. Here are some of the predictions of this kind to look back on:

“There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be attainable.” (Albert Einstein, 1932)

“A rocket will never be able to leave the Earth’s atmosphere.” (The New York Times, 1936)

“Scientists predict cure for allergies is near.” (Chicago Tribune, August 15, 1982)

“Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau.” (Yale University, 1929)

Sometimes, science goes a step farther and makes sweeping predictions about the future. These are the funniest to look back on. Of course, the scientists quickly forget these predictions, or give us an arrogant analysis. “Well, then we believed A and B, but now we know…”

Who remembers the prediction of the coming ice age in the ‘70s, which made the front cover of several national publications? Who remembers global famine, resource depletion, or overpopulation? And, of course, we have the following masterpieces from the great New York Times:

“Earthquakes may engulf all of Europe.” (April 8, 1906)

“Rats [!] may destroy the human race; man must drive out or be driven out.” (July 7, 1908)

“British experts say deaf age is coming; New Yorkers may be first to lose their hearing.” (July 26, 1928)

“Man’s war on disease sweeps on to victory; few [battles] remain to be won.” (June 15, 1927)

So, as we persue (sic) all the dire scientific data of our impending global barbeque, pardon me as I guffaw loudly.

Professor J. Sherman
Psychopharmaceutical Development Specialist,
GlaxoSmithKline Inc.

I found the letter mildly amusing until I saw the signature at the end. That was when I burst into laughter. If this fellow is a “Psychopharmaceutical Development Specialist” at GlaxoSmithKline, you may want to reconsider some using of their products. In any event, I’m fairly certain that “Professor” is an academic title, not a personal one (such as “doctor.”). GSK doesn’t hire people to be professors, only colleges do.

In any event, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at this letter. It sounds like a poorly written kiruv primer. The Professor makes the assumption that if a scientist says something, then that’s the opinion of “science” (by which I suppose he means the scientific community) and when it’s disproved, then that proves that all of science must be wrong. He puts up the straw man of science claiming to be all-knowing and infallible when it never makes such a claim – indeed, one of the principles of the scientific method is that any scientific hypothesis *must* be falsifiable.

He goes on to state that when science doesn’t rely on trial-and-error, it almost always is “proven wrong.” In reality, however, all scientific inquiry (by definition) is done through trial and error and/or observation. If not, then it is not scientific.

In addition, the Professor seems to be making the same mistake that Rav Uren Reich made a few years back when he disparaged science. At the height of the controversy surrounding Rabbi Slifkin, Rav Reich said:

These same scientists who tell you with such clarity what happened sixty-five million years ago – ask them what the weather will be like in New York in two weeks’ time! “Possibly, probably, it could be, maybe” – ain itam hadavar, they don’t know.

In short, he says that because they can’t predict the future, then anything they say must be suspect. It’s kind of like a person saying that the computer I’m using to type this post on can’t possibly exist because Bill Gates said that no one would ever need more than 640K of RAM. Since Bill Gates was wrong, certainly nothing the computer engineers tell us can be believed.

Interestingly, even some of the quotes that Professor Sherman uses are suspect. Take the quote about earthquakes engulfing Europe. If you go to the actual New York Times article, you’ll find that his quote is only half the title. Here’s the complete title:

Earthquake May Ingulf (sic) all Europe, Says German Scientist; Berlin Professor Finds in French Mine Disaster a Symptom of the Approaching Cataclysm --- American Geologists Not Quite So Alarmist in Their Views.

So, it was the opinion of one scientist, not the opinion of “science.” Furthermore, if you actually read the first two paragraphs of the article, you’ll find that the scientist who made the prediction was an astronomer, not a geologist. So, what you have is a scientist that is making a prediction outside of his field; and his opinion is disputed by other scientists who *are* experts in the field.
In addition, you have to keep in mind that the New York Times of 1906 was not the New York Times of a century later. Journalistic standards of 1906 were much lower than they are today. Just because the New York Times chose to print something hardly makes it the scientific equivalent of Torah MiSinai.

