Posts
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
From The Mailbag: The Fins-and-Scales Proof
A reader named David sent me the following email:
Dear Wolf,
I wanted to sincerely tell you how much I appreciate your website, a good example of the way the Internet can be used for the good.
I also wanted to ask you about a particular point that you make in your "Torah proof" section.
I appreciate the work done, and I should say that I came to pretty much the same conclusions about those "proofs".
Except for the animal signs; you write that it doesn't stand as a valid proof of the veracity of the Torah, because Chazal could have guessed it right.
What you don't seem to see is that the argument is so strong because if their statements had been shown incorrect in the future, the entire credibility of Chazal – the belief in their inspired way of reading the Bible, and thus Judaism itself, would have crumbled.
Moreover, these assertions were unnecessary, they seem to have been made only to prove the validity of torah shebeal peh ; and, seriously, what were the chances that no one would ever find something in the water that has scales but doesn’t have fins ?
I may be wrong somewhere, but I don’t see it.
Kol Tuv,
David
David was following up on a post of mine regarding one of the proofs to the divinity of the Torah. The proof that David is referring to goes something like this:
The Torah mentions that in order for a fish to be kosher, it must have fins and scales. The Mishna in Niddah goes on to point out that all fish that have scales also have fins. The halachic inference from this is that if you find a fish that has scales but no fins, it is kosher, because all fish that have scales have fins. Thus, if you find a part of a fish with scales but no fins attached, you may eat it since it definitely had fins at some point (which may have been removed by a predator or some other agent).
The proof* then continues in a similar vein to the four-animals proof: How could Chazal have made such a statement? Were they ichthyologists who knew every species of fish on the planet? Since they made this statement, and it has proven to be true to this day**, surely the information must have come from a Divine source (from He who knows all the species of fish on the planet).
I addressed this proof by stating that making accurate statements are not proof of divinity. The Mishna's author could have simply extrapolated from the sample of fish species that they had at hand and created the general rule that all fish that have scales also have fins. Anyone can do this... including you and I.
For example, I'm going to state right now that all stars (except collapsed, dead stars) perform nuclear fusion at their cores. And now let's suppose that 10,000 years from now, someone digs this statement up and, lo and behold, the rule still holds true -- every star that was ever found was powered by nuclear fusion. Now, let me state up front that I am not an astronomer. There's no way I could have known that all the stars that are out there. Does the fact that I made such an accurate statement make me divine? Does it mean that my wonderfully accurate statement was of divine origin? The answer, obviously, is no. I simply extrapolated a general rule based on the sample of stars that we currently know about -- something that could have just as easily happened with regard to the Mishna in Niddah and fishes.
This brings us to the point of David's letter. He counters this by stating as follows:
What you don't seem to see is that the argument is so strong because if their statements had been shown incorrect in the future, the entire credibility of Chazal – the belief in their inspired way of reading the Bible, and thus Judaism itself, would have crumbled.
But here David is making assumptions that are not in evidence. He's assuming that the author of the Mishna was concerned that their statement might have been disproven in the future. However, there are several other possibilities. Perhaps the author of the Mishna simply thought they were right and that they didn't entertain the possibility that they were wrong (as I did in my statement about the stars)? Perhaps he never considered the possibility that, even if he was in error, that it would cause Judaism itself to crumble (I don't think it would, but that's another post for another time). Perhaps they were simply trying to offer advice to people regarding kosher fish and didn't give any thought whatsoever to the broader implications of such a statement. In short, David is begging-the-question. He's starting with the assumption that the statement is of Divine origin and that the author of the Mishna was, in fact, making a proof to the divinity of the Torah.
The Wolf
*Technically speaking, this proof cannot be used to prove the divinity of the Torah, but rather the divinity of this one particular statement of the Mishna. But let's leave that aside for now.
** Well, not really, but, for the sake of argument, let's say that it is 100% true today.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
It's The Shidduch System That Objectifies Women
I'm sure that by now, many of you have read Yitta Halberstam's recent article in the Jewish Press. In it, she bemoans the fact that frum young women are exacerbating the "shidduch crisis" by not taking every possible step (up to and including plastic surgery) to make themselves more beautiful for their dates and their mothers-in-law to be.
In her article, Mrs. Halberstam describes a gathering she attended where single girls looking for husbands could get together to meet with the mothers of young bachelors. At the meeting, she observed, to her dismay, that most of the girls wore very little, if any makeup. She was shocked. Didn't these girls realize that they were there to be inspected as potential wives for their sons? How could they attend such a meeting without dolling themselves up? As Mrs. Halberstam put it (empahsis mine):
A lot of lip service is given to the notion in Judaism that women aren't judged in shidduchim solely by their sexuality and appearance. Much thought and consideration is given, they say, to her character, her middos, her family and on and on. They point to pesukim which extol such ideals such as "Sheker haChain v'Hevel HaYofi." How much more beautiful and modest this is, they say, than in the "secular world" where women are viewed largely, if not solely, as sexual objects.
Personally, I'm beginning to think that it's just the opposite. I don't know how many of you have noticed, but in the "secular world," there is no "shidduch crisis." I see lots of wedding photos and videos on the Internet. I've seen quite a few "proposal" videos as well. You know what? Girls who are less than gorgeous and who don't wear tons of makeup manage to become engaged and marry every day. Girls with "average" looks, girls who are overweight, girls who have physical handicaps, blind girls, deaf girls, and on and on.
