Wolfish Musings

Administrative Note: Issues With Photo Theft

2012-01-10T17:10:00.001-05:00

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

Persecuted? They Don't Know The Meaning Of The Word.

2012-01-04T11:37:00.000-05:00

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?

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

People Behaving Badly, Leaders Behaving Badly, State Behaving Badly

2011-12-27T15:21:00.000-05:00

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.

How Can They Say Science Is Wrong?

2011-11-17T11:19:00.001-05:00

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

Photos: Colorful Water Drops

2011-11-02T11:45:00.003-04:00

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

"Even An Eight Year Old Draws My Eyes..."

2011-11-01T10:31:00.001-04:00

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

Is There Even A Point To This?

2011-10-06T18:05:00.000-04:00

A friend of mine spotted the following flier hanging in Brooklyn. In short, it states that there are a limited number of openings for the opportunity to do the mitzvah of shiluach hakein -- the sending away of the mother bird. For a "nominal fee*" the person behind the flier will presumably take you to the bird and nest and allow you to perform the mitzvah.

Furthermore, the flier continues, you should not miss out on this opportunity since aside from Torah's promise of "Prosperous Days and Longevity," you are also guaranteed (emphasis mine) a slew of other benefits, including the conceiving of children, finding a spouse, purchasing a house, etc.

Personally, I have several problems with this particular flier and with others like it. The first issue I have (with this flier in particular) is the use of the word "guaranteed." How can the rabbi behind this offer (whoever he is) possibly make such a guarantee? Even the promises made by Hashem Himself in the Torah aren't absolute promises -- consider the story that is told about Elisha ben Avuyah (a.k.a. Acher) who saw a young boy die while trying to fulfill this mitzvah and the mitzvah of honoring one's father. That being the case, how can this rabbi make such a guarantee? Will he personally grant a child to a childless couple if they fail to conceive despite his promise? Will he pay the medical bills of someone who *is* hurt while traveling?

This is, of course, a part of the general trend nowadays of selling yeshuous (salivations) and promises of miracles. The only difference here is that instead of the money going to a yeshiva, charity or some other organization, this rabbi is using it as a part-time business opportunity. I don't begrudge him the opportunity, but I must say that if I find the selling of Divine promises of salvation distasteful in charitable endeavors, I find it all the more so in a private enterprise.

But there's also a deeper, more troubling problem with this offer. Shiluach hakein strikes me as an "opportunity" mitzvah. If you find yourself in a position of wanting eggs, and you find that the eggs you want are in a nest being protected by a mother bird, then have to send the mother away. But what if you don't really want the eggs? Suppose you're traveling on the road (as the case is described in the Torah) and you spot a tree with a bird, nest and eggs, but you have no desire for the eggs. Is there any mitzvah to climb the tree and shoo away the mother bird? Clearly the answer is no -- you don't have to do so and (to my understanding) doing so for no reason may even amount to a measure of tza'ar ba'alei chaim (causing pain/distress to animals).

That being said, what is the purpose of this whole exercise? I doubt that anyone who responds to this rabbi's offer has any real desire for pigeon eggs (or whatever other bird it is that he's using)**. Even if he's using chicken eggs, why would anyone go all the way to him when eggs can be had in the local grocery much more easily? So, the whole thing is just an artificial and contrived set up to perform a mitzvah that is just not required. What next? Should I charge people $5 for the opportunity to find my wallet in a side room after I leave it there so that they can perform the mitzvah of returning a lost object? Is that really fulfilling the mitzvah? The entire exercise sounds (to me) so contrived and artificial and completely out of sync with how the mitzvah should actually be performed.

The Wolf

* I don't begrudge the rabbi the "nominal fee" (assuming, of course, that it is, indeed, nominal). He certainly spends his time (and possibly money) to arrange this and deserves to be compensated.

** This is leaving aside the question of whether or not the rabbi would even let the person take the eggs away, as this would either prevent him from giving the opportunity to the next person or require him to find a new nest with eggs for each opportunity.

(h/t for the photo on request)

Photos: Tiger

2011-09-08T23:18:00.000-04:00

I recently took a trip to the Bronx Zoo and, of course, I took my trusty camera along. I managed to get a number of good tiger shots. Here's one:

Canon XSi, 75-300mm lens at 300mm, f/5.6, 1/400 second, ISO 400.

Comments, critiques and criticisms are welcome, encouraged and appreciated.

The Wolf

Photos: Fly

2011-08-30T11:20:00.000-04:00

As long-time readers of this blog know, I happen to enjoy photography. One particular type of photography that I enjoy is macro photography, otherwise known as "close up" photography.

I own two macro lenses which I use for my macro photography. One is a Canon 100mm macro lens (the older, non-L lens, for you photo geeks). This is a great lens which provides up to life size (1:1 magnification) pictures. This is also a nice portrait lens. Despite the name, it can be used for non-macro work as well and is my favorite lens among the ones that I own.

Canon, however, also makes a specialty macro lens, called the MP-E 65. It's a 65mm lens that is exclusively a macro lens. It cannot focus on anything more than a few centimeters away. This lens, however, is capable of providing up to 5x magnification. This lens, however, has some unique challenges, such as the lack of an auto-focus feature. It's all manual focus and the only way to get your subject in focus is to manually move the camera (or your subject) back or forth until the focus is right. In addition, the higher the magnification you chose, the more challenging the shots become. As a result, I find myself most often using it at 2-3x.

I like to shoot insects with my macro lens. Or, rather, I should say, I like to *try* to shoot insects. The little buggies, however, rarely stand still long enough for me to set up with my manual-focus macro lens. Needless to say, taking such pictures, while fun, is sometimes quite challenging and when I do end up with a nice, clear image, I like to consider it a victory.

Which brings us to this picture. I set up a plate on my back porch with a piece of apple and some honey, hoping to attract some bees or wasps. All I got was a very young fly. As it turns out, that was a blessing for me. Since the fly was young, he(?) hadn't yet learned to be overly fearful. As a result, he was willing to sit on the apple and pose while my camera lens got thisclose to him. The result:

Canon XSi, MP-E 65mm lens at 3x, f/8, 1/20 second, ISO 800

As always, comments, critiques and criticisms are welcome, encouraged and appreciated.

The Wolf

Whatever Happened to Civility and Basic Respect?

2011-08-29T09:57:00.000-04:00

This past Tisha B'Av, a group of Chassidim (I believe they were Neturai Karta, but I could be wrong about that) protested in New York against Rav Shteinman and his support of the Tal Law in Israel which allows for a chareidi army unit. In the course of the protest, at least one of them loudly proclaims that Rav Aharon Leib Shteinman is a "Rusha M'Rusha" (extremely wicked person) and says "Y'mach Sh'mo" (may his name be erased) after his name.

Long time readers of my blog know that I do not ascribe to the doctrine of rabbinic infallibility. I believe that it is possible for gedolim, including Rav Shteinman to be in error*. So, if you believe that Rav Shteinman is wrong, I have no problem with someone marshaling forth their arguments and making their case, even forcefully.

But there's a very clear and distinct line between forceful, civil disagreement and outright disrespect and outright demonization --- and the people in this video completely blew past that line. To call someone who is generally acknowledged to be one of the greatest living sages extremely wicked and to use the epithet "y'mach sh'mo" -- an epithet reserved for only the most reviled people in history is, in my humble opinion, completely and utterly beyond the pale.

I can't help but think that their version of "shivim panim laTorah" (that there are seventy facets to the Torah) is similar to Henry Ford's idea of choice of color for the Model-T -- the customer can "have any color so long as it's black." It's one thing to believe that your path is legitimate. It's quite something else to believe that only your own narrow ideology is correct and that anyone even slightly outside it is not just wrong, but a wicked person whose name deserved to be wiped out.

Interestingly enough, I see the same thing happening in other places as well. For example, in a recent thread on the YWN Coffeeroom, a discussion cropped up about the recent earthquake and Hurricane Irene both hitting the northeastern United States in such close proximity. Some posters felt that there was a Divine message there. One poster (ronrsr) stated that it was mere coincidence. Another poster decided to attack that position by saying:

sorry, ronrsr, to call this a coincidence is pure apikorsus

Let's leave aside the fact that that ronrsr's respondent clearly doesn't know what constitutes apikorsus. What disturbs me far more than his ignorance is the fact that the respondent sees no possible middle ground between his own opinion and heresy. In his eyes, it seems, it's not possible to simply be wrong (let alone have an alternate, legitimate opinion). Instead of being incorrect, his disputant has to be labelled as an apikorus -- possibly the worst designation you can give to a Jew.

Whatever happened to the idea of respectful disagreement? Whatever happened to the idea that someone could be wrong but they don't have to be demonized? In short, what ever happened to common civility?

The Wolf

* I personally don't know enough about the issue to say whether Rav Shteinman is right or wrong on the issue. The issue here is not whether Rav Shteinman is right or wrong, just that it is within the realm of possibility that he is wrong.

Emotionally Manipulative Fraudulent Tripe

2011-07-19T23:35:00.000-04:00

A new letter is beginning to make the rounds on the internet and, possibly, other media. The letter is about the recent murder of Leiby Kletzky, purported to be from "Moshela," a handicapped child. I'm not going to post the entire letter -- it can be read online here or here.

Before we comment on the content of the letter itself, I will start out by saying that I am certain that the letter is a fraud. There is no way that a child, handicapped or not, wrote this letter. It's just not the way that a child writes or speaks. In that respect, it reminds me somewhat of the famous letter of Revital Avraham, which, like this letter, tries to emotionally use a person's death (although, in that case, it was a fictional person's death) to manipulate people emotionally.

The letter basically tries to make the case that Orthodox American Jews are bad Jews. An entire litany of sins (real and imagined) are laid out for us -- everything from talking during davening to eating sushi and pizza. Yes, of course, tznius is mentioned as well (has there ever been a tragedy in the past twenty years that wasn't chalked up to a supposed lack of tznius standards?), as well as laxity in kashrus, too much gashmius (materialism) and other items. He concludes by prophesying about terrible things coming in the next few months and that we must all repent our sins.

The kicker, of course, is that it isn't the killer who is responsible for Leiby Kletzky's death, but us. As "Moishela" puts it:

Q: Why is it a Kiddush Hashem if he was killed by a Yid?
A: Because it does not matter who killed him. It was the Goyishkeit in ourselves that killed him so that makes it a Kiddush Hashem. A true Yid would never kill a child as this man did, only if he is totally deranged. And even so, a real Yiddishah Neshomah could never be guilty of such cruelty; therefore he died Al Kiddush Hashem. The Goyishkeit in us is what killed him.

Personally, reading letters like this make me sick. It's one thing to try to advance your own agenda, but it's another thing to use a child's death to do so. If you want to make the case that Jews need to change their conduct in certain areas, then by all means, make the case for it. But don't tell me that Lieby Kletzky died because I ate a slice of pizza. There's only so much manipulative tripe I can take, and this letter went well beyond that. That's not to say that "Moishela" doesn't have some valid points. I think most of us can agree, for example, that talking and texting during davening is wrong and disrespectful. He may have some valid point in other parts of his letter as well. But when he wraps the whole thing up in an emotionally manipulative letter that blames everyone and everything except the actual killer (and lies about the authorship of the letter to boot), then I lose interest in the entire message he's trying to convey.

The Wolf

My Good Old Siddur

2011-07-12T11:38:00.000-04:00

There is a small maroon softcover siddur that I keep in my tallis bag and which I use every day. I bought the siddur from a seforim store back in 1984 or 1985. The design on the cover and the lettering on the spine have long since faded away. Some of the pages are a bit faded and a number of the page corners are dog-eared or missing entirely. The edges of the pages have long since lost their bright white glow and turned a dingy, dull gray.

I have sometimes been asked why I use such an old siddur. Most people would retire a run-down, well-worn siddur after twenty-five years, especially when the siddur wasn't an inheritance or gift from a special relative, rebbe, friend, etc. After all, siddurim are not particularly expensive.

As it turns out, there is a reason why I keep this particular siddur and use it daily. The reason for it can be best explained after you've seen a scan of two pages.

There are eleven pages in the siddur that have scribbles on them in the same red ink. These scribbles were made by Walter about sixteen years ago when he got a hold of my siddur and a red pen one day when I wasn't looking. I remember, at the time, being somewhat upset about it, since I had already been using the siddur for a number of years and I happened to like it.

But in the years that have followed, the siddur has grown on me, precisely because my young son scribbled on eleven of the pages. Those pages have come to have special meaning and significance for me over the years. I've learned to understand that when I see those pages, I now have something to pray for -- my children. I see the pages and I'm reminded that I have to pray for their welfare -- their physical welfare, their emotional and spiritual welfare, their social welfare and probably a dozen other welfares as well. You'd think that a person shouldn't need a reminder to pray for something, but sometimes we show up for davening in the morning bleary-eyed and half-asleep and just "go through the motions" without taking the time to reflect upon what it is that we are asking our Creator for and why we are asking it of Him. But I have something to help me focus on what's important. I have some red scribbles on the opening pages of my siddur that has, for the past sixteen years, reminded me of why I need to entreat my Creator.

I may have been upset at the time, but, in retrospect, I realize that I owe a great deal of gratitude to my then-toddler son. By taking a red pen to my siddur, he has given me a reminder everyday to focus my prayers on the important things in life.

The Wolf

Identities

2011-06-27T11:59:00.000-04:00

The cover is blown... sort of.

Over Shabbos, I found out that I am not nearly as anonymous as I was a few weeks ago. A recent post of mine was read by someone who knows the subject of the post, who then spread the word (not out of malice, but because they liked what I said in the post).

Truth to tell, I'm actually okay with it. When I wrote the post I was well aware that there was a possibility that someone could identify me from the post. If I were truly paranoid about my "secret identity" I probably would not have posted it to begin with (or at least altered it significantly more than I did). So, I can't say that I'm totally shocked by this.

In addition, I have no regrets about writing the post. I was touched and moved by the events of the day...and I still am. I thought that they deserved to be written about and shared... and I still do. So I don't regret writing the post, even if it means that many more people know who I am.

In reality, I've been going back and forth on the whole "anonymous blogger" bit for a few years already. Back in 2009, I was considering just coming out and revealing who I am*. At the time, I simply chose to remain anonymous. Nonetheless, despite that decision, I did begin the "coming out" process. I informed some close friends** and family members about my blog. I posted about real-life people that I knew (even if it meant that their families would be able to identify me). I even went to a blogger's meet-up without a mask and allowed myself to be photographed. :) In addition, many of the photographs that I post on this blog are posted elsewhere on the 'net under my real name. It was probably only a matter of time before someone saw one of my pictures and said to him/herself, "Hey, didn't I see that picture somewhere else..."

With all that being said, however, I'm not going to be revealing my name here. I expect that if you really wanted to find out who I am, you could probably do it without too much difficulty. If you know me in real life and want to ask me about my blog, by all means, feel free to ask. If you don't know me in real life... well, my name probably wouldn't mean anything to you anyway. I'm not a famous (or infamous) person... just a regular frum guy in Brooklyn posting on a blog. So, there's not going to be any "grand announcement" of my identity... but I'm not going to be paranoid about it either. I guess you can call it "pseudo-anonymous."

For those of you who do know me in real life and are aware of this blog, I ask you to please not make any public announcements. If someone asks you directly if the Wolf is so-and-so, by all means, don't lie. But please don't just give it out to every Tom, Dick or Harry who asks without reason (and I leave it up to your discretion as to whether it's a good reason or not).

Thanks,

The Wolf

* Not that my real name would probably mean anything to you. I'm not a famous person.
** If you're reading this and you're thinking "we must not be close because he never told me..." please don't think that way. If you never expressed an interest in blogs one way or the other, then there would have been no reason for me to mention it.

The Misaligned Moral Compass in New Square

2011-06-21T11:28:00.002-04:00

It is being reported that Shaul Spitzer, the person accused in the attempted murder of Aron Rottenberg and his family, has been released from the hospital and is back in the yeshiva in New Square.

The fact that Spitzer has been welcomed back to the yeshiva shows that moral compass of the leaders of the community is severely misaligned.

In New Square, you can be thrown out of school for the crime of having a parent who davens in the wrong shul, as happened to Rottenberg's daughter. You would, presumably, face expulsion if you had a television in your home, had unfiltered internet access, had the wrong books, etc. But attempt to murder a family in their sleep by fire? For that, you get to come back to the yeshiva.

Assuming the yeshiva is under the control of the Skvere Rebbe, I have to admit that the fact that Spitzer is allowed back into the yeshiva really makes the condemnation of the attack very suspect. How can he condemn the attack in public and yet allow Spitzer back into the school when he expels other people from educational institutions for far, far less? I'm also left to wonder if the leaders of the New Square community haven't completely lost their sense of morality.

The Wolf

Photos: What Is It?

2011-06-20T11:35:00.000-04:00

I haven't posted a photo challenge in a while, so perhaps it's time for a new one. Here's the pic:

Canon XSi, MP-E 65mm lens at 5x, f/16, 15 seconds

The only clues I will give you is that the image you are seeing is magnified 5x its normal size and the subject(s) was (were) found in my home.

The first one who guesses correctly the subject of the picture receives twenty Wolf points.

The Wolf

... And I Sat Down And Cried.

2011-05-27T13:41:00.000-04:00

The Bar Mitzvah in our shul this past Shabbos was unlike any other Bar Mitzvah I ever attended; but that's simply because the young man is unlike any other Bar Mitzvah I ever met before.

Reuvain is a child with Down's Syndrome. It only takes a single glance at Reuvain to know that he's not quite like you and I. Despite the fact that he's been around for thirteen years, his height and face are more reminiscent of that of a seven year old. His speech can sometimes be unclear and he occasionally has issues dealing with certain social situations, including large and noisy crowds.

In the six years that I've been davening in my present shul, I've come to feel that I know Reuvain to some extent. His is the face that I see when I lain. I say that because whenever he is present in shul during laining, he takes a chair and stands on the opposite side of the bimah from me. From there he will watch and listen attentively as I lain. He’s also often the one “in charge” of placing and removing the cover of the Torah in between aliyos. Usually, at some point toward the end of the laining, he will ask me for the yad, as he likes to hold on to it. My usual response to him is that I still have two or three or four (or however many) aliyos still to lain before I can give it to him. He'll look at me and smile and wait patiently until the end of laining so that I can give him the yad. In some ways, it's become a bit of a game between us. In the past, I've told him that he can have the yad after I finish the aliya after kaddish, but he still asks, and so I'll still him "three more aliyos" or "two more aliyos."

In truth Reuvain is a very special person in our shul -- and that is a testament to both his parents and the people in our shul. It is unfortunate that in the past, children such as Reuvain were hidden away, lest their very existence bring shame the family and ruin chances for shidduchim for the other members. It's even more unfortunate that this type of attitude actually still exists in some places. Reuvain's parents, on the other hand, never subscribed to this mode of thinking. They have done their best to integrate Reuvain into the shul to the best of his capabilities. He comes to shul nearly every week and davens and participates as best he can. As I mentioned earlier, he is always present and watching during laining. When the Sefer Torah is taken out of the aron, he is there to help, and when it's being put away, he's there waiting to kiss the Sefer and help put it away. Reuvain has never been hidden away by his parents -- he is one of their children and, to the best of his ability, they and their other children have tried to fit him in and mainstream him as much as possible.

The people (and especially the children) in the shul have embraced Reuvain as one of their own. It's all too easy and common for children to make fun of another child who is different -- and there is no denying that Reuvain is different in just that way that might cause other children to poke fun at him. But that's not what the children in our shul do. Instead, he's one of them. I have a very vivid memory of Simchas Torah a few years ago where Reuvain was dancing in the shul with his stuffed Torah and all the other children in the shul were dancing in a circle around him, celebrating with him, making him the focus of their celebration. The adults, too, welcome Reuvain with open arms. After davening he will often go around to wish "Good Shabbos" to all the men in shul, and they will all shake his hand and with him a "Good Shabbos" in return.

I have a slightly more personal connection with Reuvain than the average person in our shul. For some reason that I have yet to fathom, Reuvain has taken a liking to me personally. He has somehow locked on to me as a figure of admiration and friendship. Perhaps one short story will illustrate this and provide some background for what happened this past Shabbos.

In our shul, the custom is to give pre-Bar Mitzvah boys individual aliyos on Simchas Torah. Reuvain had been practicing the b'rachos for his Bar Mitzvah and knew what to say if he wanted to have an aliyah. Reuvain was given the opportunity to have an aliyah and was somewhat ready to go, but when his turn came, he got cold feet and didn't want to go. So, we called up some other boys instead and, after each one was finished, we gave Reuvain the opportunity to have the next aliyah. This continued until we got up to the very last aliyah before Kol HaN'arim. He was then told that if he wanted to have an aliyah, it would have to be then. In the end, with his father's help, he mustered up the courage and took his first aliyah. Amid tears of joy, his parents watched as he said the b’rachos on the Torah and stood there for his first aliyah. I was later informed by Eeees that Reuvain was asked what made him change his mind and agree to have an aliyah. He said that he did it for me. Needless to say, I felt extremely honored and touched.

I knew in advance that, for his Bar Mitzvah, Reuvain was supposed to read the Maftir. His father had been telling me in the months leading up to the big day that he had been practicing with his teacher and that he had been making wonderful progress. I hadn't heard him practicing his laining, but I had heard him practicing Ain Kailokeinu and Aleinu and, over time, I could see his progress there. I figured that if he could lain the Maftir, it would be a wonderful thing. I certainly didn't expect anything more.

So there we were on the big day in shul. All manner of friend and family were gathered to watch this special boy become Bar Mitzvh. I finished laining the parsha and returned to my seat so that Reuvain could lain the Maftir. However, after the gabbai called Reuvain up to the Torah, we could hear him saying "Don't want" from his seat. The poor kid probably wasn't prepared for the large crowd of people and retreated into his shell. His father took him outside to try to calm him. In the meantime, the congregation waited.

After about ten minutes (and after consulting with the Rav), his parents decided to try slowly acclimatizing him to the crowd. They brought Reuvain into the shul and all the men except for his father and his Bar Mitzvah teacher left. While everyone was outside, Reuvain practiced the laining again. After he practiced it once, Reuvain's brothers and some other relatives were brought back in, and he practiced the laining again. After that, some more men (including myself) were brought back in and he did it yet again. Finally, the rest of the men were brought back into the shul and this time, he lained the Maftir with the b'rachos. I'd probably be lying if I said there wasn't a single dry eye in the house, but there certainly were quite a few more wet ones than there are at a standard Bar Mitzvah. After his aliyah, while we were all singing Mazel Tov, his Bar Mitzvah teacher picked him up and began dancing with him. You could see the love and caring that he had for that child.

To my surprise, Reuvain wasn't quite done. After finishing the Maftir (and after one more "practice session" without everyone leaving the room), Reuvain recited the b'rachos for the haftorah and then proceeded to read the entire haftorah (and recite the b'rachos afterward), an accomplishment that completely shocked and amazed not only myself, but just about everyone in shul. The Rav of our shul, a fellow who doesn't often get flustered, was so completely moved by Reuvain's accomplishment that he could barely speak. You could hear his voice breaking from emotion as he gave the d’rasha (or as much of it as he could) after the haftorah was completed.

In addition to Reuvain's accomplishment, there was also the attitude of the people in the shul. The whole process of getting Reuvain comfortable enough to be able to lain added about thirty minutes to the davening. It certainly would have been within the rights of anyone in the shul to stand up and protest on grounds of tircha d'tzibbura. But the fact of the matter is that no one complained about the delay or about being asked to leave the shul and return. Everyone did it willingly for this special young man.

I’m not normally the type of person to get chocked up or overly emotional. I sometimes like to pride myself on my ability to keep my emotions reasonably in check. In addition, I have over twenty years experience in teaching bar mitzvah boys how to lain and nearly twenty years experience as a parent. I sometimes like to think that, when it comes to Bar Mitzvahs, I’ve “seen it all” and that there is little that can move me emotionally. For example, when Walter and George became Bar Mitzvah, I was certainly very joyous and felt a lot of pride, but I did not become all choked up about it. But for this little boy things were different. This is a kid – no, make that this is a young man – who has had to struggle to developmentally grow and thrive in his life. This is a young man who, because of his dedication and the love and devotion of his parents and teachers, was able to get up on his Bar Mitzvah day and exceed everyone’s expectations of what he was able to accomplish.

Some people may have been able to hold their emotions in check. The Rav of the shul, as I mentioned above, was barely able to. As for me, it was hopeless. I was too overcome with emotion. After the Rav finished speaking, I went into an isolated spot of the shul, and I sat down and cried.

The Wolf

Arson In New Square... and the Silence That Followed.

2011-05-25T11:38:00.002-04:00

This week, Shaul Spitzer, a New Square man,attempted to burn down own the house of another New Square man. Spitzer arrived at the home of Chaim Aron Rottenberg at around 4:00 on Sunday morning, armed with Molotov cocktail-like devices. Fortunately, Rottenberg woke up before Spitzer could set fire to the house, killing Rottenberg and his family. Instead, Rottenberg confronted Spitzer. At some point, the incendiary device was lit, with Rottenberg suffering third degree burns over 50% of his body. Spitzer, who was also burned during the confrontation, has been arrested and charged with arson and attempted murder.

It turns out that this is not the first time that Rottenberg and his family have been targeted. In the previous few months, there have been nighttime protests outside his home (complete with calls such as "Sheigetz get out of New Square"), car and home windows have been smashed and other acts of intimidation.

You may ask what it was that Rottenberg did to deserve all this. Did his wife act in a non-tznius fashion? Did he read Rabbi Slifkin's books? Does he author a blog?

The answers to the above questions are no. Rottenberg's crime, for which he and his family were going to be murdered, was davening in the wrong minyan. Apparently, in New Square, the Rebbe had instituted a rule years go that everyone must daven in the main shul in New Square. Rottenberg, for whatever reason, chose instead to daven in a minyan in a nearby nursing home. For this reason, his family has bee the subject of intimidation and harassment for months.