Another of his quotes is the 1936 quote from the Times that rockets will never leave the Earth’s atmosphere. This quote is referenced often on the web, yet, when I searched the Times archive from 1900 to 1949, I could not find the quote that he attributes to the Times. My guess is that it’s an urban legend (or else it’s a misstatement of the famous editorial against Goddard in 1920 – but that wasn’t written by a scientist, it was written by an editorial writer).

What is highly comical, I suppose, about this letter is that is written by someone who purports to be scientist, and yet claims that “all scientists in all fields of science” are arrogant. And what's utterly sad about it is that there are thousands of people who are going to read his letter and, because they don't know any better, will say to themselves, "yep, science is just a load of horse-hockey." And yet, these same people will go on with their lives, living into their seventies and eighties (and possibly beyond) on average, they probably won't die of scarlet fever, whooping cough, malaria or smallpox, they will be able to store food for longer than a day in their refrigerators, get where they are going in planes, trains and automobiles, be able to communicate with each other via telephone and the Internet, and, in general, benefit from the many good things that God has provided for us through science and the scientific method.

The Wolf

We Have Met the Enemy... And He is Us!

A cursory reading of the Jewish "populist media" (blogs, letters to the editors of newspapers, etc.) would seem to indicate that there are a plethora of "crises" plaguing the Orthodox Jewish community. From truly important subjects such as child molestation and shidduchim to the downright silly (remember the "Gedolim card crisis?") we seem to abound in crises.

Yet, after giving the matter some thought, I began to wonder how many of these situations are truly a crisis caused by external forces and how many of them are self-inflicted.

An example of a crisis from an external force would be the case of an agunah (in the classic sense, not the modern one). A woman whose husband went on a business trip and never returned is in a crisis situation which was caused by an external force -- her husband's disappearance.

The shidduch crisis, on the hand, is either entirely self-inflicted, or else greatly exacerbated by our own actions. It's a crisis that doesn't have to be -- if we wanted to change our behavior, we could either eliminate or greatly ease the problem. I'd like to take a look at several of the "crises" that face the Orthodox community and see whether or not there really is a true crisis, or one that is caused by our own behavior.

Shidduch Crisis

Since I brought it up already, I might as well start with the shidduch crisis. There are those who state that the shidduch crisis is mainly a demographic one – that there are simply more boys available for marriage than there are girls. That may be the case, or it may not. To be honest, I don’t know. I’ve seem some people who try to explain the problem mathematically, but I’m not certain that the math holds up to scrutiny. (To be fair, I’m not certain that it doesn’t either – I haven’t given the matter a really close look.) However, even if the problem is largely demographic, there is a great deal that we are doing to exacerbate the situation. We “check out” our prospective dates looking for the silliest of things (do they have plastic tablecloths on Shabbos? How would you describe the girl’s communication skills? Loafers vs. laces? How heavy is her mother?(!!!)) Instead of checking for pertinent matters (is s/he a kind person? What type of sense of humor do they have? Is there a family history of genetic illness [yes, IMHO, that’s a legitimate question]). We have singles that don’t go on dates because the prospective date doesn’t score a 100% on some odd, quirky test that they develop. And, heaven forbid they should even *consider* someone from outside their immediate grouping. And the matter is only getting worse, not better. We’ve come to the point where there are organizations that are *offering money* to people who set up boys with girls who are older than they are.

What we need to do is to make it *easier* for people to date each other, not harder. If Rabannim want to ban something, they should ban silly questions as a pre-date condition. Seriously… there are certain questions that a prospective employer cannot ask (in the United States) when evaluating a potential candidate for a job, right? Well, why not have a set of questions that you are not allowed to ask (or, even better, a limited set of questions that you are allowed to ask) of a potential shidduch before the first date? Who knows? The couple might even find that after the first date they are interested enough to overlook the fact that their prospective in-laws use plastic plates on Shabbos. Maybe upon seeing the prospective bride’s face, the young bachur won’t care as much about the fact that her father doesn’t wear the brand of hat that he prefers (or even one at all). By banning “stupid questions” before the first date, I think that it will be much easier for couples to meet and make the necessary compromises to get married. It will also allow couples to focus on the factors that are truly important and not the stupid factors that often stand in the way of shidduchim.