But what about Mrs. Halberstam's "deal maker/deal breaker" question of "Is she pretty?". Aren't men interested in looks? Don't men want wives who are pretty and attractive?
The answer can perhaps be illustrated by a friend of mine. When he was dating, he had a list of traits (both physical and non-physical) that his future wife had to have. She had to be in a specific age range, with specific hair color, a weight range and on and on. He dated for a while, unsuccessfully. And then, something happened.
He moved out of town and met, apparently on his own, a divorced mother fifteen years his senior. She was overweight and had the "wrong" hair color. And, yet, he was deliriously happy with her. He found his match. She certainly wasn't was he was looking for on the physical side, but he was so happy with her emotionally, mentally and spiritually that he simply put all that aside and decided that he loved her for who she was inside, despite the fact that she had all these qualities (older, overweight, divorced, mother) that would have caused her to be kept out of the "shidduch market." In other words, once he found someone he was happy with, the physical side of his "wish list" became less important and, perhaps, irrelevant. They're still married, fifteen years later.
And that's exactly how it is in the secular world. Don't men want pretty wives? All other things being equal, perhaps they do. But people are willing to make trade offs. He loves her sense of humor, so who cares if she isn't a size two? He sees an inner beauty in her that attracts him, so who cares if she isn't well-endowed or has some crooked teeth? He loves the fact that she laughs at the corny jokes he likes to make, so he doesn't worry about her lack of high cheekbones. And on and on it goes every day in the "secular world." Women manage to find their mates despite not being physical knockouts, fashion models, D-cups, nose jobs and excessive makeup.
In Mrs. Halberstam's shidduch world, however, the exact opposite is true. In her world, a man is so motivated by looks and appearances that if his potential wife is not pretty, it's unlikely (or impossible) that any other qualities that she may have can make him happy. So, she and other mothers like her stand as the gatekeeper to her son's dating world, weeding out anyone who isn't pretty, reinforcing the idea that such a "deal-maker/deal-breaker" question could or should even exist.
To me (at least), that *is* the objectification of women. Rejecting, out of hand, girls who don't meet some standard of physical beauty is objectifying them. Pleading with girls and their mothers to wear lots of makeup and have plastic surgery to make them look better solely for the purpose of attracting a potential husband is objectifying women. Determining that a man cannot be happy with a girl who isn't a stunning beauty is further objectifying them. It's a shame when men do it, but it's doubly shameful when women do it to other women. And it puts the lie to the idea to the idea that shidduchim are not about physical beauty but about middos, etc.
I've been married to Eeees for over twenty years. On the day we first met (Friday, Feb 26, 1988), she was not wearing any makeup. She didn't wear any on our first date, our second date or on any other dates. To this day, she barely wears any makeup. I can say, with complete confidence, that I have *never* seen her out of the house with lipstick. Furthermore, when I met her, she wasn't a size two or a size four, or even a six or eight. She did not have the face of a fashion model. Nonetheless, I was completely swept off my feet by her. I will admit that *I* find her incredibly beautiful physically, but it wasn't her physical beauty that won me over. It was her sweetness, her gentleness, her sense of humor, her middos and her warm, wonderful heart that won me over far more than her appearance.
No, Mrs. Halberstam... physical beauty was not a "deal-maker/deal-breaker" for me. Nor is it for billions of non-frum/non-Jewish men (who aren't shallow jerks) around the world every day. It's a shame that, in this area where we claim to have superior values to the rest of the world, we find ourselves asking "Is she pretty?" as a "deal-maker/deal-breaker" question before going any further.
The Wolf
In her article, Mrs. Halberstam describes a gathering she attended where single girls looking for husbands could get together to meet with the mothers of young bachelors. At the meeting, she observed, to her dismay, that most of the girls wore very little, if any makeup. She was shocked. Didn't these girls realize that they were there to be inspected as potential wives for their sons? How could they attend such a meeting without dolling themselves up? As Mrs. Halberstam put it (empahsis mine):
Were they in denial about the qualities young men are seeking in future wives? Yes, it is somewhat disillusioning that men dedicated to full-time Torah learning possess what these girls might perceive are superficial values, but brass tacks: they want a spouse to whom they are attracted. The young men themselves might be too shy or ashamed to admit it, but their mothers won't hesitate to ask what for some is the deal maker/deal breaker question, namely: "Is she pretty?"
A lot of lip service is given to the notion in Judaism that women aren't judged in shidduchim solely by their sexuality and appearance. Much thought and consideration is given, they say, to her character, her middos, her family and on and on. They point to pesukim which extol such ideals such as "Sheker haChain v'Hevel HaYofi." How much more beautiful and modest this is, they say, than in the "secular world" where women are viewed largely, if not solely, as sexual objects.
Personally, I'm beginning to think that it's just the opposite. I don't know how many of you have noticed, but in the "secular world," there is no "shidduch crisis." I see lots of wedding photos and videos on the Internet. I've seen quite a few "proposal" videos as well. You know what? Girls who are less than gorgeous and who don't wear tons of makeup manage to become engaged and marry every day. Girls with "average" looks, girls who are overweight, girls who have physical handicaps, blind girls, deaf girls, and on and on.
But what about Mrs. Halberstam's "deal maker/deal breaker" question of "Is she pretty?". Aren't men interested in looks? Don't men want wives who are pretty and attractive?
