We've discussed the issue of rabbis and blogs and professionalism before, such as in Hypothetical Question and in Rabbis friending children on Facebook.
Here's a look from "Should your doctor be on Facebook", a column by Dr. Danielle Ofri in today's New York Times. It's about doctors, but it could just as easily be about rabbis. Here's an excerpt:
I worry that it is impossible to maintain a perfect firewall, so I’ve decided to limit my online presence to the professional side of my life, keeping personal information off the Web. And before I post anything anywhere, I try to imagine what a patient of mine might think if she stumbled across it. Would it make her cringe? Would she feel awkward during her next office visit? Would this somehow compromise our relationship?
This means letting go of the fun and casual side of social media, but I think that’s simply part of the territory of being a doctor. It’s the same reason I don’t wear flip-flops and shorts to work, much as I’d surely love to. Giving up posting vacation pictures doesn’t seem like a particularly high price.
Doctors — like everyone else — are entitled to private lives, with all the attendant warts, embarrassments and unflattering moments. But now that any patient can Google a medical team, doctors — like teachers and lawyers — need to consider issues of professionalism before sharing their private lives.
Much to contemplate here. For example:
Will you see your Rabbi as a leader, if you read his blog post about entering the rabbinate and you know he is less than confident about leading, or he is not properly trained?
Will you accept your Rabbi's moral instruction, if you have seen his taste in music and you think he's coarse and unsophisticated?
Will you be able to concentrate on the Rabbi's speech on Shabbat Shuvah once you have seen him in vacation shorts and a Hawaiian shirt?
And so on.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Why Kosher Restaurants Fail
[I wrote this several years ago in a different - and snarkier - forum, and in order to have something new up here after Pesach, I'm pre-posting this to appear Motzaei Yom Tov.]
The percentage of general restaurants that fail is very high; the percentage of kosher restaurants that fail is so close to 100% that you couldn’t squeeze a limp Burger Nosh french fry through that gap.
Why do so many Kosher restaurants fail? I see three reasons: The owners, the customers, and the food.
The owners:
In my experience, many kosher restaurants, especially those outside of New York, are started by people who have already struggled in other businesses and who figure that this niche should be an easy hit.
I heard this from a would-be entrepreneur once: “Look, they love food. And they for sure want to eat out, who wants to cook every night? And there are no options locally, people have to drive XX minutes to get to the nearest kosher place. I could even do catering. I’ll have them eating out of my hand!”
The result is that quite a few of these restaurants are run by people with little business acumen, with a weak business plan, and without an inkling of just how much work they are going to have to put into the place. They often find themselves compelled to overlook aesthetics, and even basic cleanliness (that “eating out of my hand” reference above is pretty literal). Fresh vegetables? Fresh out of the freezer, maybe. Service with a smile? With a snarl, more like.
The customers:
Now we’re really talking the stuff of nightmares.
Actual conversation in a kosher deli:
Customer: There isn’t enough pastrami on this sandwich.
Waiter: It’s a turkey sandwich.
Customer: What, you ain’t never hoid of putting pastrami on a turkey sandwich? They always used to do that in the old kosher delis.
Waiter: You ordered a plain turkey sandwich, and we don’t put pastrami on a plain turkey sandwich.
Customer: Hey, don’t you know the rule, the customer is always right?
Okay, so maybe that’s exaggerated, but not by much. Line-cutting, rudeness to the wait staff (you know, it’s not the waiter’s fault that it takes them forever to prepare your food), kids racing around under the tables, complaints galore…
And, of course, the food.
There’s only so much you can do to kosher food when you are trying to prepare it in large enough bulk to feed a large crowd but not in such a large bulk that you throw 75% of it into the trash.
Cold deli sandwiches are easy, and certain standbys freeze well, but how fancy can you get when you’re expecting five to fifteen people to order a given dish on a given night? In New York you’ll have larger volume, but outside of New York, forget it.
Often, the restaurateurs think they’ll make it by appealing to a non-Jewish clientele as well. “Everyone loves pizza,” they say, neglecting the fact that the sentence really goes, “Everyone loves pizza with treif cheese and an assortment of treif toppings.” Ditto for Middle Eastern, Chinese, TexMex and every other kosher crossover they dream up.
It’s a simple matter of variety, as well as profit margin and economies of scale. Memo to these owners: You. Can’t. Compete. With. Treif.
So there you have it, folks: The Owners, the Customers, and the Food. All of it adds up to lots of failed restaurants, and lots of wannabes in hock up to their eyeballs to pay for their dead ventures.
Hmmm. Come to think of it, we could apply the same principles to why synagogues struggle/fail: The Board/Rabbi, the Congregation, the Davening… something to think about there…
The percentage of general restaurants that fail is very high; the percentage of kosher restaurants that fail is so close to 100% that you couldn’t squeeze a limp Burger Nosh french fry through that gap.
