▪ Jews and Guns
▪ State Police: Abuse Allegations At Orthodox Camp Unfounded; Offender Arrested For Trespassing
▪ Why the Amish Population Is Exploding
▪ Jews Impact Marriage Debate
▪ ‘Thank God, there are almost no Jews in Syria now,’ says the woman who rescued most of them
▪ R Y Hoffman: The Cop and the Pitbull
▪ R J Sacks Dumps Charity Over Anti-Israel Work
▪ New Media Rules: A new source of funding
▪ Interview with R Hershel Shachter about leading tefillah in schools
▪ Santa Monica hotel owner discriminated against Jews, jury finds
▪ SALT Friday
▪ Iranian Jewry Today
▪ The fearless champion of tolerant Orthodoxy
▪ How to bring religion into politics
▪ R S Burg: Paul Ryan is all about choice
▪ Chief Rabbi Warns of Severe Backlog in Rabbinical Courts
▪ Taking On a Chumrah
▪ Brussels mayor to change ‘revisionist’ text of invitation to Shoah ceremony
▪ An open letter to Noa Rothman, Yitzhak Rabin’s granddaughter
▪ Three Israeli universities make top 100 ranking
▪ Were Chareidi Soldiers Blocked from Mehadrin Buses?
▪ R. Aviner: What would Nechama Lebowitz say about the new approach to learning Tanach?
▪ A BT’s Recipe For Raising Good Kids in an FFB World
▪ Orthodox partners lobby for day school funding
▪ SALT Thursday
▪ The Alternate World Of Jewish Education
▪ Women, Religious Freedom Groups Stake Victories
▪ Hebrew National Must Answer to Lower Authority
▪ Does your US bank card work in Israel?
▪ The Disappearing Yiddish Accent
▪ At the New Year, let’s give animals a new Jewish chance
▪ Ryan hailed by Jewish GOPers, organizations see him as a face of budget confrontations
▪ Charles Murray and the Rabbis
▪ Rabbis protest mobile app of ‘Protocols’
▪ Campaign aims to encourage haredim to enlist
▪ Orthodox Gays Need Allies, Not Just Compassion
▪ New issue of Klal Perspectives: Early Marital Breakups
▪ SALT Wednesday
▪ Evangelicals, Premarital Ethics (adrift without halakhah)
▪ The Literary Response to Radical Atheism
▪ Economist Debates: Jewish fundamentalism
▪ Jewish groups protest ‘revisionist plaque’ at Babi Yar
▪ The Month of Return
▪ Can’t Buy Me Judaism
▪ Orthodox Mobilize To Defend Circumcision Rite
▪ A (Kosher) Can of Worms
▪ New emigres joining the military land in Israel
▪ West Bank outpost is legalized
▪ SALT Tuesday
▪ Argentinean lawmaker, rabbi resigns from Rabbinical Assembly
▪ Yoshke of Nazareth
▪ Gold Trove Found at Israel Castle Reveals Crusaders’ Forex Moves
▪ Our Favorite Heretic
▪ Will Ryan Help Obama Win Jewish Votes?
▪ Non-Orthodox Responses to the Siyum Daf Yomi
▪ Jerusalem Rabbinic Court allegedly ignored testimony on pedophile rapist
▪ Israeli pediatric association calls for end to circumcision-related rite
▪ Documentary follows Hassidic couple on cruise
▪ Healing the ultra-Orthodox work ethic
▪ Allegations Of Sexual Abuse Surface At Orthodox Jewish Camp
▪ SALT Monday
▪ Prior news & links posts
Rules: link
re: documentary:
Un voz zogt der rebbi?
KT
in response to Rabbi Adlerstien
Maybe some of those non-Orthodox commentators and writers grasp the essential truth articulated by Rav Nachman Kahane in this piece (note his words about the siyum hashas!)
http://nachmankahana.com/?p=824
▪ Our Favorite Heretic
I don’t read or know the first thing about spinoza, but I think that R Sacks was making the point that EVEN Spinoza couldn’t bring himself to drop the Bris. He’s qouted as such by Dr Fred Rosner in http://www.amazon.com/The-Medical-Legacy-Moses-Maimonides/dp/0881255734
CR Daniel Gordis wonders about the same strange phenomenon of Jews hanging on to davka such a ‘barbaric ritual’ in the beginning of his book ‘God Was Not In The Fire’. IIRC, he basically makes a similar point to R Sacks.
R’ Shachar,
Halevai that were the issue they were mchavein to.
KT
http://www.vosizneias.com/111605/2012/08/12/jerusalem-eda-haredit-issues-attack-against-atra-kadisha-for-acting-against-rulings-of-rabbis
in response to Rabbi Adlerstien
Maybe some of those non-Orthodox commentators and writers grasp the essential truth articulated by Rav Nachman Kahane in this piece (note his words about the siyum hashas!)
http://nachmankahana.com/?p=824
With all due respect to Rabbi Kahana, that’s a response??? And what does this have to the do with the heterodox??? That the siyum hashas provides support for their supermarket judaism?? Is that what you are getting at? You lost me there. Maybe you can explain.
“The findings support the historical record of Middle Eastern Jews settling in North Africa during Classical Antiquity, proselytizing and marrying local populations, and, in the process, forming distinct populations that stayed largely intact for more than 2,000 years. The study, led by researchers at Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University, was published online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.”
http://www.einstein.yu.edu/news/releases/824/new-study-defines-the-genetic-map-of-the-jewish-diasporas/
There is also another relevant new paper on “The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses”
See: http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/origins-of-north-african-and.html
I’m withR. Araujo. Because Orthodox Jews in America don’t all make aliyah, that’s why non-Orthodox Jews don’t keep Shabbes and intermarry?! Give me a break.
Re circumcision. Spinoza spoke of the role of circumision in preserving Jewish identity. He was making a sociological observation. But since Spinoza felt that there was NO point in the Jews contnuing to preserve their identity, it is highly doubtful, as Alan Nadler corectly points out, that he would have shed any tears had the Jews dropped circumcision.
I too am confused. What does celebrating Talmud study have to do with living in Galut and intermarrying? On the contrary. Maybe if people [me too] learn what the Sages say about the Land and the Religion, they would be more inspired.
Who would have seen that coming? Nadler comes out to tell us that the CR is distorting Spinoza, and guess what? It turns out the CR did no such thing. Anyone here surprised?
R. Kaplan: it’s highly doubtful that the CR thought so either, seeing as all he is quoted as asking is whether the court knew of this sociological observation on Spinoza’s part!
“Re circumcision. Spinoza spoke of the role of circumision in preserving Jewish identity. He was making a sociological observation. But since Spinoza felt that there was NO point in the Jews contnuing to preserve their identity, it is highly doubtful, as Alan Nadler corectly points out, that he would have shed any tears had the Jews dropped circumcision.”
I’m not sure that’s the point, though. R’ Sacks’ point was not that Spinoza advocated circumcision, but that circumcision is a vital Jewish ceremony and that calling for an end to circumcision is tantamount to calling for an end to Judaism. In fact, he’s fairly disingenuous with the quotation he used. Here’s R’ Sacks, according to Nadler (note the ellipsis):
“It is hard to think of a more appalling decision!” Sacks wrote. “Did the court know that circumcision is the most ancient ritual in the history of Judaism, dating almost four thousand years to the days of Abraham? Did it know that Spinoza… wrote that brit milah in and of itself had the power to sustain Jewish identity through the centuries?”
Now, here’s that sentence, with the missing piece included:
“Did it know that Spinoza, not religious but together with John Locke the father of European liberalism, wrote that brit mila in and of itself had the power to sustain Jewish identity through the centuries?”
Obviously R’ Sacks isn’t referring to Spinoza as a model Jew, any more than he’s referring to John Locke as a model Jew. The point is to call on intellectual giants to verify the vital nature of the ritual of circumcision.