I believe that when something like this happens, a community is obligated to stop and re-evaluate itself. While the actual act of arson may have been the work of a lone person*, the campaign of harassment was not and surely was endorsed by communal leaders. When a community allows itself to physically harass and intimidate people over the choice of shul, then there is something severely wrong with the community.

The silence of the Skver Rebbe on this matter has been absolutely deafening. To date, he has not ~~condemned~~ publicly condemned the attack on Rottenberg. There are at least two possible reasons for this. The first is that he is so far removed from his congregation that he does not know what is happening. The second is that he knows what is happening and he approves. Either way, the Skver Rebbe does not look good. If he is unaware of a major event such as this, and unaware of the campaign of intimidation that has been going on for months, then his capabilities as a communal leader are virtually nonexistent. If, on the hand, he knows and approves, then he's no better than a common thug. Either way, the silence is showing that the Rebbe may well be unfit to lead the community.

When an event like this happens, a community must also stop and remind themselves of their larger environment. I'm not talking, in this case, about the chillul HaShem that has come out of this. What I'm talking about is the attitude of the community concerning their perceived autonomy.

There are those who believe that the Skver Rebbe has a right to dictate to people which shul to daven in. Likewise, there are those who feel that it's perfectly all right to use intimidation,harassment and terror -- up to and including arson -- to enforce that rule. Of course, there are laws against that sort of behavior, laws that, due to the isolation and homogeneity of the town, they feel they can ignore. There are those who seem to feel that it' perfectly all right for New Square to be run as an absolute theocracy, and that those who don't fall in line should be forced out by whatever means possible. They will state that New Square has the "right to set standards" for itself and that if Rottenberg or others "don't like it, they should just move."

Fortunately, we live in a country where that's not the rule. A community does NOT have the right to set religious standards and then ruthlessly pursue those that don't hold those standards. It would serve the New Square community well to reflect upon the laws that grant them the freedom to be free from harassment in the first place. You cannot assert the right to live where you want while practicing your religion and then turn around and deny the same to others. There's a word for that sort of behavior -- hypocrisy. And it would do the Skver Rebbe (or whomever is leading the community) well to remember that he, too, is subject to the laws of the United States and the State of New York – and that ordering a person to be harassed out of the community through violence is against those laws.

What is also astounding to me is that there are people who actually defend what Spitzer and the rest of the community have been doing. They actually maintain that the leader of the community has the right to tell you where you can pray and that if you don’t follow his instructions to the letter, you forfeit your right to live there, you can (and should be) forced out of your home and publicly hounded until you leave. They support the idea that a group of people should be allowed to set up a mini-theocracy where one person’s word is absolute law and that by living in the area, you surrender any and all rights (both halachic and legal) to which you are entitled.

But the truth is that they don’t really mean it. Oh yes, it’s good for them when they control the show, but I’d be willing to bet dollars-to-donuts that if a group of Chassidim moved into a hypothetical isolated Modern Orthodox community and were subject to this type of harassment that they would be registering their complaints as loudly as possible (and rightly so).

And, in the end, what’s the cause of all this? Because Rottenberg chose to daven in another shul. I can’t help but wonder if this is exactly the sort of sinas chinam (baseless hatred) that is mentioned as the cause of the destruction of the second Bais HaMikdash.

UPDATE: The victim's name for tehillim is Chaim Aharon ben Chaya Sara.

The Wolf

* or not. It is as of yet unknown if Spitzer was acting alone or under orders from higher authorities in the community.

The Irony... (UPDATED)

2011-05-06T13:32:00.001-04:00

You've got to love it when a weekly newspaper such as the Israeli Yated puts the following letter in their paper.

All of the weeklies and freebies, including Mishpachah, distort and blur the holy Torah world view we received from our rabbonim and one should not, choliloh, bring newspapers of this sort into the home or promote them in any way.

And granting any hechsher to such newspapers is clearly out of the question.

This applies even more to radio of any kind and all Internet sites, all of which are provocative and destroy the soul, and are the root of impurities and harm.

Signing at the end of Nisan 5771.

Nissim Karelitz

Perhaps my reading skills are lacking, but do you see any exemption for the Yated (which, I believe is a weekly publication)?

On a side note, it looks like Mishpacha is "officially" out.

UPDATED (5/6 3PM EDT): Well, now, that's embarrassing. S. informs me that the Yated is a daily and not a weekly and hence not included in the above referenced statement. There goes the point of the post. My apologies to the Yated for the error.

The Wolf

The Ami Magazine Article About Orthopraxy

2011-04-14T15:53:00.000-04:00

Yes, I saw it, and I do have some things to say about it, but it may have to wait until Sunday or perhaps until after Yom Tov. I've got a crunch of real work and school work at the moment and can't really do justice to this article on the fly.

If you haven't read it yet, you can find it here.

The Wolf

For This You Can't Sign Your Name?

2011-04-11T13:34:00.000-04:00

There was a recent post on Matzav about having a positive attitude regarding food on Pesach. In it, the author points out how people often complain (whether rightly or wrongly) about Pesach food and that, perhaps, we can have a better attitude about it.

This is a concept that I think all of us can get behind. It's completely non-controversial. And yet, the author chose to sign only his initials. He didn't choose to actually put his name on the piece. And that makes me wonder... have we gotten to the point where people are even afraid to speak up on non-controversial subjects?

I'm well aware that, when it comes to this, I fall into the category of "those who live in glass houses...". But at least *some* of what I write is controversial in some circles. This gentleman's post was completely non-controversial - and yet, he couldn't sign his name to it.

The Wolf

Is Our Torah The Exact Same As Moshe's?

2011-04-05T16:06:00.001-04:00

In a comment on my previous post, Nate pointed to an article on Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb's website concerning the accuracy of our present-day Torahs. The article asserts that the Torah that we have today is letter-for-letter* the same as the Torah that God gave to Moshe on Mt. Sinai. Nate then followed the link with the words "UNDISPUTED AND 100% TRUTH." Sadly, the point is not undisputed nor is it 100% truth.

The article actually originated on Aish HaTorah's website and can be read here. The main points of the article are as follows:

Moshe wrote the Torah.
This Torah (or, perhaps later on, others based on this Torah scroll) were kept in the Bais HaMikdash as a model and standard.
New Torah scrolls that were written would be checked against this Torah.
Sofrim (scribes) were very careful not to add/delete/change anything since any change makes a Sefer Torah invalid.
The Torah has a built-in "security system" that prevents invalid Torahs from being used.
The end result is that, as of today, the only variant that exists of the Torah is the Yemenite Torah, which has nine minor spelling variations from the "standard" version. These variations are all minor spelling differences (as British spelling differs from American spelling) and do not change the meanings of any words. Otherwise, every Torah we use today is the same letter-for-letter that God gave to Moshe.
This is very impressive because, compared with the Christian Bible (what is commonly called "The New Testament") the Torah is remarkably stable. The Christian Bible has well over 200,000 variant letters. We have nine.

Therefore, you can rely, with a high degree of confidence, that the Torah that we have today is *exactly* the same as the one that Moshe left for us at the end of his life.

The problem with all this is that most of those points are either exaggerations or just plain wrong. Let's go through these points and examine them.

I'm going to grant the author of the article the first two points as given. If we don't agree that Moshe wrote the Torah, then there is really no point in the rest of the article. I am also going to assume that he did, in fact, leave a Torah as a standard.

However, it becomes clear that, at some point, that standard became corrupted. For example, consider the event recounted in Meseches Sofrim. In it, Reish Lakish recounts that three Sifrei Torah were found in the Bais HaMikdash:

One book was called "The Ma'on Book." The reason it was so called was because Devraim 33:27 started out with the word "Ma'on." In the other two, it started out with the word "M'onah."

The second book was called "The Zatutei Book." It was so called because in it, the text of Sh'mos 24:5 says "And he sent to the 'Zatutei' (young men) of the Children of Israel..." In the other two books, the word "Na'arei" replaced "Zatutei."

The third book was called the "Hee Book." It was so called because it had one set of variant spellings of the word Hee in Hebrew, while the other two had a different set of spellings**.

In each case, in establishing the correct reading, the Sages followed the majority. They rejected the reading of "Ma'on" and instituted "M'onah." They rejected the reading of "Zatutei" and instituted "Na'arei." The rejected the spellings in the Hee Book and accepted the spellings in the other two books. Those readings became the standard and, indeed, are in our Sifrei Torah today.

There are several points that need to be made about this story.

The first point to be made is that there was no single model text that could be used to check against. Indeed, these three texts *were* the model texts that were used. These were the Sifrei Torah that were found in the Temple Courtyard. If there was an alternate authoritative text, the Sages could simply have consulted it to determine the correct text for each of the three cases. The sad fact, however, is that there was no single authoritative text to compare these to -- these *were* the authoritative texts -- and now they were at variance with one another. As a result, the Sages had to establish the correct text and, in each case, went with the majority.

The second point to be made from this story is that the so-called "built-in security system" failed... and failed miserably. It's one thing if an error creeps into a text in a backwater shul somewhere where perhaps only a few people were even capable of reading the sefer and where, if an error is found in the book, it could be isolated. This, however, was an entirely different matter. Here, textual variants are showing up in the model texts themselves. And, I'd bet dollars to donuts, that these variants didn't just show up in only these three books. I highly doubt the Sages woke up one morning and decided to check the Temple scrolls against each other just for the heck of it. I'd be willing to bet that they were getting numerous reports of variant readings and needed to investigate. And, furthermore, I'd be willing to bet that after an informal survey of the scrolls in their own personal libraries and in the shuls and study halls in Jerusalem (which were probably used on a daily basis), they found variant readings too -- otherwise, why start comparing the Temple scrolls against each other? So, they went to the Temple to get the authoritative reading, and found that even there, there was no single text. Clearly, when the authoritative texts have variants, the "security system" has failed.

The third, and perhaps most startling point to be made is this -- at the end of the story, we find that *none* of the three authoritative model texts was kosher! Every single one of them was invalid. One had a variant reading in Devarim, one had a variant in Sh'mos and one had variants in the spelling of Hu/Hee. But *none* of the three had the text that we have today! In other words, in the end, the standard text that we have today was based on a combination of these three texts.

You might think that this settled the matter and that, at least, from this point onward, we would have a unified standard text. Alas, such was not the case. There are several places in the Talmud where the Gemara quotes a different text than the one we have. One of the more famous examples is the Gemara in Sanhedrin where one of the three reading of the word "Totafos" has an extra vav -- and that extra vav is used to help determine that there are four compartments in the Tefillin Shel Rosh. However, in the end, even the Gemara attests to the fact that we don't necessarily have accurate spellings for all the words in the Torah. The Gemara states that we are not expert in chasser and malei (i.e. words that have "extra" letters to represent vowels).

The Rambam, in the 12th century, famously went to view the bible today knows as the Aleppo Codex (also known as the Kesser Aram Tzovah), to determine the standard text and spacings in the Torah scrolls. It should be noted that, obviously, the Rambam did not have a scroll at his disposal which he considered authoritative enough.

Likewise, the Rav Mair HeLeivi Abulafia (13th century) writes in the preface to his work Mesores Siyug L'Torah that in his day there were doubts as to the correct reading. He, like the Sages in the Temple, relied on a "majority rules" principle to establish the text which he published in his sefer. Likewise, Yaakov ben Chayim (early 16th century), who published the first edition of the Mikraos Gedolos, noted that there were variant readings in his day. Nonetheless, with the adoption of the Mikraos Gedolos and the invention of the printing press, a standard text was finally adopted.

But even that's not the end of the matter. As noted above, the Yemenites have a slightly different Torah than we do. Although the author claims that the differences are only spelling there is at least one case where the spelling does change the meaning of a word (from a singular to a plural). Furthermore, even setting aside the Yemenite Torahs, there is still at least one textual variant extant today -- the final letter of the word "Dakah" in Devarim 23:2 is spelled in some Sifrei Torah with an aleph and in others with a Heh. But aside from these few cases, the text that we (finally) have today has been standardized.

The article tries to make the case that we can authoritatively state that our Torahs are accurate (vis a vis the Torah gave to Moshe) because of the traditions of the scribes. For example, the article makes the point that there was a Torah in Jerusalem that was used as the model against which others were judged. We've already seen that the model wasn't always accurate either, but let's put that point aside for the moment and assume, for the sake of argument, that the model is 100% accurate. There are still several assumptions that are being made by the author of the article that are not, in fact, in evidence:

The first point to be made is that a model text is only good if it's actually used. There is no indication anywhere that in the centuries after Moshe that scribes and other people *routinely* brought their Torah scrolls to Jerusalem to check them against the model. It's not very difficult to see how an error can creep into a sefer and stay there. Likewise, it's not too difficult to see how an inaccurate version can be copied to other texts. In a place where there aren't very many Sifrei Torah circulating about (as you can imagine would be the situation in Israel between the time of Joshua and the Exile), it's very easy for an inaccurate text to be copied to another one.

Just consider the three variant scrolls that were eventually found in the Temple. Do you think that they were first scrolls to have those variations? Or is it more likely that they were copied from other variant scrolls? I would argue the latter -- especially if you're also going to posit that scribes were generally very careful with their work.

Another assumption that is being made by the author is that the laws regarding the writing of a Sefer Torah (i.e. pronouncing each word out loud before writing, not writing by heart, etc.) were always the same as they are today AND that those laws were universally observed. Neither of those (and certainly not in latter) can be said to be true 100% of the time. It's certainly not inconceivable that there might have been scribes who were less than scrupulous with their work and did, indeed, introduce errors into their work.

Lastly, the author tries to make the comparison between the accuracy of our Torahs and the Christian Bible. He states that there are only nine spelling variants extant today, while showing that there are thousands of variants of the Christian Bible.

I'm not an expert in the Christian Bible, so I can't speak to that point directly. But what I do know is that the author is making a false comparison. The author, in making his point, is outright dismissing any known variant text to our Bible (Yemenite Torahs excepted). He's conveniently forgetting that there are variations of our text that do exist -- and they're still around today. The Samaritan Bible, the Septiguant, the Dead Sea Scrolls, et al are all still extant and can be read to this very day. By forgetting them (or, more likely dismissing them), the author is engaging in a form of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. In short, he's claiming the to reject any variants he doesn't like as non-authoritative while, at the same time, holding Christians to task for all their variants.

Of course, Nate makes the very same error when he says "UNDISPUTED" regarding the article. What he means is "undisputed by anyone who agrees with it," which, again, is a form of the No True Scotsman fallacy. But it's pretty clear that it can, indeed be disputed whether or not the Torah text we have today is a letter-for-letter copy of Moshe's.

The Wolf

* The author of the article does acknowledge that the Yemenite Torahs are different than ours in nine places.

** In later writings, the word "Hee" is written Hey-Yud-Aleph. However, in the Torah, it is often spelled Hey-Vuv-Aleph, the same as the word "Hu." However, there are a number of places where the Torah uses the first spelling. The differences between the scrolls was in where the exceptional spelling was used.

Expunging the Kool Aid

2011-03-18T12:13:00.000-04:00

"Drinking the Kool Aid" is a popular metaphor for someone who simply accepts something wholeheartedly without thinking critically about it. The origin of the metaphor comes from the People's Temple incident in Guyana, where over 900 people committed suicide by drinking Flavor-Aid mixed with cyanide at the behest of Jim Jones, the cult's leader.

Interestingly, at one time I was a Kool-Aid drinker as well. In my late teens, I went through a period of about a year where I started accepting everything without question. Young earth creationism? Check. The absolute historicity of every midrash? check. The notion that Jewish philosophy, culture and practice (with the exception of things like sacrifices and the like) have been unchanged since Sinai? Check. The notion that everything in the Gemara is Torah MiSinai? Check. Belief in an unbroken and completely intact and unchanged oral tradition passed down from generation to generation to generation? Check. And on and on.

Most people who go from Kool-Aid drinker to critical thinker (note that I did NOT say skeptic) arrive at the Kool-Aid stage in one of two ways: a) they're born into it or b) they become ba'alei teshuva and just want to believe everything about their new-found spirituality. I didn't take either of those paths. I was not born frum -- I became frum (with my mother) at about age ten. During high school, I was a skeptic (even if I wasn't a critical thinker). Yet, about the time I turned eighteen, I began to drink the Kool-Aid. A Rav Avigdor Miller book could often be found in my hands. I could be found discussing and defending Judaism's objections to evolution, natural history, cosmology and the like. I studied and regurgitated all the fallacious arguments, bad facts and mistaken notions. I was never much of an evangelist, but if anyone wanted to discuss it, I was there to discuss and defend.

To this day, I can't tell you why I began drinking the Kool Aid. While I tried to (and to some extent, succeeded) in internalizing it on an intellectual level, I did not "frum out," as the saying goes. While I sometimes wore a hat/jacket, I by no means made it a requirement. I sometimes missed davening. I wasn't found learning every minute of the day that wasn't otherwise occupied, and so on. But I did accept, without much critical thought, much of the anti-scientific dogma of the subculture that I was immersed in.

At some point, however, I began thinking critically. I began to look at and evaluate arguments. I learned to evaluate and weigh evidence. I began to learn to spot things such as logical fallacies, poor reasoning and just plain silliness. I began to consider not only the dogma of Orthodox Judaism, but the context in which that dogma was created. I began to question and probe into the things I was taught, and discover whether the knowledge I had accumulated over the years (and the observations that I made with my own senses) affirmed, contradicted or were silent about those teachings.

Over the years, as I began thinking more and more, I began adjusting my beliefs. I reasoned out a version of old earth creationism that was consistent with both B'raishis (IMHO) and with contemporary scientific thought (again, IMHO). I began exploring history not solely through writings that were made hundreds (or thousands) of years after the fact, but began to consider history through both historical and contemporaneous accounts. I began to understand that not everything that is purported to be sacred writ *must* be viewed in the absolute, but also has to be put into its proper historical and cultural context. I began to view our Sages not as simply great figures who grew up in a societal, political and emotional vacuum who were immune to the outside world, but as people who, as great as they were, were at least partly a product of the times, places and cultures in which they lived.

It’s been a long journey -- one that is still ongoing and, with God’s help, will go on as long as I live. I’ve slowly begun to make a change to my learning habits -- I’m still learning Torah, but I’ve also begun learning *about* the Torah -- something that was lacking in my previous education and, I would not be surprised to find, is missing in a lot of people’s education. I’ve begun to pay more attention to not only Tanach, Mishna, Gemara and the like, but also the historical and cultural background upon which they were created. I’ve come to look at not only learning the halacha, but viewing that halacha as a product of a halachic process that caused it to come into being. I believe that the Torah has to be more than what is simply printed on the page -- it also has to include how the page came to be -- and in the vast, vast majority of cases, the story of how that page came to be is far, far more complicated than “God said it to Moshe on Sinai.”

I know that there are some who are reading this who would say that what I am engaging in is dangerous and forbidden. They would like to tell me that such things may lead one away from whatever “pure” hashkafah that they are espousing. They may try to tell me that context and background are unimportant or, worse, irrelevant. They may believe that our great leaders and sages grew up in a “social vacuum,” unaffected by their time, place and culture and that their halachic, philosophic and other opinions are absolutely true across all times, places and cultures. They may believe that if Chazal, Rashi, the Rambam, Rabbeinu Asher, the Vilna Gaon or any other “sage of the canon” says something that it must be true and that any critical thought about their statements is tantamount to a slap in the face of those great sages. They equate critical argument with impertinence, respectful disagreement with insolence and a contrary opinion with disrespect.

I disagree. I believe one can have the utmost respect for someone and yet disagree with them. I believe that it’s possible that things that have been said and accepted in the past may no longer be applicable to our current times, places and cultures. I’m not saying that halacha has to change because of that, mind you, but it should be recognized that such changes and obsolescence* has taken place. A necessary corollary of this is that I’ve come to believe that not everything that a sage says is necessarily sacrosanct. Like anything else, it has to be evaluated in terms of its message, historical context and the like. In short, I no longer take anything as irrefutable dogma simply on someone’s say so. That’s is not all to say that there are no irrefutable dogmas, universal truths or articles of faith -- but it is important to be able to make a distinction between a true article of faith, a halachic ruling that may or may not apply to our current situation, a midrash which may or may not be historically true, or a simple, personal observation of a sage. Lumping them all together as inviolate “Torah” does a great disservice to both the Torah and to those sages. But to be able to do make these distinctions, you need to begin to think critically about what you’re learning. You need to learn not to blindly accept everything within the canon as absolute truth. In short, to do this, you need to stop drinking the Kool Aid -- and that's what I've been doing. I've spent a long time expunging the Kool Aid that I built up in my system over the years -- and I believe that I am, today, a healthier person and a better Jew for it.

The Wolf

* I don’t mean “obsolescence” in terms of “should be discarded” but in terms of not currently applicable. In this context, the halacha of egla arufa, for example, would be termed as “obsolete,” but I am not, God forbid, suggesting that it be excised from the Torah or no longer studied. Likewise, it should be (and widely is) recognized that the reasons behind the institution of the second day of Yom Tov are obsolete... but again, I am not advocating changing the halacha to eliminate that second day.

The Yeshiva's Minhag Over Your Family's?

2011-03-03T13:20:00.001-05:00

A Jewish wedding ceremony, like many other religious rites and ceremonies, is governed by many laws and customs. One such instance is the period of yichud -- seclusion -- that the bride and groom spend together right after the chuppah.

It should be pointed out, however, that this is *only* the case for Ashkenazim. When a Sefardi couple gets married, they do not go to the yichud room. For them, yichud is performed when the couple goes home after the ceremony. In fact, Rav Yitzchock Yosef considers the idea of a yichud room during the wedding so repugnant that he called it "ugly" and "vulgar." I don't think it's proper for a Rav to call a mainstream Ashkenazi minhag "ugly" and "vulgar" I made my point on that in the linked post)-- but that's really beside the point. The main point for our purposes is that there are strong opposition in at least some Sephardi circles against the practice of going into the yichud room.

With this background information, we can look at a recent event. Rafi, over at Life In Israel, reports on a recent wedding where a Sephardi couple was married. The chosson attended an Ashkenazi yeshiva and his Rosh Yeshiva and friends from the Yeshiva were in attendance. The Rosh Yeshiva directed that the chosson and kallah should go immediately after chuppah to the yichud room, in accordance with the Ashkenazic custom. The chosson refused, intending to follow the custom of his family and the new bride's family. When the chosson refused, the Rosh Yeshiva announced that he was leaving and ordered all the bochrim from the yeshiva to leave with him. Fortunately, Rav Raphael Cohen, a guest at the wedding knew someone at a local Sephardi yeshiva, where they had the boys stop learning and go be mesameach (make merry with dancing) the chosson and kallah.

To me, there are some very troubling aspects to this story:

1. Since when does the minhag of the yeshiva overrule the family minhag of the bride and groom? Do they also expect their Sephardi students to refrain from eating kitniyos on Pesach in their homes? Would they say that it's all right for an Ashkenzi student attending a Sephardi yeshiva to skip the yichud room? I don't think so. Minhagim have long been observed on the basis of inheriting them from your family, not on the basis of what yeshiva you attend. Perhaps there is some basis after all to the fear that some Sephardim in Israel have that their minhagim and other cultural attributes are being slowly eroded by the Ashkenazim.

2. Ultimately, a wedding is valid, even according to Ashkenazim, if the chosson and kallah never go into the yichud room during the wedding. As long as there are witnesses that they went home together (and were alone together) after the wedding, the wedding would be 100% valid. On the other hand, embarrassing the bride, groom and their families is a transgression of a Torah prohibition. How could the Rosh Yeshiva possibly think that his custom (or the custom of his yeshiva, if you will) possibly overrides that?

The Wolf

UPDATE (3/17/11): A commentator has offered an alternate version of the events. I have no way of knowing which is true or not, so take your pick.

Against Ban Harassment & Threats

2011-02-15T21:23:00.004-05:00

This is a joint statement by many bloggers about the recent ban on VIN and the actions taken against VIN and the companies that advertise on the site. Kudos to R. Gil Student for drafting this statement and to the other bloggers who were primarily responsible for pushing the effort forward.

A little over a month ago, a number of rabbis signed onto a ban that forbade advertising on or otherwise working with the website VosIzNeias. This ban singled out one website without addressing other websites or public forums like newspapers or magazines. The singling out of a solitary website raises many questions, particularly when newspapers in the same community regularly publish arguably libelous stories and online discussion forums for the community are essentially unbounded by civility. Additionally, VosIzNeias has publicly stated that it has already raised its standards and is willing to do even more with rabbinic guidance, provided the same guidelines are applied to its competitors.

Bans of this nature are generally brought into fruition by activists and this one is attributed to a specific activist who seems to have business and political interests in this ban. He ignored VosIzNeias’ request to meet with the rabbis in order to explore ways to satisfy their concerns. With this ban, the activist is threatening the commercial viability of the VosIzNeias business.

We have now received reports of continued harassment by this activist, who is threatening to publicly denounce people, companies and charitable organizations who continue to cooperate with the website. He has also reportedly threatened to remove the kosher certification of companies that fail to adhere to the ban. However, on being contacted, the activist behind the ban denied all knowledge of this harassment and attributed it to someone acting without authorization. We are, therefore, making no formal accusation as to who is conducting this campaign of harassment.

To the best of our understanding, this activity is illegal. One individual told us he reported that harassment to the police.

Harassing good people with threats is illegal and inexcusable. We call on rabbis and people of good faith to denounce this behavior, and we encourage victims to respond to this activist as follows:

If he calls or e-mails you or your organization, thank him for bringing the ban to your attention and say that you will decide how to proceed after consulting with your rabbi or other advisor. And because of rumors that there is harassment involved in this matter, you regret having to tell him that if he contacts you or anyone else in your organization again, you will have to report him to the police.

We have a copy of an e-mail forwarded to us by people involved, which includes a pseudonym and phone number, and we have been told of intimidating phone calls. Note that at this time we are withholding this activist's identity. If he continues harassing people, we will have to be less discrete.

Signed,

The Wolf (along with many other Jewish bloggers)

If you agree, please feel free to sign in the comment section and post this on your blog as well.