Why do so many Kosher restaurants fail? I see three reasons: The owners, the customers, and the food.
The owners:
In my experience, many kosher restaurants, especially those outside of New York, are started by people who have already struggled in other businesses and who figure that this niche should be an easy hit.
I heard this from a would-be entrepreneur once: “Look, they love food. And they for sure want to eat out, who wants to cook every night? And there are no options locally, people have to drive XX minutes to get to the nearest kosher place. I could even do catering. I’ll have them eating out of my hand!”
The result is that quite a few of these restaurants are run by people with little business acumen, with a weak business plan, and without an inkling of just how much work they are going to have to put into the place. They often find themselves compelled to overlook aesthetics, and even basic cleanliness (that “eating out of my hand” reference above is pretty literal). Fresh vegetables? Fresh out of the freezer, maybe. Service with a smile? With a snarl, more like.
The customers:
Now we’re really talking the stuff of nightmares.
Actual conversation in a kosher deli:
Customer: There isn’t enough pastrami on this sandwich.
Waiter: It’s a turkey sandwich.
Customer: What, you ain’t never hoid of putting pastrami on a turkey sandwich? They always used to do that in the old kosher delis.
Waiter: You ordered a plain turkey sandwich, and we don’t put pastrami on a plain turkey sandwich.
Customer: Hey, don’t you know the rule, the customer is always right?
Okay, so maybe that’s exaggerated, but not by much. Line-cutting, rudeness to the wait staff (you know, it’s not the waiter’s fault that it takes them forever to prepare your food), kids racing around under the tables, complaints galore…
And, of course, the food.
There’s only so much you can do to kosher food when you are trying to prepare it in large enough bulk to feed a large crowd but not in such a large bulk that you throw 75% of it into the trash.
Cold deli sandwiches are easy, and certain standbys freeze well, but how fancy can you get when you’re expecting five to fifteen people to order a given dish on a given night? In New York you’ll have larger volume, but outside of New York, forget it.
Often, the restaurateurs think they’ll make it by appealing to a non-Jewish clientele as well. “Everyone loves pizza,” they say, neglecting the fact that the sentence really goes, “Everyone loves pizza with treif cheese and an assortment of treif toppings.” Ditto for Middle Eastern, Chinese, TexMex and every other kosher crossover they dream up.
It’s a simple matter of variety, as well as profit margin and economies of scale. Memo to these owners: You. Can’t. Compete. With. Treif.
So there you have it, folks: The Owners, the Customers, and the Food. All of it adds up to lots of failed restaurants, and lots of wannabes in hock up to their eyeballs to pay for their dead ventures.
Hmmm. Come to think of it, we could apply the same principles to why synagogues struggle/fail: The Board/Rabbi, the Congregation, the Davening… something to think about there…
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Rav Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (Netziv) on Right-Wing, Left-Wing and Jewish Unity, Part IV
This is the fifth installment in a translation of Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin's responsum on Jewish unity. The Netziv continues to respond to an editorial which argued that observant Jews should separate from less-observant Jews, for the sake of protecting their piety. For previous parts of this series, click here.
In this part, the Netziv argues that Jews don’t even separate from members of other religions, despite specific instructions to do so and despite the evidence of millenia of Jewish suffering associated with assimilation – and so any drive like this would be unsuccessful. He then continues to contend that separation isn’t the right strategy, in any case; rather, the emphasis should be upon spreading study of Torah.
Second: HaShem desires that we should be separate from the other nations and alone, as it is written, ‘Gd will guide them to be alone.” Bilam said, “They are a nation who dwells alone, and will not be counted among the nations,” meaning that when the Jews are alone and do not mix among them, they will dwell at rest, and when they mix among the nations then they will not be considered an independent nation. It is also written, “And Israel dwelled securely, alone, the eye of Yaakov,” and the meaning of “the eye of Yaakov” is Gd’s desire, His vision, and this is that Yisrael should dwell securely with the nations, not to compete with them, to be alone, meaning to separate from the nations of the world and not to be mixed in with them.
And yet, despite these instructions, we have not separated on our own from the nations, as is seen in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 104), “It is written, ‘How did she come to dwell alone,’ and Rabbah cited R’ Yochanan, saying, “I [Gd] said, ‘And Israel dwelled securely, alone,’ and now we have come to, ‘Why does she dwell alone’ for the nations distance themselves from the Jews on their own.”…
And from the start Gd warned Avraham, “Your children will be strangers in a land that is not theirs,” and this was not only prophecy but command and warning, to make it so. This is why it is written regarding Yaakov, “And he sojourned there,” and the Sages taught, “This teaches that he did not descend there to sink in, but to sojourn there…” This does not mean that Yaakov descended with intentions not to remain there for his entire life but to remain only for some years until the famine would end. This cannot be said, for Yaakov had already heard from Gd, “I will make you a great nation there,” and so he knew that he would be there for many years, and that this would fulfill Gd’s word to Avraham, “Your children will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and they will be made to work and they will be oppressed for four hundred years!”