Conclusion: Possibly self-inflicted. But even if it isn’t, we certainly are doing a great deal to exacerbate the situation.

Tuition Crisis

I was originally going to lump this together with the Parnassah crisis, but I decided against it, as I realized that they really were two separate issues.

I’m not going to spend a great deal of time on this because, quite simply, I’ve never run a school, have never tried to run a school, and aside from the very basic generalities, don’t know what it takes to run a school (from a financial standpoint). All I know is that my kids’ schools charge a *large* amount for tuition. I know that the school has to pay the salaries of the staff and employees. They have to either pay rent or for infrastructure. They have to maintain various forms of insurance. Books, computers, furniture and other supplies do not magically appear – they cost money. Schools have very real expenses.

But do we need so many schools? I’ve often wondered if schools could combine operations and save money in the process. Do we truly need twenty Bais Ya’akovs in Brooklyn? Could not two or more of them combine their resources, buy a larger building and save money? My guess would be that they could (although I invite all the education experts out there to correct me if it’s not really feasible – I could easily be wrong) but that they don’t want to. We’re currently in a stage where we are *increasing* the number of schools, not decreasing them. New schools are added for a number of reasons. Sometimes it’s because a staff member (or a group of parents) of a school don’t like what they have in their current school and break away to start a new one. Sometimes it’s because parents can’t find a school to fit their narrow hashkafah. But rarely, I think (in New York anyway) is the reason a logistic one (overcrowding in an existing school, no existing school geographically close, etc.).

So, is it possible to combine schools? For example, do we need 10 girl’s schools in Boro Park within a five block radius? What if (just to pick two names at random as an example – if these don’t work, then just pick other names) Bobov and Pupa combine their schools? Seriously. Have them teach a core curriculum and have separate classes that the girls will go to for studies in their own chassidus. They girls will have chumash classes, navi classes and whatever else combined. At some point in the day, the Bobov girls will have classes in Bobov chassidus and the Pupa girls will have classes in Pupa chassidus. Secular studies can certainly be combined as well. This same approach could also be applied to the myriad of boys’ yeshivas that are out there as well. I’m not advocating a one-size-fits-all approach – obviously *that* won’t work. But this much diversity seems to produce an a large degree of duplication of work and monetary wastage.

Of course, there is also the issue that in many sectors of the frum community, education today is not what it was twenty years ago. Extracurricular activities, services for special needs children (disabled, learning impaired, special education, etc.), education in computers and other “modern” subjects that didn’t exist years ago, and probably half a dozen other extras that I missed have all driven up the cost of education. And while it is true that the state probably pays for a portion of these, I have little doubt that the schools cover a fair portion of it as well. Since today’s schools provide far more (in terms of services) than they did years ago, it makes sense that tuition costs will rise faster than the rate of inflation. However, to reiterate what I said at the beginning of this post – I don’t really know enough to make an educated guess as to what it really costs to run a school. These are just my thoughts on the matter, and I could easily be well off-target in my assumptions. I invite readers who do have education backgrounds to chime in.

Conclusion: I don’t know if this is truly a crisis or if it is self-inflicted. But I think we can probably do more to alleviate the situation.

Parnassah Crisis

As anyone who reads the “Readers Write” section of the Yated knows, there is a parnassah crisis. People simply cannot seem to earn enough money to support their families in a (minimally) middle-income lifestyle. Part of the problem could certainly be attributed to the “Tuition Crisis” listed above. Requiring parents to pay $8000 (on average) per kid for six kids will put a crimp in the budget of all but the wealthiest of people. But there seems to be more to the problem than that.