The answer can perhaps be illustrated by a friend of mine. When he was dating, he had a list of traits (both physical and non-physical) that his future wife had to have. She had to be in a specific age range, with specific hair color, a weight range and on and on. He dated for a while, unsuccessfully. And then, something happened.
He moved out of town and met, apparently on his own, a divorced mother fifteen years his senior. She was overweight and had the "wrong" hair color. And, yet, he was deliriously happy with her. He found his match. She certainly wasn't was he was looking for on the physical side, but he was so happy with her emotionally, mentally and spiritually that he simply put all that aside and decided that he loved her for who she was inside, despite the fact that she had all these qualities (older, overweight, divorced, mother) that would have caused her to be kept out of the "shidduch market." In other words, once he found someone he was happy with, the physical side of his "wish list" became less important and, perhaps, irrelevant. They're still married, fifteen years later.
And that's exactly how it is in the secular world. Don't men want pretty wives? All other things being equal, perhaps they do. But people are willing to make trade offs. He loves her sense of humor, so who cares if she isn't a size two? He sees an inner beauty in her that attracts him, so who cares if she isn't well-endowed or has some crooked teeth? He loves the fact that she laughs at the corny jokes he likes to make, so he doesn't worry about her lack of high cheekbones. And on and on it goes every day in the "secular world." Women manage to find their mates despite not being physical knockouts, fashion models, D-cups, nose jobs and excessive makeup.
In Mrs. Halberstam's shidduch world, however, the exact opposite is true. In her world, a man is so motivated by looks and appearances that if his potential wife is not pretty, it's unlikely (or impossible) that any other qualities that she may have can make him happy. So, she and other mothers like her stand as the gatekeeper to her son's dating world, weeding out anyone who isn't pretty, reinforcing the idea that such a "deal-maker/deal-breaker" question could or should even exist.
To me (at least), that *is* the objectification of women. Rejecting, out of hand, girls who don't meet some standard of physical beauty is objectifying them. Pleading with girls and their mothers to wear lots of makeup and have plastic surgery to make them look better solely for the purpose of attracting a potential husband is objectifying women. Determining that a man cannot be happy with a girl who isn't a stunning beauty is further objectifying them. It's a shame when men do it, but it's doubly shameful when women do it to other women. And it puts the lie to the idea to the idea that shidduchim are not about physical beauty but about middos, etc.
I've been married to Eeees for over twenty years. On the day we first met (Friday, Feb 26, 1988), she was not wearing any makeup. She didn't wear any on our first date, our second date or on any other dates. To this day, she barely wears any makeup. I can say, with complete confidence, that I have *never* seen her out of the house with lipstick. Furthermore, when I met her, she wasn't a size two or a size four, or even a six or eight. She did not have the face of a fashion model. Nonetheless, I was completely swept off my feet by her. I will admit that *I* find her incredibly beautiful physically, but it wasn't her physical beauty that won me over. It was her sweetness, her gentleness, her sense of humor, her middos and her warm, wonderful heart that won me over far more than her appearance.
No, Mrs. Halberstam... physical beauty was not a "deal-maker/deal-breaker" for me. Nor is it for billions of non-frum/non-Jewish men (who aren't shallow jerks) around the world every day. It's a shame that, in this area where we claim to have superior values to the rest of the world, we find ourselves asking "Is she pretty?" as a "deal-maker/deal-breaker" question before going any further.
The Wolf
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Does the Flatbush Jewish Journal Contradict Itself?
This week, there is going to be a special election for a district in the New York State Senate. This district is located in Brooklyn and covers a significant portion of the Jewish population in Brooklyn.
As you can expect, there is a significant amount of political maneuvering going on, with the two candidates -- Lew Fidler and David Storobin, looking to secure rabbinical endorsement.
The Flatbush Jewish Journal, a community newspaper known for it's right-wing leanings, put a notice on the front page of the latest issue stating "It Is Prohibited To Vote for Lew Fidler."
The cover directs you to an advertisement on page 20, where a list of 42 prominent rabbis, including such names as Rabbi Chaim Yisroel Belsky, Rabbi David Cohen, Rabbi Shmuel Kaminetzky and others, state that it is forbidden to vote for Lew Fidler.
The exact wording of the advertisement states that because of Mr. Fidler's votes concerning gay marriage "It is therefore considered a Chillul HaShem and Assur [forbidden according to Torah law] to vote for or to provide funding, campaign assistance, public recognition or any type of support to Councilman Lewis Fidler. To do so would amount to being mesisy'ayah ovrei aveirah (abetting transgression of the Torah's commandments)."
The document with the original signatures can be seen here.
As you can expect, there is a significant amount of political maneuvering going on, with the two candidates -- Lew Fidler and David Storobin, looking to secure rabbinical endorsement.
The Flatbush Jewish Journal, a community newspaper known for it's right-wing leanings, put a notice on the front page of the latest issue stating "It Is Prohibited To Vote for Lew Fidler."
The cover directs you to an advertisement on page 20, where a list of 42 prominent rabbis, including such names as Rabbi Chaim Yisroel Belsky, Rabbi David Cohen, Rabbi Shmuel Kaminetzky and others, state that it is forbidden to vote for Lew Fidler.