No, Rabbi, They Don't Need A Guilt Trip.

2011-02-11T10:55:00.000-05:00

An interesting article appeared in the Palm Beach Post about a Florida Chabad House that has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. According to Rabbi Shlomo Ezagui, the wealthy patrons who used to fund the Chabad House stopped contributing when the market crashed in 2008. Now that the market is up, however, the contributions have not resumed.

Part of the problem is that the business model of the Chabad House makes it dependent on contributions. According to Robert Furr, the bankruptcy attorney for the Chabad House, Chabad Houses do not charge regular membership dues like many other shuls do. This leaves voluntary member donations as the main source of funding for the Chabad House. Anyone who runs an organization financed primarily by donations from the wealthy must be aware that when an economic downturn happens (and it always *will* happen -- markets tend are cyclical), that voluntary donations will drop off as well. I don't know if Rabbi Ezagui curtailed his operations when the recession hit (so as to slow down his burn-rate) or salted away some of the donations from the good years for the lean years (a lesson learned from Joseph), but at this point, he has run out of money and has loans that are due.

What struck me most about the article was Rabbi Ezagui's sense of entitlement to the charity dollars of others. Here's the money quote (pun intended):

Ezagui said wealthy people are making excuses not to give.

"The Jewish people who have the money should feel a guilt trip. They have plenty of money," he said. "I see them in their Rolls Royces, I go to their million-dollar houses and they say, 'I don't have the money, Rabbi.' "

Apparently, Rabbi Ezagui does not understand that sometimes one can be what is colloquially referred to as "house-poor." A person can have a lot of their wealth tied up in non-liquid assets that are not easy to dispose of or leverage for additional cash. In addition, even if someone has a million-dollar home that is completely paid for, you have to take into account that they are actually living there. So, what is Rabbi Ezagui asking them to do? Sell the home and move to fund a Chabad House? Borrow against it to fund a Chabad House? Do either of those sound realistic or fiscally responsible?

But hey, let's even say (for the sake of argument) that they have cash sitting around. Even so, Rabbi Ezagui is *still* wrong. No one *owes* a contribution to the Chabad House. The last time I checked, people are free to give their tzedaka money to any charity that they wish. They certainly don't have to give to the Chabad House, nor do they need to be made to feel guilty about where they choose to contribute.

I known nothing about this particular Chabad House. For all I know, they are a very worthy institution where wonderous work is done in Jewish outreach. For all I know, Rabbi Ezagui may be a tireless worker working to bring Yiddishkeit to the masses of Palm Beach. But he has to learn two things:

1. He has to find a new business model that does not rely so heavily on donations from wealthy patrons and is not as susceptable to economic downturns.

2. His organization is not automatically entitled to other people's money. He has to learn that there are other competitors for people's money, which include discretionary spending, other charitable options or even basic necessities. No one needs to feel guilty because they don't contribute to *his* cause.

The Wolf

Photos: Yellow Tulip

2011-01-31T13:48:00.003-05:00

Here's a shot that I took a short while ago.

Canon XSi, 100mm macro lens, f/16, 4 seconds.

Believe it or not, this shot was much easier to capture than you might otherwise imagine. If anyone's interested in how it's done, feel free to drop me an email.

You'll notice that I used an aperture of f/16. I did this because I wanted to make sure that the picture was going to be in focus from front to back. Of course, because I used a narrow aperture, I had to use a longer shutter speed -- in this case, I left the shutter open for four seconds. And yes, I used a tripod. :)

As always, comments, critiques and criticisms are welcome, encouraged and appreciated.

The Wolf

To see all my photo posts, click HERE

Ask Yourself This Before Reciting Parshas HaMon Today...

2011-01-11T15:12:00.000-05:00

Before you go reciting Parshas HaMon today to get a segulah for a good parnassah, I want you to stop and ask yourself this question:

If you've decided to take five minutes from your day to do what you feel is necessary for a good parnassah, which do you think is a better use of your time -- reciting Parshas HaMon, or opening your heart to your Father in Heaven and asking His help in providing for your needs and your family's needs?

I have no objection to prayer -- on the contrary, I think prayer is a wonderful thing. With prayer, a person has the ability to beseech God for anything and everything. It gives you the opportunity to open your heart and become closer to HaShem. With prayer, you have the opportunity to express true emotion. Do you need a refuah from a sickness? You can pray for that. Do you need help supporting your family? You can pray for that. Do you need comfort in times of crisis and anguish? You can pray for that. Do you really need to convert the 7-10 split? You can even pray for that too. For anything from the most important to the most trivial, He is never too busy to receive your prayers. You may not always get what you ask for, but nonetheless, He is there.

But why is prayer so important? After all, God has no need our prayers. Our praying to Him doesn't change Him in any way whatsoever. So, why does He ask it of us? Why do we engage in it?

One answer that I've often seen given is that prayer is not for God's benefit, but for ours. The word "to pray," in Hebrew is l'hispallel. This word is reflexive in nature, connoting something that one does to (or for) oneself. In other words, we don't pray to God for His benefit, we pray for *our* benefit. We are meant to be moved and changed by our prayers, hopefully for the better. We are meant to come to the understanding that God is the source of all of our blessings. We are meant to better understant that He is the one who provides us with life, health, parnassah and the ability to convert the 7-10 split. So, when I pour my heart out to God for whatever it is that's important to me at the moment, I'm not just asking him for something.... I'm (hopefully) acknowledging and understand that He is the source of the good in the world. By praying to Him for parnassah, I hope to become closer to Him.

A while ago, a blogger (who has long since disappeared, but thoughtfully left his blog up) came up with the term Vending Machine Judaism to descirbe the way segulos are "sold" and done by the public today. In his words:

My main beef with the segulah explosion we're witnessing, is that it cheapens Judaism. I've used the term Vending Machine Judaism before, and I think it's the perfect description of the new religion we're creating. Basically, God is a giant vending machine. We stand in front of it, see what we want, press a button, and we expect to get it. Need a shidduch? Say Shir haShirm. Parnasah? Say Parshas Ha'mon. Can't find your keyes? Give money to R' Meir Baal Ha'Ness.

This is turning religion into nothing more than a means to an end. It's a selfish version of Judaism, as in "How can I use God to get exactly what I want"?

This is, to my understanding, the antithesis of prayer. By *expecting* that God will grant you favor because you do X (especially where there is no commandment to do X), you do the exact opposite of prayer. Instead of drawing you closer to God and making you appreciate Him, it causes you to think of Him as some cosmic vending machine. Instead of beseeching, you come to expect and demand. Instead of being forced to engage in internal contemplation and soul-searching, you simply expect to recite a paragraph by rote and receive what you deserve.

So, think about this before you invest five minutes in the recitation of Parshas HaMon today, and ask yourself this question: if you're going to invest five minutes of the day in pursuit of turning to Him for help in parnassah, how do you think He would rather you spend those five minutes -- in rote recitation of a paragraph, or in emotional prayer from the heart?

The Wolf

Photos: What Is It? The Answer!

2010-12-30T23:16:00.000-05:00

Earlier this week, I posted a photo and asked people to guess what was the subject of the photo. Here again is the photo:

Canon XSi, 65mm macro lens (5x magnification), f/11, 20 seconds.

The answer is that the photo is the middle of this flower:

The first Anonymous poster said "a plant." While that's technically true, it is very vague. "Fort," however, was the first person to come up with the correct, specific answer -- the inner part of a flower. So, he wins the 20 Wolfish Points. :)

The Wolf

Photos: What Is It? Take A Guess!

2010-12-29T14:42:00.000-05:00

I took this picture this week. 20 Wolfish points to the first one who can guess what it is.

I'll put up the lens, exposure settings, etc. with the solution later this week.

The Wolf

(My RL friends who have seen the photo already are not eligible. :) )

With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility

2010-12-27T01:04:00.001-05:00

There are many that have said that the recent bans promulgated by the Gedolim (i.e. Rabbi Slifkin, the Lipa concert, The Making of a Gadol and now Vos Iz Neias among others) have caused the stature of the Gedolim to become far less relevant and important today. To some extent, that is true -- the mishandling of some of these bans has exposed the flaws in the process of some of their recent halachic rulings and has damaged the reputation of the Gedolim among the general populace.

Nonetheless, as evidenced by what happened with some of the cases mentioned above, the Gedolim still can be said to have enormous power. They can bring pressure to bear on people and events which can lead to loss of money, public embarrassment and communal shunning. The ability to bring such pressure to bear is an enormous power -- one that must be wielded with extreme care. I would think that if one has the ability to wreck a person's life, that ability should only be wielded with extreme care and great trepidation. The power to do such is a great power -- and, as Uncle Ben reminded Spider-Man, with great power comes great responsibility.

Do the Gedolim have a responsibility to us? I believe they do. Any leader has a responsibility to the people that he or she leads. If a Gadol (or anyone else for that matter) is going to assume the power to greatly affect the lives of others, then he must be responsible to make sure that that power is used wisely and appropriately. There must be safeguards, checks and balances to make sure that the power is being used properly -- and those wielding the power must be responsible to make sure that those safeguards, checks and balances are in place.

Sadly, today, there are no such checks and balances. We have recently seen how the current edifice of halachic decision making is flawed and that the leaders (perhaps unintentionally, but still disasterously) have shirked their responsibilities. Those responsibilities include the following:

The responsibility to adequately investigate the facts and circumstances before making a ruling.

If a Gadol is going to issue a ruling that will impact a person (and all the more so if the impact is going to cause a severe loss of money or prestige), he has a responsibility to independently investigate the circumstances surrounding the case. This includes contacting the people affected and giving them a chance to adequately respond.

We saw this responsibility cast aside numerous times. The Gedolim who signed on the ban against Lipa's concert were told that there was going to be mixed dancing (among other misinformation) at the event. At no point did any of the Gedolim who signed on the ban even so much as pick up a phone and call Lipa or one of the event organizers to determine if this was true (it wasn't -- there wasn't even going to be mixed seating). The same thing occurred with Rabbi Slifkin -- he was phoned (not by any of the Gedolim who signed on the ban against his books) and told that he had hours to retract his books and was not given any real chance to respond. In addition, the ban against his books was signed, in many cases, by those who did not even read the book.

Another aspect of this responsibility is the responsibility to not simply rely on the signature of another Gadol when deciding whether or not to sign on to a halachic decision of considerable importance, scope and effect. If Gadol X signs on a document, I should have the right to assume that Gadol X has actually looked into the matter and came to the decision himself. If, however, Gadol X is signing on the document only because Gadol Y signed, then what is really the value of the signature? To say that he trusts Gadol Y? We already knew that he probably did. In the end, you get documents where twenty or thirty Gedolim sign, but only one or two probably actually gave any real, serious thought to the decision at hand. If so, is it really twenty or thirty Gedolim issuing a decision? No it's not -- it's merely one or two making the decision. In the end, however, I believe that if a Gadol is going to sign on a document, they have an absolute responsibility to investigate the matter for themselves. If I'm to be told to obey a document because Gadol X signed, I have the right to be assured that Gadol X actually did his due diligence to investigate the case -- and not rely on the word of a third party -- even that of a fellow Gadol.

A Gadol has, in my humble opinion, an absolute responsibility to do his utmost to ascertain the facts of a situation before issuing a ruling on it. It's not reasonable to expect a Gadol to get every fact correct every time -- they are only human and sometimes mistakes will be made -- but they must do their absolute best to make sure they have the facts of the situation before issuing a ruling. If the Gedolim are going to fail in their responsibility to investigate the facts (including all sides), then how can we have a responsibility to listen to their words?

The responsibility to avoid even the appearance of manipulation by those with agendas.

If a Gadol's ruling is to have any meaning, it must be clear that it is a fair ruling. If people perceive that the ruling was manipulated or engineered by those who have a particular axe to grind or agenda to push, many people will simply ignore the ruling.

I find it extremely ironic that a Dayan (judge) in a Bais Din must take great pains to figuratively bend over backwards to avoid even the appearance of manipulation or favoritism in a court case involving a lousy five dollars, but when it comes to public policy that affect wide swaths of the community on a far grander scale, no such impartiality is enforced. It will all too well known that many of the now-infamous halachic decisions that have been handed down lately (including, according to several reports, the recent ban on Vos Iz Neias) were engineered by parties with a particular political, monetary or ideological grudges against others. It is, in my humble opinion, the absolute responsibility of a Gadol to make sure that his decisions are not only arrived at in a fair manner without undue influence, but that they also don't even have the appearance of manipulation by insiders or outsiders. If a simple five-dollar case in Bais Din requires this, I would think that it's a no-brainer that major halachic and public policy decisions requires the same -- and in this, the Gedolim have failed.

The responsibility to clearly elucidate their rulings including defining the parameters of those rulings, the process of how the question came before them and the process of how they arrived at their decisions.

A Gadol who issues a ruling has a responsibility to make the ruling as transparent as possible. That includes not only clearly defining the parameters of his ruling (i.e. in what circumstances does it apply and under what circumstances does it not apply), but also on what facts and assumptions the ruling relies, how he came to make the ruling in the first place (this is a part of maintaining the appearance of independence from manipulation) and upon which sources he relies to make his rulings. The saying "sunshine is the best disinfectant" is wholly applicable here -- a Gadol who is not being manipulated by others and is making his best effort to issue a correct ruling has no reason to fear being completely transparent about the factors that go into his decision. Allowing people to see how the decision was arrived at will increase people's confidence that the ruling is impartial and correctly arrived at.

The responsibility to ensure that their rulings can be verified by the general public.

Rav Elyashiv has been famously quoted as saying that there are so many rulings being issued in his name that are not, in fact, from him that unless you hear from him directly (or see it in a responsible Torah journal or legitimate sefer) that you can assume it's false.

While I can applaud Rav Elyashiv for his honesty in this matter, I believe that he (and other Gedolim) have absolutely abdicated a fundamental responsibility that accompanies power -- the responsibility to ensure that forgeries are not issued in their name.

This is something that is extremely important. The government takes great pains to try to shut down counterfeiters -- not necessarily because their efforts might devalue the currency (although that can be a factor) but also because counterfeiters, by definition, usurp power that the government alone has -- the power to print currency. Likewise, one of the most carefully guarded objects of rulers of old was their signet rings and seals -- not because they liked to wear rings or have pretty designs made in wax -- but because such objects actually conveyed power to those who wielded them. If you saw an edict sealed with seal of the king, such an edict was extremely likely to be obeyed, whether the king actually endorsed the edict or not. It's not for no reason that the writer of Megillas Esther focuses on the fact that the king gave his ring to Haman -- the one who wielded the ring truly wielded the power. A ruler or leader who does not actively take steps to find, stop and punish those who wrongly usurp their power is no true leader, since it is difficult (if not impossible) to determine which of their edicts are proper and legal.

While the Gedolim may not have signet rings and seals, they have, in my humble opinion, utterly failed at the responsibility to protect the validity of their rulings. By allowing word of their rulings to spread by word of mouth and broadsheet, they allow far too many opportunities for other people to either put their own spin on their rulings or, worse, make up rulings for them out of whole cloth.

I find it utterly incomprehensible that in today's day and age, we still disseminate rabbinical rulings by word of mouth and by posters plastered on walls. Oddly enough, I think that the World Wide Web is an ideal medium for the Gedolim to issue their rulings. If a Gadol had his own website under his firm control, he could post his rulings there -- and people would be able to be reasonably confident that the ruling was, in fact, issued by the Gadol who owns the site. In addition since "space" and "paper" are not true issues on the Web, the Gadol can expand on his ruling as much as necessary to cover some of the other points I made in this post. Even if the Gadol in question did not want to get involved with the Web, there is always the option of having an automated telephone system where people can call and hear a recording of the Gadol saying something to the effect of "yes, I issued this ruling, these are the parameters, this is how I came to the decision, etc. The Gadol, of course, would have to be vigilant in ensuring that only content he approves of goes up on the site or the telephone system (the site/telephone system, in effect, becomes his signet-ring) - but as I mentioned earlier, an essential part of having the power to issue rulings is the responsibility to protect the integrity of those rulings. Failure to do so results in an open invitation to having the very validity of the rulings he issues questioned, disregarded and, ultimately, ignored.

The responsibility to be able to make independent decisions regardless of the personal consequences and free from communal pressure.

This responsibility is perhaps the most important responsibility that a Gadol has and yet, at the same time, the one that may be the hardest for him to make because of the potential personal cost involved.

In the United States, justices to the Supreme Court are appointed and, failing any misconduct on their part, maintain their positions for life. There is an important reason for this lifetime appointment -- the need to maintain an independent judiciary. It is vitally important that, if a decision is to be a correct one (meaning free of political pressures and based strictly upon the law and his or her interpretation of it) then it is important that they not be subject to recall based on those decisions. You may argue with how successful the implementation of this has been (both conservatives and liberals can probably quote numerous cases where they feel that judges ruled based on their political biases rather than the law*), but the principle is sound. When a correct decision needs to be made, it has to be free from political pressure.

This also needs to apply to the Gedolim as well. If a Gadol is going to issue a ruling, it is his responsibility (as I mentioned above) to ensure that the ruling is fair and not manipulated or engineered. However, it also has to be free from personal considerations as well, including those of power and prestige.

Unfortunately, it is all too apparent that in many cases, Gedolim sometimes make decisions because it's the popular decision to make and one that will appease the masses. Jonathan Rosenblum, in an article about a year ago, made the point very clearly. In discussing why there would be no public statement regarding a possible change in communal policy, he says the following:

There is another reason that there will be no such public statements. Any such statement would be met with vicious attacks by the “kenaim,” who would say about the gadol in question precisely what KollelGuy asks me: Who are you? The Chazon Ish did not say what you are saying; Rav Shach did not say it.” Perhaps KollelGuy remembers the attacks on one of the Sages he mentions for his tacit support of Nahal Chareidi. (Even Rav Shach used to say that he was afraid of the stone-throwers.) One of the members of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah of the United States told me recently that the gedolim cannot even discuss questions surrounding poverty because if they did the “street” would just label them fake gedolim.

In other words, there are cases where the Gedolim are afraid to make a correct ruling (or public policy decision) because it would mean the possible loss of their positions as Gedolim. Even if you put aside the fact that this causes their rulings to smack of corruption (even if there is, in fact, no corruption in any particular ruling), this undermines the whole point of having Gedolim determine public policy to begin with. Of what value is there to have a Gadol make a determination if there is a possibility that the determination is rooted in his fear of being labeled a "fake Gadol?" Aren't we relying on them to give us true rulings? If their rulings can be influenced by "the street," then how can anyone trust their rulings?

I'll admit that it's not easy to ask any person (Gadol or not) to put their positions on the line when they are faced with making an unpopular ruling. But part of being a true and responsible leader is to take responsibility for your leadership decisions. If the cost of a true ruling is the loss of personal power and prestige (i.e. by being labeled a "fake Gadol") then perhaps that's the price you must pay. If a person is going to accept the awesome responsibility to wield the power to ruin lives, then he must also be willing to take the responsibility to stand up and assure the people that his decision is correct, even if it comes with personal consequences. Failure to do so simply means that the inmates are running the asylum.

If one is going to posit that the Gedolim have the power to make important communal and halachic decisions and that we, the general populace, have a responsibility to follow their decisions, then they have a responsibility to make sure that their rulings are factual, informed, fair, honest, clear, verifiable and free from manipulations, agendas and communal pressure.

The Wolf

* But then again, if both sides feel this way, perhaps it's right after all...

Photos: Autumn Highway

2010-12-10T01:30:00.000-05:00

Back in October, I spent a day up in Harriman State Park, taking pictures of the fall foliage. Here's one of the shots I took that day:

Canon Xsi, 39mm, f/5, 1/60 second.

As always, comments, critiques and criticisms are welcomed and appreciated.

The Wolf

In The Interest Of Fairness

2010-12-09T22:26:00.000-05:00

I haven't read it, but since I posted my opinion on the People's Court case, I'm also linking to the VIN article from Rabbi Yair Hoffman who interviewed the couple.

The Other Side Of The Wig Story

The Wolf

If You Know Someone's Up Late, Does That Mean It's Right To Knock...

2010-12-09T13:47:00.001-05:00

As parents, Eeees and I try to impart many life lessons to our kids. One of those lessons is that there is a time when it's okay to disturb people and a time when it's wrong. For example, we stress to them that after 10PM, calling time is over. Unless you have explicit permission from the person you're calling beforehand (or barring an emergency, of course) you do not call people after 10PM. You certainly don't go knocking on their door, even if you know that they're still awake. The reason, very simply, is basic mentchlichkiet. People are entitled to their own disturbance-free private time. I know that I'm not thrilled when people call after a certain hour (most family, certain friends and emergency situations excepted) and I certainly would not do to someone that which I wouldn't want done to me. Which brings us to last night.

Due to a project that I needed to work on at school, I did not get home last night until about 10:30. As you can imagine, after a day at work, school, a train and bus ride home, I was fairly tired and ready for my "down time." We gathered the kids together and lit the menorah. By the time we were done (there were some delays, of course), it was close to 11:00.

A few minutes after we finished, George and Walter wanted to go outside to see how the four menorahs with all their lights looked from the outside. So, out they went to the side of the house (that's where the window with the menorah is) and watched for a minute or two. Afterwards, they came back into the house and told me that there was someone who wanted to see me.

I walked into our front room and there was a tzedaka collector.

I try to make it a rule that I never turn away a tzedaka collector. Yes, I'm not rich and even when I do give, it's usually not more than a few dollars, but I always try to give something. Walter, God bless him, gave me a few dollars to give to the guy. But I told him to put his money away. In this case, I was going to break my rule. Why? Because it was after 11:00 at night.

Yes, the collector probably knew we were still awake because of the freshly lit menorah in the window. Yes, he saw Walter and George leave and come back. But just because you know a person is awake at home does not make it right to knock on his door at all hours of the night. It is (and perhaps it's just my opinion) just not right.

Granted, there is always the possibility of an emergency. If someone's car crashes right outside my home at 2AM and the driver knocks on the door and needs to use the phone to call an ambulance or a tow truck, I would certainly understand. But this wasn't an emergency... it was a guy collecting for his family*. What's worse, he didn't seem to even care that he was disturbing people at 11PM at night. If (God forbid) it were me and I *had* to knock on someone's door at 11PM for some reason, the first thing out of my mouth would be "I'm so sorry to disturb you this late at night but...." Nothing of the sort came out of this fellow's mouth. He just began his shpiel without the slightest regard for the time.

Now, granted, perhaps he was not aware that I had just arrived home. He certainly could not have known that I had just endured a full day of work and school and was just ready to call it a day. And let's even give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't realize that if I just lit the menorah it means that I had just recently arrived home. Even so, just the fact that he's knocking on the door collecting at 11PM in a non-emergency situation is just plain wrong. At 11PM, people deserve not to be bothered. By 11PM (and even earlier) people should be allowed to relax at home without being disturbed.**

So I turned him away. I did it nicely. I didn't lecture him (although I think I should have -- but I tend to be non-confrontational). I didn't berate him. I just told him no.

So, I'm curious... what do you think? Did I overreact by not giving him anything? Was I in the right? I'd like to know what you think?

The Wolf

* Yes, that can certainly be viewed as an emergency in desperate enough situations... but you know it's not the same thing.

** As a side point, I'm curious... was he just walking by my house, saw the menorah and my sons and decided to give it a try? Or was he actually attempting to work the block at that time?

The Attempted Fraud Was Bad Enough, But To Make It Worse...

2010-12-07T12:46:00.000-05:00

I'm sure that by now, most of you have seen the People's Court case that aired on Dec 2. If not, you can view it at the end of this post or read the summary below.

An obviously frum couple are suing a dry cleaning establishment for $3000 for the destruction of a wig. The couple's young child put a $3000 Georgie wig into the dry cleaning bag before it went off to the cleaners. The dry cleaners saw the wig and phoned the customer what to do with the wig. The person calling had limited English skills and there is some confusion about what transpired over the phone call. The customer says that she told the dry cleaner not to wash it -- the dry cleaning employee says that she was told to wash, but not dry it.

In any event, the dry cleaner went ahead and washed the wig. The couple said that they took the wig to three different stores to see if it could be repaired, but they were told it was a total loss. The couple, however, did not bring any documentation of this (other than the receipt for the original wig purchase from Georgi back in May). The judge called a recess to consider the matter.

When the judge came back from recess, she said that she called Georgies and confirmed that the woman did indeed purchase a $3000 wig from them back in May. However, the wig was a long-haired wig (the one that the woman was wearing in court) and not a short wig (which is the one that was damaged). In addition, the damaged wig was a cheaper wig that Georgies does not even sell. The judge, in the end, tossed the suit.

What mystifies me about the couple's behavior is this:

I understand if they succumbed to temptation and decided to sue the dry cleaner to get them to pay for the more expensive wig. I don't approve, of course, but we're all human and we've all succumbed to some form of temptation or other.

However, if they did indeed attempt to perpetrate a fraud, I have to wonder what possessed them to do it on national television. It's bad enough they brought the suit in the first place -- but had this happened in small claims court, the case would have been thrown out and, at worst, a small blurb would have appeared in a local paper. But now, however, the attempted fraud is all over the internet. The video has 20,000+ views on YouTube, not to mention the many more people who actually saw the episode when it aired.

There is a reason that Chazal tell us that when one is tempted to sin they should do so in a far away place... so as to minimize the chillul HaShem that will result. I'm just utterly shocked and bewildered that they chose to attempt this on national television. To me, that's just as bad as the actual attempted fraud.

The Wolf

Sometimes I Wonder Why I Bother...

2010-11-23T15:24:00.001-05:00

I have a love/hate relationship with the Yeshiva World News coffeeroom.

I love them because they give an interesting insight into the frum community that doesn't really exist anywhere else. I always love to find out what other people think about various subjects, especially from people who might disagree with me on various matters -- and the Coffeeroom provides that to me very well.

However, there are things about it that I hate and sometimes downright depress me. I'm not going to start providing a laundry list of the things I don't like -- most of them aren't really relevant here. However, one of the things that sometimes baffles and frustrates me to no end is the moderation policy.