Rather, “He did not descend there to sink in” means that he did not descend to become a citizen of the land, as Pharaoh wished and demonstrated in honoring Yaakov and his children. Yaakov said that he did not wish for this citizenship, but, “We have come to sojourn in the land,” to be strangers in a land that is not ours. He guarded the word of Gd to Avraham, “Your children will be strangers,” and Gd’s word stands forever.
Because of this Divine instruction, what does Gd despite all of our attempts in exile to become like, and become one with, the nations? Gd turns the heart of the nations to distance the Jews and isolate them. This is why we say in the Haggadah, after the verse, “And He said to Avraham: Know that your children will be strangers in a land that is not their own,” “This is what stood for our ancestors and for us, that not only one stood to eradicate us, but in every generation they stand against us to eradicate us, and Gd saves us from their hands.” “This” cannot refer to the promise to Avraham that we would exit with great wealth, for that was only stated regarding Egypt… Rather, “This” refers to Gd’s word, “Your children will be strangers.” This promise stood for our ancestors and for us, guaranteeing that in every generation they would stand against us to eradicate us, when the Jews do not wish to fulfill Gd’s word of being strangers in order to be a separately identified nation. We try to draw near and join with them, and therefore they stand upon us to eradicate us. But Gd saves us from their hand.
This is also why we say, “Go learn from what Lavan the Aramean tried to do.” Lest someone who considers himself wise say that the opposite is true, that if only we were completely integrated with the nations then we would not be hated by them and they would not try to destroy us – to this we reply, “Go learn from what Lavan the Aramean tried to do.” We were very close to him; all of us were his children! And yet he tried to uproot everything. “Everything” does not only refer to Yaakov, for then it would have said, “tried to kill our father.” Rather, the meaning of “everything” is all of Judaism…
And yet, despite all of this, it has been difficult for us to distance ourselves from idolaters, because it is against the natural human inclination to join with friends, whether they are good or bad. How, then, could we tell our children to separate from each other in all of the ways of our world?!
Rather, if we wish to strengthen religion in our midst and not let it weaken in our hearts and in the hearts of our children, then we must study the earlier generations, as it is written,“I will learn from the elders.” When righteous King Chizkiyahu saw that the pillars and foundations of religion became weak in the days of Achaz, what did he do? He placed a sword in the study hall and declared, “One who will not involve himself in Torah should be stabbed with the sword!” Even though this study would be for entirely wrong motives, meaning it would not be for the sake of the mitzvah of Torah study, and certainly it would not be out of love of Gd but only to save themselves from death, still, this point strengthened religion effectively…
So we should strngthen religion by spreading Torah in study halls, and developing all possible strategies to strengthen public Torah study, and not to examine whether people are studying for proper motivations or not…
-
The Hebrew text associated with this part is:
In this part, the Netziv argues that Jews don’t even separate from members of other religions, despite specific instructions to do so and despite the evidence of millenia of Jewish suffering associated with assimilation – and so any drive like this would be unsuccessful. He then continues to contend that separation isn’t the right strategy, in any case; rather, the emphasis should be upon spreading study of Torah.
Second: HaShem desires that we should be separate from the other nations and alone, as it is written, ‘Gd will guide them to be alone.” Bilam said, “They are a nation who dwells alone, and will not be counted among the nations,” meaning that when the Jews are alone and do not mix among them, they will dwell at rest, and when they mix among the nations then they will not be considered an independent nation. It is also written, “And Israel dwelled securely, alone, the eye of Yaakov,” and the meaning of “the eye of Yaakov” is Gd’s desire, His vision, and this is that Yisrael should dwell securely with the nations, not to compete with them, to be alone, meaning to separate from the nations of the world and not to be mixed in with them.
And yet, despite these instructions, we have not separated on our own from the nations, as is seen in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 104), “It is written, ‘How did she come to dwell alone,’ and Rabbah cited R’ Yochanan, saying, “I [Gd] said, ‘And Israel dwelled securely, alone,’ and now we have come to, ‘Why does she dwell alone’ for the nations distance themselves from the Jews on their own.”…
And from the start Gd warned Avraham, “Your children will be strangers in a land that is not theirs,” and this was not only prophecy but command and warning, to make it so. This is why it is written regarding Yaakov, “And he sojourned there,” and the Sages taught, “This teaches that he did not descend there to sink in, but to sojourn there…” This does not mean that Yaakov descended with intentions not to remain there for his entire life but to remain only for some years until the famine would end. This cannot be said, for Yaakov had already heard from Gd, “I will make you a great nation there,” and so he knew that he would be there for many years, and that this would fulfill Gd’s word to Avraham, “Your children will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and they will be made to work and they will be oppressed for four hundred years!”