The exact wording of the advertisement states that because of Mr. Fidler's votes concerning gay marriage "It is therefore considered a Chillul HaShem and Assur [forbidden according to Torah law] to vote for or to provide funding, campaign assistance, public recognition or any type of support to Councilman Lewis Fidler. To do so would amount to being mesisy'ayah ovrei aveirah (abetting transgression of the Torah's commandments)."
The document with the original signatures can be seen here.
Pretty powerful words, if you ask me. In short, it is forbidden to do anything to help Mr. Fidler win the election according to these leading Rabbanim.
Except, perhaps, accept an advertisement in support of Mr. Fidler, because that's exactly what the Flatbush Jewish Journal did. On page 18 (which is right before the ad above), they have an advertisement listing people who support Lew Fidler.
So, what's the story here? It's forbidden to help Mr. Fidler's campaign (except, perhaps, when he pays for an advertisement?)
The Wolf
Question About the Kuzari Principle
One of the proofs that is commonly given to the authenticity of the Giving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai is the Kuzari Principle, as outlined by R. Yehuda HaLevi in his book HaKuzari.
The crux of the proof is (in oversimplified short form) that the story of the Revelation was witnessed by millions of people and the knowledge of that information was transmitted from parent to child, generation after generation. Anyone trying to invent such a story anywhere along the way would have been proven a liar, hence the story must be true.
There are a number of problems with the Kuzari Principle, which I don't really want to get into in this post. Instead, I want to address one particular point in the argument -- the transmission from parent to child.
This transmission is vital to the proof. Implicit within the argument is that the child hears about the from their parents... or, in other words, that the parents/teachers are the transmitters of the information. This differs from, say, reading information in a book which could have been written by anyone and may or may not contain the truth.
However, I've got to wonder if we haven't reached the stage where most people's primary knowledge about the Revelation isn't from their parents but is, in fact, from the Torah itself. If their knowledge of the Revelation comes from having read the Torah and not from their parents, then how is it different than anything else read in a book?
Or am I making some sort of a logical error here?
The Wolf
The crux of the proof is (in oversimplified short form) that the story of the Revelation was witnessed by millions of people and the knowledge of that information was transmitted from parent to child, generation after generation. Anyone trying to invent such a story anywhere along the way would have been proven a liar, hence the story must be true.
There are a number of problems with the Kuzari Principle, which I don't really want to get into in this post. Instead, I want to address one particular point in the argument -- the transmission from parent to child.
This transmission is vital to the proof. Implicit within the argument is that the child hears about the from their parents... or, in other words, that the parents/teachers are the transmitters of the information. This differs from, say, reading information in a book which could have been written by anyone and may or may not contain the truth.
However, I've got to wonder if we haven't reached the stage where most people's primary knowledge about the Revelation isn't from their parents but is, in fact, from the Torah itself. If their knowledge of the Revelation comes from having read the Torah and not from their parents, then how is it different than anything else read in a book?
Or am I making some sort of a logical error here?
The Wolf
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Administrative Note: Issues With Photo Theft
I've noticed that some of my photos were being stolen from this site and being used for commercial and non-commercial purposes. I don't suspect any of this blog's usual readers of this activity... it's largely (I suspect) people using Google to search for images that fit their needs and, since Blogger and Picasa are Google-owned sites, they come up high in the searches. Part of the fault lies with me for not taking steps earlier to prevent this theft.
In any event, I've disabled some of the pics and will be changing some of the photo posts I made in the past. The changes will all be measure to minimize photo theft. Other than the actual photos, no content to any post (photo-related or otherwise) will be changed.
Some of you may see some of the photo posts appear in the RSS feed after I make the changes.
My apologies for any inconvenience this causes.
The Wolf
In any event, I've disabled some of the pics and will be changing some of the photo posts I made in the past. The changes will all be measure to minimize photo theft. Other than the actual photos, no content to any post (photo-related or otherwise) will be changed.
Some of you may see some of the photo posts appear in the RSS feed after I make the changes.
My apologies for any inconvenience this causes.
The Wolf
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
Persecuted? They Don't Know The Meaning Of The Word.
By now, I'm sure you're all aware of the rally that was held last week in Jerusalem's Kikar HaShabbat. Chareidim chose to dress themselves and their children in Nazi garb to protest... well, I'm not sure what they were protesting.
Many chareidim in Israel, it seems, feel persecuted. As you are no doubt well-aware, extremists in the chareidi camp have been trying to force an agenda of religious extremism on others in Israel. Bloggers have long been writing about the violence and intimidation coming from the extremists' camp. Eventually, a number of incidents involving violence on buses and intimidation of school-age children has captured the attention of the international media. People began writing against the actions of the extremists and, rightly or wrongly, against chareidim in general. In short, the chareidi public had a PR nightmare on their hands, and the entire chareidi community, both the extremists and those against them, were caught up in the glare of unflattering light brought against them.
In response, over a thousand men gathered in Jerusalem to protest on the night of Dec 31. Many of the protesters dressed themselves and their children in Holocaust-themed clothing, trying to show that just as the Jews in Nazi Germany were persecuted, so too they are being persecuted. You can see images of the protest here and here.
The not-so-funny part of the entire affair is that these people have no idea what the word "persecution" means.
Persecuted?
These people live in a state where Judaism can be freely practiced (even if they are unable to freely push extremist views on others). There are no laws preventing anyone from keeping Shabbos, davening, learning Torah and so on.