The Coffeeroom's policy is that all messages must be approved by a moderator before appearing. Personally, I think that's the wrong way to run a messageboard -- but so be it. However, the items that they choose to suppress are sometimes mind-baffling.

Take the recent Thanksgiving thread. After a back and forth, one poster brings up Rabbi ~~Brodye's~~ Broyde's thoughts on the matter and says:

Rabbi Michael Broyde authored a comprehensive analysis of the issue. He cites both sides of the debate, and essentially concludes that there is upon whom to rely in allowing a celebration of the holiday.

Another poster, instead of trying to show where Rabbi ~~Brodye~~ Broyde is wrong, goes for the ad hominem attack (note the change in honorific):

Professor Broyde surely makes some interesting academic observations on the matter. But for halachic conclusions, we rely on Rabbonim.

My response to the second poster is that instead of going for the ad hominem attack, why not simply address Rabbi ~~Brodye's~~ Broyde's point? In other words, if you think Rabbi ~~Brodye~~ Broyde is wrong, why not simply show us where he is wrong?

Apparently, suggesting that a poster is using an ad hominem attack is verbotten in the CR, since the moderator actually removed that portion of my sentence. In a later post, I even gave the poster a link to Rabbi ~~Brodye's~~ Broyde's words on the matter and challenged him to show us where Rabbi ~~Brodye~~ Broyde is wrong. That post went down the memory hole.

So, apparently, according to at least one of the moderators, attacking a Rabbi is okay, but asking him to actually back up his words with rational arguments is forbidden. Issuing an ad hominem attack is okay, but pointing it out is forbidden.

Go figure.

The Wolf

My Take On the Unfolding Kollel Scandal

2010-11-22T09:51:00.000-05:00

Earlier this week, Israeli authorities rounded up numerous Chareidim in Israel who are accusing of defrauding the State. In a classic case of identity fraud, it seems that the yeshivos were collecting monies for students who either did not attend the schools or were taking the monies allocated for the personal use of people who attend the yeshiva but have a policy not to take money from the State.

I don't know if the accusations are true or not. However, this episode has helped to illustrate several interesting points:

1. We Keep Our Priorities Straight -- Marty Bluke points out that this affair is being discussed on the Chareidi website. However, there the discussion isn't about whether or not the parties involved are guilty or whether we need to rethink the way we do things. The discussion there focuses on trying to find out who notified the authorities. In other words, it's not the fault of the thieves, it's the fault of the people who turned them in.

2. We Learn To Distinguish Between Important Issues and Issues of Lesser Importance: I find it highly telling that these same people who would look down at me for wearing a colored shirt, or working for a living, or for wearing a leather yarmulke, or for any of the other things that violate the chareidi lifestyle -- but yet don't even rise to the level of minhag or Rabbinic mitzvos, have no problem blithely violating the actual Torah commandment against theft.

Lord knows that I'm not perfect... and I don't expect Chareidim to be either. We're all human and we all make mistakes. But it's one thing when someone makes a one-time mistake and yet another when the violation is repeated and systemic. How someone who is repeatedly violating a Torah law can look down at someone who simply doesn't dress the same way or is otherwise acting in accordance with halacha is beyond me.

3. We're Can Keep the Big Picture In Sight: I am personally in favor of Torah study. I may have some quibbles with the way the kollel system is currently set up (ok, perhaps more than quibbles), but on a deeper level, I believe that there should be a kollel option for those who have the aptitude and desire.

But it has to be realized that the purpose of the kollel (or at least one of the purposes) has to be to educate people in the observance of the mitzvos. If the purpose of the learning doesn't include actual observance of the mitzvos, then what the heck is the point of the whole venture? To learn what the Torah wants while hypocritically acting the other way? I don't think so -- nor should any rational person. But if we support Torah learning with thievery what message does that send to the avreichim that are learning there -- especially in this day and age where many in the yeshiva world revere the Rosh Yeshiva himself and view his behavior as a model to emulate?

I don't have a problem with instutions that serve the community -- be they kollelim, tzedakah organizations, or the like. But the paramount thing is that these organizations have to be run above-board and with complete honesty. If we can't do that, not only do we risk further chillul HaShem, we also might begin to lose faith in our own institutions.

The Wolf

Somebody's Getting Married...

2010-11-16T14:36:00.000-05:00

Mazal Tov to Chana (aka The Curious Jew on her marriage to Heshy today!

May the new couple enjoy many years of happiness, health and joy together as they build a bayis ne'eman b'yisroel.

The Wolf

This Blog Is Not Abandoned

2010-11-08T10:15:00.000-05:00

I know it's been a while since I wrote anything here. I've been very busy (and going through a bit of a funk as well) and that has sapped much of my free time and creativity. Nonetheless, I do have some ideas percolating and hope to have something up shortly.

Thanks for staying tuned. :)

The Wolf

Photos: Ghostly Stream

2010-10-18T13:30:00.000-04:00

I spent just about all day yesterday in Harriman State Park, taking pictures of fall foliage. While I got a number of nice foliage shots (some of which I might post here), my best shot of the day (IMHO) was of a stream. Here's the pic:

Canon XSi, 100mm macro lens, 30 seconds, f/32

As you might imagine, the stream did not really look like that. It was simply water flowing down and around the rocks. So, how did I get the water to look like that? Did I use some Photoshop magic? No, I didn't (as a matter of fact, I don't even own Photoshop).

The trick to taking "ghostly water" shots like that is to use a long exposure. If you look under the picture, you'll see that for this shot, I left the shutter open for 30 seconds. That's quite a bit of time. Because the water was flowing at a nice pace (had it been flowing faster, the water would have looked even more "ghostly") leaving the shutter open for so long allowed me to capture much of the movement, resulting in the image you see.

Of course, it's important to remember that if you're going to leave the shutter open for that long, there are two things you MUST do:

1. Use a tripod. I don't care if you're the best surgeon in the world -- no one can hold their hands still for 10 seconds, let along 30. You absolutely must use a tripod to keep your camera still while the shutter is open.

2. Change the f/stop on your camera. I stopped the camera all the way down to f/32 -- the smallest aperture I could get with the lens I used. If you don't do this, your entire picture will be completely overexposed.

3. Although not a must, a filter would also help to reduce the amount of light coming into your camera. This will allow you to keep the shutter open longer.

As always, I welcome all comments, critiques and criticisms.

The Wolf

See? Science and Torah Can Agree!

2010-10-14T14:30:00.000-04:00

The Boston Globe is reporting that genealogists have discovered that President Barack Obama is a distant cousin of Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin -- high profile members of the opposition political party.

I don't really care to comment about Obama, Limbaugh or Palin -- you'll notice that I rarely, if ever, bring up politics on this blog. But the article brought me to an interesting conclusion -- that there is one thing that even the most ardent Biblical literalist and the most atheistic evolutionist can agree on -- that if you trace back far enough, all human beings are related to each other.

See, science and Torah can agree! :)

The Wolf

Poor Arguments

2010-10-05T12:54:00.000-04:00

Every now and again, you come across an argument put forth by someone and wonder how it is possible that they don't see the refutation to their very own argument. A good example of this was found on Rabbi Lazer Brody's website earlier this week. He writes:

My simple mind asks a question - How is it that the scientists purport to know what happened millions of years ago, yet deny the hard historical fact that 2 million men, women, and children saw the revelation of Hashem on Mount Sinai a mere 3323 years ago? This latter fact has been passed down from father to son and from rav to talmid (teacher to student), so that's why I go with the simple faith of our forefathers. Also, if it was good for the previous generations' spiritual giants, it's certainly good for me.

The answer, of course, is very simple -- (1) Events that happened millions of years ago left behind physical evidence that can be examined today -- fossils, geological formations, layers in ice cores and the like. Mattan Torah, on the other hand, did not leave behind any physical evidence. That's not to say that it did not happen -- on the contrary, I believe that Mattan Torah occurred. But you cannot express dismay at the fact that scientists are willing to rely on physical evidence and not on historical retellings that have one root source.

Another factor to consider is that there is a qualitative difference between "hard" evidence (such as the physical evidnce I mentioned earlier) and "soft" evidence (traditional retelling of historical events). The latter type of evidence is far easier to manipulate than the former. Just to give an example, ask any two random people to tell you the story of Little Red Riding Hood without referring to a written text. In the vast majority of cases, the people telling the stories will not relate them exactly the same way. Some people may choose to play up or embellish one part of the story more than the other. Or put it this way -- did your father tell over the story of the Exodus by the seder EXACTLY the same way every year? Do you tell it over to your kids EXACTLY the same way?

Lastly, of course, there is an additional difference. Rabbi Brody may have this tradition passed down from father to son and from rebbe to talmid -- but the scientists don't. If Rabbi Brody is willing to accept this, then that's fine -- but he cannot insist on forcing those same views on others -- not unless he's willing to accept the ancient traditions passed down by other religions as well.

Rabbi Brody continues in his post:

It's utterly absurd to think that anyone could have been capable of pulling the wool over the eyes of such intellectual and spiritual giants as the Ramcha"l, the Vilna Gaon, Rebbe Chaim Volozhiner, Rebbe Nachman of Breslev or the Chofetz Chaim. Stories do change and develop over time, no one can argue with that. But the holy Zohar warns that our Torah is not a mere collection of "stories", G-d forbid, but precision Divine wisdom. That's why our sages throughout the generations believed in every iota of Torah

I don't necessarily know that the scientists would agree that it's "utterly absurd" that the wool could have been pulled over the eyes of the tzadikkim he mentioned above -- but let's put that aside for the moment. The real problem with his argument here is that he's assuming something that's not in evidence -- that a deception is being perpetrated. His argument (as I understand it) is as follows: if Mattan Torah is false, then someone lied. If it's a lie, the above named people would never have fallen for it. Hence it can't be a lie.

However, Rabbi Brody is engaging in the fallacy of the excluded middle. There is another possibility -- that the people who transmitted the historicity of Mattan Torah to these tzadikkim actually believed in these events. As such, when (for example) the Chofetz Chaim first learned about Mattan Torah from his father, he has no reason to doubt his father's word, because his father believed in the historicity of Mattan Torah. There was no deception being perpetrated against the Chofetz Chaim because his father presented the facts as he believed them to be and as he received them from his father. I don't know anything about the Chofetz Chaim's father, but for the sake of argument, let's say that he, too, was an extraordinary man who would never knowingly accept or transmit false information. But could you say the same thing about his father? His grandfather? And every person in the chain back to whichever son of Aharon (if I recall correctly, the Chofetz Chaim was a Kohen) he is descended from? Is it not within the realm of possibility that *someone* in that chain was deceived, duped or even just came to believe information that was not historically accurate? If so, then no one is "pulling the wool" over these giants any more than Ptolmey "pulled the wool" over the people of his day with his geocentric model of the universe. There was no deception -- merely people working with the information that they had at the time. By framing it as a "deception," Rabbi Brody excludes the possibility that they could have simply believed in inaccurate information because that was the information/evidence that they had at the time.

I don't have any problems with Rabbi Brody's beliefs. As I mentioned above, I, too, believe in Mattan Torah. But I do have a problem with his arguments -- they are poorly thought out with easy refutations at hand -- refutations to which he has seemingly blinded himself.

The Wolf

Men Behaving Badly During Davening

2010-09-27T10:18:00.001-04:00

A Public Service Announcement to the folks I davened with on Sunday:

To the fellow davening next to me:

It's bad enough that the shliach tzibur (prayer leader) for Shacharis is reciting the Chazaras HaShatz (the repitition of the amidah) so low that I can barely hear him. Please don't compound the problem by saying your "catch up" davening loudly next to me. I believe that, even though you are a member in the shul and I am only a guest, my right to hear the chazzan trumps your "right" to say Az Yashir in a loud voice. An even better idea would be to come on time next time so that you can say Az Yashir when the rest of the congregation is doing so. And you didn't make matters any better when you recited portions of your (silent) Amidah out loud.

To the parade of people marching to and from the sukkah at the start of Hallel:

Yes, it's a nice minhag (custom) to bentch lulav and esrog in the sukkah. I get it, I really do. But if doing so is going to result in your missing half of Hallel, then you're better off just bentching lulav by your seat. I highly doubt it's worth missing half of Hallel (I saw some of you coming back inside as we were up to "Ana HaShem..." just so that you can bentch lulav in the sukkah. If the minhag means that much to you, then next time bentch lulav at home in your sukkah before coming to shul, or else come early and do it in the shul's sukkah before davening, or else just do it at your seat right before Hallel.

To the conversationalists:

I understand... it's a Sunday, it's Chol HaMoed, there's no work for most of you and you have plans for a great day with your families. I get it, I really do. But there's no reason to be discussing them (or any of the other minutiae) that is discussed during davening. I was barely able to hear the Chazarras HaShatz for Mussaf because of all the talking in the shul. Yes, I suppose I am partially to blame because I sit all the way in the back -- I suppose if I moved closer I might be able to hear better -- but I really shouldn't have to. It's not as if the Shliach Tzibur for Mussaf was all that low -- he wasn't. Absent the talking, I could have heard him perfectly where I was. Once again, I'm willing to bet that even though I am only a guest and you are members, that my right to hear the chazzan trumps your "right" to discuss your plans for the day. Perhaps, in the future, you might consider the following:

I am normally strongly opposed to the practice that some people have of removing their tallis and tefillin before the very end of davening. Yet, I understand that sometimes people are in a rush because they have to get to work or because they have important plans that are time-sensitive. So I'm dan l'kaf z'chus (I give the benefit of the doubt). But I would much rather see you leave early and hold your discussions outside while the davening is still going on rather than have you discuss them in shul. It's REALLY hard for me to be dan l'kaf z'chus when I hear you discussing things that are (a) not related to the davening and (b) don't HAVE to be discussed right then and there and (c) are discussed loudly enough that I can hear you a few rows away and can no longer hear the shliach tzibbur. So, next time, how about leaving instead of talking? Both are wrong, but at least if you leave, I have grounds on which to give you the benefit of the doubt.

The Wolf

Frum People Don't Kiss or Hug Their Spouses...

2010-09-20T11:06:00.001-04:00

... or at least that's what one couple wants their nearly teenage daughter to believe.

A very interesting and sad thread appeared on Imamother this past week in which the topic was discussed. In the thread, a woman says that her very sheltered 12 year old daughter accidentally saw her neighbors making out on the couch. The couple had apparently left their blinds open and hence the daughter was able to see them kissing and hugging. Being very sheltered, she probably never saw anyone kiss beyond a quick peck on the cheek and was disgusted that her neighbors -- otherwise fine Jews (from my reading of the post) -- were "acting like chilonim." As the poster puts it:

Obviously I'll never know just how much she saw but she was in total shock that this couple were "behaving like chilonim" and she was nauseous over the whole thing. Needless to say, my dd is very sheltered and could not imagine that anyone Charedi would do something so disgusting!

The poster's first instinct was to tell the kid the truth -- that married couples do engage in such behavior but that it is meant to be private and that the couple should not have been doing such when others can see them. And so she told her daughter. Her daughter's reaction:

She was not happy with that answer and of course, started to ask me about her father and myself. I didn't give her a straight answer but I did let her know that it's normal and natural.

So far, so good. Kid sees something that was meant to be private. Being a pre-teen and never having been exposed to this, she's kind of grossed out - a perfectly natural, normal reaction (given her upbringing). Mother tells the child that it's normal and natural for couples to behave this way and that she'll learn more about it as she gets older.

But the story doesn't end there. When the woman's husband hears about the story, his reaction is different. In her words:

When DH found this out he was not a happy camper. He would rather have her think that the neighbors are pervs or something. Oy.

And sure enough, he does just this. In a later post, the woman recounts what happened the next day:

She ran to tell my dh about it this morning before I woke up. He told her that it's ossur and not done and that the neighbors are not beseder and that the only reason I said that it is done is because I didn't want to say bad things about the neighbors and that I didn't know what to say. She asked me if that's true and I said yes.

and

My husband says that the mere fact that she got such a shock from what she saw is enough of a reason to make sure she gets back on track and the only way to get her back to her equilibrium is to let her think that it's wrong. He says it's allowed by halacha to lie about this. I said that she'll eventually know I'm a liar and he said that the important thing here is not if I'm a liar or not - it's her state of mind.

The thread goes on for seven pages in total and in those seven pages, EVERY single woman who expressed an opinion on the matter all agreed that the initial response was the correct one and that her husband's approach was wrong. These responses come from just about all segments of Orthodox Judaism as represented on Imamother -- Chareidi, Chassidic, Litvish, Modern Orthodox, etc. Yet, in the end, she continues to stand by her husband's decision.

So, what's the end result here?

1. Over the next few years, one or both of the following is going to happen to this poor girl:

a. She will internalize the message her father gave her, come to view physical intimacy with loathing and disgust and possibly even suffer from self-hate when her own hormones kick in and she begins to have desires for physical intimacy. Oh, and heaven help her kallah teacher and future husband.

b. She will find out from her friends that her parents lied to her and that they cannot be trusted to provide her with serious mature answers to the important questions in life.

2. The father, by telling his daughter that "it's ossur and not done and that the neighbors are not beseder" has, in effect, told her that the neighbors are disgusting perverts. Granted, they should have closed the window blinds, but from the mother's description, it doesn't sound like we're dealing with serial exhibitionists here - it was a mistake, pure and simple. But the father chose to paint them as deviants rather than have the courage to face the truth with his daughter.

3. By telling his daughter that her mother lied, she, in effect, helped to undermine her credibility. By "confirming" the "lie" (which, mind you, was in fact the truth), she has put herself in a position (vis-a-vis her daughter) from which she has no credible resolution. IMHO, undermining a spouse's authority with anyone (and *especially* with her children) is one of the worst things you can do in a marriage.

I don't want to address the fact that this couple has obviously never shown affection for each other in front of their kids. If that's the way they want to run their marriage, that's their business. It's not how Eeees and I run ours. Our kids see us hug and kiss. They can visibly see the affection that we have for each other -- whether we're in physical contact or not. Eeees and I believe that it's healthy for children to see these things (and yes, they did go through their "ewwww" phase -- but they got over it) and to see that hugging, kissing and physical intimacy (within limits, of course) are perfectly normal and healthy in a married relationship.

I can understand a parent wanting to keep their child sheltered. It's a perfectly natural parental reaction. Yes, some parents tend to overdo it, but at the core of a parent is the desire to protect his or her child. Unfortunately, however, children cannot be sheltered forever. At some point, they will have to be told about subjects that you might not want brought up -- and sometimes they'll come up sooner than you like.

We had this issue with one of our children. Eeees and I were forced to give him information about intimacy sooner than we would have liked. No, s/he didn't walk in on us or anything like that -- but s/he became aware of some information on his/her own and we, as parents, had to put that information in the proper context. We could have lied to the kid and we could have buried our heads in the sand -- but that would have been the wrong thing to do. The child would have grown up and internalized the wrong message about intimacy -- and that would have required far more extensive "fixing" later on and a total loss of trust in us as parents. So, we chose the responsible choice -- giving the child the information s/he needed and putting it in the proper context.

Children are naturally curious about the world. They will constantly ask questions, and they will sometimes see or hear things that you would rather they not know about. But a child also needs to know that they can come to their parents for accurate information when they see something that so shakes the foundation of their world. That doesn't mean that you *have* to answer every question -- sometimes a subject should be avoided or pushed off -- but a child needs to understand that a parent won't lie to them. As one poster in the thread beautifully put it, you can't be mechanech with sheker - period.

Perhaps our method isn't for everyone -- but I can say this: if my kids had accidentally spied a married couple making out, they might have been a bit grossed out -- but they also would have realized that it's a natural part of the relationship. Furthermore, they would know that they can talk to us about it and receive honest and truthful answers. Eeees and I don't lie to our kids, nor do we EVER make the other parent out to be a liar.

The Wolf

Hat tip: Pesky Settler and OnionSoupMix

Shana Tova

2010-09-08T12:53:00.002-04:00

I want to wish all my readers, my correspondents and everyone else a Shana Tova. May you all be blessed with health and happiness. May all your wishes for the coming year be fulfilled.

The Wolf

Do People Actually Hear Themselves When They Speak...?

2010-08-27T14:30:00.000-04:00

... or write, in this case.

The proposed Park51 community center/mosque/whatever you want to call it has been in the news for the last few weeks. Personally, I'm of two minds about it and can hear both sides' argument. As a result, I don't have terribly strong feelings on the matter one way or the other.

Other people, of course, have strong opinions about the building -- and they're certainly entitled to them. But sometimes people make some really silly statements and I wonder if they actually give much thought to their statements and whether what they're saying might be just as equally applicable to themselves or their community.

Let's take a look at a few examples, courtesy of the YWN Coffeeroom.

The first response in the thread is a good example in fear-mongering.

What I find scary about this whole thing is they'll build one mosque, than another and another....and than they will literally just take over!

Now, I'm going to switch just one word in the quote -- tell me how is sounds to you.

"What I find scary about this whole thing is they'll build one synagogue, than another and another....and than they will literally just take over!"

Not too nice sounding, is it? But I bet you could have heard some people saying the same thing in communities where Orthodox (and even non-Orthodox) Jews moved in. I would not be surprised to find out that such sentiments were uttered by long-time residents in places such as Lakewood, Williamsburg, Boro Park, Postville, Monroe and Flatbush in the past who saw the character of their neighborhoods changing. And if someone uttered it today, we'd (rightfully) denounce the person as a bigoted, ignorant and antisemitic. But yet, the very same people who would scream and holler about it being said about them have no compunctions about using such language against others.

A similar sentiment is expressed further down the thread by a poster named Baruch-1:

It's bad enough to have a growing Muslim population in America, I don't want it in my back yard in NY! And if it means using logic like not allowing a mosque on WTC grounds, then I'm up for using whatever it takes to prevent Islam from growing here.

And, again, here's the "revised" quote:

"It's bad enough to have a growing Jewish population in America, I don't want it in my back yard in NY! And if it means using logic like not allowing a synagogue on WTC grounds, then I'm up for using whatever it takes to prevent Judaism from growing here."

Again, sounds pretty ugly, doesn't it? We'd scream and protest (again, rightfully) if someone said that today, but to say it about Muslims and suddenly everything's okay?

Next, we turn to the hypocrasy that some of the posters, knowingly or unknowingly, exhibit.

Here's one from a poster with whom I usually agree and is usually pretty level headed:

No, it should not be built. The freedom of religion does not apply to a religion that BANS ALL freedom of religion.

I would suggest that before she suggests stripping Muslims of their freedom of religion on the basis that they don't allow it that she actually look into just how much freedom of religion is allowed to non-Jews under halacha. Granted, they don't have to be Jews, but their choices are actually quite limited and Judaism clearly does not have the concept of "freedom of religion."

Baruch-1 (who provided a quote above) also gave us an example of this as well.

Islam is by its nature (according to the 'pashut' reading of the Quran) a controlling and an intolerant religion! There I said it! Forget about contemporary Talibans and Wahabis, since its very creation, Islam has subscribed to the belief that Christians and Jews are Dhimmis thus making them subserviant to Muslims under Shariyah law.

Is Baruch not aware that halacha is also very controlling and, at times, intolerant? Does he not understand that, under halacha, one could find situations where non-Jews are subservient to Jews? Is he really so blind as to not see it? And yet he basis his opposition to Muslims on this. As the saying goes, "doctor, heal thyself."

I have no beef with people who have strongly held opinions on whether this building should be built. As I said, I can see both sides of the argument and both sides have valid points. But when people resort to pure hatred and hypocrisy to make their points, then I consider it out of bounds and in very bad taste.

The Wolf

Photos: Daisy In Drop

2010-08-27T09:47:00.000-04:00

I can't say this is one of my best shots ever, but it's the beginning of an experiment in macro photography.

Canon XSi, MPE-65mm macro, f/16m, 15 seconds.

As always, comments, criticisms and critiques are welcome and appreciated.

The Wolf

To see all my photo pictures, click here.

Don't You Find It Amusing....

2010-08-25T13:50:00.000-04:00

... when people who say "let's flood the public schools" with our kids as a solution to the community tuition problems are probably the same ones who want their yeshivos ultra-segregated so that only the "right" kids can attend?

What do they think the public school system will do? Set up "yeshivish-only" classes?

The Wolf

Molestation... and the Lakewood Response To It.

2010-08-25T13:10:00.000-04:00

The Asbury Park Press is reporting about a recent case of a Lakewood father who decided to notify the authorities when his son accused a yeshiva teacher of sexually abusing him for about a year. The teacher has since been arrested, pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial.

But there is another story here, aside from the child and the molester. As it turns out, the father now facing opposition in the community for having chosen to go to the police rather than have the matter handled internally by a local Bais Din. Attempts were made to get the father to drop the charges. Notices were distributed as a recent charity event decrying the "shameful thing" that was done -- not the abuse, of course, but the fact that the victim's father went to the police. One Lakewood resident has been charged with witness tampering in the case.

Personally, I believe that most people, if they felt confidence in the system provided, will use it. People will go to Bais Din for civil cases when, and only when, they feel confident that justice will be served. If people feel that an institution is corrupt or unable to solve their problems, they will find another system that can do so. If this is true for civil cases, how much more so will it apply to criminal cases when people may fear for the safety of their families or others?

I think it's evidently clear that, in the case, the father of the victim did not feel that Bais Din was capable of handling the matter -- and, in truth, I can't say that I blame him for having such feelings. Given their inexperience with such matters, the past track record of rabbinical organizations in sweeping such allegations under the rug and and lack of any true enforcement and prevention mechanism, there probably isn't a great deal that any communal rabbinical organization can do alone to stop molesters. That's not to say that at some point in the future they may not come up with a valid, reliable method for handling such cases in the future, but, for the present, there is no evidence of any credible method for dealing with criminals in our midst. And with no assurance that the rabbinic authorities can prevent this person from harming his son or anyone else, he turned to the ones he felt were best able to ensure that this does not happen again.

But aside from all that, there is another dimension to this case -- that of the implied social contract between ourselves and our neighbors.