Now, here’s the full paragraph from which Nadler quoted:
“It is hard to think of a more appalling decision. Did the court know that circumcision is the most ancient ritual in the history of Judaism, dating back almost 4,000 years to the days of Abraham? Did it know that Spinoza, not religious but together with John Locke the father of European liberalism, wrote that brit mila in and of itself had the power to sustain Jewish identity through the centuries? Did it know that banning mila was the route chosen by two of the worst enemies the Jewish people ever had, the Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV and the Roman emperor Hadrian, both of whom set out to extinguish not only Jews but also Judaism? Either the court knew these things or it did not. If it did not, then how was it competent to assess the claim of religious liberty? If it did, then there are judges in Germany quite willing to say to religious Jews, in effect, ‘If you don’t like it, leave.'”
That Spinoza was more or less against the continued existence of Jews actually bolsters the CR’s point in the article, which more or less traces Anti-Semitism from the Church, to science post-Enlightenment, and now to the rubric of human rights. If Anti-Semites have, throughout the ages, focused on circumcision as a way to end the Jews, then presumably any court that wants to keep Jews around must rule the other way.
For reference, the CR’s full editorial can be found at http://www.chiefrabbi.org/2012/07/06/the-jerusalem-post-the-europeans-skewed-view-of-circumcision/ as well as elsewhere.
Right, circumcision cements Judaism as a religion as it is so radical, although I’d argue this is less the case now than in Spinoza’s time. Back then, it was unheard of for a non-Jewish European to be circumcised. Now it is associated with Jews, but more so with Islam, and not exclusive to either.
Anonymous pamphlets underline haredi splits – http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinking/161055/anonymous-pamphlets-underline-haredi-splits/
“joel rich on August 13, 2012 at 10:53 am
R’ Shachar,
Halevai that were the issue they were mchavein to.
KT”
Wouldn’t the very fact that R. Adlerstein chose not to post the very same comment on the cross-current post, lend credence to the fact that R. Kahane’s point is true – and that the reform/conservative/secular Jews ARE indeed sensitive to the “pick and choose” Judaism of the Orthodox variety??
and that there really is no basis for R. Adlerstein’s “mussar” on this point??
and in fact, in the end – however you look at it – the increased attention to Talmud and Torah is a good thing – no matter what??
Elon: I’d think the prevalence among Christian Americans is a more significant point here.
r’j,
http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=281156
KT
R’Joel: I’m not sure how that’s even a newsworthy story. Dog bites man.
R’Gil,
Agree-it was to show r’j the mass media’s take on the story in the pamphlets he linked to.
KT
Plus, the Forward explicitly says that R’ Auerbach was at the meeting, and the Post says he wasn’t.
It is worth pointing out that every person mentioned in the article is at least eighty years old. Yes, we respect age. But logic should play a part. Hebrew Wikipedia tells me that there of the 15 people on the Degel Moetzes, only three are younger than eighty and only one younger than 75.
Nachum – So what? It’s not a chiddush that that is how leadership works in the Israeli Litvish world. Note though that lots of new blood has just been added – Not quite thirty under thirty, but at least six under sixty.
I think I’ve raised this before but has anyone seen anything on why the prohibition of having a zakein muflag (really old) dayan on sanhedrin (see sanhedrin 36b)is not applicable to leadership positions today?
KT
http://www.vosizneias.com/111731/2012/08/14/new-york-civil-disobedience-seen-as-a-viable-option-in-metzitzah-bpeh-battle
Money Quote:Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel, the executive vice president of Agudah, said he was not certain that the rabbinical leadership would urge civil disobedience, but did say, “Will there be compliance with the regulation? I’m not sure.” He noted that, “There’s nothing about filing a consent form that is inherently in conflict with [Jewish law],” but added that Agudah’s rabbinical leadership may not want their adherents to sign a form saying that the metzitzah b’peh practice may be hazardous.
Me-If it’s not, so who cares about the form?
KT
R’ Gil,
The First Things article is entitled “Evangelicals, Premarital Sexual Ethics…” Was the deletion of the word “sexual” intentional?
better than a consent form (should be a waiver form), how about a disclosure form by the mohel of his background? (actually, that would be required as part of the waiver.)
2. who cares about age? its the ppl behind the “throne” who count.
reminds me of the american moetzet years back. the one member of the moetzet who controlled declined to identify the members of the moetzet, it was pretty clear certain members were not called to meetings because the one person knew they would be against and / or internal politics, and to this day, no one knows when / where / how (in person or by telephnoe) they meet.
while i give kudos to the agudah for filing a (publicly available) 990 tax return, they do not list the moetzet members on the tax return (if its a governing body that gives them instructions as they say, it must be disclosed). prob reason — financial disclosure of the moetzet members.
James: The title was changed to readers those with sensitive filters who have encountered difficulties in the past
“The Forward notes that the opposition to the Health Department’s measure is so great that even “famously feuding brothers” Rabbis Zalman and Aron Teitelbaum of Satmar both attended a meeting where strategies to counter the Health Department were discussed.”
This reminds me of a story someone once told me about R. Soloveichik. It seems that a certain chassidishe rebbe died, leaving two sons. The elder had not been interested in continuing as the rebbe, and worked in some business or profession. The younger one was appointed to succeed his father as rebbe. After they buried their father, there was one grave left in the family plot. The brothers began to squabble as to who would get it. “I’m the bechor” the first one argued. “But I’m the rebbe” answered the younger. So they decided to ask the Rav the shayloh.
After hearing out both sides, he issued his psak: “Kol ha kodem zachah.” (Roughly translated, first in time, gets the prize.)
““There’s nothing about filing a consent form that is inherently in conflict with [Jewish law],” but added that Agudah’s rabbinical leadership may not want their adherents to sign a form saying that the metzitzah b’peh practice may be hazardous.”
How about if the form says:
“The Dept. of Health is of the view that the procedure may be hazardous, and I acknowledge being told about it.”
Doesn’t seem that such would confirm or verify anything about the DOH’s opinion. That’s their opinion, the chassidim have a different opinion.
From the article:
“Most Jews don’t practice metzitzah b’peh. Modern Orthodox and non-Orthodox religious authorities endorse the use of a sterile pipette, rather than the mohel’s mouth, to suction blood from the baby’s circumcision wound.”
Actually, that is not accurate. Acc. to some poskim, using a pipette and mouth suction IS metzizah be peh.
In addition, I heard that there is a practice among some that the FATHER does the metzizah. Someone on my block did that when his son had a bris. Perhaps that would be a way to do it.
tal b — “The brothers began to squabble as to who would get it.” according to charedim today, they should rebury the father in a more spacious area. (then they can fight over burying the women.)
the form is critical of (their interpretation of) metzizah be’peh. a waiver (with the mohel’s disclosure) would solve both our problems.
theoretically, the father should be doing the brit. letting him do (their interpretation of) the metzizah is a practical compromise of that halachic requirement.
R. Gil – Is your parenthetical comment that the can of worms is kosher intended as an endorsement of the OU’s position?
J: It’s part of the actual title
I side with Larry Kaplan re R N Kahana’s column-the column IMO fails to acknowledge what is evident in any volume of a standard Vilna Shas-the overwhelming amount of TSBP developed in Bavel, North Africa, and Western and Eastern Europe. R Chaim Volozinher stated that the blank page on any volume in Shas represented the then as of yet not realized contributions of Jews in North America.
Oops. Consequence of not reading the article and your link concurrently.
We just received our JA and the NCSY PR bulletin Ignite, both of which are excellent in their own right. I would note that frequent poster Joseph Kaplan bemoans the fact that the pictures in the last issue on unity “excludes many of the men I daven with at my shuls’s morning minyan; and excludes many of the women I wait online with a parent-teachers conferences. No men wearing jeans, polo shirts, running shoes, sports jerseys, baseball hats, T-shirts or sweatshirts; no women in short sleeves or pants, hair or legs uncovered. Whatever one thinks about the acceptability of such attire, I would have hoped that an article, ostensibly about Jewish Unity in an OU magazine, would have included such individuals who are an active part of the Modern Orthodox community.”