Persecuted?
They live in a state where many of them do not (by choice) work, and instead choose to learn Torah all day while being supported by the state. In addition, in a state where military or national service is normally mandatory, they are largely *excused* from such service if they continue to learn in yeshivos, and given the opportunity to serve in special chareidi units if they so choose.
Persecuted?
They live in an environment where they aren't subject to special Jewish taxes, aren't subject to having their properly confiscated without compensation on the whim of some local official, are free to live pretty much wherever they want, aren't forced in overcrowded urban ghettos and aren't subject to forced labor.
Persecuted?
They aren't forced to go into churches each week and listen to fiery sermons delivered by preachers telling them that they are condemned to torment on earth and hell in the afterlife for holding on to their religious principles. They've never been forced to make the choice between the Cross and the sword, never had to face a mob *literally* screaming for their heads simply because they chose to maintain their Jewish beliefs.
Persecuted?
Any of those people would have *loved* to be able to live the life the chareidim are living now. Persecuted?? They have no idea how good their lives are in comparison to the vast majority of Jews who have lived during the last two thousand years. Their use of Nazi-created imagery to portray themselves as the victims of persecution only shows that those who participated in the rally are completely ignorant of history... and that's truly a shame as you'd think that, as a people who have lived through so much true persecution, they'd be more appreciative of just how good they truly have it.
The Wolf
Many chareidim in Israel, it seems, feel persecuted. As you are no doubt well-aware, extremists in the chareidi camp have been trying to force an agenda of religious extremism on others in Israel. Bloggers have long been writing about the violence and intimidation coming from the extremists' camp. Eventually, a number of incidents involving violence on buses and intimidation of school-age children has captured the attention of the international media. People began writing against the actions of the extremists and, rightly or wrongly, against chareidim in general. In short, the chareidi public had a PR nightmare on their hands, and the entire chareidi community, both the extremists and those against them, were caught up in the glare of unflattering light brought against them.
In response, over a thousand men gathered in Jerusalem to protest on the night of Dec 31. Many of the protesters dressed themselves and their children in Holocaust-themed clothing, trying to show that just as the Jews in Nazi Germany were persecuted, so too they are being persecuted. You can see images of the protest here and here.
The not-so-funny part of the entire affair is that these people have no idea what the word "persecution" means.
Persecuted?
These people live in a state where Judaism can be freely practiced (even if they are unable to freely push extremist views on others). There are no laws preventing anyone from keeping Shabbos, davening, learning Torah and so on.
Persecuted?
They live in a state where many of them do not (by choice) work, and instead choose to learn Torah all day while being supported by the state. In addition, in a state where military or national service is normally mandatory, they are largely *excused* from such service if they continue to learn in yeshivos, and given the opportunity to serve in special chareidi units if they so choose.
Persecuted?
They live in an environment where they aren't subject to special Jewish taxes, aren't subject to having their properly confiscated without compensation on the whim of some local official, are free to live pretty much wherever they want, aren't forced in overcrowded urban ghettos and aren't subject to forced labor.
Persecuted?
They aren't forced to go into churches each week and listen to fiery sermons delivered by preachers telling them that they are condemned to torment on earth and hell in the afterlife for holding on to their religious principles. They've never been forced to make the choice between the Cross and the sword, never had to face a mob *literally* screaming for their heads simply because they chose to maintain their Jewish beliefs.
Persecuted?
- Ask a Jew who lived through the miracle of Purim if these people are truly persecuted.
- Ask a Jew who lived through the oppression of the Seleucids at the time of the miracle of Channukah if these people are truly persecuted.
- Ask a Jew who lived in medieval Europe, where their lives and fates could hang on the whim of some local lordling or church official if these people are truly persecuted?
- Ask a Jew who lived in Spain during the Inquisition, where any outward display of Jewish behavior would likely mean death for them and their family if these people are truly persecuted.
- Ask a Jew who lived through the Khmelnytsky Uprising if these people are truly persecuted.
- Ask a Jew who made it through the Nazi Holocaust if these people are truly persecuted.
- Ask a Jew who bravely held on to Jewish practice in secrecy in the Soviet Union if these people are truly persecuted.
Any of those people would have *loved* to be able to live the life the chareidim are living now. Persecuted?? They have no idea how good their lives are in comparison to the vast majority of Jews who have lived during the last two thousand years. Their use of Nazi-created imagery to portray themselves as the victims of persecution only shows that those who participated in the rally are completely ignorant of history... and that's truly a shame as you'd think that, as a people who have lived through so much true persecution, they'd be more appreciative of just how good they truly have it.
The Wolf
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
People Behaving Badly, Leaders Behaving Badly, State Behaving Badly
The news coming out of Israel over the past few months has been downright depressing. It seems to be a place where the rule of law no longer applies. Instead, several extremist groups are trying to assert the principle of kol d'alim g'var (whoever is stronger prevails) with respect to public policy.
It seems that they've succeeded with regard to Ohr Chaim book store in Jerusalem, where, after months of intimidation, they finally wore the owner of the store down to the point where he agreed with most (all?) of their demands. Other vendors have also been harassed to the point of being forced to alter their store policies.
The fight is still being fought in other spheres -- including gender-segregation on buses and public streets. The latest flash point for this fight is in the city of Beit Shemesh, where goons and thugs have been verbally, emotionally and physically assaulting young girls as young as six.