Rabbi Shmuel Meir Katz, a senior Dayan in Lakewood, was quoted as saying the following:

"We have our own system. We have our own laws, and as long as the Bais Din (rabbinical tribunal) feels competent on taking care of something themselves, that's our surest recourse in our circles.''

What Rabbi Katz doesn't seem to realize is that we don't live in isolation. In Lakewood, as in most places in the world, we live side-by-side with non-Jewish neighbors. And since we live side-by-side with them, actions taken by either group tend to affect the other. If there were a murderer, a rapist, a child molester, or even a simple cat burglar in our neighbor's midst and they struck, we'd want to make sure that they are brought to justice. Even if we don't care about our neighbors, we'd want to at least be sure that the criminal will not strike us. But how would Rabbi Katz feel if the molester's community defended him saying "we have our own laws, we will take care of it internally?" Would he feel confident that the matter is resolved? Would he feel safe that his community is secure because his neighbors have decided to handle it amongst themselves with no outward accountability? Or would he demand that the police get involved to remove the molester from the Lakewood area so that children will once again be safe? My guess would be that most people would not be satisfied with such an arrangemnet.

But that being the case, how can Rabbi Katz expect that his non-Jewish neighbors will be satisfied with such an arrangement? How can he, in good conscience, tell reporters "we have our own laws" when he would not accept such an argument from any other group? And, with the knowledge now public that we won't turn over criminals to law enforcement, how can he ever in the future, in good conscience, complain when another group refuses to hand over someone who harms a Jew?

The Wolf

Hat Tip: VIN

Rabbinic Approval of Community Events

2010-08-24T10:52:00.000-04:00

The Jewish Community Council of Marine Park is sponsoring an emergency blood drive tonight at K'hal Bnei Torah ("Rabbi Schiffenbauer's shul" -- 3514 Flatlands Avenue -- Google map link) from 6:30 to 11:00 PM tonight. I urge all those who are eligible to give blood to do so. I plan to be there myself later on in the evening and drop off a pint of Wolfish blood. Donating blood is a mitzvah and saves lives. On top of that, they'll even serve you dinner too.

I found out about this event through a flier that was distributed in various shuls in the neighborhood. At the bottom of the flyer were printed the following words:

This Blood Drive has the complete support & endorsement of the Vaad Horabbonim of Marine Park.

This is not the first time I've seen this sort of disclaimer for an event. In fact, I've been seeing them more and more often over the last few years on all sorts of events from children's carnivals to gatherings to discuss serious communal issues.

I'm not going so far as to say that there are no events that shouldn't have rabbinical oversight or endorsement, but one wonders why you would need rabbinical endorsement for something as simple as a blood drive. Even if you thought there might be a halachic issue with giving blood (I'm certainly not aware of any issues that have a valid logical basis), that's why we have rabbis to ask questions of, correct? If I saw a flier for a blood drive and I thought it might be a problem, I would simply call up my local orthodox rabbi and say "Rabbi, there's a blood drive tonight and I'd like to donate but I'm not sure if it's allowed because of reasons X, Y and Z..." You should not require a rabbinic committee to approve an event or organization that is a mitzvah and providing a benefit to the community. An ad to raise funds for a charity such as Tomche Shabbos shouldn't need to say something along the lines of "approved by the Vaad Harabbonim of...." That's not to say that organizations shouldn't have a rabbinic adviser to whom they can turn when they have a question -- organizations should have just such an adviser. But this obsession with getting rabbinic approbation for any event is just another sign of the fact that common people are abdicating their responsibility to use common sense and good judgment.

One wonders where this is all going in the future. Will my kids be sending out invitations to their sons' bar mitzvahs with the line "Approved by the Vaad harabbonim..." on it? Or will my future five-year old grandchildren receive an invitation to a friend's birthday party that reads "Come to Chavie's Birthday Party! Approved by the Vaad Harabonnim!?"

The Wolf

Does Anyone Have Any Data On Orthodox Jewish Marriage Patterns?

2010-08-23T12:32:00.000-04:00

I'm attempting to do some research into the "Age-Gap" theory of the "Shidduch crisis." I've written a program to simulate a community, but right now, my virtual community acts based on my guesses of when people marry and the age of their spouses. I would like to improve my model based on real-world data (if there is any out there) and see if I can get my virtual community to behave more like the real community.

So, does anyone know of any studies that were done on Orthodox Jewish marriages in recent years? Specifically with data as to the ages of marriage of the partners?

Thanks in advance,

The Wolf

A Crisis In Faith

2010-08-18T13:33:00.000-04:00

Ignorance, the saying goes, is bliss - and that much is true. But sometimes bliss isn't enough to go on. Sometimes you need to confront the reality, however unpleasant it may be.

A commentator recently asked me if I was going through a crisis of faith. My first thought upon seeing the question was to dismiss it out of hand. But having taken some time to reflect on the matter, I can't help but wonder if perhaps he is right. Perhaps I am going through a crisis of faith. If faith is a byproduct of ignorance, then I am certainly going through a crisis of faith.

We have all seen examples of Jews who failed, in a very public way, to live up to the Torah's standards of ethical behavior. We've seen examples of rabbis who steal. We've seen examples of rabbis who molest children and commit other sexual indiscretions. We've seen examples of rabbis who are corrupt and either follow the money or power when it comes to communal policy. We've seen rabbis make outrageous statements that defy logic and comprehension. We've seen rabbis who are far more concerned with minutiae such as skirt lengths, wigs, music and the like rather than seeing that people can get a Jewish education or making good communal decisions. We've seen rabbis who seem to be far more interested in dividing the Jewish community between their own "correct" enclave and the "Other" portions of Orthodox Judaism -- to say nothing of the vast majority of non-Orthodox Judaism -- than in bringing Jews together. We see rabbis who seem to want to advance their own personal agendas in a "my way or the highway" fashion in the areas of marriage, divorce, conversion, etc. rather than reach out and form a halachic consensus that is workable for everyone.

And we have whole communities that are willing to march in lockstep behind these rabbis, whether they are right or wrong, without giving even for a second considering the possibility that these rabbis just might be wrong. We have whole swaths of our community who have granted leading rabbis a de facto status of infallibility, whose words are not to be questioned or commented on. And we have seen how those very same "infallible" rabbis can be manipulated by people who have personal agendas by using partial truths or outright lies to form communal policy, disrupt the livlihood of people engaged in perfectly legitimate occupations and so on.

People like to say "Don't judge Judaism by the Jews." As with the popular expression that I mentioned earlier, there is a certain amount of truth in the saying. Jews, like the rest of humanity, are only human. Like all other human beings, we have our failings and there will be those of us who engage in misconduct that brings shame on the community. It's unfortunate that it happens, but as long as we're human, it will happen from time to time. And you can even expect that rabbis, too, from time to time, will misbehave as well. They are subject to the same basic human temptations that the hoi polloi are subject to. You would think that rabbis should be held to a higher standard than the common man, but not to a standard of perfection. But yet, we have seen in the last few years, rabbis engaging in bad behavior in incidents that are becoming far more numerous than any that I can remember in my lifetime. Perhaps all this went on all the time and I was merely ignorant before -- but now that I know, I cannot "unknow" it. This is not to say that there are not rabbis out there who are saintly human beings, who work tirelessly for the communal good and work on fixing K'lal Yisroel's problems rather than creating new ones. I'm certain that they're out there and I'd even venture that they are the majority -- but just as a single skunk in a patch of a thousand roses can overwhelm the plesant scent of the flowers with his stink, so too one bad rabbi can cause more damage than the good works of many good rabbis. And the stink of the skunks is getting harder and harder to tolerate.

If I could say that this crisis of faith that I'm having is limited in its scope to the behavior of some lay individuals or rabbis, I could perhaps find it much easier to resolve. But it runs far deeper than that -- it also runs into the areas of community policy, attitudes and theology.

Orthodox Judaism has been experiencing a "slide to the right" for a while now. Things that were perfectly acceptable in some circles thirty years ago are now deemed "beyond the pale." As an example, someone recently said the following to me:

An ehrlich yid would not agree to a shidduch where seperate [sic] seating was not a given.

Keep in mind that mixed-seated weddings were fairly common in the Orthodox community in the past generation or two. But according to this commentator, all those people are just not ehrlich (i.e. honest, virtuous)-- and neither are a lot of people today, it seems. No matter how honest you are in your dealings, no matter how meticulous your observance of the mitzvos, no matter how careful you are in dealing with the feelings of your fellow man, if you agree to a shidduch where there is mixed seating, you're just not ehrlich.

And the attitude goes far beyond simply mixed seating. It seems like it's almost every month that some new ban arises in the community -- whether it be concerts, fish, the Internet, media in general, books, clothing colors and styles and on and on. As a community, we are imposing ever stricter guidelines on people, both through official channels (i.e. community rabbis, schools, other institutions) and unofficial channels (if you don't conform in even the most minute way, your kids will have difficulty getting a shidduch). And while higher standards can be a good thing, it must be balanced by the ability of the community and it's people to be able to happily live within those standards. Chazal recognized this over a millennium ago with the idea that a decree, no matter how valid, warranted or needed, cannot be enacted if the community cannot (or will not) live under it and abide by it. Today, however, we seem to have remembered the need for communal decrees to address new situations that arise, but we've forgotten the part that any solution must be one that the community will accept and live by. Perhaps the reason for this is because these bans and decrees come from people with an agenda to push and by well-meaning rabbis who are given misleading and false information and are out of touch with the common people.

If I could say my crisis of faith goes even to the area of increasing standards, perhaps I might still be able to ride it out. But it goes even further than that -- it also goes to the attitudes that are prevelant in some parts of our community.

Frankly, I am appalled by some of the attitudes that are present in our community, but perhaps the most important underlying cause is the refusal of our community to move forward. We seem to be stuck in a Middle-Ages mindset -- and based on the rules that some of us have adopted, we will always be in that same mindset.

A while ago, I engaged in a debate about whether or not statements made by and attitudes expressed by rabbanim are influenced by the environments in which they lived, or whether such statements are, in effect, made in a vacuum and therefore unalterable by time or place. I posted about this a while back with regard to a statement by the author of the Torah Temimah about the lack of intelligence in women. Many in our community seem to take the position that because a rav in place X and time Y made a statement that it applies in all places and all times and that there is no possibility that his own personal biases, upbringing, surrounding culture and environment could have had an input into his attitudes and statements. So, if the author of the Torah Temimah says that women lack intellectual stability, then it's true of women in all places and all times. What would such a person say to the fact that it can easily be seen in today's world that women are, in fact, intellectually stable and can achieve in almost any field of intellectual endeavor? Nothing. They simply close their eyes and repeat the mantra of "Toras Emes, Toras Emes." Ignore the evidence that's right in front of your eyes. Perhaps this was best expressed by Rabbi Uren Reich a few years ago when he said:

If the Gemara tells us a metziyus, it’s emes veyatziv. There’s nothing to think about. Anything we see with our eyes is less of a reality than something we see in the Gemara.

While his comments address the Gemara specifically, I would not be surprised to find that he would expand that to include anyone in the accepted gedolim throughout the ages. I would find it hard to believe that Rav Reich would take the opinion of a twenty-first century scientist over a statement of Rashi, the Vilna Goan, R. Akiva Eiger or the Chazon Ish.

But such thinking leads to warped communal policy and dysfunctional communities. Rather than looking at the fact that women are obviously capable of advanced academic learning and perhaps we, as a community might benefit from additional people learning Torah from a female perspective, we simply repeat the mantra of "women aren't able to learn Torah" and forbid them from even opening up a Mishnayos, let alone a Gemara (or, in the case of some communities, even a chumash!). Rather than considering the fact that the concept of mesirah is obviously an artifact of another time and place where conditions were much different than in the present-day United States, we actively shelter child molesters, thieves and other criminals in our midst, where they are given more opportunities to commit crimes. And so on. As a result, we have dysfunctional communities that are increasingly out of step with modern social realities and will only continue to cause further tension both externally with those outside of our community and internally as those modern realities seep through the walls that are being erected (and yes, they *will* seep through).

If I could say my crisis of faith goes even to the area of communal policy, perhaps I might still be able to ride it out. But it goes even deeper than that. It goes even to the theological core of what is being presented.

It's very clear from the scientific evidence that the world is far older than 5770 years. It's very clear that the world wasn't created in six literal 24-hour days (although at one point, I presented a possible way to say that the world was created in such a fashion). It's very clear from the available evidence that there was no global flood some 4000 years ago that covered the entire earth and wiped out all animal life excepting eight humans and two to fourteen of every non-fish species. Valid questions can be asked about the Exodus, Mattan Torah and the Conquest of the Land. The idea that the Torah that we have today is a letter-perfect copy of the one that Moshe received on Mount Sinai grows more doubtful in my mind every time I think on the matter. The idea that an entire corpus of oral law was somehow passed down from generation to generation unwritten, unchanged and unaffected/uninfluenced by the biases, agendas and beliefs of the people who engaged in that transmission sounds more and more ludicrous to me every day. Even the seemingly simple concept of Yeridas HaDoros presents major difficulties for me. And for any of these points which, to me, are supported by either physical evidence or simple reason, I can, in essence, be considered a heretic who is to be shunned by the community.

Some people, it seems, seem to be willing to be bliss in their ignorance, ignore the evidence (or worse, claim that it's faked or part of some vast conspiracy to discredit the Torah) or impugn the credentials or intelligence of the people presenting the evidence (i.e., if only the PhD in physics would read the essay penned by the religious high school graduate, he would see that the entire scientific endeavor is a fraud.). But I cannot do that. I tend to believe that someone who has a PhD in physics knows a thing or two about the subject. And that an entire community of physicists working together and in competition with each other know more about the subject than people who lived before the field was seriously studied. I tend to believe people who can produce repeatable observations and experiments over those who assert something as fact but cannot (or will not) produce the evidence to back it up. How can I maintain faith in a system that seeks to present fiction as literal truth and mistaken information as scientifically accurate?

Even if it were only on theological grounds that I had difficulty, I might be able to dismiss those difficulties or push them to the side. But at this point, I'm having difficulties on all the items presented above and others that I've chosen not to mention. I can no longer be ignorant. I can no longer be in a state of bliss. I cannot unring the bell and pretend that I have not heard the sound it produced, nor would I want to. I would far rather know the truth, however ugly, than be blinded by a fantasy.

So, yes, I guess you could say that I'm suffering a crisis of faith.

The Wolf

A Quick Cryptic Note

2010-08-17T15:26:00.000-04:00

If one is not allowed to have an honest self-appraisal of himself, then what's the point of any other opinion he may have?

The Wolf

Please Call Me Mister Wolf

2010-08-12T09:01:00.000-04:00

"Hey, Rabbi! How are you this evening?"

I had just left shul after davening Ma'ariv last night when the question rang out from the darkness behind me. I turned around to see a fellow walking after me. I figured he must have been calling out to me since I was the only other person walking in that direction.

The fact of the matter is that I am not a rabbi. I never have been and, in all probability, never will be one. In the past I had given some consideration towards going for semicha (ordination), but I never seriously followed up on it.

"I don't know whom you're talking to," I responded. "I'm not a rabbi and there's no one else here."

It turns out that he was, indeed, talking to me. I could easily excuse his error since he didn't know me (I generally keep a low profile in the community) and probably did not know whether I was a rabbi or not.

After I politely pointed out his error to him, he defended his position by saying that today, everyone's a rabbi. And, to pity the poor fellow, that's when I let him have it*, for this is one of my pet peeves -- the nearly universal application of the title of Rabbi.

I am a firm believer in the theory that only those who have earned the title Rabbi should use it. If someone sends mail to my house addressed to "Rabbi Wolf" or "Rabbi & Mrs. Wolf," I don't open it. I'm not "Rabbi Wolf." If someone calls and asks for Rabbi Wolf, I tell them (politely, of course) that they've reached Mr. Wolf and that there is no Rabbi Wolf at this number. And I let the fellow who greeted me know that I don't believe in applying titles to those who haven't earned them.

Personally, I feel that if you apply the title of "Rabbi" to everyone, then it cheapens the title until it becomes meaningless. After all, what value is there in a title if every other person in the community has the same title? Is there value in being a General in the army if everyone else is a general? What makes a doctorate degree so distinctive if everyone in the world is to be called "doctor?" So, too, I feel, by calling everyone "Rabbi," it denigrates both the title and the very real efforts of those who have worked to achieve it. When the fellow answered to me that the title was already demeaned, I said "so why demean it further by applying it to those who haven't earned it?"

To further prove my point, I pointed out to him the tana'im Ben Azai and Ben Zoma. There is a reason by we don't refer to these people as "Rabbi Shimon ben Azai" and "Rabbi Shimon ben Zoma." The reason, very simply, is because they did not earn semicha. That's not to say that Ben Azai and Ben Zoma weren't brilliant talmiedi chachamim and scholars. They certainly were; but the fact remains that, due to other circumstances in their lives, they never earned semicha, and hence, we don't apply the title of "Rabbi" to them. Yes, there were tana'im who didn't use the title "Rabbi" (such as Hillel and Shammai, for example), but they came from the earlier generations when the practice of using the title had not become common. Ben Azai and Ben Zoma, on the other hand, were contemporaries of Rabbi Akiva, by whose time the title was used for those who earned semicha.

The fellow I was talking to wasn't swayed by my arguments and, at the end of the discussion, we had to agree to disagree. Of course, he certainly didn't mean to demean the title of "rabbi" by using it on me - he was simply trying to be friendly. I understand that. Nonetheless, I firmly believe that, barring exceptional circumstances, the title should be reserved for those who have earned it. I suppose one could make the case for an "honorary" rabbi for someone who is clearly a gadol but has, for whatever reason never received semicha, but I clearly do not fall into that class. So for me, I'd prefer it if you call me Mister Wolf.

The Wolf

* Calmly and politely, of course. I don't usually rant and rave at strangers.

Female Derangement Syndrome

2010-08-10T12:13:00.001-04:00

There is an illness that it affecting some people in our community. It's an insidious illness... often there are no warning signs until the initial outbreak. Once an outbreak occurs, however, it leads to violence, vandalism and destruction. It seems to strike most often in the Chareidi communities of Israel, although, I suppose, it is possible for it to strike elsewhere as well. The illness is called Female Derangement Syndrome. Despite it's name, just about all those afflicted with the illness are males.

The most recent outbreak of this disease occurred in Emmanuel, in Israel. A fellow who operates a Go Kart ride decided to allow some teenage girls to take a ride on the Go Karts. This, apparently, did not sit well with Rabbi Yehoida Gadasi, a local Emmanuel rabbi. When he heard that girls were on the Go Karts he proceeded to march on to the tracks, yell at the girls, force them from the Go Karts, yell at the operator, curse him, pick up the Go Karts, smash them against the floor and damage them. He accused the owner of "opening a brothel" by letting the girls ride the Go Karts.

If something like this were an isolated incident, we could dismiss it as the work of a "lone nut." But, unfortunately, this seems to be part of a larger trend. Far too many reports are coming in of cases where violence against women or their activities. We've all heard of the reports so far... whether it's a woman getting beaten up for riding in the wrong section of a Mehadrin bus or throwing acid in a girl's face or cursing, spitting on a woman and throwing cinder blocks at her (!) for not dressing in a tznius fashion, or throwing chairs at women at the Kotel,or any of the other acts of violence that have been committed against women in the name of "modesty." Clearly the people who commit these acts must be sick. They clearly suffer from Female Derangement Syndrome... a sickness whereby one is led to irrational violence by the otherwise lawful actions of women.

You might ask how I know that these men are sick? Perhaps they're just control freaks out to control everything women do and they use violence towards that end? I suppose that's a possibility, but I can't help but think that some of these people are just plain mentally ill. Someone who equates allowing girls to ride a Go Kart to opening a brothel is just not playing with a full deck, in my (non-professional) humble opinion. If Rabbi Gadasi really believes that a girl riding a Go Kart is the equivalent of a whore, then he's clearly not rational. If someone thinks that a woman deserves to be beaten up for sitting in the wrong seat on a bus, then he is (again, in my non-professional humble opinion) incapable of dealing with the real world and the standards that most normal human beings (and the Torah, too, for that matter) apply to social interactions. To me, that's a sign of illness.

Now, I don't mean to excuse these men because they have a "sickness." One can be sick and still be considered responsible for criminal acts they commit because of the sickness -- and men who suffer from Female Derangement Syndrome should be no different. But ultimately, the onus is on the community to deal with these individuals, to treat them if possible or put them in a position where they can cause no further harm. Sadly, however, the community usually just turns a blind eye to the monsters in their midst. The community must do more to rein in these lunatics.

The Wolf

(UPDATE: One of my commentators informs me that Rabbi Gadasi is Sephardi and not Chareidi. This leads me to a question -- is being a Chareidi exclusively an Ashkenazi phenomenon?)

Photos: More Water Drops

2010-08-06T11:11:00.000-04:00

Lately, I've been experimenting with photographing reflections (or perhaps more correctly, refractions) of images through water drops. I posted one such picture a few months ago. Here is another photo of that genre:

From Wolfish Musings Pictures

Canon Xsi, 100mm macro lens, f/5.6, 4 seconds

If I may say so, however, this picture really need to be viewed larger than I can display it here on this blog I encourage you to follow this link to the picture in my Picasa gallery to see it larger and get a better look at the refracted flowers.

As always, comments, critiques and criticisms are encouraged and welcomed. Hopefully, this time no one will have any moral objections to my choice of subject.

To see all my photo pictures, click here.

The Wolf

Don't Fall for Flawed Torah Proofs.

2010-08-05T20:03:00.000-04:00

I recently came across a web site that claims to have proof that the Torah was given by God to the Jewish people. As regular readers of my blog know, I have come across sites like this one before and have yet to find *any* conclusive iron-clad proof from the text that the Torah was written by a Divine Being. Every proof that I've seen has some fatal flaw -- whether it be faulty reasoning, begging-the-question or just plain factual error. Sadly, this site's "proofs" suffer from the same fatal flaws. I'll be going through some of them in a minute. Before I do that, however, I want to point out several things:

1. Lack of evidence does not equal evidence of lack.

I'm sure that many of you have heard this before and it is100% valid. Just because I can't prove that the Inivisible Pink Unicorn does not exist does not mean that it does not exist. Of course, each individual has to weigh for themselves how strongly consider the lack of evidence when making a determination -- but it cannot be used as definitive proof that the object you are considering does not exist.

2. Demolishing a proof does not equal demolishing the underlying argument.

In each case, I will show how the proof being presented is flawed. I will not, however, be presenting any counter-arguments. I will make no statements of my own regarding the Divinity of the Torah (which, for the record, I do believe in), nor will I be making any arguments against it.

3. Don't ever let anyone "guilt" you into believing something.

The site that we're looking at has the following paragraph on it's home page:

The evidence brought down in this website should convince a reader that the Holy Torah was given to the Jewish people by G-d himself. If the evidence does not convince you or someone, that does not mean that the evidence is not strong, it just means that you do not want to be convinced. Just like there are holocaust deniers, even though there is prove, there are G-d deniers even though there is prove.

Did you get that? If you don't believe his proofs, you're the equivalent of a Holocaust denier. All he's trying to do is to make you feel guilty for not believing in his proofs. If you aren't utterly persuaded by my evidence, he (in essence) says, it's not the evidence's fault but yours. Don't fall for that. By all means, if his evidence is conclusive, believe him -- but don't do it because he puts a guilt-trip on you.

That being said, let's get down to his "proofs."

His first proof is as follows:

How does a person keep his/her balance?

Well, according modern science, the ear may hold the answer. "The inner ear includes both the organ of hearing (the cochlea) and a sense organ that is attuned to the effects of both gravity and motion (labyrinth or vestibular apparatus). The balance portion of the inner ear consists of three semi-circular canals and the vestibule." (Wikipedia, Ear)

Since Hebrew is a Holy Language, every word is self descriptive. The word "ear-אוזן" (Ozen) is of the same root as "balance-איזן" (Izun). The linguistic miracle of ancient Hebrew, proves its Divinity.

Pretty cool, no? The ancients must have somehow known that the ear controls the balance of the human body and even encoded it in the Hebrew language by using a similar word for both "ear" and "balance."

This is a classic example of begging-the-question. Begging-the-question is a logical fallacy whereby you assume the point you're trying to prove. The whole proof rests on the fact that we assume that when the words "Ear" and "Balance" were created in the Hebrew Language, they were purposely given similar roots. However, if you consider that it might be a simple coincidence, then the whole proof falls apart.

"Ah," the true believer might counter, "how can you say it's a coincidence? What are the odds that two completely different words would be so similar?" Indeed, the author of the "proof" calls it a "linguistic miracle," implying that it's almost impossible that such a thing could happen naturally.

Alas, that simply isn't the case. To understand why, you might need a (very) brief primer in the Hebrew Language. Words (especially verbs) in Hebrew tend to have three-letter roots, which are then altered (usually with prefixes and suffixes) to denote subject and tense. The author's argument rests on the fact that the roots for ear and balance are the same or similar. The Hebrew alphabet consists of 22 letters. So, the odds of any two three letter words being the same are 1 in 22³, or 1 in 10,648. Unusual? Maybe. Miraculous? Hardly. Absolute proof that a Divine Being created the two words? No way. Absolute proof that God authored the Torah? Not even close. Note that the "proof" doesn't address the Divine authorship of the Torah at all. The absolute most it could prove is that those two words (and *prehaps* the Hebrew language) was composed by a Divine Being. But it doesn't even come anywhere close to that.

On to his second proof. This one involves the length of time it takes the moon to orbit the Earth. The Gemara states Rabban Gamliel had a tradition from his father's house that the period between two new moons is not less than 29.0359 days after the previous new moon. Since Rabban Gamliel did not have a telescope or an advanced timepiece, and since the statement is factually true (barring slight variations due to tides, etc.), the fact that he knew this must mean that the knowledge came from a Divine Source. Pretty cool, no?