Having attended a bris at the shul in question on a Sunday, I can concur that such attire is present, and I felt overdressed in a sports jacket, khakis, and a nice button-down shirt. Like it or not, the attire described by Mr. Kaplan should raise the question as to whether the same is appropriate on both sides of the mechitza for Tefillah, and meetings with teachers,and that MO does not mean that one mindlessly and blindly apes contemporary fashions of casual dress. My view of the pictures in question confirmed that the casual attire depicted by Mr. Kaplan was certainly present in at least two of the male pictures. Asking that the OU publication sink to a lower denominator as to how women are dressed previously discussed here as to the the question of the vision of the next generation of MO-whether an intellectually and religious vibrant devoted to Torah, AVoda, and Gemilut CHasadim in its own distinct manner or a community that is marked by its minimal commitment to the same and its view that modernity trumps Orthodoxy.
R’SB (and R’JK) raise an interesting question for MO (and parallel ones fo CO – but that’s not my issue) – when there are practices that are not acceptable to all definitions (and certainly if any definitions) of halacha, what should leaderships’ stance be – call them out, work quietly to change them or ignore them and hope they change on their own over time. Obviosly there is not a one size fits all answer.
KT
Steve — you ought to be more careful with your use of language of “mindlessly and blindly apes” fashion. Walking around Jerusalem, that easily refers to the Charedi men in black and white…
My sister told me a funny story of recently seeing a guy cycling in skintight Lycra cycling clothing ducking behind a store in Shilat to change into his levush, before finishing his ride back to Kiryat Sefer.
My comment to the CC piece:
I was struck by your closing sentence (as I have posted previously about the need for data in order to make informed choices and our community’s seeming lack of desire to gather anything that could lead to identifying less than stellar performance, especially amongst competing subgroups) and turned immediately to Dr. Schechter’s contribution.
Naturally I was thrilled with his 1st paragraph on data :
“As suggested by many commentators, including authors in the
first issue of Klal Perspectives, a responsible approach to
communal challenges must be premised upon meaningful
research and data. As a maturing and increasingly sophisticated
community, it is critical that we evolve from reliance solely on
intuition-based models of decision making to an emphasis on
empirically-based models that can inform leadership’s decision
making.”
I really didn’t understand his second paragraph:
“Reliable research should not be confused with the arcane
number crunching taking place in the sterile halls of the ivory
tower of irrelevant academia; rather, research must be an
accessible engine that can revitalize the hallowed institution of
marriage. This requisite investigation can create, through
comprehensive needs analysis and careful diagnosis, a real-life
action plan for couples in our community.”
I’m sure he didn’t mean that using validated data gathering means and analytical tools was inappropriate (then we may as well go back to gut feeling methodology which has served us so well). Perhaps some expansion on what is to be avoided and what is to be done will appear in a more expanded proposal?
Then his third paragraph on the topic:
“Given the cohesive and organized nature of our community,
prospective research and its translation can be exceedingly
powerful. For example, through using the interconnectivity of
the community and its many touch-points (e.g. yeshivas, kollel,
mikvah, kallah teachers, shuls, schools/pre-schools, and
community organizations), we can create a marriage-wellbeing
surveillance and support network, akin to the best of what the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has done for
health. Empirically-developed questionnaires that are simple
and focused can be used as a newlywed screening system to
test for the stress fractures in marriage, leading to quick
intervention when necessary. This is one way our tight-knit
communal network can actualize its function of areivus and
mutual support”
I hope he is right, as I noted above the community has not seemed willing to much data gathering and I wonder where the $ will be reallocated away from to support such an intensive effort.
KT
To be clear: the point of my letter was not to defend the dress I described nor to attack it. That’s, perhaps, is for another day. My point was that — to borrow one of Steve’s favorite phrases, like it or not — such dress exists in large segments of the MO community. Thus, to title an article “Can WE all get along” (emphasis added) and then use a picture that, I believe intentionally, excludes a significant segment of the community tells a sad story of who JA includes in the “we.” (I’d add a link to the letter so you can see the context for yourselves, but it’s not yet on line.)
– Joel
“I wonder where the $ will be reallocated away from to support such an intensive effort.”
My impression is that most of the time new ideas are not funded by reallocation of funds but rather funds which were otherwise not being given.
“Reliable research should not be confused with the arcane number crunching taking place in the sterile halls of the ivory tower of irrelevant academia; rather, research must be an accessible engine that can revitalize the hallowed institution of marriage.”
Perhaps the fancy jargon of academia can be substituted for accessible, straight forward data that can be used by the common folk. Research in these areas are not solely for the utilization of experts (such a virology) but rather for everyone’s marriage.
The real question is, is there any way that can attempt to implement the ideas presented in KP?
R’ Joey,
1. Could be but my experience is that the fundraising world, while not a zero sum game, is often closer to that then to an new pocket for new ideas
2. The general trend is to do the “fancy” (i.e. rigorous) work and than popularize it (check out the Tuesday science section in the NY Times. My concern is that we will end up with surveys like the ou did which have procedural concerns and then base decisions on them
3. Yes, but only when there is enough pain to overcome the intertia and “not my problem” attitudes.
KT
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/world/middleeast/lone-soldiers-arrive-in-israel-to-serve-in-its-military.html?_r=1
Makes me want to cry as well:
”
LOD, Israel — Three days into Josh Warhit’s first-ever visit to Israel, as a 16-year-old on a summer tour, war broke out in Lebanon, which transformed the group’s itinerary — and his life plan. On Tuesday, with talk rampant about the possibility of an imminent Israeli attack on Iran, Mr. Warhit became a citizen of Israel to enlist in its army.
“Our parents were freaking out,” Mr. Warhit, now 22, recalled of that first trip during the war against Hezbollah. “It only made us more thirsty. I love the Jewish people. Love involves commitment. Right now we need people to commit.
“Of course it’s scary,” he added, regarding Iran, “but if you feel a commitment, that’s the thing to do.”
“You want to teach your kids to love Israel, but you don’t want them necessarily to take you so literally,” his mother, Ilissa Warhit, said in a telephone interview after what she described as 24 hours of nonstop tears. “You always know the dangers, and it’s very far away.”
Me-Ashreich shezachit
KT
“to their [Mesilah’s] surprise, high school and seminary girls lapped up the [financial education] material. The girls’ enthusiasm about the lessons evidenced secret concerns about their ability to cope with life, both financially and emotionally. Mesilah is in the process of launching a similar program for yeshiva students, but this is proving to be a far more complex endeavor. …”
Anyone want to comment on this …
R’SR,
I wposited in my own mind why it was more complex but commenting would be just projecting my bias
KT
I’m a pretty tolerant guy, and think that homosexuals should be at home in Orthodox shuls just like anyone else. But seeing what the homosexual agenda is, and how swiftly it has progressed, gives me second thoughts. At the very least, Orthodox rabbis should be taking strong stances against any sort of recognition. Maybe even against anyone discussing their “sexuality.” And sometimes, at unkind moments, I tend toward being against even compassion and for some good old fashioned shunning and ostracism. I pity the innocents who might be harmed, but the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the Greenbergs and Yanklowitzes who claim to represent them in the most radical way. It may be the only way of stopping the juggernaut that begins with calls for compassion and very swiftly progresses towards acceptance, then promotion, then enforcement of ideas on the rest of the world.
Joel: All due respect, and I agree with your general point, being a hard-data guy (see the introduction to the Murray discussion), but to be honest, when you start talking actuary-speak, my eyes glaze over.
By the way, I was just noticing how the Jews, Russians, and Poles in Schindler’s List all have identical Slavic accents. It’s also pretty obvious in Defiance. The brothers are supposed to be the exception- they’re Jewish country farmers- but I’d think they’d still speak Yiddish, and it seems like every Jew in that movie had a Polish accent.
Klal Perspectives:
I’ll rock the boat a bit and bring up one idea whose name must not be mentioned (by anyone other than Rabbi Y. H. Henkin shlit’a):
Is every newlywed couple ready for pregnancy right away?