Rather, “He did not descend there to sink in” means that he did not descend to become a citizen of the land, as Pharaoh wished and demonstrated in honoring Yaakov and his children. Yaakov said that he did not wish for this citizenship, but, “We have come to sojourn in the land,” to be strangers in a land that is not ours. He guarded the word of Gd to Avraham, “Your children will be strangers,” and Gd’s word stands forever.
Because of this Divine instruction, what does Gd despite all of our attempts in exile to become like, and become one with, the nations? Gd turns the heart of the nations to distance the Jews and isolate them. This is why we say in the Haggadah, after the verse, “And He said to Avraham: Know that your children will be strangers in a land that is not their own,” “This is what stood for our ancestors and for us, that not only one stood to eradicate us, but in every generation they stand against us to eradicate us, and Gd saves us from their hands.” “This” cannot refer to the promise to Avraham that we would exit with great wealth, for that was only stated regarding Egypt… Rather, “This” refers to Gd’s word, “Your children will be strangers.” This promise stood for our ancestors and for us, guaranteeing that in every generation they would stand against us to eradicate us, when the Jews do not wish to fulfill Gd’s word of being strangers in order to be a separately identified nation. We try to draw near and join with them, and therefore they stand upon us to eradicate us. But Gd saves us from their hand.
This is also why we say, “Go learn from what Lavan the Aramean tried to do.” Lest someone who considers himself wise say that the opposite is true, that if only we were completely integrated with the nations then we would not be hated by them and they would not try to destroy us – to this we reply, “Go learn from what Lavan the Aramean tried to do.” We were very close to him; all of us were his children! And yet he tried to uproot everything. “Everything” does not only refer to Yaakov, for then it would have said, “tried to kill our father.” Rather, the meaning of “everything” is all of Judaism…
And yet, despite all of this, it has been difficult for us to distance ourselves from idolaters, because it is against the natural human inclination to join with friends, whether they are good or bad. How, then, could we tell our children to separate from each other in all of the ways of our world?!
Rather, if we wish to strengthen religion in our midst and not let it weaken in our hearts and in the hearts of our children, then we must study the earlier generations, as it is written,“I will learn from the elders.” When righteous King Chizkiyahu saw that the pillars and foundations of religion became weak in the days of Achaz, what did he do? He placed a sword in the study hall and declared, “One who will not involve himself in Torah should be stabbed with the sword!” Even though this study would be for entirely wrong motives, meaning it would not be for the sake of the mitzvah of Torah study, and certainly it would not be out of love of Gd but only to save themselves from death, still, this point strengthened religion effectively…
So we should strngthen religion by spreading Torah in study halls, and developing all possible strategies to strengthen public Torah study, and not to examine whether people are studying for proper motivations or not…
-
The Hebrew text associated with this part is:
שנית הלא אפי' עם אוה"ע שרצון ד’ שנהיה נפרדים מהם ולהיות בדד כדכתיב ד’ בדד ינחנו, ובלעם אמר הן עם לבדד ישכון ובגוים לא יתחשב, וביאורו בשעה שהוא לבדד ואינו מתערב עמהם ישכון במנוחה, ובגוים, בשעה שהוא מתערב עם הגוים עו"ג לא יתחשב אינו נחשב לגוי בפ"ע, וישכון ישראל בטח בדד עין יעקב, פירושו דעין יעקב היינו תשוקתו ושימת עינו היה שישכון ישראל בטח עם אוה"ע היינו שלא יתחרו עמהם וגם להיות בדד היינו להפרד מאוה"ע בלי התערבות, וכ"ז לא הועיל לנו להפרד מן העו"ג ע"ד דאיתא (בסנהדרין דף קד) איכה ישבה בדד אמר רבה אר"י אני אמרתי וישכון ישראל בטח בדד עכשיו איכה ישבה בדד, שאוה"ע מתרחקים ממנו, ובפסחים (דף קיח) איתא מ"ד בזר עמים קרבות יחפצון מי גרם לישראל שיתפזרו כ"כ בעמים קרבות יחפצון, עבור מה שחפצים להתקרב עם העו"ג ביותר ומראש הזהיר הקב"ה את א"א כי גר יהיה זרעך בארץ לא להם, ואין זה דבר נבואי לבד אלא צווי ואזהרה שיהי' כן ומשום זה כתיב ביעקב אבינו ויגר שם, ודרשו חז"ל מלמד שלא ירד להשתקע אלא לגור שם כמו שנאמר לגור בארץ באנו, ואין הפי' שלא ירד להשתקע כל ימי חייו אלא לגור איזה שנים עד כלות הרעב בארץ, דודאי אאל"כ שהרי יעקב כבר שמע מפי ד’ כי לגוי גדול אשימך שם, וידע בזה כי הרבה שנים יהיו שמה וכי זה הוא דבר ד’ לא"א כי גר יהיה זרעך בארץ לא להם ועבדום וענו אותם ארבע מאות שנה אלא משמעות שלא ירד להשתקע היינו להיות כאזרח הארץ כמו שיהי' לרצון לפרעה אשר הוקיר את יעקב וזרעו אבל יעקב אמר שאינו חפץ בזה אלא לגור בארץ באנו, להיות גרים בארץ לא לנו, והיינו משום דשמר דבר ד’ לאברהם כי גר יהיה זרעך וגו', ודבר ד’ יקום לעולם, ע"כ כל מה שאנחנו משתדלים בגלות להשתוות ולהתאחד עמהם מה עושה הקב"ה, מסב לב אוה"ע להרחיקם ולעשות אותם בדד, והיינו שאנו אומרים בהגדה אחר שאנו אומרים זה המקרא ויאמר לאברם ידוע תדע כי גר יהיה זרעך בארץ לא להם וגו' והיא שעמדה לאבותינו ולנו שלא אחד בלבד עמד עלינו לכלותנו אלא שבכל דור ודור עומדים עלינו לכלותנו והקב"ה מצילנו מידם, וא"א לפרש והיא היינו הבטחה שהיה ואחרי כן יצאו ברכוש גדול וגו' שהרי זה לא הי' אלא במצרים וא"כ אין בזה שום רמז על כל דור אלא ה"פ, והיא, היינו דבר ד’ כי גר יהיה זרעך היא שעמדה לאבותינו ולנו שבכל דור ודור עומדים עלינו לכלותנו, והוא משום שאין רוצים להקים דבר ד’ כי גר יהיה זרעך כדי להיות גוי מצוין בפ"ע, ואנו משתדלים להתקרב ולהתאחד עמהם ע"כ עומדים עלינו לכלותנו אלא שהקב"ה מצילנו מידם, וע"ז אנו אומרים צא ולמד מה בקש לבן הארמי וכו' שלא יבא מתחכם ויאמר להיפך אלא אם היינו מעורבים לגמרי עם הגוים לא היינו שנואים להם ולא בקשו לכלותנו ע"ז אנו אומרים צא ולמד מלבן הארמי שהרי אנו היינו מקורבים עמו הרבה שהרי כולנו בניו, ובכ"ז בקש לעקור את הכל, משמעות הכל אינו מתפרש על יעקב לבדו דא"כ היה לנו לומר בקש להרוג את אבינו, אלא משמעות את הכל כל היהדות, וזה אנו למדים מדכתיב ארמי אובד אבי בהווה אלא הכונה שלא רק באותה שעה שפגע וחשדו בגנבה בקש להרגו אלא גם אחר שנוכח על צדקו ואין לו עליו מאומה מ"מ אילו היה בידו להרגו היה הורגו, ובאמת מבואר הכי בלשון לבן שאמר ליעקב יש לאל ידי לעשות עמכם רע ואלהי אביכם וגו' ולכאורה אינו מובן למי דבר בלשון רבים הלא עם יעקב לבדו דבר עד כה וכי אפשר שרצה להרוג גם בנותיו ובניהם, אלא שכאן דבר עם ההולכים אחר יעקב היינו שנתגיירו והלכו עם יעקב כמו שכתוב בין אחי ובין אחיך, ולכולם היה ברצונו להרוג אע"ג שאין לו עליהם מאומה אבל בקש לעקור את היהדות, ואע"ג שלא התרחקו מעולם מלבן וזרעו אלא מ"מ בקש לעקור את היהדות, וכ"ז היה בשביל שהיו קרובים ומעורבים עם לבן ולא היו כגרים בעירם, ומזה יש ללמוד דכל מה שהיינו מתקרבים עם העו"ג, יותר היו מרחקים אותנו ומבקשים לאבדנו ואחר כ"ז היה קשה עלינו להתרחק מהעו"ג משום שהוא נגד טבע בני אדם להתחבר עם רעים בין טובים בין רעים ואיך אמרנו לבנינו להיות נפרדים איש מאת רעהו בכל הליכות עולם לנו:
אלא אם באנו לחזק את הדת בקרבנו ושלא ירף בלבנו ובלב בנינו עלינו להתבונן מדורות הראשונים כדכתיב מזקנים אתבונן, והנה בשעה שראה יחזקיהו המלך הצדיק שנתרופפו עמודי ויסודי הדת בימי אחז, מה עשה נעץ חרב בביהמ"ד ואמר כל מי שאינו עוסק בתורה ידקר בחרב, ואע"ג דא"כ יהיה הלמוד שלא לשמה ממש, היינו שלא לשם מצות ת"ת ומכש"כ שלא באהבת ה' אלא כדי שלא יהרוגו, מ"מ זה הפרט החזיק את הדת ע"צ היותר טוב ומועיל כידוע:
ויאשיהו המלך החסיד כשראה את החרבן וישראל יגלה מעל אדמתו והיה מקום לחוש שתאבד תורה ויהדות ח"ו מישראל מה עשה כתיב (בדה"י ב') ויאמר יאשיה ללוים המבינים לכל ישראל תנו את ארון הקודש בבית אשר בנה שלמה מלך ישראל אין לכם משא בכתף עתה עבדו את ה' אלהיכם ואת עמו ישראל. והנה אמרו חז"ל (במ' יומא דף נב:) תנו את ארון הקודש וגו' היינו שגנז את הארון, אבל לא נתבאר מה אומרו עתה עבדו את ה' אלהיכם ואת עמו ישראל, במה הגיע היום לעבוד באופן אחר ממה שהיה עד כה, וגם קשה להבין דברו אין לכם משא בכתף וכו' וכי עד כה היו נושאים את הארון, וכבר עמדו בזה בירושלמי שקלים ואכ"מ, אבל הענין בשביל שהיו עד כה הכהנים גדולים משוקעים בהתבודדות ואהבה ודביקות לה', וכך היו הלוים קדושי עליון, וא"כ לא היו יכולין להרביץ תורה ברבים ולהרבות תלמידים שמפריעים הדביקות כמש"כ לעיל, והיה מכונה עבודה קדושה זו בשם מרכבה לשכינה ובלשון המקרא נקרא בשם משא בכתף מקום משכן הדעת וכמו שבארנו בהע"ד לשון המקרא כי עבודת הקדש עליהם בכתף ישאו, ועתה הזהיר המלך החסיד, שאין לכם משא בכתף כלומר אין לכם להתבודד ולהיות שקועים באהבת ה' ולהיות ספונים בפ"ע אלא עתה עבדו את ה' ואת עמו ישראל יחד, היינו במה שילמדו תורה ברבים ועפ"י דבר המלך קמו אז החרש והמסגר אלף כולם עושי מלחמה ותניא בספרי פ' האזינו שהיו עושים מלחמתה של תורה ואחריהם באו אנשי כנה"ג והזהירו עוד והעמידו תלמידים הרבה ובזה נתקיימה תורה ויהדות בישראל:
כך עלינו לעשות להחזיק הדת להרבות תורה בבתי מדרשים ולעשות כל תחבולות שאפשר שיתעסקו בתורה ברבים ולא לדקדק אם חבירו לומד לשמה או שלא לשמה
אלא אם באנו לחזק את הדת בקרבנו ושלא ירף בלבנו ובלב בנינו עלינו להתבונן מדורות הראשונים כדכתיב מזקנים אתבונן, והנה בשעה שראה יחזקיהו המלך הצדיק שנתרופפו עמודי ויסודי הדת בימי אחז, מה עשה נעץ חרב בביהמ"ד ואמר כל מי שאינו עוסק בתורה ידקר בחרב, ואע"ג דא"כ יהיה הלמוד שלא לשמה ממש, היינו שלא לשם מצות ת"ת ומכש"כ שלא באהבת ה' אלא כדי שלא יהרוגו, מ"מ זה הפרט החזיק את הדת ע"צ היותר טוב ומועיל כידוע:
ויאשיהו המלך החסיד כשראה את החרבן וישראל יגלה מעל אדמתו והיה מקום לחוש שתאבד תורה ויהדות ח"ו מישראל מה עשה כתיב (בדה"י ב') ויאמר יאשיה ללוים המבינים לכל ישראל תנו את ארון הקודש בבית אשר בנה שלמה מלך ישראל אין לכם משא בכתף עתה עבדו את ה' אלהיכם ואת עמו ישראל. והנה אמרו חז"ל (במ' יומא דף נב:) תנו את ארון הקודש וגו' היינו שגנז את הארון, אבל לא נתבאר מה אומרו עתה עבדו את ה' אלהיכם ואת עמו ישראל, במה הגיע היום לעבוד באופן אחר ממה שהיה עד כה, וגם קשה להבין דברו אין לכם משא בכתף וכו' וכי עד כה היו נושאים את הארון, וכבר עמדו בזה בירושלמי שקלים ואכ"מ, אבל הענין בשביל שהיו עד כה הכהנים גדולים משוקעים בהתבודדות ואהבה ודביקות לה', וכך היו הלוים קדושי עליון, וא"כ לא היו יכולין להרביץ תורה ברבים ולהרבות תלמידים שמפריעים הדביקות כמש"כ לעיל, והיה מכונה עבודה קדושה זו בשם מרכבה לשכינה ובלשון המקרא נקרא בשם משא בכתף מקום משכן הדעת וכמו שבארנו בהע"ד לשון המקרא כי עבודת הקדש עליהם בכתף ישאו, ועתה הזהיר המלך החסיד, שאין לכם משא בכתף כלומר אין לכם להתבודד ולהיות שקועים באהבת ה' ולהיות ספונים בפ"ע אלא עתה עבדו את ה' ואת עמו ישראל יחד, היינו במה שילמדו תורה ברבים ועפ"י דבר המלך קמו אז החרש והמסגר אלף כולם עושי מלחמה ותניא בספרי פ' האזינו שהיו עושים מלחמתה של תורה ואחריהם באו אנשי כנה"ג והזהירו עוד והעמידו תלמידים הרבה ובזה נתקיימה תורה ויהדות בישראל:
כך עלינו לעשות להחזיק הדת להרבות תורה בבתי מדרשים ולעשות כל תחבולות שאפשר שיתעסקו בתורה ברבים ולא לדקדק אם חבירו לומד לשמה או שלא לשמה
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Rabbi Dr. Aaron Levine z"l