Now, before I give you the answer to this one, I want you to consider one thing: Suppose the statement is true. Suppose God Himself appeared to Rabban Gamliel (or his ancestors) and said "The period between new moons is not less than..." Does that prove that God gave us the Torah? Does that somehow prove the existence of the Avos? Does that in any way cast evidence on the historicity of Mattan Torah or the Exodus? The answer, very simply, is no, it does not. It simply means that Rabban Gamliel had a tradition from God Himself on this one fact.

That being said, now let's look at the facts. I don't know that God Himself didn't, in fact, appear to Rabban Gamliel's ancestors and impart this fact. But we do know that the Babylonian astronomer Naburimani also calculated the synodic period of the moon (the fancy way of saying the time between one new moon and the next) several hundred years before Rabban Gamliel lived.

"Ah, " the true believer will say "perhaps the Babylonians got the figure from us. After all, how could the Babylonians (or anyone else from the ancient world) have figured it out to such precision?"

Before we answer the question, let's consider the fact that while it's possible that the Babylonians got the figure from us, there is no proof of it. It's at least just as likely that Rabban Gamliel's ancestors got the figure from the Babylonians. Nonetheless, there is a simple way to figure out the synodic period of the Moon. Since a solar eclipse can *only* occur at the time of conjunction between the sun and the moon, all you need to do is calculate the number of days between two solar eclipses and divide it between the number of lunar months between those two eclipses. Don't believe me? Go to this list of solar eclipses and calculate it for yourself. (Keep in mind, of course, that the number of lunar months is not the same as the number of solar months. There are 235 lunar months in 19 years, not 228). You too will be able to easily calculate the synodic period to a few decimal places. Since it is presumed that the ancients did know how to count days and months, it is hardly a Divine miracle that the ancients possessed this knowledge.*

On to the third proof.   This time, the author brings a Gemara in Niddah which tells us that all fish that have scales also have fins. Only a Divine Being, the argument tells us, with knowledge of every fish species in the world could possibly have made such a statement. After all, the ancients certainly didn't know of every species of fish on their own. Heck, we're still discovering new species of fish today. Hence, such a definitive statement could only have come from an all-knowing God. No non-omniscient man could possibly have made such a statement.

To the best of my knowledge, the statement is correct. Although I am not a marine biologist, I am not aware of any species of fish that has a fin but no scales. Pretty convincing, no?

Again, however, the author is making the leap from asserting that if one statement of the Torah is true, it must all be true. There is simply no basis for such an assertion. As with the period of the moon, the *most* that it can prove is that God told the ancients secrets of marine biology that they could not have otherwise known.

But it doesn't even prove that.   This is yet another case of begging-the-question and assuming that a Divine authorship before proving it. To illustrate, let me give you an example. I'm going to make a statement right now: Every star (barring collapsed, dead stars) conducts nuclear fusion in it's core. Now, fast forward 1000 years, a million years or even a billion years and suppose we find that, indeed, every star that they've ever found fuses atoms in its core. Does the fact that I made that successful prediction make me Divine? After all, I certainly didn't examine every star in the universe. How could I possibly know that there are no stars that don't fuse atoms?

The answer, of course, is that I simply extrapolated from what I do know and made a general rule. Since I know that every star we've found so far fuses atoms, it's not too hard to make a rule that all stars conduct nuclear fusion. Similarly, an ancient, examining the fish around him, could easily notice that every fish that has scales also has fins and make such a rule.

"Ah, " the true believer will counter, "but wouldn't he be afraid of being caught? Wouldn't he be afraid to make such a statement if there was even a possibility that someone in the future might disprove him? Surely someone making such a statement would have to be 100% sure, or else face the possibility of being disproven."

This, however, is another example of begging the question. The believer is assuming that the person making the statement would be afraid of "being caught." But is that the only possibility? Perhaps he wasn't concerned about being incorrect. Perhaps he simply thought he was correct just as I think I am about stars. Perhaps he was simply making a general rule without regard for exceptions. In short, you can't prove that this statement came from a Divine source and you certainly can't prove from this that the entire Torah is Divine in origin.

The author has quite a few more "proofs" at his site and I don't have time to go through them all. Perhaps I'll look at some of the others another time. But the important thing I want you to take away from the post is this -- just because someone says that something is a proof, that doesn't make it so. In order for it to truly be a proof, it has to stand up to tests against both logic and empirical fact. Sadly, none of the "proofs" that I posted about here do that.

The Wolf

* As an aside, if you want an interesting eye-opener into how much astronomy you could learn with only a stick, a rope and a stone, read chapter 5 of Neil DeGrasse Tyson's book Death by Black Hole.

Does A Refusal To Debate Indicate A Lack Of Integrity?

2010-07-30T15:24:00.001-04:00

My last post seems to have a touched a nerve with a commentator of mine. In short, I presented an article from Ha'aretz about a young woman who is being told that she's Jewish by the Israeli Rabbinate and being given an impossibly high burden of proof.

A commentator immediately decided to attack the source of the story. His first comment was

So you look at Haaretz as the Gospel. If there is one true sentence in that (or any) Haaretz story, it is surely coincidental and entirely unintentional.

Yes, the use of the word "Gospel" was not lost on me, but I let it pass. I also let pass the fact that his entire argument consisted of "Ha'aretz can't be believed."

What finally got to me was when he posted this line:

Haaretz's say so? Haaretz's accuracy is comparable to Der Strumer.

That's the point where I shut the debate down. It is my opinion that if he is truly comparing Ha'aretz to Der Strumer, then he's just not interested in (or not capable of) rational, reasoned debate on the issues. In short, I am a firm believer in Godwin's Law (unless, of course, we're actually discussing Nazis). When someone resorts to reductio ad Hitlerum, then they're no longer debating honestly or fairly.

My commentator seems to believe that my shutting down the debate (which barely got started) over this indicates a lack of integrity. I don't beleive so... but I'm willing to consider the possibility that I'm wrong and put this matter up for debate as well.

What do you think? Does this indicate a lack of integrity?

The Wolf

Maybe I'm Not Jewish?

2010-07-30T12:30:00.000-04:00

Ha'aretz published an article today about Hillary Rubin, a 29-year-old Detroit native who was raised in a Conservative household made aliyah four year ago. Today she's a student who keeps Shabbos and kashrus -- and she's looking to get married. However, there seems to be a hangup -- the Rabbinate is asking for proof of her Jewishness. They want kesubos (marriage contracts) and death certificates going back four generations. This is an issue because most of her ancestors perished in the Holocaust. As such, the documents either no longer exist (the kesubos) or never existed in the first place (the death certificates). When she brought this to the attention of the Rabbinate, she was told that it's not their problem. She brought letters from four Conservative rabbis and a Chabad rabbi in Detroit attesting to her Jewishness. Not good enough. In the end, she's going to have to go to Cyprus for a civil ceremony.

If you've been paying attention at all, you're no doubt aware of the fact that the Rabbinate has been trying to take greater control of the "who is a Jew" question. They (and other groups around the world, such as the infamous EJF) have tried to take greater control of conversions, seeking to nullify conversions that don't meet their standards (even if they do meet halachic standards that have been used for centuries).

However, Rubin's case is different. She is not a convert. The article in Ha'aretz doesn't mention conversions at all. I'm guessing that none of her maternal ancestors (at least as far back as three or four generations) were converts (if I'm wrong, I'm willing to retract that). If so, what we're dealing with here is a case where the Rabbinate is now beginning to question the Jewishness of any person who doesn't come from an Orthodox background.

Not more than an hour ago (literally) a friend suggested that I make aliyah. He told me about tech jobs that are opening up there and that it is possible for a tech worker (such as myself) to make a decent living. But I have to wonder -- why should I even bother considering it?

My parents were not frum when they were married. As such, they did not have a kesubah. Furthermore, all my grandparents were born in New York. As such, their birth certificates and marriage certificates don't identify them as Jews. So, in the end, what proof do I have that I'm Jewish? Mind you, *I* know that I'm Jewish because I know my personal family history -- but the Rabbinate doesn't know that. Why should I make life difficult for myself and my kids -- where our very Jewishness is going to be questioned and probably cause troubles later in life?

You might make the argument that I'm already married and, hence, don't need to worry about marriage restrictions for myself. That's true, in and of itself. But I'm afraid the problems run far deeper than that.

Demographic studies show that the two largest growing population groups in Israel are Chareidim and Arabs. There is a good possibility that there will be a point when the Chareidim are the majority in Israel and fully control the government. When that happens, they'll have control over far more than simply marriages and conversions. What about citizenship? If I'm to move to Israel, what's to stop them from asking me for proof of my Jewishness on pain of being stripped of citizenship? What about burial? The last thing I would want to happen right after I shuffle off the mortal coil is to have a government tell my kids that I can't be buried where they want to bury me because I couldn't prove my Jewishness? And I would not be surprised if these issues were limited to marriage, citizenship and burial. Call me paranoid if you like, but I think that this has the potential to be a nightmare for every non-Orthodox Jew and every ba'al teshuva who might one day dream of living in Israel.

About six months ago, I wondered if I was truly Orthodox. Perhaps the better question I should be asking is if I'm even Jewish.
The Wolf

American Rabbanim Being Silent on the Giyur Bill. Why?

2010-07-22T18:24:00.000-04:00

That's what a YWN Coffeeroom poster wants to know.

Tonight the government decided to postpone by 6 months a crucial Geyur Bill that would have strengthened the hand of the Rabbanut HaRashit and helped to halt Reform and Conservative "conversions" from creeping into Israel.

HaGon HaChacham Shlomo Amar shlita even demanded that the religious parties quite the government should the bill not pass. The reform and conservative movements in the US waged a serious battle that lead to the postponement of the bill, but for some reason the Orthodox movements outside of Israel remained more or less silent.

As a person living in Israel I cannot understand this! We cannot allow the reform and conservative "conversions" to reach Israel, we are the last place standing.

I gave an answer, but the moderators decided it was too... whatever... to put up. So here it is.

Why should most American Rabbanim support a bill in Israel that will delegitimize most of the converts that they create? Do you really think that they will stop with simply questioning the conversions performed under Conserative or Reform auspices? This will affect large numbers of Orthodox rabbis, too, who aren't on the list of acceptable rabbis. So, why should American Rabannim support a bill that will throw the lives of thousands of legitimate converts into turmoil and limbo?

The Wolf

A Pet Peeve of Mine: Tumah vs. Tamei

2010-07-22T13:52:00.001-04:00

WIY, I agree with you that secular newspapers or magazines are sources of tumah. THEY ARE TUMAH. Who would want to bring tumah into their house?

The above quote is from a thread over in the Yeshiva World Coffeeroom. And the above quote irked me. Not because the poster thinks that newspapers or magazines are unclean. Nor is it because they want to keep their houses "pure." Nor is it because the poster is using "tumah" in an incorrect manner to refer to something that should be avoided hashkafically rather than the correct, halachic definition of tumah. The reason why this post irks me is because the poster doesn't know how to use the words tumah or tamei.

To be fair, it's not the poster's fault. I know lots of people who do the same thing and, no doubt s/he simply picked it up from his/her environment. And, again, to be fair, there are lots of worse things that one can do than mix up the terms tumah and tamei. But still, every time I hear it it grates on my nerves.

It's really fairly simple. Tumah is the "contamination" (yes, it's a horrible translation, but it's the best one I can think of off the top of my head) that is caused by various sources such as a dead body, certain bodily emissions, some dead animals, etc. The rules regarding which items transmit tumah and which items can become tamei are complicated and beyond the scope of this post. The point, however, is this: tumah is a noun. Tamei is an adjective. An item or a person can become tamei. Things that are tamei can transmit tumah. They cannot, however, become tumah. Tumah cannot be touched or felt -- it's strictly a spiritual, halachic construct. Saying that something is "tumah" is akin to saying that a light bulb is light (in the photonic, not massive, sense) or that a loudspeaker is noise.

Yeah, I know it's a nit-picky issue, but it's a long-standing pet peeve of mine.

The Wolf

Photos: Anticipation

2010-07-09T00:39:00.000-04:00

I work close to the Hudson River in Manhattan and often go there to take pictures. Many of the pictures that I put on this blog were taken in Hudson River Park.

In the park there is a dog run where dog owners can take their dogs to play. While there, the dogs get to run around, frolic in the pool on hot days and chase balls thrown by owners. I snapped this shot while a woman was tossing the ball around for the dogs.

Canon XSi 75-300mm lens @ 130mm, f/4.5, 1/125 second

As always, comments, critiques and criticisms are welcome, encouraged and appreciated.

The Wolf

For my other photos, click here.

Is This Sefer Really Necessary?

2010-07-08T12:14:00.000-04:00

It is brought down in many Jewish sources that it is praiseworthy (perhaps obligatory) for a person to read "Shnayim Mikra V'Echad Targum" (SMVT) each week. In short, it means reading (over the course of the week) the weekly Torah portion twice and the Aramaic translation/commentary by Onkelos once. While my own record in this regard is so-so at best (as a Ba'al Kriah I never miss shnayim mikra. It's the echad targum that I'm not always so good about), it is, IMHO a good practice.

That doesn't mean, of course, that it can't become the source of nonsense.

Most chumashim that are sold in Judaica stores have the Onkelos translation/commentary already contained within the volume. Thus, a person can go to almost any Orthodox shul and easily be able to read SMVT. Just about every Orthodox home has a chumash with the Onkelos in it. If travelling, a person could easily carry a chumash with the Onkelos translation in it -- there are hundreds of different types available on the market to choose from.

And yet, someone felt the need to publish a special volume for SMVT. I actually saw one in a shul in my neighborhood recently. You might ask what is a SMVT volume? Very simply, it writes each verse out twice followed by the Aramaic translation. See the sample below.

Can someone please explain to me why this is necessary at all and why a regular chumash with Onkelos just won't suffice? About the only benefit I see is that you don't have to keep your place in the Onkelos as you would with a standard chumash -- but come on! And even if that's the main draw, is there anyone so lazy that upon finishing reading a verse, they can't just go back and read it again without having it printed in front of them again?!

The Wolf

Dr. Sandra Shimoff a"h

2010-07-06T11:25:00.000-04:00

I don't usually put up memorial posts for people who have died. When a famous or infamous person dies, there are usually enough bloggers out there who can put the person's life into perspective far better than I can. However, not everyone that passes away is famous or infamous -- and sometimes the person who dies is someone who was an important influence on my life. Until now, the only time I composed such a memorial post was for my first-grade rebbe, Rabbi Nachman Mandel when he passed away in 2008. Unfortunately, the time has now come for another such post.

Last month, Dr. Sandra Shimoff of Baltimore passed away at the age of 68. Dr. Shimoff was an instructor in the Judaic Studies department at UMBC, where she worked alongside her husband, Dr. Eliot Shimoff, who was a professor of psychology. She earned a Ph.D in aggadic literature. She taught herself both Greek and Coptic in order to better understand historical texts in their original languages. Her work was published in scholarly journals in her field. She completed learning Shas (the Babylonian Talmud) three times over* -- a feat that many men do not accomplish even once in their lives.

But I don’t want to talk about her intellect or her academic accomplishments.

She was born in New York in the 1940s to non-observant parents. In fact, having known her parents, I can say that they were certainly not neutral about Orthodoxy -- on the contrary, their biases leaned against it. Nonetheless, at the age of twelve, she decided to embark on a journey to Orthodoxy on her own. Her parents reluctantly gave permission for her to attend a yeshiva high school, provided she arrange for the transportation on her own. She acquired her own sets of dishes, pots, pans and cutlery in order to be able to keep kosher in a non-kosher home. I don’t know for a fact, but I would imagine, that Shabbos (and certainly Pesach) were sources of tension in the home as she stuck to her religious beliefs. She went on to a Jewish college and ended up as an observant woman running an Orthodox home raising four children in the Orthodox tradition. They raised a family with a love of Torah, Yiddishkeit and Eretz Yisroel (so much so that one of her sons made aliyah with his family).

But I don’t really want to discuss her incredible life journey either. Instead, I’d like to (perhaps selfishly) talk about how she affected my life.

Twenty five years after Dr. Shimoff grew up in a non-observant home, I was doing the same in Queens and later in New Jersey. As it turns out, my parents and the Shimoffs happened to know each other fairly well. As a result, my sister Skipper and I were often invited to spend time with the Shimoffs and their family in Baltimore, usually over Pesach when we got to join the family at the seder. In fact, my earliest memories of the Pesach seder are of the sedarim in the Shimoff home. I still remember those sedarim -- the songs they sung, the warm family atmosphere, the foods and, of course, Dr. Eliot Shimoff searching for the afikomen** (the highlight of the seder for any little kid).

Although I didn’t know it at the time, the time that I spent in the Shimoff home would mean far more to me than songs and matzah and afikomen presents. The Shimoffs were the very first Orthodox family that I knew. Aside from the Shimoffs, my parents generally didn’t hang around with many Orthodox Jews. While Rabbi Mandel (my first-grade Rebbe) was perhaps the first Orthodox role model whom I got to know on a daily basis, what I did not (and could not) learn from him was what Jewish family life was all about. He could teach me about a Yom Tov, but he couldn’t show me firsthand how a Yom Tov is celebrated with family. That lesson was provided by the Shimoffs. While teachers may have given me some of the educational tools to learn Judaism as a child, the Shimoffs showed me how to apply it to daily living. Of course, at the time, I was too young to understand that -- but their example remained in my head as an ideal for how to run a Jewish household when we later did become frum.

My parents separated when I was nine years old. About six months after they separated, my mother decided to become observant. She called in Skipper and I and asked us our opinion*** on the matter and whether or not we wanted to become Orthodox. We both said yes, but, at least for me (I can’t speak for Skipper), one of the factors in the decision was the fact that the Shimoffs showed me that being frum didn’t just mean no TV on Saturday or no more non-kosher food. The Shimoff kids never had a problem (that I, as a ten year old knew of) with being restricted on Shabbos. I never heard the Shimoff kids complain about missing out on a McDonalds burger. In short, the Shimoffs showed me that you could be religious AND be normal at the same time. They showed me (at the level of a ten year old, of course) that you can be observant and not have life seem boring or restricted.

As a teenager, I went to a very right-wing yeshiva****. You know the type -- where they put forth the message that going to college will ruin you completely and that if you get a secular education than there’s no way that you can ever properly learn Torah. I always knew that their approach was wrong. Perhaps because I started out not frum and because the vast majority of my family was not frum, I was well aware that most of what they espoused about the “outside world” was false, including their beliefs about college and secular education. But perhaps the best example I had, the one that I could always fall back on as proof that you can be college-educated and lead a Torah-observant life, was that of the Shimoffs. They showed me that it was possible to synthesize a Torah-observant lifestyle and a secular education -- and still be shining well-respected examples in the community.

It’s been about six years since Dr. Eliot Shimoff passed away and I often think back to his warm personality and wisdom. I cannot recall ever hearing a single person ever saying a bad word about him. I remember clearly when, in an internet posting on a Usenet group, he once described how, as a psychologist, he was very driven by data. In some ways, I adopted that ideal for myself and now, when discussing various matters, I often try to focus on the available data when making conclusions.

And now, his wife has passed away too. I don’t know if they ever truly knew the effect that they had on my life and my mother’s life (and, I strongly suspect, Skipper’s as well), and it’s perhaps to my shame that I never really told them. But they did have a very strong influence on me -- one that will be felt for the rest of my days and in the lives of my children and beyond.

The Wolf

* At the levaya, it was mentioned that there was a rumor in Ner Yisroel that if any bachur wanted to date one of the Shimoff girls, they had to be fahered (tested) by her mother! (I don’t know if there was, in fact, such a rumor or if the story is apocryphal. But either way, the fact that such a story could be said about Dr. Shimoff says quite a bit about her level of learning.)

** The custom in the Shimoff home was that the kids hid the afikomen and then the adults searched for it. One year, we hid it under a couch cushion. As it came time to look for the afikomen, Dr. Eliot Shimoff got up, looked around the living room and then eventually began pulling up the cushions on the couch. He eventually pulled up the cushion where the afikomen was hidden. You couldn’t miss the white afikomen bag against the dark fabric. Yet he just put the cushion down as if he never saw it, continued searching for a few more minutes and eventually gave up.

*** Looking back on it now, as an adult, I am truly awed that my mother asked us -- at the ages of nine and six -- what we thought about it. She might well have been within her rights to say “this is the way we’re doing it, the end,” but my Mom was (and is) a truly remarkable woman who would never think of forcing anyone -- even a child -- into such a life-changing decision without getting their input on the matter.

**** Don’t ask why I went to such a school. It was not of my choosing and our particular circumstances made that school the only option.

Like Listening Through A Time Machine

2010-07-04T13:54:00.000-04:00

This past Shabbos, the Wolfish family attended a Bar Mitzvah. It was a very nice simcha and we had a good time. Going to a different shul for shabbos actually gave me an rare opportunity to listen to someone else lain the entire parsha.

The ba'al kriah at the shul we went to was a fifteen year old kid (the bar mitzvah boy didn't lain the parsha). He had poise and wasn't afraid to be loud enough to be heard -- a common failing of young ba'alei kriah. One thing he didn't have going for him, however, was experience.

As a ba'al kriah, I've often found that the hardest portions to lain were those that had repeating passages, but with minor variations in each iteration. For example, consider the Nesi'im in Parshas Naso. There, the same set of verses is lained over 12 times, with the only changes being the names of the tribes and the leaders. Otherwise, they're all identical* in terms of wording and trup. That makes it fairly easy for a ba'al kirah.

However, in Pinchas, there are two sets of parshiyos where there are multiple iterations of a similar theme, but with enough difference between each iteration that, if you're not very careful, you can easily get mixed up. That, sadly, is what happened to this ba'al kriah this past Shabbos. He made a fair number of mistakes that would likely not have been made in a straight narrative portion.

As he was struggling his way through the parsha, I understood very well what he was going through. After all, I was him twenty-five years ago. When I was his age, I made the very same types of mistakes. I had similarly disastrous readings. So, I knew very well what he was going through. Listening to him was, in some ways, kind of like listening to myself lain many years ago.

Of course, over the years, I've gotten somewhat better at laining. Thank God, I no longer have weeks like he did. That's not to say that I never make mistakes -- of course I do -- but I haven't made as many as he did in one week in a loooong time.

After davening, I took some time to talk to the kid. I told him that I thought he did pretty well but that he could clearly use some improvement. But I also told him that I'm fairly good at it now and that, at one time, I was at his level of skill (and had weeks like he just had) and that, with hard work, perseverance and experience, he would get much, much better. I think the kid has a future in the field.

The Wolf

* Yes, I'm aware the first two are *slightly* different.

Questioning The Educational Paradigm In Chinuch

2010-06-22T15:24:00.003-04:00

As many of you know, I have three children -- Walter, George and Wilma. Walter is finishing up his junior year in high school and will be starting his senior year in the fall.

Walter is a highly intelligent teen. He analyzes situations, asks penetrating questions and is fully capable of thinking matters through on his own. He has the uncanny ability to tell when people are giving him sincere answers to his questions and when people are just "blowing smoke" at him to shut him up.

However, for all that, he is still a teenager, with the maturity of a teenager. Like many teens, he does not always understand the long-range implications of things. He does not always see how life experience gives his parents and elders an advantage* in life with regard to the grander picture. And he does not always understand why he needs to study things that aren't immediately relevant to his life.

One particular area of angst for him is Gemara. Walter is a "cut to the chase" kind of person. If you can give him a good reason for something, he can understand it and accept it (even if he doesn't particularly agree with it). He can understand, for example, the need to learn halacha, since it's relevant to him in that it informs him of the laws that govern his life as a Jew. But Gemara, on the other hand, doesn't interest him all that much. At this point in his life, it doesn't really matter all that much to him how Rava and Abaye argue out what the final law is going to be. Just tell him what the final answer is and leave it at that. The fact that the Gemara is in a foreign language written and paginated in a format that makes it very difficult for beginners to master doesn't help matters.

Truth to tell, I can understand his frustration because I felt the same way at his age. At his age, I too often complained that the Gemara wasn't organized more like the Shulchan Aruch, with chapters and law numbers that are very easy to find and tell you, in a very practical and final way, what the halacha is. I, too, was confounded by the language, the arcane rules (what's a binyan av again?) and the maddening lack of any indication on the page when a new topic begins or picks up on a topic that was dropped from the discussion three pages ago. The fact that not one of the rabbeim in my high school made any effort to engage me in Gemara didn't help matters**.

Of course, I'm much older now. I like to think that I'm a bit wiser as well. I have a better appreciation for Gemara than I did when I was sixteen and seventeen. But that's probably of little comfort to Walter at this stage of his life. In addition, I have to wonder how many other kids there are out there like Walter (and myself when I was that age) who wouldn't mind learning halacha but just aren't all that gung-ho about Gemara. I would guess (based on purely anecdotal evidence from other kids Walter's age) that the answer is quite a few.

In most Yeshivos, Gemara is taught beginning in the fifth grade, when a boy is about ten years old. By sixth grade, it is the major Judaic course of study, with students spending hours per day on the topic. This is usually done without any sort of "Introduction to Talmud" mini-course where the structure and methodology of the Gemara is explained. Usually it's taught by simply "jumping right in" to the first line.

Sometimes I wonder (and, admittedly I have no way to prove this) if things would be better if the system were changed. The Mishna in Avos gives us guidelines about when to introduce new topics in chinuch. The Mishna there says that at age five children should begin learning to read Tanach, at ten learn Mishna and at fifteen learn Gemara. The point that's being made, I believe, is that children should not be rushed into topics ahead of time. Perhaps we should have our kids spend five years learning Tanach primarily before advancing to Mishna. Perhaps it wouldn't hurt to spend five years learning Mishna before jumping in Gemara. There are probably several advantages to this approach:

Our kids would probably have a better understanding of Tanach. Heck, they might even finish most of it in the five years.
Our kids would have a better understanding of Mishna.
When our kids finally do advance on to Gemara, they will be a bit older, wiser and more intellectually and emotionally capable of handling Gemara.