R’ Nachum,
sorry for the glaze, in real world terms it means if the data is (expletive deleted) then any decisions made based on it will likely be as well
or
if you are only haphazardly gathering data to support what you think you already knew, save yourself the time and effort and just do what you were going to do anyway.
KT
“At the very least, Orthodox rabbis should be taking strong stances against any sort of recognition”
agreed. we dont go around announcing in shul so and so’s chillul shabbat, or so and so’s marital affairs. but when the homosexual community wants our (religious) recognition of their relationship, that is like recognizing someone’s chillul shabbat. (ditto an intermarriage, or a cohen marrying a divorcee.)
Shalom Rosenfeld – There are a few different answers to that question. They seem to me to break down into two categories. Either, “No they are not, and therefore rabbonim should allow some latitude on the issue, especially as the tragic consequences of stringency are obvious, and advising concerned couples to delay pregnancy for a few months is not a big price to pay when considering the potential consequences” or “Admittedly there can be terrible cases when pregnancy occurs before a healthy relationship has been established but a) this means the couple should have delayed their marriage b) halacha doesn’t allow any leeway on this issue and c) there is a very slippery slope once we start advocating the use of contraception at the beginning of marriage.
The halachic issue largely hinges on how one understands the Rambam at the beginning of the 15th perek of Hilchos Ishus. See here for an interesting take on the topic:
http://tshuvot.wordpress.com/category/%D7%91%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7%93/
Note also R. Willig’s very strident criticism of R. Moshe Kahn’s (permissive) article on the issue in a shiur that was linked here a while back (I can’t find the link at present).
agreed. we dont go around announcing in shul so and so’s chillul shabbat, or so and so’s marital affairs. but when the homosexual community wants our (religious) recognition of their relationship, that is like recognizing someone’s chillul shabbat. (ditto an intermarriage, or a cohen marrying a divorcee.)
While I agree, I don’t think this completely captures the distinction. Marriage is a social institution. Keeping shabbos isn’t. Both within and without the Orthodox community, we relate to married couples as a social unit. (For example, we are making a bar mitzvah next month, iy”h, and invite people as “Mr. and Mrs. Ploni.” Or, more to the point, shuls offer membership to family units, not only individuals.)
The notion that Orthodox institutions can or will provide social recognition to homosexual couples is bizarre in the extreme. This is one area where non-observance (or, should I say, flouting of the Torah) creates a social barrier that other areas (e.g. Chillul Shabbos) do not.
I would argue that keeping Shabbat is, in fact, a social institution. The fact that we need to live so close to one another, and that we stay in close proximity to the rest of the community on Shabbat and Chag, is key to maintaining the cohesion of the observant community. And, as we know, public obeservance / descrecation of Shabbat is the classical sine qua non of what it means to be a Jew in good standing with the community.
“Anonymous pamphlets underline haredi splits – http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinking/161055/anonymous-pamphlets-underline-haredi-splits/”
Oh, please. Have they never read a pashkevil before? When R AL Shteinman met with Peres a few years ago, there was one with an imaginary “conversation” between the two participants at the meeting
Peres: “I tried to Shmad the Yeshiva world when I helped found the Medinah”
RAL Steinman: “Don’t worry, I’ll finish the job by sending then to Nachal chareidi.”
Anonoymous pamphlets are about as signifigant as an anon comment on a Matzav thread.
if i would want to invite a non traditional family unit ( = same gender, unmarried, other couple; as opposed to divorced / widowed couple. question of voluntary single parent is delicate, dependent on tshuva or kiruv, but not flaunting the position) to a bar mitzvah, i will send separate invites. and i would not allow my shul to send a single mailing to such a unit. (and they would not qualify for “family unit” member / other rates.) here, we are addressing the particular social unit, as opposed to a chillul shabbat issue.
but if an O group called “chevra she’einam shomrei shabbat” requests recognition, i would disallow it. ditto “chevra she’shabbat is wednesday”. ditto “chevra she’einam holchim la’mikva”. above are flaunting their position.
but not chevra that uses paper cups for kiddush. question of lines. (but some rabbis are banning chevra of kiddush club.)
hesh — its not the social institution, its the flaunting of halacha in the guise of judaism that i oppose.
RE Homosexuality:
Why on earth are people *defined* by who they sleep with?! I think that one of the succeses of the LGBT movement has been to actually define peoples as havindg a sexual “identity”. We are then presented with a false dichotomy that tells us to choose between accepting an act that one is required to die rather than transgress (whether one passes the Nisayon each time is not the point,) or deny someones’ right to exist. Besides for rendering celibates non-existent, it also lumps the B with LG, which is something that even Greenberg would have a hard time making a case for.
======
J-
My previous comment was more directed at the article refenced:
“Now, the animosity and infighting between the two groups has spilled into the public sphere with anonymous pamphlets now being published and a level of hostility not often seen in the Haredi world. While the past few days have seen attempts by both sides to walk back the animosity and impose some kind of truce, the very open rift exposed in the pamphlets could prove difficult to paper over.”
There’s nothing new here. And if you’re looking for vitriol, drop in to rechov Eyn Ya’akov in Meah Sh’earim and ask for the otzar hayahadus. Outside, they have two weekly pashkevillim that would make any of the ones you’ve seen look tame.
“I’m a pretty tolerant guy”
You may be many things including smart, knowlegeable, principled and conservative. But tolerant? Nope.
Joseph, you have no idea how tolerant I am. You should see some of the circles I travel in socially- that is, by choice. And yet I have yet to utter an unkind word to anyone or a judgmental word to any sinner, let alone throw a stone at someone.
But you’re avoiding my point and focusing on the personal, much as the man you will vote for in November is doing right now. 🙂
MeMedinat, kiddush clubs *are* a flouting of halakha.
Joseph Kaplan-I will leave it to other readers to comment on whether you view the attire that you described merely as a fact of life as opposed to defending what passes for the status quo, albeit stated in code.
http://www.heritagedaily.com/2012/08/ancient-seal-may-add-substance-to-the-legend-of-samson/
IH wrote:
“My sister told me a funny story of recently seeing a guy cycling in skintight Lycra cycling clothing ducking behind a store in Shilat to change into his levush, before finishing his ride back to Kiryat Sefer”
Nothing like a Charedi bashing mashul on the eve of Chodesh Elul to divert the attention of the readers . Presumably, the person in question was returning to his home in Kiryat Sefer, where such attire probably, at least based on my one visit to that community, is hardly normative clothing. OTOH, what Joseph Kaplan described in his letter while classical American casual clothing, could possibly raise issues of whether the same is appropriate , whether in the settings of Tefilah, parent teacher conferences, etc. MO should not be predicated on a POV that modernity dictates one’s attire in a shul or in other settings where the same arguably either is overly casual for being Omed Lifnei HaMakom and Kabalas Ol Malchus Shamayim, and as described by Joseph Kaplan, cannot be reconciled with what constitutes a derech Tznuah in one’s attire.
Joseph Kaplan wrote :
“You may be many things including smart, knowlegeable, principled and conservative. But tolerant? Nope”
Of course, one can see many examples within the Torah and Nach where tolerance, especially of evil and its sources and ramifications, is not viewed in a positive light
IH-
Out of curiosity, does your sister self (mis)identify as Orthodox as well? I got a kick out of your story, BTW.
Esteemed R Joseph Kaplan and distinguished R Nachum Lamm-
Do you guys know each other? Do you bicker like this in real life as well?
I realize I do the same kind of stuff online, it’s just that your exchange seems rather beneath both of you. Kind of like a ‘nu-uh!’ ‘yuh-huh!’ type of thing. Then again, it’s always fun to watch the adults fighting with each other.
Just in case anyone was wondering, I am BY FAR the most compassionate commenter here…
“Joseph, you have no idea how tolerant I am. You should see some of the circles I travel in socially- that is, by choice. And yet I have yet to utter an unkind word to anyone or a judgmental word to any sinner, let alone throw a stone at someone.”