Part of the problem, IMHO, stems from the fact that higher education is devalued and discouraged (and, in many cases, outright prohibited) in large segments of the frum community. While one certainly can do well without a college education, the fact remains that it is far easier to earn a larger salary with a college education (and even more with an advanced degree). While it is true that correlation does not prove causation, there is still an undeniable correlation between the amount of education that one has and the amount of money that they earn. By cutting off higher education, you are limiting large sections of the population to low salaries. Couple that with the larger than average size families that are common in Orthodox families and you have a devastating combination.

By prohibiting higher education, we are, in effect, forbidding people from entering certain professions. Law, medicine, dentistry, therapy, nursing, accounting, finance and many other professions are utterly impossible (usually with good reason) to get into without a Bachelor’s degree at minimum (and, in many cases, an advanced degree). By discouraging (or outright prohibiting) people from making the investment in these fields, we are preventing them from reaping the rewards. In addition (and I know this is a bit off track), we hurt ourselves as a community by telling people that they cannot enter these fields. We *need* frum doctors, lawyers, therapists, etc. We *need* professionals who fully understand the unique religious needs of our community. If they truly had their way and there were no frum doctors, etc., we’d be a much poorer community – and I don’t mean monetarily.

Of course, there are some sectors in frum society that go beyond this. Not only do they think that secular education is bad, they disagree with the entire notion of working for a living to begin with. They feel that it’s better for a man to sit and learn all day rather than work. As such, they put extreme pressure upon men to stay in beis midrash and learn, even if they aren’t really suited to the task. This is especially true in Israel, where in order to work, you have to serve in the army. Since, in many segments, buchrim are prevented from working from working, they can’t even gain minimal employment, let alone professional. And naturally, if people can’t work, then poverty will set in.

Does this mean that I think that everyone should go to college and pursue a Bachelor’s (or advanced degree)? Of course not. Not everyone is suited for college. In addition, some people can make a nice living without a higher education. However, not everyone can do so – and, in fact, I would argue that most people can’t. There are only so many plumbers, for example, that a community can support.

Does this mean that I think that no one should learn in beis midrash? Of course not. But extended learning in beis midrash should be restricted to those who show an aptitude for it, are willing to make the necessary sacrifices for it, and who want to become the gedolim of the next generation. Just as in the secular world, where entrance to Ph.D. programs are restricted to those who have the aptitude to succeed in the field, who are willing to make the necessary sacrifices for advanced intensive study, and who are prepared to spend the rest of their professional lives in the fields that they are studying, so too we should make the same restrictions in the yeshiva world. As a community, we should work to produce people who are poskim and experts in halacha. But we should only be supporting those who are actively in pursuit of that goal, not people who are merely benchwarmers in yeshivas.

Conclusion: Largely self-inflicted.

I hadn’t counted on this post being so long, and there are still several crises that I haven’t even gotten to address yet. I’ll have to save those for a future post.

What do you think? Do you agree with what I said? Do you think that I’m totally off base? Let me hear from you.

The Wolf

Personal Request: How to go about getting a Get

No, not for me (thank God).

I have a non-religious relative who divorced her husband a few years ago. While the couple did obtain a civil divorce, they did not obtain a get. This relative of mine (the wife) is looking to move on and would like to obtain a get. Her ex-husband has agreed to give her one.

While they might be able to come into Brooklyn, they would like to have this done in Nassau County if at all possible. Can someone please point me in the direction of a Bais Din who will be able to help.

Lastly, my relative also inquired about the cost of a get. I told her that I had no idea. Any ideas on a ballpark figure of what a get should cost?

Thanks for your help.

The Wolf

EDIT: My relative also included a link to an organization (kayama.org). Does anyone know anything about them? Reliability?

Don't Attend This Wedding -- Your Kids Might Not Get Married!