Of course, if a student is showing exceptional ability and is able to handle more advanced forms of study (for his age) he should be encouraged to do so. But that's not everyone. Not every 10 year old is an illuy (genius). The vast majority would stick to the 5-10-15 model (which is roughly equivalent in the United States to first, sixth and tenth grades).

But that's not quite what's happening. Nowadays, our boys start learning Chumash in first grade (some schools even start in preschool!). By third grade they're starting Mishna. They start Gemara during the fifth grade and, from the sixth grade onward, spend upwards of 60% of the Limudei Kodesh (Judaic Studies) portion of the day on it. The result is that kids come away with a substandard knowledge of Chumash and Mishna.

Other topics barely make it to the radar screen at all. Halacha is often taught on an ad-hoc basis. Navi is barely taught and, when it is, it is often limited to the early "historical" books -- Joshua and Samuel. Kings is barely taught. I have yet to hear of a right-wing yeshiva high school that teaches any of the true "prophetical" books -- Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel or the Twelve "Minor" Prophets. I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that outside of their Bar Mitzvah Haftorah or following the weekly haftorah in shul (do teens do that?), well over 90% of yeshiva high school graduates have never even cracked open a copy of Isaiah or an Ezekiel. Jewish Philosiphy? Forget about it. History? Maybe in some more left-leaning schools, but certainly not amongst the yeshivish. Hebrew language? Puh-leeeeez.

To be honest, I wonder if we're doing our sons a disservice with the existing educational model. They may (not will -- may) come away from high school knowing a fair amount of Gemara and Rishonim, but how much Judaism do they know? Does your average high schooler understand who Isaiah was and what he was prophesying about? They all know that Elijah was a great prophet, but do they understand why? Do they know anything about him other than the fact that he's still alive and something about a confrontation on Mt. Carmel?

Or, an even better question -- does the average high schooler even come away knowing how to learn Gemara well?

I'm curious why we have abandoned the educational paradigm as outlined in the Mishna. I've heard people say that it's a matter of "one-upmanship" among the schools to be "more frum" by starting Gemara earlier than the other schools. I'm not convinced that that's entirely true. Were it completely true, I'm sure we'd be hearing of yeshivos that claim to be teaching*** Gemara in the third grade. But if that's not the reason, there must be another -- and I'm very curious as to why those who put great stock in the words of Chazal chose to abandon their model of chinuch.

The Wolf

* Although, of course, by no means does that make us *always* right -- just more likely to be so.

** That's not to say it's all their fault, of course. A good share of the blame does lie with me -- but they have their share as well.

*** But not actually teaching, of course, since your average eight year old is not really capable of learning Gemara.

How NOT To Run A Messageboard

2010-06-06T18:04:00.003-04:00

Over at the YWN Coffeeroom, we were having an interesting debate about the proper way to run a marriage. One of the posters brought the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch which say that a wife is supposed to (among other things) wash her husband's feet. This led a female poster to post a poll on a female-only message board as to whether or not women do this for their husbands. She reported back that none of them do and that at least one poster thought it was "gross."

This lead a someone to wonder how someone could be intimate with someone if they find the concept of washing feet gross.

I commented that people are not always logical about these things. After all, I am willing to kiss my wife, but I won't take her pre-chewed gum.

I was going to write "french kiss," but I was afraid that that would freak out the YWN censors too much.

As it turns out, even kiss was too much. A moderator edited my post to say "embrace" rather than "kiss." What's worse, they didn't even notate that they edited my post.

My main disputant in the thread, Kasha, came back and said something to the effect of "come on, Wolf -- there's a big difference between touching someone with your hands and taking their pre-chewed gum."

Of course, he's right in his objection. He had no idea that my post was edited to the point where it was ridiculous.

The fact of the matter is that it's one thing to enforce an editorial policy on a board. It's another thing altogether to change a poster's words and then NOT EVEN NOTE THAT YOU'VE CHANGED IT! That's just wrong and dishonest and make me want to reconsider participating in that forum.

It's obvious that I have disagreements with people over at the Coffeeroom -- but that's fine -- I don't mind debating in a heated environment. But when the administrators are willing to change your words, undermine the very point you're making and then make it look like you said it, then you have to wonder whether an honest, intellectual debate is even possible anymore.

The Wolf

EDIT: They finally put up my note to Kasha explaining that I did not use the word "embrace." Of course, that post was edited as well.

The Wolf

Shidduch Advice For Men

2010-05-27T14:39:00.001-04:00

Far more important than her father's yichus
Are her own middos

Far more important than how long her father will support you financially
Is whether or not she'll support you emotionally

Far more important than her mother's dress size is
Is whether her smile causes your heart to flutter

Far more important than what color table cloth her parents use at the Shabbos table
Is what she talks about at the Shabbos table

Far more important than what elementary, high school or camp she went to
Is what schools and camps she wants to send her daughters to

Far more important than the second cousin twice removed might be off the derech
Is whether she is committed to raising a home filled with Torah values

Far more important than the Torah knowledge you plan to impress her with
Is showing her that you can relate to her on an "everyday" basis.

Far more important than her words towards you
Are her actions towards the strangers around her

The Wolf

(Yes, most of the above could be reversed and be equally applicable women as well... I just felt like writing it from only one side.)

On The Quality of Leadership... Or Lack Thereof

2010-05-26T17:09:00.004-04:00

You know you've hit a sore point when you make a perfectly reasonable comment on Matzav.com and they don't put it up. :)

Shmuel Miskin put up a "rant" complaining about two things:

1. How the media portray chareidim as "hooligans" because of the hafganot (disturbances/rioting) in Israel. He makes the case that the people doing this are doing it against the wishes of the gedolim and hence, are not chareidi.

I'm not sure I agree with this point, but it's fine... I can understand what he's saying and it's not totally unreasonable. It's the second point he made that I commented on. Here's Rabbi Miskin's comment verbatim:

I’ve read numerous comments made by people online publically questioning why “gedolim haven’t condemned the violence.”

Firstly, the statement is not true. As mentioned, Rav Shternbuch has repeatedly condemned violence. Secondly, as I saw reported here on Matzav.com, the Mirrer rosh yeshiva, Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel, clearly told his talmidim to stay far away from the hafganos.

But putting that aside, who are we to publically call out gedolei Torah? Who are we to tell the gedolim what they should or shouldn’t publically protest? Such statements are a bizayon haTorah. Our gedolim, our einei ha’eidah, have special yiras Shomayim and special siyata diShmaya. They know when and how to protest or condemn something when the time is right. It takes outright chutzpah for online chareidi writers to question our gedolim and rabbonim, criticizing them, as if the writers are even in the same spiritual stratosphere as these leaders. What a bizayon.

Here's my comment that was not approved by Matzav.com.

Rabbi Miskin,

Leadership is a very funny quality. I can be great at math regardless of how anyone else feels about it. I can be great at learning Gemara regardless of anyone else’s opinion on it. And so on.

Leadership, on the other hand, depends in large part on the opinion and feelings of the people being led. If they ~~feed~~ feel that their leadership is not providing direction and, well… leading, then it could reasonably be argued that the leadership being provided is lacking.

When people “call out” their leaders (be they religious leaders, political leaders, etc.) it is because they feel that their leaders are not providing leadership. That, in and of itself, lends questions to the quality of the leadership.

The Wolf

Photos: Waterdrop Reflection

2010-05-25T23:05:00.003-04:00

I recently decided to try something new in my photography -- water drop photos. These are photos where the subject is viewed inside of a water drop. Here's a recent attempt I made.

Canon XSi, 100mm macro lens, f/2.8, 0.8 seconds

As always, comments, critiques and criticisms are welcome, encouraged and appreciated.

The Wolf

Areivim -- My Opinion on the Matter (and some numbers)

2010-05-24T20:59:00.003-04:00

A number of years ago, a concept known as Areivim came into being.

All too often, we've all gotten mailings or seen advertisements about families that have fallen into destitution because of the death of the breadwinner of the family. Often these tragic circumstances will leave a widow with multiple children and little means to provide for them. The concept of Areivim was born out of that situation.

The concept behind Areivim is fairly simple. A group of 16,500 people each agree that if one of them dies, the others will pay a small fee for each unmarried child left by the deceased. The collected money (about $100,000) would then be made available to the widow/children to pay for wedding expenses when the children are ready to marry. In the meantime, the money would be invested and the dividends used to defray the costs of raising the children.

Over time, a number of organizations (two or three -- it's hard to tell) have sprung up, all with the same name and the same mission. The exact numbers change (size of the group, amount paid per orphan) change slightly, but all follow the same basic idea.

Rabbi Yakov Horowitz recently contacted a representative of one of these groups and asked him some questions about the organization. The questions related to a number of different aspects of the program, including how the program is administered, grievance procedures, the actual feasibility of the program given the numbers provided and oversight and rabbinic approbation of the program. You can see Rabbi Horowitz's original questions and answer here, and the answers to follow-up questions here.

Having read the responses, I, like many others, am deeply troubled by this project. While I have no objection to helping widows and orphans (does anyone really have an objection to that?), I feel that there are serious problems with the program as it is laid out. My objections lay in three general areas: the feasibility of the project, the lack of transparency, the "flexibility" of the program and, lastly, some of the general attitudes that the program conveys.

Let's start with the feasibility of the program. I will admit up front that I am not an actuary. For all I know, I might be completely wrong in this area. If there are any actuaries out there who are willing to actually crunch the numbers for me, I'd be more than appreciative.

Let's start with the numbers given. The program is based on the following:

A group consists of 16,500 members.
If any of those sixteen thousand die, the rest of the group will pay $6 for each unmarried child left behind.
No member will pay more than $28 a month (i.e. the amount for four orphans).
No member will pay more than $288 (the amount for 48 orphans).
If there are more than four new in month, the amount will be rolled over into the next month. So, if a parent with seven children dies, the group members will pay for four orphans the first month and then the remaining three the second month.

Payments are made only if there are unmarried children left behind. If the decedent has no unmarried children (or if said unmarried children are over 35), then no payment is to be made.

The "magic number" that I want you to keep in mind is 48. The program, as it's designed, can pay for up to 48 orphans per year -- no more. If members cannot pay more than $288 a year and orphans are to receive $100,000* each, then the maximum number of payouts per year is 48. (16,500 * $288 divided by $99,000 [the amount given to each orphan] = 48.)

The program, as I understand it, is meant to appeal to those in the 25-60 age range. People over 60 will probably not have kids of marriageable age anymore while those under 25 are probably either don't have kids or are not insurance-minded yet.

I made a spreadsheet where I broken down the possibilities for this program. I made three different scenarios --

1. The population is evenly spread among the age groups
2. The population is skewed toward the young end of the spectrum
3. The population is distributed in a bell curve

The age groups are in column A. The mortality rate for the age group (based on the CDC -- warning PDF) is in column B.

I made (what I believe to be very modest) assumptions regarding how many unmarried kids a typical man in the yeshivish community of that age would have. It starts at one, goes up to five and then begins dropping at age 44 as the kids begin marrying out of the program. That figure is in column C. Personally, I think the numbers should be a bit higher, but let's work with these numbers.

Columns D-G are the first scenario, where the population is evenly distributed among the age groups. The number of members in each age group is about 471. By multiplying the number of members by the mortality rate (and rounding to the nearest whole number), I get the expected number of deaths. That's column F. The number of unmarried kids left behind is simply column F multiplied by column C. The totals are on the bottom.

The end result -- the group can expect 51 deaths and 122 orphans. Not good for a program that can only handle 48.

OK, what about scenario two -- where the population is skewed young (columns H-K). Let's say that the older crowd tends to opt out, so that the average age is in the middle but with twice the weight in the younger segments. Based on those figures, you can expect 32 deaths and 96 orphans. That's still twice as many as the program can handle.

What about if it's a bell curve distribution? That's columns L-O. The result? 42 deaths and 133 orphans.

The bottom line is that, no matter how you slice it, the program will not have the funds to pay out as promised. It won't even come close.

And, this is assuming the program only pays out on the death of the breadwinner. If the mother is included (as is the case in some of the programs) the situation only becomes much worse.

In addition, this ignores the fact that the program probably suffers from adverse selection. In short, those who can get insurance from a reputable company probably will (and, once they read the Terms & Conditions of the program -- see below) will probably opt out. Those that remain will be those who cannot afford or cannot get standard term life insurance -- and those are the ones who are at a greater risk of dying.

Lastly, the financial model is assuming that there is no overhead, no credit card collection fees, no delinquencies in payment, etc. None of those assumptions, of course, are reasonable.

Next, let's look at the transparency of the program (or the lack thereof).

While the program is said to have the backing of the "Va'ad Harabbonim," we are not told who is on the Va'ad. Repeated requests by Rabbi Horowitz to find out who the founder of the program is have gone unanswered. Personally, if an organization is unwilling to say who founded it and who is behind it, then you should be VERY wary of said organization. The fact that the organization is not willing to put forward the name of a single attorney or actuary who worked on this program (on a pro-bono basis) is also very troubling.

Then there's the "flexibility" of the program. What do I mean by "flexibility?" Specifically, the program is very flexible in terms of who will be paid in the event of a death. There are enough loopholes in the terms and agreements that you can drive a Mack truck through them. Take a look at the Terms and Conditions of the program (is there a reason the T&C are written in a hard-to-read coloring?). Let's start at the top:

The first paragraph makes it clear that the program is only for "Torah observant" homes. What does "Torah Observant" mean? What is the definition? If someone drinks Cholov Stam, are they still "Torah Observant?" What if they use the Flatbush eruv? Or the wife's snood doesn't cover all of her hair? What if the man doesn't have a regular learning schedule? What if he davens without a hat and jacket? What if they (God forbid, of course) are Zionists?

None of this is spelled out, of course. The determination of what, exactly, is a "Torah observant" home is very broad and ambiguous. Some would say that Zionists are idolaters (yes, some make that claim). Some would say that people who use the Flatbush eruv are Shabbos-desecrators. Are such people "Torah observant" according to the committee who will make the final payout determination? I don't know. Do you? I know that I'd hate to find out *after* the fact.

The T&C later reiterates and says:

The program is designated only for orphans who are Torah-observant!

My reading of this is that the payout is based not only on the parents being Torah observant, but the kids as well. Well, we all know that all kids rebel to one degree or another. They may go through a phase where they are lax in a particular mitzvah or set of mitzvos. Perhaps davening or learning will slide for a boy. Perhaps a girl might decide to rebel and wear a pair of jeans outside once or twice. This happens with teens and "normal" families and can especially happen in a stressful situation where a parent is lost. Who determines what is "Torah observant" for the kids. If they go through a rebellious phase, do they lose out on the monies put aside for them? Who determines just how much "rebelliousness' is permitted in terms of the program? Or is it one misstep and they're out?

Then there's this clause (bolding mine):

The program is a tzedaka fund that operates according to Halachah only, and is not an insurance plan. Therefore, the registration and acceptance to the program has a stipulation that in the event of a high number of unnatural deaths, Heaven forbid (such as war and/or earthquake etc.), and/or a situation arises which according to Vaad Harabanim’s determination does not permit charges to be made to the members (for instance an unusually high number of orphans and/or economic inflation and/or some other economic condition etc), the rabbis of Vaad Harabanim will decide whether to establish a fund and what its sum will be. All the obligations will be determined by Vaad Harabanim, and their decision will be final, without any option of placing a claim - in any place or legal framework - for indemnity and/or compensation and/or grievance of any kind.

In short, if there is an economic problem that causes the program to be unable to pay, the Va'ad gets to decide who gets what -- and there is no recourse or redress. Now go back and look at the numbers I projected earlier. Do you see this clause kicking in fairly often?

Lastly, I have some general problems with the program as it is set up.

I have a problem with the fact that the program FAQ states that people with life insurance are welcome to participate, but does not state that such people are not eligible to collect.**

I have a problem with the way the program is marketed. The program makes the point that it is not an insurance program. The reason for this is probably legal -- insurance programs in the United States are heavily regulated. The program states that it's a charity organization. But, in my opinion, it fails the duck test. The old rule of "if it walks like a duck, and smells like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck" still applies. The fact that members (potentially) pay money in in order to receive benefits makes it too much like an insurance program to me. A true charity organization would, IMHO, try to take care of orphans and/or widows whether they were members of a paying program or not. Think of organizations like Tomchei Shabbos, for example. Are you asked to pay in so that if you fall on hard times they will pay out for you? No -- they help anyone who needs a handout whether you've donated to them in the past or not.

I'm also troubled that the program will cause people to forgo proper insurance. Ideally, people should have life insurance. Rabbi Horowitz's contact even admitted as such in his correspondence. However, I believe that most people will, once they sign up, decide they don't need insurance, since they have Areivim. Of course, they probably aren't aware of the numbers in the program and how unstable it is. They are far better off going with a reputable insurance company.

Lastly, I believe the program is being self-contradictory when it states that it's goal is to preserve the dignity of widows and orphans, but then turns around and states that the deceased's rabbi will have the final say on where the money is spent. What if the parent wants to send their kids to a co-ed school (like Yeshiva of Flatbush, for example). Does the family rabbi have the right to withhold funds because he doesn't like the school or disapproves of it's policies and hashkafos? What if he doesn't approve of the potential marriage partner of the orphan and he's convinced that the potential marriage partner will lead the orphan down the path to Modern Orthodoxy? Can he refuse to pay for the wedding from the funds on that basis? In short, by putting the funds in the rabbi's hands, you are potentially giving the family rabbi veto decisions over matters for which they have no business having a veto power. That doesn't preserve dignity of the widows and orphans -- on the contrary -- it robs them of it.

There is a very real need to help support widows and orphans -- but I don't believe this program is the answer. I believe that, while it may be well-meaning, it has far too many flaws in the economics of the program as well as the mechanisms to ever be truly viable.

The Wolf

* $6 per orphan for each of the 16500 members is actually $99,000, not $100,000. And, of course, the decedant isn't going to pay either. But I'll overlook those facts for now.

** To be fair, it does state that in the T&C, but that's in very small type and in a hard to read color.

And The Hits (Literally!) Continue

2010-05-13T11:40:00.003-04:00

First, it was a woman being beaten up for not moving to the back of a bus in Israel. A few months ago, a girl was grabbed, thrown to the ground and kicked in Beit Shemesh for supposed tznius violations (the post describes them as "properly dressed"). Now, we have a story of a woman who was beaten up in Beersheba for the sin of... having worn tefillin.

As per the article:

According to the release, the man asked Raz twice if the imprints were from tefillin. When she told him they were, he began to kick and strangle her while screaming “women are an abomination.” Raz, who practices Conservative Judaism, reportedly broke free from the man and boarded her bus.

OK, so perhaps the guy was a loon. If he's shouting "women are an abomination," I'll probably even grant that perhaps he doesn't have all his marbles. But that's not really the issue here.

The problem is that it's easy to shrug off an isolated incident as the workings of a "lone wolf" or a "madman." The problem is that this is beginning to happen more and more frequently. And when it begins to happen more and more frequently, it's much harder to describe the acts as those of the fringe or madmen.

Personally, I don't care if it's absolutely forbidden for a woman to wear tefillin or not -- there's still absolutely no justification for anyone -- man or woman -- to physically attack her for doing so. It just sickens me that this is becoming a regular feature of some segments of chareidi society in Israel.

And, what's worse, I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that it's all based on misogyny. Forget the guy's comment about women being an abomination for a moment -- let me ask you this question. Do you think he would have attacked her if she were eating a ham and cheese sandwich? Do you think he would have tried to strangle her if she were eating chametz on Pesach? Do you think he would have even noticed, let alone cared if she finished eating and failed to bentch? Or if she failed to have a mezuzah on her door? Personally, my belief is that he would not have cared at all. But let her show signs of having put on tefillin? Or daven at the Kosel? Oh, no! We can't allow that! For that we have to beat them. Violate a mitzvah from the Torah? Not a big deal. Put on tefillin? Daven at the Kosel? Why that's an even *worse* violation!

I'm telling you all, there are times when my faith in Judaism is shaken... and it's incidents like this that do it.

The Wolf

Omer Count Fail

2010-05-13T00:47:00.002-04:00

Must have been written by the person who did this...

The Wolf

Photos: Macro: Pink Azalea Blossoms

2010-04-30T11:39:00.003-04:00

I took this one with my macro lens two weeks ago. There is a shul in my neighborhood with a beautiful azalea bush growing in the yard. So, I snapped on my macro lens and fired away. Here was the result:

Canon XSi, 100mm macro lens, f/7.1, 1/100 second.

As always, comments, critiques and criticisms are welcome, encouraged and appreciated.

The Wolf

To see all of my photo posts, click here.

Leggings Under A Skirt Is Not Tznius?

2010-04-29T15:03:00.002-04:00

Perhaps someone can explain this to me.

A friend of Eeees recently received a letter from her kids' school. In short the letter said that it was a violation of tznius rules for a woman to wear leggings under her skirt (even if the skirt is of the proper length).

For the life of me, I can't figure this out. How are leggings any worse than tights? On the contrary, I would think that leggings are better than tights since it is less form-fitting on the exposed lower leg.

Can anyone please explain the logic of this to me?

The Wolf

Someone Has A Strange Definition of Half

2010-04-25T08:02:00.003-04:00

From an wig store ad in this week's Binah.

The Wolf

Photos: Tulip and Sky

2010-04-23T09:47:00.003-04:00

I took this shot while walking around my neighborhood this past Sunday. I happen to enjoy taking pictures of flowers. However, at the end of the day, a rose is a rose is a rose -- we've all seen flowers before and we're all familiar with the more common types.

The question then becomes, how do you make a picture of a common flower (such as a tulip) more interesting?

One way to do it is to take the picture from an angle that we don't often see. More than 99% of the times that we see tulips, we see them from the top or the side. We don't however, look at the from bottom up. Since we don't often see them that way, that's the angle I chose for my photograph. I laid down on the ground beside the tulip and shot the picture.

Canon XSi, 100mm macro lens, f/2.8, 1/2000

As always, comments criticisms and critiques are welcome, encouraged and appreciated.

The Wolf

See all my photo posts here.

I Don't Know What's Scarier...

2010-04-21T16:53:00.002-04:00

... the thoughts penned in this Matzav.com letter, or the number of people who commented to say that they feel the same way.

The Wolf

The Wolf Responds: Shidduch Woes

2010-04-19T12:31:00.004-04:00

A letter appeared on Matzav.com from a young woman (pen named "A Crying Bas Yisroel" at the "ripe old" age of 23 who, sadly, has not yet found her husband. She's kind, well-put-together, cute and pretty (by her own description) and gainfully employed. So, what's the problem? According to her, the problem lies in factors beyond her control:

My parents don’t have money and we don’t have yichus. We don’t have “pull” and we don’t have connections. So with all my maalos, I am told that I am just like thousands of other girls. And so the phone does not ring.

My mother pursues shidduchim, only to get flat-out nos. I have been out with a handful of boys in four years of being in shidduchim. Think that’s nuts? Ask around. It’s not. That’s the lot that we’ve been given. We, girls, try so hard, doing everything we are supposed to in life, only to have to sit around, never knowing if our shidduch will ever come.

Personally, I think it's a shame that there are segments of our society that are so caught up in money and yichus for potential marriage partners that they don't look at the individual person.

You can read the entire letter on Matzav. I penned my own response:

Dear Crying,

I am so sorry that the Shidduch world has not treated you well. I hope that you find your bashert soon. No one deserves to be treated as you have been.

That being said, I think you need to take three important steps.

1. Drop the notion that 23 is old. It's not. There are plenty of women who got married later than 23 and went on tho have successful and loving marriages. 23 is not old -- despite the fact that some people may try to convince you otherwise.

2. Consider yourself lucky. I know it may not seem that way, but you are. You have just managed to avoid a bunch of jerks who are interested only in money or yichus. Tell me -- do you want a spouse who appreciates you for who you are, or for who your ancestors were and how much money your parents have? Based on your letter, you sound like the former. That being the case, congratulations -- you managed to avoid a bunch of people looking for the latter. I know it may be a small comfort to you, but it is an important fact to consider.

3. You have to stop being reactive and begin being proactive. Stop waiting for the phone to ring -- take matters into your own hands. This may mean stepping out of your comfort zone. It may mean actively networking with friends and their husbands/relatives. It may mean using an online dating site, as another poster here recommended. It may mean going to singles events. In short, you have to maximize your opportunity to meet people -- both men and people who can introduce you to them.

Good luck on your journey and may you soon find yourself building a bayis ne'eman b'yisroel.

The Wolf

MK Gafni on Poverty: Going To Work Solves Nothing; That's All Nonsense

2010-04-09T13:39:00.004-04:00

A rather incredible article appeared on the Dei'ah veDibur site this week entitled Bank of Israel: Entering Workforce Does Not Ensure Escape from Poverty. The article tries to make the case that, for chareidim in Israel, leaving welfare is a bad thing and that families that do leave welfare do not end up better off financially.

The article quotes MK Rabbi Moshe Gafni (the Knesset Finance Committee Chairman) who states:

"The country is lying to its citizens. Once again it has been shown that leaving the ranks of welfare recipients and joining the job market does not change the situation and people who work very hard for their living are unable to make ends meet."

He also goes on to say (emphasis mine):

"Emerging from the cycle of poverty requires an ability to get accepted to one of the positions that brings in tens and hundreds of thousands of shekels per month. Going to work solves nothing; that's all nonsense. In the State of Israel, today someone who wants to get out of the cycle of poverty has to network with the elites and the power centers just to get a decent salary that will really enable him to make a respectable living."

In other words, according to Rabbi Gafni, working is worthless. We're all better off just increasing welfare payments to people so that they can sustain themselves. I don't know if his comment that you need "tens and hundreds of thousands of shekels" of shekels per month to get out of poverty is accurate (it sounds high to me), but let's say, for the moment, that he's correct (given chareidi family sizes). Assuming a shekel is worth about a quarter (it's actually a bit more right now), that's the equivalent of saying that you need "twenty five hundreds to twenty five thousands dollars per month" to escape poverty. Of course, jobs paying twenty five grand a month are scarce... I don't have one, nor do the vast majority of people in the U.S. But what Rabbi Gafni is missing (or, IMHO, purposely avoiding) is that people on welfare, when they enter the workforce, generally start by talking entry-level jobs that are meant for unskilled workers. As their skills and experience increase, workers will be able to begin commanding higher salaries. When I started working, I was earning very, very little. However, now that I've been working for quite a few years and have invested in some training and education, I now command a much higher salary. Had I said, twenty years ago, that it doesn't pay to work because I can't get my present salary, I would have been an idiot. Very few people get to start at the top... most of us have to work our way up through the ranks, just like everyone else. That means you "pay your dues" by working for a while at low wages and then, with hard work, experience and a bit of Siyata D'Shmaya (Divine Providence), you will begin to earn better wages.