To be clear, Nachum: I have no idea how you act in the presence of others. I based my comment on what I read here. And I have read many unkind and judgmental things here. As for the personal; I was reacting to a personal comment.
“MO should not be predicated on a POV that modernity dictates one’s attire in a shul or in other settings where the same arguably either is overly casual for being Omed Lifnei HaMakom and Kabalas Ol Malchus Shamayim, and as described by Joseph Kaplan, cannot be reconciled with what constitutes a derech Tznuah in one’s attire.”
While that wasn’t the point of my letter, since you press the issue, I don’t understand why a man wearing a fur hat is proper dress for davening; or wearing (what were called in my youth) pedal pushers with long socks is; or wearing what some would call a smoking jacket is. In fact. I always thought Jewish dress was not an emulation of 18th century Polish nobility or the 19th century British upper class. Rather, Jewish dress is wearing tzitzit (and, in appropriate circumstances, a tallit) for men, not wearing shatnez and the like. Why a sport jacket with a button down shirt is more appropriate for davening than a polo shirt, or a baseball hat less appropriate than a Spanish made rabbit fur hat or a Borsalino, is simply beyond me.
r’jk,
does your shul have attire standards for the shatz?
KT
Not much. In fact, in the summer it seems it’s almost a rule (:-))that the shatz doesn’t wear a jacket. (BTW, I always wear a jacket and tie in shul on Shabbat — but I never daven for the amud.)
For those who may not have read the original story, here’s an alert that Lipman gets the basic facts of the Rabin story wrong, as simply watching the video linked there will attest. This was a purely political event for the twentieth anniversary of Rabin’s government being formed. There was a protest pointing out the obvious fact that said government didn’t have too much to be proud of. Rabin’s granddaughter stopped on the way out, threw a crude insult at one of the protestors, and accused him of killing her grandfather and bringing down his government. (That she would link the two, and act as if voting for the opposition is a crime, is very telling.) And then the unfortunate “fun” began.
Taking that into account isn’t the only thing that makes the article unseemly; apologies on behalf of others for actions one didn’t even take always strike me as unseemly and grandstanding.
http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/theater/rocking_tale_of_star_sung_in_shlomo_VuZTYpHuLXm5N2LzepDsuK
KT
BT’s recipe – count how many of the suggestions run counter to which subgroups of orthodxy’s philosophy (differentiate between US and Aretz for extra credit)
KT
r’ joel rich – depends which group the bt lands in. it seems to be chareidish or yeshivish (is there a big difference these days – in the states?) with inherent contradictions in that list.
“A BT’s Recipe For Raising Good Kids in an FFB World”
i don’t understand the title. how does it address specifically a bt raising good kids in an ffb world? seems to be its an article on good parenting in general. as far as a critique of whether all his points represent good parenting, this is addressed in the comments following the article. i think they are mostly on target.
“Orthodox partners lobby for day school funding”
so they are giving up on vouchers and focusing on indirect funding, e.g., nurses, special needs funding, etc.
here is what i am wondering: this type of funding has been available to private schools in neighboring new york for a long time now, so why is tuition at the same level with NJ? is hillel in NJ more expensive than YofF in brooklyn? or a cheder in lakewood more than one in monsey? or is it that the NJ and NY schools have the same tuition but the NY schools can actually offer more because of the extra state assistance? and if so, could the NY schools eliminate the “more” that is absent in the NJ schools–are they providing an inferior education to the comparative NY schools?–and then bring down tuition?
“That she would link the two, and act as if voting for the “opposition is a crime, is very telling.”
Among a certain generation of Israelis, politics is inseparable from life, and if you disagree with them about politics you are not only wrong but evil. It’s called Bolshevism.
My father was in Hebrew U. in the 1950s. He knew certain people that were involved in the attack on the Altalena, led by one Yitzchak Rabin. As is well known, the attackers shot people in the water as they were swimming away from the boat. When he asked them why they simply didn’t force them to surrender the boat and let the people away, they answered, “What’s the big deal. We were just klling fascists.”
AR: You ask good questions, to which I have no answer. But I do know that generally a large portion of what makes schooling expensive, both for secular and religious schools, is special needs servics.
NACHUM:
“Taking that into account isn’t the only thing that makes the article unseemly; apologies on behalf of others for actions one didn’t even take always strike me as unseemly and grandstanding.”
give me a break. isn’t that we are always asking for? moslems/arabs to condemn, apologize for and distance themselves from the acts of other moslems/arabs? ditto for haredim?
“as simply watching the video linked there will attest . . . Rabin’s granddaughter stopped on the way out, threw a crude insult at one of the protestors . . . And then the unfortunate “fun” began.”
i watched the video of the news report. it shows no such thing and so there is no way to know from it started the verbal match. do you have a link to a fuller video that doesn’t edit out the beginning of the fight?
but you are correct that this was not a memorial to a private individual but rather a political remembrance and i really don’t think protesters violated any measure of common decency by voicing themselves there.
“R S Burg: Paul Ryan is all about choice”
Since school funding is primarily a state issue (except for DC), the ability of the president or VP having much impact is limited. The only thing I can think of they might be able to do is to give parents a tax deduction or tax credit for spending on school tuition.
(In general, the deductions for children are measly. Children are a lot more expensive than that.)
TAL:
“As is well known, the attackers shot people in the water as they were swimming away from the boat.”
of course violence that emanates from the left is kosher.
rabin, butcher of the altalena, was certainly no saint.
” I do know that generally a large portion of what makes schooling expensive, both for secular and religious schools, is special needs servics.”
of course. a few years ago nyc spent $50 mil for a computer system to track special ed students, and it then costs a few millions annually for maintenance. not for staffing or direct services, simply for a computer system.
but considering that ny jewish schools do get various types of funding for special ed services, then shouldn’t one expect the ny school to be that much cheaper than nj counterparts?
(as an aside, i thank it is a fallacious argument when day schools say that tuition really isn’t overpriced when compared to public school per capita expenditures. (and furthermore when day school advocates argue that state funding for yeshivas would save the state money because we can do it for cheaper.) if one adjusts state per capita spending by eliminating special ed services, it would drop significantly.)
“A BT’s Recipe For Raising Good Kids in an FFB World”
surprise to see one key word missing in this article and comments – honesty or being honest (and its a two way street).
also, agree with abba’s ranting comment – why is this labeled a bt recipe to begin with. is there anything bt about this?
lastly – items 9 and 10 seem more problematic than the writer thinks – like the parents really have great answers for them – of course one must shy away from them either.
typo – one must NOT shy away from them
http://www.vosizneias.com/111869/2012/08/16/brooklyn-ny-report-leiby-kletzky-security-initiative-delayed-amid-concerns-over-video-access
kt
TAL:
“Since school funding is primarily a state issue (except for DC), the ability of the president or VP having much impact is limited. The only thing I can think of they might be able to do is to give parents a tax deduction or tax credit for spending on school tuition.”
right now majority of school funding comes from the state, but fed funding isn’t insignificant. e.g., title 1 and 2a, e-rate, idea grants, etc.
also, school-based therapy services (Ot/pt/st/etc.) are billable to medicaid, which is co-funded by the feds (fed contribution depends on the state, but is at least 50%). this is an issue now because certain support services (most notably the therapies) are billable to medicaid but nyc doe for a long time didn’t bill medicaid.
there is also no child left behind programs.
now the fed programs that currently exist seem mostly to target specific populations (poor performing, special needs, economically depressed, etc.), but the point is that the feds can and do step in when they want to. if a new administration had the will to expand programs that favor school choice, they could.
interesting psak for invalidating witnesses under the chupah- who needs a prenup – just have a witness with an unfiltered cellphone.
http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-cellphone-that-dissolved-marriage.html
RUVIE:
“why is this labeled a bt recipe to begin with. is there anything bt about this?”
the only reason i could think of is that a few of the writer’s points would seem to come from his pre-BT background and run counter to prevailing attitudes in parts of the FFB world (presumably the part he belongs to?). but overall it still seems like a general parenting guide.