I find it very interesting that the majority of these battles are over gender-related issues. While I do believe that there may be some interesting observations that can be gleaned from that little factoid, I don't think gender is the real issue here.
The issues at hand here are not gender, the dress of young schoolgirls, the selling of books that might or might not be heretical or different sections of buses. The real issues here are power. The power to force your way of life on others, the power to extort money from businesses, and the power to control people's actions in the public sphere.*
It's often been said that rape is not a crime about sex, but a crime about power. I believe the same principle applies here as well. Various groups of chareidi thugs are attempting to build a power base through intimidation and violence. Just as a rapist uses sex as the vehicle for exerting power over another human being, these thugs are using Torah and halacha (or, rather, their warped version of it) as the vehicle for exerting their power over other people. In their attempt to exert that power, they feel perfectly justified in engaging in mafia-like tactics, physical violence against women and shouting words such as prutza (slut) and zonah (whore) at little girls. While any rational person can see that such things are not normal behavior by any civilized person, their desire for power blinds them to this.
Fortunately, these attitudes and actions seem to be restricted to a small group of thugs. For example, I am told that in Beit Shemesh, "modern" Orthodox Jews and chareidim have lived together in peace for years before the troublemakers came to the area. It has been said that good portions (if not most?) of the chareidi population are embarrassed and sickened by the conduct of these thugs.
However, there seems to be a vast silence when it comes to the chareidi rabbinic leadership when it comes to this conduct. The news reported today that the Belzer Rebbe has condemned the violent behavior of the thugs. However, this is the first such condemnation that I am aware of. The chareidi leadership on the whole, however, has been silent.
The argument has been put forth that the thugs won't listen to the rabbinic leadership. There may be some truth to that argument -- if the root of the problem is based on power and turf-wars, then perhaps they won't listen to the rabbis. But that does not absolve the rabbis of the responsibility to speak out. By failing to speak out, they give the impression that they endorse the violence -- either tacitly or expressly. If they are truly believe that the violent actions of the thugs are wrong, they should speak out against them publicly. If the thugs refuse to listen to their gedolim after that, then they will have been exposed as simple, plain thugs who are interested in power and terror rather than the Torah.
It should be pointed out that there is plenty of blame to be laid at the State here as well. The State, in allowing this to happen, is being neglectful of their responsibility to protect the property and well-being of it's citizens. The fact that the thugs were able to force the owner of the Ohr Chaim bookstore to accede to their demands and that the police could or would not protect the store owner from these mafia-type thugs is simply disgraceful. The fact that the police cannot or will not protect little girls from being pelted with produce and verbal assault is likewise disgraceful and embarrassing.
The first and foremost responsibility of any decent state is to protect it's citizens. The State needs to take that responsibility and take the actions necessary to protect it's citizens from thugs and extortionists.
The first and foremost responsibility of rabbinic leaders is to stand up and proclaim right from wrong. The rabbinic leaders of the communities from which these thugs emerge need to stand up and state unequivocally that certain behaviors and actions are unacceptable and against the Torah and halacha.
The first responsibility an individual is to do right and not do wrong -- and if he or she is not certain what is right or wrong, then s/he must do everything they can to find out.
All three groups have failed in their responsibilities. All three groups need to own up to their responsibilities. The consequences for not doing so are just too great to contemplate.
The Wolf
* And in the private sphere too. It's just that the thugs haven't figured out a way to invade the privacy of people's homes yet. But I have absolutely no doubt that if they could, they would.
It seems that they've succeeded with regard to Ohr Chaim book store in Jerusalem, where, after months of intimidation, they finally wore the owner of the store down to the point where he agreed with most (all?) of their demands. Other vendors have also been harassed to the point of being forced to alter their store policies.
The fight is still being fought in other spheres -- including gender-segregation on buses and public streets. The latest flash point for this fight is in the city of Beit Shemesh, where goons and thugs have been verbally, emotionally and physically assaulting young girls as young as six.
I find it very interesting that the majority of these battles are over gender-related issues. While I do believe that there may be some interesting observations that can be gleaned from that little factoid, I don't think gender is the real issue here.
The issues at hand here are not gender, the dress of young schoolgirls, the selling of books that might or might not be heretical or different sections of buses. The real issues here are power. The power to force your way of life on others, the power to extort money from businesses, and the power to control people's actions in the public sphere.*
It's often been said that rape is not a crime about sex, but a crime about power. I believe the same principle applies here as well. Various groups of chareidi thugs are attempting to build a power base through intimidation and violence. Just as a rapist uses sex as the vehicle for exerting power over another human being, these thugs are using Torah and halacha (or, rather, their warped version of it) as the vehicle for exerting their power over other people. In their attempt to exert that power, they feel perfectly justified in engaging in mafia-like tactics, physical violence against women and shouting words such as prutza (slut) and zonah (whore) at little girls. While any rational person can see that such things are not normal behavior by any civilized person, their desire for power blinds them to this.
Fortunately, these attitudes and actions seem to be restricted to a small group of thugs. For example, I am told that in Beit Shemesh, "modern" Orthodox Jews and chareidim have lived together in peace for years before the troublemakers came to the area. It has been said that good portions (if not most?) of the chareidi population are embarrassed and sickened by the conduct of these thugs.