Of course, all this is predicated on one assumption -- that the person is employable and has job skills that he can bring to the market. Rabbi Gafni makes the following observation concerning the ability to earn a salary (again, emphasis mine):

"The problem is especially acute in the chareidi public. The state does not recognize the years of yeshiva and seminary study as it recognizes the years of study of its secular citizens. As a result both husband and wife who work earn paltry salaries, and are unable to extract the family from the cycle of poverty. On the other hand there are people earning as much as an entire neighborhood."

And here, Rabbi Gafni has the solution to the problem staring him in the face and he willfully chooses to ignore it. The problem, very simply, is education. When people are not educated with any skills (other than being a rebbe/teacher), there is little chance that they will be able to command a "good salary" when they enter the workforce. In order to command a "good salary," a worker has to be able to show that s/he will add at least that much value to the enterprise and have skills that differentiate him/herself from the other people seeking employment. Almost anyone off the street can answer a phone or man a cash register -- and so those jobs pay very little. On the other hand, since not everyone can hold the job of a skilled worker (be it computer programmer, plumber, doctor, etc.), people in those professions earn more.

In the ultimate of ironies, Rabbi Gafni even brings an example of a high earner and, instead of recognizing why the person has a high salary, he engages in petty envy. He states (once more, emphasis mine):

"We considered the possibility of setting up a ministerial committee to discuss the inconceivable wage gaps that exist in this country. We need a far-reaching change and a totally new attitude. There are enormous class gaps in this country that will turn into an existential social problem. The salary the CEO of Bank Mizrachi receives is enough to sustain a whole street in Bnei Brak. These class disparities have led to very difficult situations throughout history in all places, and it is imperative that the government comes to its senses on time."

I don't know who the CEO of Bank Mizrachi is, and I certainly don't know his salary or whether or not it can really sustain a street in Bnei Brak. But I do know this: he probably holds an MBA and/or an advanced degree in finance. He probably didn't walk in off the street on his first day of work and say "I want to be the CEO." He probably spent years working at less prestigious jobs, building up his experience. He probably put in a lot of hours over the years and earned the respect of his peers in the banking industry. He probably spent quite a bit of time networking professionally. In other words, the CEO of Bank Mizrachi earns a large salary because he has worked himself up to that point, not because it was magically given to him.

Rabbi Gafni looks at the CEO of Bank Mizrachi and purposely ignores the very reason for his success. Instead of crediting his education, skill and hard work, he says that you have to "network with the elites and the power centers" to get a decent job. As if anyone could get a CEO job (or any job that requires skills) just simply by knowing an "elite" or someone in a "power center." He purposely (IMHO) ignores the importance of education and job skills and says that it's better to simply sit back, give up on any chance for developing job skills and get a welfare check from the government.

I find it utterly ironic that Rabbi Gafni is complaining about poverty in the chareidi community when it's attitudes like his that are the chief reason for it. When school systems are purposely designed NOT to teach any job skills and the society is set up to actively discourage getting an education that will lead to such skills, there can be little doubt that the outcome will be continued poverty. In short, Rabbi Gafni is like someone who ensures that there are no firefighters and then complains when his house burns down and no one was there to put out the fire.

The Wolf

Photo: Sunset Over The Hudson

2010-04-02T10:34:00.002-04:00

I took this shot last night as the sun was going down over New Jersey. I took it by Pier 42 (that's the crumbling pier in the picture) in Hudson River Park.

Canon XSi, 18-55mm lens at 18mm, f/5, 1/200 sec, circular polarizing filter.

As always, comments, critiques and criticisms are welcome, encouraged and appreciated.

The Wolf

To see all my photo posts, click here.

How To End Some Torah/Science Disputes

2010-04-01T11:23:00.003-04:00

During the meal at the second seder, the topic of discussion turned to astronomy. When the subject of the planets came up (specifically regarding the decision to "demote" Pluto), my fourteen year old niece, who tends toward the fundamentalist side, announced that the Torah says that there are only seven planets. When I mentioned to her that there were, in fact, more than seven planets, she simply repeated her assertion with a "that's-what-the-Torah-says-and-that's-that" tone.

I didn't press the point any further that evening, but as I thought about it the next day, I realized that my niece was both right and wrong. The problem, very simply, is that she and I were not using the same definition of the word "planet."

Allow me to give some historical background.

When the ancients studied the skies at night, they made some observations about the positions of the stars. They noticed that as the sky rotates overhead during the night (remember, they didn't know that it was the earth that was rotating), the stars in the sky moved, but kept their positions relative to each other. In addition, they kept their positions during the year as well -- a particular star could be counted on to disappear below the horizon at a certain time of the year and reappear at the same position (relative to the other stars) at a later point during the year.

However, there were seven heavenly bodies, they noted, that did not keep their positions. These planets "wandered" among the other stars -- sometimes moving forward against the other stars, sometimes regressing backwards (and sometimes displaying both behaviors at different times). These seven wanderers became the "planets," from the Greek word for wanderer. The seven bodies that displayed these properties were the Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.

Of course, as time went on, we gained a better understanding of the heavens than the ancients had. Copernicus showed that most of the "planets" actually revolved around the sun, not around the Earth. The sun was eventually identified as a star, one of the billions of stars in our galaxy. The word "planet" now no longer referred to the wanderers of the heavens, but to heavenly bodies (of significant size) that orbit the sun. In addition, with better optics than the ancients had at their disposal, we even discovered that most of the planets in our solar system had moons of their own. Better telescopes and observations have allowed us to find Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Sedna and other minor ("dwarf") planets. And, of course, within the last fifteen years, we've gained the ability to detect planets orbiting other stars and have, to date, discovered 442 of them.

So, what is the true believer to do? If one believes that the Torah says that there are seven planets, and one wants to remain "Torah true," how does one reconcile the astronomy of the last few hundred years with the words of Chazal? Does one say that astronomy is a sham and that the data is faked? Does one say that the pictures NASA released from the Pioneer and Voyager missions are fakes? Does one say that the astronomers know the truth, but are simply faking it to suppress God's truth?

Well, you could take that approach -- although I think it's really very silly. The simple answer is also the best answer -- that when Chazal (or the Rishonim) talk about planets, they are referring to points of light that "wander" against the background sky. Using that definition, they are correct -- there are only seven* planets. But one has to recognize that the definition of the word "planet" has changed over the years and that when we discuss planets today, we are using a different definition of the term. As a result, it is also correct to say that there are well more than seven planets.

I often wonder how many Torah/science arguments could be avoided if we simply recognize that the meanings of words, including planet, species, bird, animal, star and even science among many others have had their definitions change over the years. Of course, not all Torah/science arguments would end -- but a fair number of them could be put to rest.

The Wolf

* Yes, I know Uranus is sometimes visible with the naked eye which would make eight planets -- but it's so infrequent and it's orbital period so long that it was probably just not noticed by the ancients. And, of course, this also excludes comets.

Just Say No

2010-03-25T17:47:00.005-04:00

An interesting letter appears in this week's Yated. A writer from Lakewood writes to complain how every time a cousin or someone else makes a simcha in Brooklyn, that the Lakewood residents are expected to travel the two to three hours (and incur the costs) that it takes to get to Brooklyn.

Dear Editor,

Since when did Lakewood become one of the five boroughs of New York City?

“Huh?” you want to ask me. “Who said it is?

Well, I’ll tell you who said it is. It seems, based on current custom, that for every event - wedding, bar mitzvah, bris, sheva brachos, etc. - held in Brooklyn or anywhere else in New York for that matter, those who live in Lakewood - young couples and older families as well - are expected to commute. I find that ridiculous.

Who decided that people should be traveling for at least 2-1/2 hours to attend every simcha of every cousin?

Besides for the shlep, how about the impossibility of getting a babysitter? Does anyone know how hard it is to find a babysitter?

And of course, the babysitter will take good money for her services, which she deserves.
Add the cost of gas and tolls, and basically, you have young couples, who live on shoestring budgets in the fi rst place, shlepping to New York at a cost of at least $65-70, to say mazel tov to their disinterested uncle and aunt at their cousin’s wedding, and barely get to eat a cold piece of halfbaked chicken if they even make it for the main course.

I am sorry, but this is not normal.

I know a yungerman who he has limited income. He is smart and careful about how he spends his money, and he and his wife get by okay, boruch Hashem. Recently, however, he told me that he had to travel in to New York for three simchos of cousins, at a cost - all in one month - of a total of over $300, which he cannot afford. (He learns in a paying night kollel and had to give up the money he receives as well.) And for what?

“At one simcha,” he told me, “the baal simcha (his relative) barely gave me the time of day as I wished him mazel tov. I imagine he realized who I am, but I wondered why I even came. But the reason why I traveled,” he said, “was because if we wouldn’t come, my parents, and especially grandparents, would be upset.

It has to stop. Couples who have young children, or even older children, cannot be expected to travel in to New York - or anywhere else that requires multiple hours of driving - for every simcha. It is not fair to the young couples, and it can potentially affect their wellbeing and their shalom bayis, not to mention their finances.

I would add that, similarly, those living in Brooklyn or anywhere else should likewise not be expected to travel for over an hour to Lakewood or any other place for a simcha of a non-immediate relative.

It is time we bring back sanity into our lives and put a stop to the unreasonable expectations and demands that we have allowed to become part of our culture.

Sincerely,

Y. Gordon

Here's my response:

Dear Y,

Thank you for your letter. I can certainly understand why you would be upset. Traveling a long distance to go to a simcha can be an arduous and sometimes expensive proposition. And, in this day and age when everyone's watching the purse strings, I definitely understand why you would be upset at having to shell out major money for what might turn out to be a mediocre night at best.

But there was one thing about your letter that left me a bit confused. Is there a police force in Lakewood that forces you go to affairs in Brooklyn and other far away places? I don't mean to be facetious, but I'm wondering why you simply cannot just say no.

I know that I love to go to family affairs. I go just about every opportunity that I can. But I also know that there are times that I simply cannot go. Sometimes it interferes with my work or school schedules. Other times it is just costs too much (financially) to go. And sometimes, it's just not practical -- maybe it's a work night and I know that I'm not going to be up to four hours of round-trip travel time. When this happens, I send the ba'alei simcha my heartiest mazal tov and tell them that while I would love to attend, I have to give my deepest regrets that I simply cannot make it.

Believe it or not, people can and will understand if you cannot make it to a particular simcha for one of the above reasons. People understand that sometimes costs cannot be borne (whether they be financial or logistical costs). And, truth to tell, if the ba'alei simcha are stubborn enough not to understand, then perhaps it's their attitude that needs to be adjusted. If they are selfish enough to "guilt-trip" you into spending money, time or effort that you cannot afford, then perhaps you might want to reconsider how much you want to associate with them. Personally, I would prefer to spend my time with people who are more empathic to my needs and abilities, rather than be so self-centered to demand that everyone attend to them whether they have the means to do so or not.

You write that the yungerman in your town goes to please his parents and grandparents. I can certainly understand that. But even parents and grandparents can be made to understand the fact that you simply don't have the funds or the ability to travel to every family simcha. They may not be happy about the situation, but they can understand.

There is one additional point I would like to address in your letter. You write about going to a wedding "to say mazel tov to their disinterested uncle and aunt at their cousin’s wedding, and barely get to eat a cold piece of halfbaked chicken if they even make it for the main course."

Personally, when I go to a simcha, I don't care if I get a half-baked piece of chicken or not. When I attend a family member's or friend's simcha, my main goal in going is to be m'sameach (make happy) the participants. (I also have a secondary goal, as an amateur shutterbug, of taking as many family pictures as possible -- but that's just my personal mishugass.) I also understand that at a large affair with many people, the ba'al simcha may not have more than a few seconds to give me a quick "Mazal Tov, I'm so glad you could come." In short, I've learned that the wedding or bar mitzvah or whatever is not about me -- it's about the ba'alei simcha. Would it be nice if they could spend a whole ten minutes with me? Sure -- but when there are over fifty guests, it just becomes impractical, if not impossible.

In short, I don't go to a simcha with the idea of "what am I going to get out of the simcha?" My goal is "how can I contribute to the simcha?" If I get nothing out of it (or even just a half-baked piece of chicken and only two seconds with the ba'alei simcha) so be it.

The Wolf

Logic Lesson Of The Day: The False Analogy

2010-03-23T11:58:00.002-04:00

Every so often, when you argue with people, you run across one or another logical fallacy. Some logical fallacies, such as the ad hominem attack, are fairly easy to spot. Others may be more difficult.

One type of fallacy that you see often is the false analogy (or weak analogy). This happens when a person tries to make his/her point by comparing one case to another where there is often an important difference in the two cases.

I ran across this today in a report on Matzav.com. A few months ago, a number of female employees filed suit against B&H photo, claiming discrimination because women were barred from certain sales jobs. The story was revived yesterday when three more female employees joined the suit.

I want to stress that I have no idea if the suit has merit or not. I don't work at B&H, nor do I visit there too often.

As you might expect, when a story such as this comes up, there are those who think that it's wrong that B&H can be sued for gender discrimination. They usually make a point about how it's a private business and that they should be able to hire/fire whomever they like.

One poster on Matzav, who goes by the screen name "hesh" made the following point (emphasis mine):

This lawsuit is outragous! What total nonsense! B&H photo is a private company. What if a man would try to get a job in a shaitel store, dress shop, etc… What about a lady teaching 9th grade gemorah class? Use a bissel sechial. This is total MESIRA!

Putting aside his initial outbursts, the point he's trying to make is this: Firms should be allowed to hire/fire whom they want. If the government interferes with that (via laws against discrimination) then they could force a sheitel store to hire a male employee which, in the frum world, would completely destroy the business (as the married women will not shop there).

In other words, Hesh is making an analogy between B&H and a sheitel store (and a dress shop and a boys' yeshiva).

However, the analogy isn't a good one. In fact, it's a pretty bad one. The reason why it's a bad analogy is because there is an important difference between the cases he brings and B&H.

Hesh is probably correct in his statement that forcing a sheitel shop to hire a man would be incorrect. As I pointed out earlier, it would ruin the business as women would not shop at the store anymore. The same can be said for a dress store. Likewise, in many segments of the frum community, the parents would pull their sons out of school if a woman taught gemara.

However, the same cannot be said about B&H. B&H's business will not be harmed by the presence of female salespeople. The vast majority of the people who shop at B&H care about the price, selection, warranty and the company's great reputation as a photographic equipment store. They don't care about the gender of the person behind the counter.

And that's all the difference. The stores in the examples that Hesh provides have a legitimate business need for a specific gender employee. B&H does not have a specific business need for male-only salespeople. And that's why the analogy fails for Hesh's argument.

The Wolf

My Goodness... I Didn't Expect That.

2010-03-22T23:34:00.005-04:00

I've got to say, when I asked for opinions, I certainly didn't expect that. All I was really looking for was a simple "yes, they're justified in asking" or "no, they're over the line." I certainly wasn't looking to cover how charity recipients ought to spending their free time/money.

For the record, I hate closing off debate on a matter. I happen to love a good debate and will be more than happy to argue almost any issue, provided it's done in a civil and polite manner. Apparently, for some people, that wasn't possible. The fact that people who know me in real life felt the need to intervene also factored into my decision to close off comments.

For the record, I don't owe anyone on this site an explanation on my finances and personal situation -- the specific question I asked does not require me to justify asking for a tuition break. Nonetheless, I would like to make a few points.

Firstly, as most people are well aware (and as was made amply clear in the comments to the previous post) a full-tuition payer pays not only the tuition for his/her kid/s, but also helps to subsidize the cost of someone else. If one asks for a break down to the true cost of educating one's child, they are not "taking charity;" they are merely asking to be excused from *giving* to that particular charity. Not nice? Maybe -- but it's still not actually taking charity money.

That being said, I don't know what the true cost of educating my kid is. Neither, for that matter, do I think that anyone outside of the financial office of a school. Is my request beyond that point? To be fair, I don't know -- but if it is, it's probably not much beyond that.

For those that suggested that I don't have a right to go to school, allow me to tell you a little story.

About ten years ago, I was working in customer service. At that time, I was a young father of three earning less than $25,000 a year. Realizing that I needed to change my financial life (because very few families of five can get by on less than $25K a year), I took a year and spent about $3,000 to enroll in a certificate program in computer programming. Yes, I was receiving tuition breaks at the time (as you can imagine with that salary), but I chose to make the investment in my future. Thanks to that investment, not only do I have a much better salary now, but I have been able to pay more to my kids' schools. Yes, I suppose you could make the case that I should have given the money to the schools, but as it turns out, the schools have benefited far more than the $3,000 I spent.

As for my belongings, I will make the following two comments:

The megillah does belong to me. I won it in a Chinese Auction about fifteen years ago. I get extensive use out of it. I don't think that the money I spent on the auction fifteen years ago has any relevance to the here and now.

The camera *was* purchased by me a few years ago. Yes, it was a luxury, but a rather rare one. I'm willing to accept some criticism from those who say I shouldn't have bought it -- but not from those who say that I shouldn't spend time with it now that I have it.

Those people who would begrudge me the time I spend shooting pictures, all I can really say is "get a life." I don't have to justify to you (or anyone else) if I spend a few minutes doing something I enjoy. The fact of the matter is that we all need diversions -- for me, it happens to be photography. Everyone needs to have some enjoyment in life and everyone is entitled (within reason) to pursue his/her hobbies. I don't think the few minutes or so that I spend shooting pictures is harming anyone. If you disagree, then so be it - but I don't have to justify it to you.

I thank all those who stood up in my defense. I also thank those participated in a civil manner - even if they were critical of me. For those who chose to attack, well, I suppose there's nothing I can say that will make you happy anyway.

I'm not going to allow comments on this post either. If you want to discuss the original issue or this post, feel free to email me. I can't promise I'll respond to everyone (I am fairly busy), but if you're willing to discuss things civilly, I'll try to respond.

The Wolf

Yeshiva Tuition Aid Applications -- Your Opinion Requested

2010-03-19T13:14:00.003-04:00

I'm curious to know what my readership thinks. Perhaps I'm in the wrong on this matter.

I have a son enrolled in a yeshiva. Due to various misunderstandings and error on both my part and the yeshiva's part, we did not fill out the financial aid forms for this year. As a result, we're paying full tuition for one kid. Fine -- it's difficult, but we'll somehow get by. I'm not going to hold the school responsible because we didn't fill out the forms.

However, there was one particular part of the application that really bugged me and I was hoping for my readership's feedback.

One of the things that the school requested was copies of all our bank statement/credit card statements/etc. for the previous two or three months. This is something that no other school (in my experience) has asked for when evaluating financial need.

Other schools have asked for some or all of the following:
Tax return
Balances in various accounts [checking/savings/IRA/401(k)/credit card/mortgage, etc.]
Rough breakdown of expenses
Info on property/cars owned
Questions about camps/summer expenses

No school, except this one, has asked for actual statements from accounts. Truth to tell, I find this highly invasive. I don't think it's their business which grocery store I shop at, which doctors I see, and, for the little discretionary spending that I do, where I do it. I feel violated even at the thought of them going through my statements and saying "Hmmm... he spent $10 at Barnes & Noble," or "He didn't *really* need to buy that $15 bouquet at the florist," or "Hey, what's this $10 charge at Hallmark?"

I have no problem providing them with totals and aggregates of our spending (including the amount of discretionary spending) by category, but I just can't help but feel that requesting the details of our individual transactions is both intrusive and invasive -- especially since no other school has ever asked this of us.

What do you think? Am I being bent out of shape over this? Is their request reasonable and I'm just being defensive? Or is it truly over the line and overly invasive?

The Wolf

You Canna Change The Laws of Physics... er, Economics.

2010-03-18T12:23:00.003-04:00

An interesting article appeared on Yeshiva World News today concerning the problem of prospective grooms asking for excessive amounts of money to marry. Many of the young men in Israel who are learning in yeshivos are demanding that their prospective fathers-in-law to buy them an apartment before they will agree to a marriage.

This, of course, leads to some problems. Why? Let's tick off the reasons:

1. Most chareidi families in Israel (which is the segment of the population that we're talking about here) have large families. Since, on average, half of those children are daughters, most families are looking at buying at least three apartments (if not more) for their prospective sons-in-law.

2. Most of these families are barely squeaking by financially. Most chareidi families have lots of kids and spend years paying for private education for those kids, In addition, since secular learning is, for the most part, verboten, many of the ones who are employed are earning wages that are typically found in the unskilled labor market. Yes, there are some who are making it financially -- but those are the exceptions, not the norm.

3. They have educated their daughters that the only "acceptable" choice for a husband is someone who is going to sit and learn for an indefinite time into their marriage. Anything else is substandard and not befitting for a Jewish girl. This message is pounded into their heads by their teachers from the time they are old enough to even think of marriage.

As anyone who has studied a basic economics course knows, there are the concepts known as supply and demand. When there is excess supply and/or little demand for any particular item, the price of the item falls. Likewise, when supply is scarce and/or demand is high, the price of the item will rise. What has happened, very simply, is that over the last thirty years or so, we've increased the demand of a learning groom to the point where, once free market forces take effect, there is a rise in general prices -- not only on the best learners, but even those of lesser capability. As a result, even boys who aren't the best learners are demanding the purchase of an apartment. Lord alone knows what the true best learners* are asking for.

Rav ~~Eliyashiv~~ Kanievsky recently addressed the matter. As the YWN report says:

Rav Chaim Shlita used the opportunity to discuss the trend with young chasanim requesting an apartment before wedding arrangements are even finalized, the weekly BaKehilla reports. The Rav explained that he receives telephone calls from mothers of young girls, explaining they want an apartment and as a result, there cannot be a shidduch since they simply cannot accommodate.

“It has crossed acceptable boundaries. Today, every bachur who learns four or five years believes he has attained a level of worth higher than his father-in-law and therefore, he is entitled to an apartment. We must fight this trend. A fast day must be declared to stop this epidemic”.

The Rav called on roshei yeshiva to combat this trend and to use their influence with talmidim to begin turning this around. He added that at most, one may request half of the cost of an apartment from each side, but that is the limit.

It's good that Rav ~~Eliyashiv~~ Kanievsky is bringing attention to this situation. But a fast is not going to solve the problem. Nor will imposing a price cap of half an apartment. As most people know, price caps generally do not work -- especially in environments where there is no enforcement mechanism. I don't believe that grooms will continue to ask for less. On the contrary, they will continue to ask for more -- until they reach the point where demand is going to fall because not enough people will be able to afford the price. I believe we may be approaching that point very soon. At some point, the fathers are going to rebel and not pay -- if not from anger then from the sheer inability to pay. When that happens, the market will collapse.

Ultimately, it may take Adam Smith's invisible hand to undo the distortions in the dowry market that chareidi society has created over the last thirty years.

The Wolf

* Of course, one could make the argument that the true best learners might also be the best ba'al midos and know what their prospective in-laws can afford. But that's another story for another time.

Pesach Hotels, Yet Again...

2010-03-18T10:29:00.002-04:00

The annual discussion of whether or not it is proper to go to a hotel for Pesach has once again reared its head -- this time in the YWN coffeeroom.

Personally, I don't see what the big deal is. Eeees and I don't go away and, truthfully, cannot picture it. For us, Pesach has always meant staying at home (or with friends or family). Even if we had the money to go away we probably wouldn't.

But that's just us. For others, going away for Pesach is "their thing," and I just don't see anything wrong with it. Every year I hear all sorts of arguments against the practice, but I have yet to find one that makes any sense. Two years ago, Dayan Shalom Friedman suggested that it's wrong to go away because you won't clean your house. I posted about that at the time and showed how that argument was totally without merit.

Another popular argument that arises is that the money could be better put to use in charity. As one commentator in the thread suggested:

With so many people out of work, and people needing to take from Tomche Shabbos to put food on the table, wouldn't it be tremendous if every person took the thousands of dollars they spend on a hotel and gave it to tzedakos that need it desperately?

Perhaps, perhaps not. However, there are two problems with this suggestion:

1. I think it's a bit galling to tell people what to do with their money. The commentator has no idea how much tzedaka the people who go to hotels give. Perhaps they've already met their obligations regarding tzedaka? Who is he to tell them that they have no right to spend some money on self-enjoyment?

2. The commentator is worried about people out of work, but he doesn't seem to realize that by closing down the Pesach hotel industry, a lot of people will be thrown out of work. I'm fairly certain that this provides a nice chunk of the annual salary for a number of people.

3. Why stop at Pesach hotels? Why not tell people to buy the cheapest esrog they can find for Succos and put the rest towards Tomche Shabbos? Does he take his kids on a trip on Chol HaMoed? Perhaps he should cancel the trip and explain to his kids that others need the money more. Does he buy flowers for his wife on Shabbos? Perhaps he can do with a single stem (or none at all) and give the rest to tzedaka? Who *really* needs music and flowers by a wedding? A wedding can be perfectly, 100% kosher according to all opinions without them. Perhaps that should be given to tzedaka too? And on and on it goes. In other words, if you're going to tell people they can't spend money on X because it can be put to better use in charity, then why not carry it to its logical conclusion and simply say that everyone must turn over every discretionary penny they have. Of course that's not what the commentator meant, but why not apply his principle there as well?

Of course, the more I think about it, the more I come to realize that perhaps going away to a hotel for Pesach *is* the authentic Jewish thing to do. After all, in the times of the Beis Mikdash, you went away for Pesach *every* year (unless you lived in Yerushalayim).

The Wolf