An alert reader brought to my attention a thread on Imamother. In this thread, a person comments that a relative of theirs (not an immediate relative) is getting married (for the first time) wearing a green dress.

OK, so it's a little strange and unusual. But hey, it's her wedding -- she can get married in any color (or colors) that she likes. A wedding where the bride wears green is perfectly valid halachically. So, as long as her groom is OK with it (and, I suppose whomever is paying for the gown) then there shouldn't be any problem, right?

Well, most of the commentators in the thread seem to agree with that sentiment. It's her day, let her celebrate as she wishes. However, there was one interesting response:

If it was someone in MY family, I'd seriously consider never speaking to that side again. I wouldn't want it to get out that a relative of mine who I am close to did something SO non-conformist at a wedding. If people think I'm close to them, maybe they'd even think I myself would consider such a thing -- it could wreak havoc for my kids shidduchim, ch"v!

Seriously, I would consider not attending the wedding to make sure that her poor choice in wedding dresses does not ch"v taint your good name.

So, this is what it's come to? Simply attending a wedding where the bride doesn't wear a white gown is grounds for having your children rejected for a potential shidduch? Yes, I understand that some people are sticklers for tradition, but don't you think that this is going too far? We've caused people to become so afraid of the slightest non-conformity that they wouldn't attend a wedding of a family member simply because of the color of the bride's gown.

Incredible!

The Wolf

Frozen In Time -- A Perfect Example

Last week, I posted about how some sections of our community seem to be "frozen in time." Oddly enough, I was given just the perfect example of this over the weekend.

It was reported last week that a group called “Council for the Purity of the Camp” in Israel arranged for men-only driving lessons in Israel, thus sparing Chareidim from having to take driving classes with immodestly clad (secular) women. I personally don't have a problem with that. If they want to take segregated classes, that's fine and well. However, there was an interesting coda to the article:

[Rabbi Yitzchok] Ayneh Also told the Jpost that there was no need for a special women-only course since “Chareidi women are not supposed to drive.”

“In America it is accepted that Chareidi women drive. But in many communities here in the Holy Land, if a woman drives her husband is kicked out of the synagogue.”

Over on Yeshiva World, the discussion pretty much ignored the idea of sex-segregated classes (which was the point of the article) and focused on the last point. One commentator suggested that banning women from driving was a "beutiful (sic) hidur of tzinius" and should be emulated. When pressed for some halachic justification for banning women from driving, he came up with this:

the chazon ish who said that a car is a keli ish and that therefore women should not be driving it.

Now, I don't know if the commentator is correct. I don't know if the Chazon Ish really made such a ruling or if it really serves as the justification in those communities today. However, *if it does*, it provides a great example to my "frozen in time" point.

The Chazon Ish died in 1953. The world is 1953 (which was 55 years ago) was a much different place than it is today. Back then, cars were much more expensive (relative to the yearly earnings of an individual) and *very few* families had more than one car*. Because of the nature of the society in which we live, most often it was the man of the family who drove the car. As a result, there was little need for most women to learn to drive. Consequently, the number of female drivers was very low compared to the number of male drivers. That being the realia of the situation, the case could be made that a car was a k'li ish.

However, that is not the world that we live in today. Today many families own two (or more) cars. Today, many more women drive -- even with their husbands sitting next to them in the passenger seat. One would be hard pressed to make the case today that a car is exclusively (or even predominantly) a k'li ish. That's just not the society that we live in. Today, cars are driven in large numbers by women and, in fact, cars are *specifically marketed* to women. The world has changed -- but yet certain sectors of our community still seem to be frozen in time.**

The Wolf

* The same could be said of many products. Remember the line in Back To The Future when Marty tells his mother and grandfather that he has three televisions in his house? His grandfather thinks he's kidding because no one had more then one back in 1955.


** What's even odder is that given the fact that these same communities accept nishtanu hat'vaim (that nature has changed) to explain discrepancies between Chazal's science and ours, you'd think they'd be open to the idea of society and the world around them changing.