However, there seems to be a vast silence when it comes to the chareidi rabbinic leadership when it comes to this conduct. The news reported today that the Belzer Rebbe has condemned the violent behavior of the thugs. However, this is the first such condemnation that I am aware of. The chareidi leadership on the whole, however, has been silent.
The argument has been put forth that the thugs won't listen to the rabbinic leadership. There may be some truth to that argument -- if the root of the problem is based on power and turf-wars, then perhaps they won't listen to the rabbis. But that does not absolve the rabbis of the responsibility to speak out. By failing to speak out, they give the impression that they endorse the violence -- either tacitly or expressly. If they are truly believe that the violent actions of the thugs are wrong, they should speak out against them publicly. If the thugs refuse to listen to their gedolim after that, then they will have been exposed as simple, plain thugs who are interested in power and terror rather than the Torah.
It should be pointed out that there is plenty of blame to be laid at the State here as well. The State, in allowing this to happen, is being neglectful of their responsibility to protect the property and well-being of it's citizens. The fact that the thugs were able to force the owner of the Ohr Chaim bookstore to accede to their demands and that the police could or would not protect the store owner from these mafia-type thugs is simply disgraceful. The fact that the police cannot or will not protect little girls from being pelted with produce and verbal assault is likewise disgraceful and embarrassing.
The first and foremost responsibility of any decent state is to protect it's citizens. The State needs to take that responsibility and take the actions necessary to protect it's citizens from thugs and extortionists.
The first and foremost responsibility of rabbinic leaders is to stand up and proclaim right from wrong. The rabbinic leaders of the communities from which these thugs emerge need to stand up and state unequivocally that certain behaviors and actions are unacceptable and against the Torah and halacha.
The first responsibility an individual is to do right and not do wrong -- and if he or she is not certain what is right or wrong, then s/he must do everything they can to find out.
All three groups have failed in their responsibilities. All three groups need to own up to their responsibilities. The consequences for not doing so are just too great to contemplate.
The Wolf
* And in the private sphere too. It's just that the thugs haven't figured out a way to invade the privacy of people's homes yet. But I have absolutely no doubt that if they could, they would.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
How Can They Say Science Is Wrong?
As many of you are aware, there are various statements made by Chazal that are at odds with current scientific understanding. These include statements regarding the physiology of some extant animals, the existence of animals that are now considered to be fanciful, the age and nature of the universe, the movements of the heavenly bodies and other subjects. Natan Slifkin, in a recent post, described the approach that various critics of his take towards reconciling these differences. One such approach, taken by Rabbi Moshe Shapiro, is characterized by Rabbi Slifkin as follows:
Anyone with the slightest grasp of Chazal will realize that they were not speaking about the physical biology of bats. In the world of pnimiyus, the bat actually does lay eggs.
Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro, of Far Rockaway (is he related to R. Moshe Shapiro?) takes a similar approach. He writes:
In general, whenever Chazal make a scientific statement, they are not talking about the observable universe but rather the "real" universe. What we - and the scientists - see is only a graphic user interface, so to speak. The real world - the real sun, real moon, real earth - is not observable by current scientific means. Chazal were talking about the real world when they spoke. I'd recommend this Shiur for a full treatment.
Therefore, the Jewish sages were talking about the "real" universe, which indeed behaves exactly as the Chachmei Yisroel described. The non-Jewish scholars were arguing with limited information, i.e. with what their scientists could see on the "outside," GUI world. We agree that on the outside, it would appear the way they say. But the Chachmei Yisroel saw deeper, they saw into the real world and there, their description is correct.
Of course, they'd never believe the source of our information, which was the Torah's insight into the world, and it is likely assur to explain it to them anyway. So we couldn't really win this argument. But we were right.
I find this particular approach to be totally incomprehensible. Set aside, for the moment, that there is little, if any, indication that Chazal were not talking about the actual physical universe. The real difficulty with adopting this approach is the fact that you cannot then use any of Chazal's statements as a basis for arguing with modern science. You cannot say that science is wrong regarding bats laying eggs and, at the same time, use Chazal's statements regarding bats and eggs as proof that science is wrong.
Rabbi Yaakov's argument ends with the statement that we're right and the scientists are wrong. But he's really fighting a phantom. He says that when Chazal make statements about our world, they are talking about some "reality" that is not observable through our senses or experimentation. The scientific community, on the other hand, makes no such claim. They deal in the observable universe. They make no such claim regarding any behind-the-scenes metaphysical universe that the Rabbis Shapiro claim that Chazal speak of.
In short, by adopting this approach, the Rabbis Shapiro have ceded the argument to the scientists vis-a-vis the observable universe. Science says bats don't lay eggs? Not a problem -- since Chazal weren't talking about physical bats, we can say that science (which concerns itself with physical, observable bats) is correct (regardless of whether Chazal are right or wrong about metaphysical bats) in it's statement that bats do not lay eggs. Spontaneous generation (such as with mud-mice or lice)? Also not a problem -- science is right because it deals with physical, observable animals, not metaphysical ones. The same can be applied to the age of the universe, and just about any other area of argument regarding science and Torah. In short, by making the claim that Chazal were talking about some unobservable meta-physical reality, they have lost the ability to use Chazal's statements as a basis for saying that science is wrong about anything.