“lastly – items 9 and 10 seem more problematic than the writer thinks – like the parents really have great answers for them – of course one must shy away from them either.”
agreed. my 7 1/2 years old son asks me questions that i can’t answer. (sometimes i don’t know the answer, and sometimes i know “the answers” but am not comfortable with them myself.)
“typo – one must NOT shy away from them”
Amazing how three little letters change the meaning around.
Tal – perhaps freudian?
Abba’s ranting – i think that goyim are generally not evil and a positive mention of the value of secular studies – stand out to me (for the bt background).
but the obvious error in the question of how do you know that he [God] wrote the torah? or that there are proofs for – my assumption here is that he thinks this can be answered satisfactorily for a teenager as oppose to a 6 yr. old – how do you know he exists? also is telling including – how can the world be 6000 yrs. old. i question the value of not sending the child to an appropriate rabbi for many reasons.
▪ How to bring religion into politics
“Religious convictions cannot be exiled from the public sphere. To ask someone to set aside their religion is to exile passion, conviction and principle. Imagine the analogy; we would say of a candidate, or a voter, “you may enter public life, but whatever you believe deeply you must set aside.” It is ludicrous. So a public declaration of faith as a determining factor in a vote on an issue or a candidate is both sensible and inevitable.”
He may be right, but he’s got to watch out for the US constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision
“Jones found for the plaintiffs and issued a 139 page decision, in which he wrote:
“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. “‘
In other words, whether or not God exists, you are forbidden to preach that he does in a Public School. (I’m not complaining; I went to yeshiva for a reason.) Anti-Gun advocates run into the same kind of problems with the second amendment. Whether or not we’re better off with guns on the street is not an issue that a supreme court justice can decide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz#Second_Amendment_and_the_U.S._Constitution
“Dershowitz is strongly opposed to firearms ownership and the Second Amendment, and supports repealing the amendment, but he vigorously opposes using the judicial system to read it out of the Constitution because it would open the way for further revisions to the Bill of Rights and Constitution by the courts. “Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it’s not an individual right or that it’s too much of a public safety hazard don’t see the danger in the big picture. They’re courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don’t like.”‘
▪ Iranian Jewry Today
“Numbering approximately 30,000, Iranian Jewry constitutes the largest Jewish community in the Middle East outside of Israel”
Add that to the list of things to worry about in case of an Israeli strike on Iran.
http://rygb.blogspot.com/2012/08/chodesh-lshana-overviewreview.html
Joseph Kaplan responded to a comment about his letter:
“While that wasn’t the point of my letter, since you press the issue, I don’t understand why a man wearing a fur hat is proper dress for davening; or wearing (what were called in my youth) pedal pushers with long socks is; or wearing what some would call a smoking jacket is. In fact. I always thought Jewish dress was not an emulation of 18th century Polish nobility or the 19th century British upper class. Rather, Jewish dress is wearing tzitzit (and, in appropriate circumstances, a tallit) for men, not wearing shatnez and the like. Why a sport jacket with a button down shirt is more appropriate for davening than a polo shirt, or a baseball hat less appropriate than a Spanish made rabbit fur hat or a Borsalino, is simply beyond me”
I think that one can argue that at least based on a famous comment by the author of Sefer HaChinuch that “Acharei HaPeulos Nimshach HaLevavos.” Regardless of the sociological and historical roots of what is yeshivishe and chasidishe attire, the same is viewed today as both a means of group identity and affiliation in addition to representing a POV that dressing in what is perceived as a dignified and formal manner is preferable attire for either tefilah or any occasion than dressing as a slob. Why not emulate Bigdei Kehunah whose attire is described as Lkavod Ulisiferes and Talmidei Chachamim whose attire is viewed by Rambam as different than the rest of Klal Yisrael?As far as wearing a hat on top of a kipah, I think that we have previously discussed the same here as not just being group identity but also being having halachic sources in the same manner as wearing a jacket.
I would have added two points to the BT’s Guide to Raising Children in an FFB world:
1) Intellectual honesty on issues where there are no good answers is always preferable to pat answers, which are susceptible to a critical reaction.
2) Never judge the validity of Torah observance by people whose behavior can only be called a Chillul HaShem.
STEVE BRIZEL:
“representing a POV that dressing in what is perceived as a dignified and formal manner’
dignified according to whose POV?
“is preferable attire for either tefilah or any occasion than dressing as a slob”
a slob according to whose POV?
Gil,
Did you read the list on BBT before posting the link? I think most of his suggestions are horrible.
There is so much wrong with this list, (and by extension, the views of the author), that it’s difficult to know where to begin.
Let’s start with the good stuff: Yes, home life should be comfortable; no screaming, to the extent that’s possible, is a good rule. A child should have a warm environment in which to grow up. So 1 and 2, I’m okay with. But that’s about it.
Numbers 3,6, and 7 make essentially the same point. Hate the sin; love the sinner. Nonetheless, when the kid does something GOOD, you CAN tell him he’s a good boy or girl. You DO want your children to understand that their ESSENCE should be good, not just that they’ve done a good thing. With BAD behavior you should do the opposite: Explain that the behavior isn’t appropriate for a GOOD person.
Number 5: While middos are more important, grades matter too. If not now, later on down the road. This warm-n-fuzzy liberal notion that grades aren’t important gives children the impression that they can slack off in school and things will turn out all right. And that lackadaisical attitude becomes very difficult to break. They will be in for a cold awakening when it comes time to grow up and support a family.
Number 8: I agree in theory that there are no “punishments” only “consequences” but try explaining the difference to a four-year old (or teenager in some families).
Numbers 9 and 10: Silly and dangerous. Because of this notion that the frum world runs away from questions of emunah, there are those that feel we should rush our children headfirst into questions that perhaps don’t bother them. The fact is that you cannot PROVE G-d’s existence, nor can you PROVE the Torah’s Divine origin. Ultimately, ours is a faith; the knowledge of its ultimate truth comes from experience. That experience takes years to cultivate. The job of the parent is to point out God’s Hand whenever possible – when it rains, when there’s a beautiful sunset, when the flowers bloom, when a purple insect lands on the picnic table.
If children begin to have doubts on matters of faith they will come to you. It is not your job to encourage them to have those doubts. Which brings me to number 11:
Telling your children ” You don’t have to be frum if you don’t want to.” Quite simply, this is an insane suggestion. Parents are here for guidance and for support. The rest of the world exists to question that guidance and uproot that support. Joining the rest of the world will weaken your children’s resolve, not strengthen it.
Abba-walking into a shul or going to a parent teacher’s conference in the attire that Joseph Kaplan described can arguably be described and characterized as not just casual, but that of a slob.
Abba: Nu, maybe if I was a violent Muslim or Charedi I’d cringe a bit when someone who doesn’t really represent me mouthed off like that. Certainly I get that feeling when some philosemitic Italian imam is trotted out to proclaim what Islam “really” says. He may be right, but so?
As to the story itself: True, I was basing myself on newspaper stories. But the video confirms it. She clearly has just pulled up to Ben Gvir and starts with him; he makes logical points and she starts accusing him of murder. And once you know the context, it makes him more justified.
Steve, I wear polo shirts and khakis every day. They’re clean and pressed. I wear them to davening; I’ve worn them to see the President of Israel and Mayor of Jerusalem and had a personal meeting with a Vice Prime Minister of Israel wearing them. (One other person present was far more casual. No one blinked an eye.) Am I a “slob”?
We usually have three kohanim duchaning in the mornings. Me in the above outfit; another man in a security guard uniform (he works at the supermarket across the street), and a third kohen in a t-shirt, shorts, and sandals. I think there’d be a halakhic problem giving a bracha to someone who thinks of you as a “slob.”