Just now, I was sitting at my computer working on a Business Ethics shiur for this series, for after Pesach. I looked at some old notes of mine from a previous Business Ethics series, and started researching references from Rabbi Dr. Aaron Levine's book, Case Studies in Jewish Business Ethics.
While looking up the material, I thought about Rabbi Dr. Levine himself; aside from learning from his writing, I was fortunate to sit on an RCA committee on Jewish Business Ethics with him a couple of years ago, and I learned much from the experience. Rabbi Dr. Levine presented a firm vision of the ethical and the realistic, and how to proactively promote ethical conduct in industry. He also took the time to explain his views at length to me, a tyro.
Then, as I was working on this, my Inbox showed a new email, from RIETS Rabbinic Alumni. The Subject line - "Baruch Dayan haEmes - Rabbi Dr. Aaron Levine z"l":
We've lost a great thinker, teacher and leader. All I can say is Baruch Dayyan haEmes.
While looking up the material, I thought about Rabbi Dr. Levine himself; aside from learning from his writing, I was fortunate to sit on an RCA committee on Jewish Business Ethics with him a couple of years ago, and I learned much from the experience. Rabbi Dr. Levine presented a firm vision of the ethical and the realistic, and how to proactively promote ethical conduct in industry. He also took the time to explain his views at length to me, a tyro.
Then, as I was working on this, my Inbox showed a new email, from RIETS Rabbinic Alumni. The Subject line - "Baruch Dayan haEmes - Rabbi Dr. Aaron Levine z"l":
We regret to inform you of the untimely passing of
RABBI DR. AARON LEVINE z"l
Husband of Rebbetzin Sarah Levine.
Chairman of the Department of Economics at Yeshiva College &
Rav of the Young Israel of Avenue J in Flatbush.
There was a short service tonight at JFK airport (cago area B, building 23) before the 11:30pm flight to Israel.
The levaya will be in Israel today, Thursday, April 21st, at Eretz Hachayyim Cemetery in Har Tuv (near Bet Shemesh) at 7:30pm.
Rabbi Aaron Levine was the Samson and Halina Bitensky Professor of Economics and chairman of the Department of Economics at Yeshiva College of Yeshiva University. Elected to Phi Beta Kappa at Brooklyn College, he was awarded his MA and PhD by New York University. He was ordained in Jewish ritual and civil law at the Rabbi Jacob Joseph School. A noted authority on Jewish commercial law, Rabbi Levine’s research specialty was the interface between economics and halakha, especially as it relates to public policy and modern business practices. He had published widely on these issues, including five books and numerous monographs. His books include "Free Enterprise and Jewish Law" (1980), "Economics and Jewish Law" (1987), "Economic Public Policy and Jewish Law" (1993) "Case Studies in Jewish Business Ethics" (2000) and "Moral Issues of the Marketplace in Jewish Law" (2005). Rabbi Levine was active in the area of conflict resolution, and serves as an ad hoc rabbinical judge and arbitrator in the bet din of the Rabbinical Council of America. Rabbi Levine was an associate editor of the journal Tradition, a member of the advisory council for the International Center for Jewish Business Ethics and a nominee for the World Jewish Academy of Science. He just recently published a book he edited, The Oxford Handbook of Judaism and Economics, after the 2005 publication.
Shiva will commence following the chag.
RABBI DR. AARON LEVINE z"l
Husband of Rebbetzin Sarah Levine.