The Wolf
Wednesday, November 02, 2011
Photos: Colorful Water Drops
Canon XSi, 100mm macro lens, f/2.8, 1/320 second, ISO 200
Lately, I've been experimenting with various water drop pictures. Here's one that I did that involved using some color.
Comments, criticisms and critiques are welcomed, appreciated and encouraged.
The Wolf
Tuesday, November 01, 2011
"Even An Eight Year Old Draws My Eyes..."
As many of you are probably aware, there has been a battle going on surrounding the Orot school for girls in Beit Shemesh. The short version of the story is as follows:
The town of Beit Shemesh had been planning a new girls' religious-Zionist school for several years. Eventually, they were given a parcel of land and began building. Before the building could be completed, a new chareidi neighborhood opened up in Beit Shemesh adjacent to the parcel of land where the school was being built. By the time the school was ready to open this past September, the chareidi neighborhood was flourishing.
Various elements within the chareidi community did not want the school located adjacent to their community. They decided that the girls' manner of dress, while in strict accordance with halacha, did not meet their standards. After trying to bring political pressure to bear, they attempted to occupy the building before the school year started. When that failed, they began daily protests outside the school, shouting insults such as "whore" at the girls, who are aged 6-12.
I hadn't heard anything about this after the Yomim Tovim and (perhaps naively) assumed that the battle had ended. Apparently, I was wrong. An article appeared yesterday in The Guardian, indicating that this is still going on. The extreme elements within the chareidi community are still protesting and yelling at the girls, as well as otherwise making trouble in Beit Shemesh.
I detect a certain amount of hypocrisy in the position of the extremist chareidi mindset. They demand that others be sensitive to their customs and mores. For example, they ask that if women come through their neighborhoods, they do so dressed modestly. Personally, I don't have too much of a problem with such a request. "When in Rome..." the saying goes, "... do as the Romans do." A visitor should be sensitive to the cultural norms of the places where s/he visits.
But yet, the chareidim can't or won't respect the cultural norms of others. They move into an established community and then begin protesting if the established residents don't meet their standards of behavior. It doesn't matter to them that the school was planned for that spot long before they arrived.... they're there now and that's all that matters to them. In short, their attitude it "when we're here first, live by our rules. When you're here first, live by our rules." Interestingly enough, in Judaism, we have a name for that sort of attitude. The Mishna in Avos puts it very succinctly: [One who says] what's yours is mine and what's mine is mine [indicates the] type of behavior of S'dom.
Interestingly enough, there may well be another S'dom connection here. One of the reasons brought down for the punishment of S'dom was sexual abnormality. It seems we have that here too. When Rabbi Dov Lipman, a community activist, asked one of the protesters why he was protesting the manner in which a little girl dresses, he responded that "even an eight-year old draws my eyes."
There is a word for people who think about eight year-olds in a sexual manner. Deviant and pervert are two of the milder ones that come to mind. I think that it is obvious that there are deviant and perverted people among the protesters, and that perhaps the chareidi community should look within itself to weed these people out.
The Wolf
The town of Beit Shemesh had been planning a new girls' religious-Zionist school for several years. Eventually, they were given a parcel of land and began building. Before the building could be completed, a new chareidi neighborhood opened up in Beit Shemesh adjacent to the parcel of land where the school was being built. By the time the school was ready to open this past September, the chareidi neighborhood was flourishing.
Various elements within the chareidi community did not want the school located adjacent to their community. They decided that the girls' manner of dress, while in strict accordance with halacha, did not meet their standards. After trying to bring political pressure to bear, they attempted to occupy the building before the school year started. When that failed, they began daily protests outside the school, shouting insults such as "whore" at the girls, who are aged 6-12.
I hadn't heard anything about this after the Yomim Tovim and (perhaps naively) assumed that the battle had ended. Apparently, I was wrong. An article appeared yesterday in The Guardian, indicating that this is still going on. The extreme elements within the chareidi community are still protesting and yelling at the girls, as well as otherwise making trouble in Beit Shemesh.
I detect a certain amount of hypocrisy in the position of the extremist chareidi mindset. They demand that others be sensitive to their customs and mores. For example, they ask that if women come through their neighborhoods, they do so dressed modestly. Personally, I don't have too much of a problem with such a request. "When in Rome..." the saying goes, "... do as the Romans do." A visitor should be sensitive to the cultural norms of the places where s/he visits.
But yet, the chareidim can't or won't respect the cultural norms of others. They move into an established community and then begin protesting if the established residents don't meet their standards of behavior. It doesn't matter to them that the school was planned for that spot long before they arrived.... they're there now and that's all that matters to them. In short, their attitude it "when we're here first, live by our rules. When you're here first, live by our rules." Interestingly enough, in Judaism, we have a name for that sort of attitude. The Mishna in Avos puts it very succinctly: [One who says] what's yours is mine and what's mine is mine [indicates the] type of behavior of S'dom.
Interestingly enough, there may well be another S'dom connection here. One of the reasons brought down for the punishment of S'dom was sexual abnormality. It seems we have that here too. When Rabbi Dov Lipman, a community activist, asked one of the protesters why he was protesting the manner in which a little girl dresses, he responded that "even an eight-year old draws my eyes."
There is a word for people who think about eight year-olds in a sexual manner. Deviant and pervert are two of the milder ones that come to mind. I think that it is obvious that there are deviant and perverted people among the protesters, and that perhaps the chareidi community should look within itself to weed these people out.
The Wolf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)