Does anyone know how Rav Aviner relates to the fact that some of the “commentators” that Nechama Leibowitz used to quote were not traditional ones –she commonly quoted, with approval, Benno Jacob, Umberto Cassuto, Martin Buber, and others. And the ostensible reason that she quoted them is that she had evaluated their interpretations and thought they are correct, not because of their authority. Which means that she evaluated the text on her own and chose what she thought was the best interpretation rather than just following commentators. (She also sometimes outright rejects the interpretation of one rishon in favor of that of another). Does anyone know how this fits into what Rav Aviner said? R’ Gil, is it correct that you know R’ Aviner, and if so, can you find out?
“Regardless of the sociological and historical roots of what is yeshivishe and chasidishe attire, the same is viewed today as both a means of group identity and affiliation”
This I agree with; we’re not talking about halacha or proper dress; we’re talking about sociology, history and group identification. Except you want my group to identify with yours. Sorry, we don’t, just like you don’t identify with hassidim.
“in addition to representing a POV that dressing in what is perceived as a dignified and formal manner is preferable attire for either tefilah or any occasion than dressing as a slob.”
Sure; if it’s not how you dress, it’s being a “slob.” Real nice to insult entire communities. Hope your kavanah wasn’t too impaired by being surrounded by slobs when you davened in my shul.
“Why not emulate Bigdei Kehunah whose attire is described as Lkavod Ulisiferes”
Oh, so now your oxford button down shirt and sport jacket and 18th Century Polish noble dress — oops, hassidic levush — and borsolino hats are bigdei kehuna. Not what my sefer Torah says. And my guess is that Aharon wore none of the above. But at least I don’t claim he wore polo shirts and jeans.
BTW, Nachum; twice in one day. Don’t know what this world is coming to. 🙂
Nachum-I wouldn’t wear casual attire to greet the President of the US or if I was appearing in court.
Joseph Kaplan-I asked why not emulate Bigdei Kehunah and the unique dress code of Talmidei Chachamim-which depends on local and communal custom.
“I wouldn’t wear casual attire to greet the President of the US.”
Neither would I because it would be a big one time event. But his aides, who see him every day, often don’t dress up. So if you go to shul just on the YN, I understand dressing up, not if you’re there every day or every week. And then, of course, that’s only davening. My letter was talking about the way people dressed in other venues as well. I was at Governor’s Island this past Sunday. It was filled with Hareidi families, with most men dressed in suits or bekeshes, many with hats, even fur hats, and there wives dressed the way MO dress for shul on Shabbat. I, OTOH, was wearing a July 4th polo shirt (I had a wedding on July 4th so I couldn’t wear it then) and a pair of shorts, and my wife and daughters were not in the Shabbat best. The point of my letter was that the OU recognized them as part of the “we” but not my family.
This week’s parasha (15:14), the mitzvah of ha’anaka to a freed eved ivri.
http://rygb.blogspot.com/2012/08/chodesh-lshana-overviewreview.html
If I can get a word in between the bickering about clothing, I’d just like to point out to ask Mr. Kaplan a question: Do you really think they were trying to exclude you?
Do you really think they put so much thought into the models? Who was “they” who was putting any thought into the models – was it a magazine editor or a photo editor?
I feel like you’re getting irked a bit too easily, looking for insults where none may have been intended. (Actually, I expect that none were intended.)
The models were people who work in the OU office, except for the Chassidish guy.
“Do you really think they were trying to exclude you?
Do you really think they put so much thought into the models? Who was “they” who was putting any thought into the models – was it a magazine editor or a photo editor?
I feel like you’re getting irked a bit too easily, looking for insults where none may have been intended. (Actually, I expect that none were intended.)”
A fair question. My answer is yes. Or let me be more nuanced. They were afraid that if they included men and women dressed the way I described they would “offend” their more right wing elements and they therefore specifically did not include such pictures. Sure, if you ask them (yes, I believe — and i have good reason for that belief — the decision was not made solely by a picture editor) if my group is part of the “we” and a legitimate segment of MO they’d answer yes. But it wasn’t so much of an insult as a decision made to exclude us from pictures so as not to ruffle feathers. And yes, that irked me because in not ruffling feathers they were giving a message that we’re not as important as others. If Agudah did it I wouldn’t, of course, have written the letter. I understand I’m not part of their “we.” But the OU is supposed to be an organization that includes me, and when they don’t, especially in an article about inclusion and getting along, well, that’s irksome if not insulting.
Regarding Rabbi Burg’s article:
The Romney/Ryan budget proposals would decimate federal funding for education (and just about everything else the federal government does, other than defense). What is the use of a “choice” program when there is no money behind it? Any federal program resulting in meaningful school choice would require a humongous increase in the fraction of educational expenses covered by the federal government, and therefore a massive tax increase. Anyone who thinks Romney/Ryan would support that is smoking something.
I would of course support such a tax increase. But I am not running for office. I am old enough to remember what happened to Walter Mondale when he announced his support for tax increases. Until the tax-phobia of America is overcome, we aren’t going to get meaningful governmental support for religious schools.
“Tax-phobia” is a new one. If that’s an illness, let’s have more of it.
Steve, only Kohanim wore bigdei kehuna. And until very recently, only (some) Roshei Yeshiva dressed the part. And, of course, the two have nothing to do with each other.
1. Well, based on what Gil said, there seems not to have been much bias in the selection process for the models.
2. I find it interesting to see you accusing the OU of trying to alienate the left just a few weeks after the Yated accused the OU of pandering to it. (Apparently, a bunch of the JLIC rabbis are YCT graduates.)
“Hirhurim on August 16, 2012 at 11:10 pm
The models were people who work in the OU office, except for the Chassidish guy.”
” Sure, if you ask them (yes, I believe — and i have good reason for that belief — the decision was not made solely by a picture editor) if my group is part of the “we” and a legitimate segment of MO they’d answer yes. But it wasn’t so much of an insult as a decision made to exclude us from pictures so as not to ruffle feathers. And yes, that irked me because in not ruffling feathers they were giving a message that we’re not as important as others. If Agudah did it I wouldn’t, of course, have written the letter. I understand I’m not part of their “we.” But the OU is supposed to be an organization that includes me, and when they don’t, especially in an article about inclusion and getting along, well, that’s irksome if not insulting.”
How many people who work at the OU look like and have J Kaplans ideology?
The BT recipe list had 15 points. Many people thought overall they were good suggestions, although particular individuals may have had problems with some of them.
Although it’s not so clear from CJ’s writing, it seems that he agreed to many/most of the points, although he seemed to imply that anything he agreed to was obvious.
In regard to 9 and 10 regarding the difficult questions, the author clearly said to deal with them “as soon as they are ready for them”.
I think it’s very important to research and have approaches to the difficult questions and to present them to your children when they’re ready for them. Anybody who leaves it to chance (or blogs) to inform their children about these basics of Judaism is making a big mistake.
So they actively sought out a Chassid and no one else. Got it.
With all the criticism of the photos that appeared in the OU’s “Jewish Action” issue, no one noticed the two photos of a very attractive woman with hair uncovered.
“I find it interesting to see you accusing the OU of trying to alienate the left”
They’re not trying to alienate us; they’re taking us for granted and minimizing us.
they’re taking us for granted and minimizing us.
Is this new, or worse than in the recent past?
“kiddush clubs *are* a flouting of halakha.”
not any more so than wearing polo shirts to shul.
(meaning neither are a problem).
2. ben gurion (deliberatly) set the standard of no jacket. (and led to the altalena incident, of which …follows…)
3. when leah rabin said she’d rather live in (palestine) than in (netanyahu), every moving truck in israel rushed to north tel aviv. they all wanted the honor of throwing her out of the country. (It was a joke at the time, but point made.)
point is, the rabin family is not at all influential in israel. (neither actually was yitzchak rabin. he only became PM by default. labor had no one else to run. (peres was even worse, they all knew.) same pblm today, but extends to all parties, leading to …). invoking the family patrimony is not effective.
“they’re taking us for granted and minimizing us”
actually, i think most of their adverti$ing is from the right.
and a good number addressed to the right.
“I find it interesting to see you accusing the OU of trying to alienate the left”
“They’re not trying to alienate us; they’re taking us for granted and minimizing”
For the sake of clarity, can someone please provide a defintion of ‘the left’, ‘the right’ , and ‘us’ (obviously both as used in this context).
Depending on who I’m talking, to I’m occasionally even accused of being ‘openminded’.
===========
MMHY- You mnake an inordinate number of $$$$$$$$$$$$ pun$. What’s up with that?
shaul s — (almost) evrey magazine / newspaper is influenced by its advertisers. even if the advertiser never says a word (call it a perceived influence.) even the NYTimes.
in this particular case, the advertiser base is relevant to this discussion.
readers also have a voice. sometimes / often / rarely.
“they’re taking us for granted and minimizing us”
Being taken for granted is obviously not a great feeling. But I thought your problem was greater than that.
Generally, people receive (at least some) respect from those religiously to their left. From those to the right, they may have to actively recruit it. If this is what you think was going on, I’m not quite sure what your problem is.
Joseph Kaplan wrote in part:
“they’re taking us for granted and minimizing us”
I think that if anything is a given, the OU neither takes for granted nor minimizes any elements of its constituency, It has always strived to be a big tent for MO, while encouraging its member shuls and individual supporters to work on all facets of their core committment to Torah Avodah and Gmilus Chasadim. One can argue that viewing the attire of either gender or how one spares one’s leisure time ( I am MO, therefore I go mixed swimming, my wife does not cover her hair and I have no problems with the current cultural milieu of 21st Century America) should not be seen as the raison de etre of MO.
“If this is what you think was going on, I’m not quite sure what your problem is.”
As Steve claims, the OU strives for big tent MO. But in an article about inclusion, about differing groups getting along, they pretended that we don’t exist. Do I think they really think that? No. We’re an active OU shul; in fact, after minyan this morning I saw a big box in the lobby filled with JAs and I took 2 (like to have originals of my letters). But as a sop to their right wing and to keep their acceptability to the right, they pretended we’re not there; that their big tent door flaps stop just before they get to us; that we’re ripe for kiruv but not inclusion. It was like, for a very imperfect analogy, like families who had children with disabilities who they loved but made sure stayed hidden. I don’t like being hidden.
Charlie,
How did you arrive at the conclusion that a broader voucher program will cost far MORE than the present public system?
“(meaning neither are a problem).”
Give me a break. Did you hear the haftarah this week?
Rav Kook’s Yahrtzeit This Week:
http://www.scribd.com/ksavyadkodesh
i looked over the latest issue of jewish action (the one with r joseph k’s letter) and saw very few advertisements (short of OU program / book ads and golds horseradish.)
though my comment about vast majority of newspapers / magazines still stands (see NYT wednesday on their new CEO (“advertisers” (and now $ubscriber$, with that new focu$, “drives the NYT”), the jaction is the house organ of the OU, and everything in it is (so to say) official word of the OU. thus, r kaplan’s letter indicates some sort of OU policy direction. a photo editor may have had the picture taken, but the executive level definitely reviewed the galleys.
the jaction is the house organ of the OU, and everything in it is (so to say) official word of the OU. thus, r kaplan’s letter indicates some sort of OU policy direction. a photo editor may have had the picture taken, but the executive level definitely reviewed the galleys
That’s not how it works. Jewish Action tries to be responsible but open to its entire community.
“Jewish Action tries to be responsible but open to its entire community.”
That was exactly my point — or, I guess, exactly where we disagree. My point was and my opinion is that, in this instance, it was not being open to its entire community.
For an issue or two, they put up an electronic edition you could “flip” through. To my disappointment- it’s not easy to get the print issue here- they seem to have discontinued that.
Perhaps due to this discussion, on this visit I noticed many young couples in Jerusalem where the guy was wearing a kippa sruga and the woman was wearing normal Israeli clothing (short sleeves, more neckline, pants). From accents and appearance they were Israeli, not Anglos, nor Adot ha’Mizrach Mesorati types. Is this a backlash akin to the American LWMO?
“Perhaps due to this discussion, on this visit I noticed many young couples in Jerusalem where the guy was wearing a kippa sruga and the woman was wearing normal Israeli clothing (short sleeves, more neckline, pants). From accents and appearance they were Israeli, not Anglos, nor Adot ha’Mizrach Mesorati types. Is this a backlash akin to the American LWMO?”
More likely a guy who started to wear a kippah.
“Is this a backlash akin to the American LWMO?”
Or part of the group that was always more “Leumi” than “Dati,” or a Sephardi/Mesorati Jew who decided to wear a kippah sruga, or…
Nachum, If you email me your address, I will make sure to get you a hardcopy of JA. CJS
Avi: “More likely a guy who started to wear a kippah.”
I work in Jerusalem, and I think you are unaware of a very large segment of the dati leumi population. These are couples who are products of dati leumi educational frameworks, not baalei teshuva.
CJ: Thanks, although I’m in Israel. Mostly I’d be happy just to be able to read it online without clicking on every link, especially considering that they don’t seem to all be from one issue.
IH: It may just be the circles I travel in, but, yes, you’ll very often find “variations” in the religious community here that you’d rarely if ever find in the US, even among those who are far from Masorati, Sepharadi, lax in observance, etc. I know some perfectly observant women who dress that way. Of course, LWMO are perfectly observant as well, but you even see parts of this in more right-wing circles, reaching chardali- the sleeves especially. On the male side as well, I don’t think sandals and shorts are as widespread in American MO shuls as they are in Israel.
Avi and JLan are right as well, of course. Here’s a hint: Is the woman covering her hair? That’s sort of a giveaway that she’s pretty religious. And yet you see lots of headcoverings matched with short sleeves, pants, etc.
Oh, one more thing: It’s the Middle East. It’s hot. 🙂
“Avi: “More likely a guy who started to wear a kippah.”
I work in Jerusalem, and I think you are unaware of a very large segment of the dati leumi population. These are couples who are products of dati leumi educational frameworks, not baalei teshuva”
People can wear a kippah without being baalei teshuva.
Sephardim who wouldn’t wear one otherwise often wear one when in the year of aveilut. Of course, people wear them when at or on their way to shul, at religious weddings (the groom always wears one under the chuppa), at other religious gatherings, etc. It’s fluid.
why are (we) complaining about someone wearing a (any type of) kippa?
israel has a great diversity of jewish observance. whats the problem?
maybe someone is coming to the holy city and whants to wear a kippah?
(supposedly, a survey a few years ago revealed that the majority of israelis have never been in yerushalayim till their going to kotel to see a relative (or themselves) being sworn into tzahal. (i undersatand rav rabinowitz, rav of the kotel is trying / did away with that.) i actually wonder of its true, and would like similar stats / polls on americans to washington, brits to london, etc.)
2. reread last week’s haftara, and found nothing relevant. perek / pasuk, please.
There’s nothing *relevant* in the haftarah. It’s a mitzvah to hear the haftarah, period, and thus people who go to kiddush clubs are flouting halakha in a way that people in polo shirts aren’t.
By the way, I know you like repeating myths, but soldiers are being sworn in at the Kotel as always. And not all soldiers are. But yes, lots of Israelis don’t travel far. Lots of Jerusalemites rarely get to Tel Aviv.
not all kiddush clubs are so religious to meet right away. and i more refer to rabbonim who want to make their shul completely “dry”.
i heard r rabinowitz was trying to stop it, cause the kotel is a “shul” and he believes this is using a “shul” for non religious purposes. i believe he managed to get some events stopped, but hopefully, (cooler) heads prevailed. (and i note the kotel is not a “dry” shul.)
my mothers aunt almost never goes to yerushalayim, even though the 405 egged is right outside her door in BB / ramat gan. so i know what you refer to. (and her son goes at least once a day round trip on business.)
i referred to a survey / poll that high %age (I believe the number was 75%) of israelis never been to yerushalayim, even for other events / issues, except for their / their relative’s swearing in. even in their tzahal service, they never end up there. surprising to me; esp since israelis are very mobile. 75% — too much. 5 – 10% OK. (and am curioius about US / european %ages.)