Chairman of the Department of Economics at Yeshiva College &
Rav of the Young Israel of Avenue J in Flatbush.
There was a short service tonight at JFK airport (cago area B, building 23) before the 11:30pm flight to Israel.
The levaya will be in Israel today, Thursday, April 21st, at Eretz Hachayyim Cemetery in Har Tuv (near Bet Shemesh) at 7:30pm.
Rabbi Aaron Levine was the Samson and Halina Bitensky Professor of Economics and chairman of the Department of Economics at Yeshiva College of Yeshiva University. Elected to Phi Beta Kappa at Brooklyn College, he was awarded his MA and PhD by New York University. He was ordained in Jewish ritual and civil law at the Rabbi Jacob Joseph School. A noted authority on Jewish commercial law, Rabbi Levine’s research specialty was the interface between economics and halakha, especially as it relates to public policy and modern business practices. He had published widely on these issues, including five books and numerous monographs. His books include "Free Enterprise and Jewish Law" (1980), "Economics and Jewish Law" (1987), "Economic Public Policy and Jewish Law" (1993) "Case Studies in Jewish Business Ethics" (2000) and "Moral Issues of the Marketplace in Jewish Law" (2005). Rabbi Levine was active in the area of conflict resolution, and serves as an ad hoc rabbinical judge and arbitrator in the bet din of the Rabbinical Council of America. Rabbi Levine was an associate editor of the journal Tradition, a member of the advisory council for the International Center for Jewish Business Ethics and a nominee for the World Jewish Academy of Science. He just recently published a book he edited, The Oxford Handbook of Judaism and Economics, after the 2005 publication.
Shiva will commence following the chag.
We've lost a great thinker, teacher and leader. All I can say is Baruch Dayyan haEmes.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Of Pesach and Cynicism
Jews are very good at cynicism.
In part it’s a function of our national history; with so few friends, and with those friends generally acting out of realpolitik rather than sincere sympathy, why shouldn’t we be cynical? Whether it was Lincoln contravening the anti-Jewish Order 11 in the waning days of the Civil War, or Trujillo opening the doors of the Dominican Republic to Jewish refugees in the 1930’s, or George W. Bush supporting Israel 70 years later, it’s always been possible to read selfishness into apparent selflessness, especially as those alliances have not always been as solid as we would have wished.
And in part cynicism is a product of our education; our ancestors were cynical about the world, and about themselves. Talmudic sages reflected on the Roman contribution to civilization, and dismissed it as a side effect of hedonistic pursuits. The same sages looked upon their personal piety and deeds and questioned the purity of their own motivations. Our own contemporary roshei yeshiva challenge us every Elul to inspect ourselves with questioning eyes, and in their honest zeal for self-analysis and self-improvement they encourage us to feel better only when we succeed in finding weakness in our greatest successes.
There is a place, properly מוגבל (bounded), for cynicism,
But one result of cynicism, when taken too far, is an inability to accept Good as Good; an inability to subscribe to a philosophy or support an initiative without qualification; an inability to believe that our role models are truly good and kind and sincere and well-meaning; an inability to respect people, including ourselves; an inability of religious leaders to believe that עמך, the rank-and-file Jew, longs for spiritual growth, if only in his/her own way; an inability to recognize the kindnesses that others have done for us; and an insistence upon finding the flaw and the smallness and the inappropriate in the Good and the philosophy and the initiative and the role models and the people and the עמך and the kindnesses.
This is devastating.
But then we have Pesach, the anti-cynical holiday.
On Pesach there is no cynic in our midst; the בן נכר, the one who has estranged himself from Gd and community, is not welcome. Instead, we are all believers.
It’s a celebration which summons us to immerse ourselves, and our families, in belief and trust, and not in self-conscious doubt.
It welcomes us to read biblical verses and sing ancient songs, to get into it with our children on their level and to re-live it late into the night on our own.
It begs us to drop our cloaks of intellectualism [I am not a fan of hyper-intellectual, pilpulish haggadot, although I recognize that they have their place] in favor of subjective personal experience and the haze that accompanies four cups of wine.
Its garment is the white of the kittel, pure and honest and uncomplicated as the day of death.
Its call is the romantic song of Shir haShirim, holy of holies, my beloved, my dove, my perfect one.
May the romance that is Pesach remain with us far beyond these few days.
In part it’s a function of our national history; with so few friends, and with those friends generally acting out of realpolitik rather than sincere sympathy, why shouldn’t we be cynical? Whether it was Lincoln contravening the anti-Jewish Order 11 in the waning days of the Civil War, or Trujillo opening the doors of the Dominican Republic to Jewish refugees in the 1930’s, or George W. Bush supporting Israel 70 years later, it’s always been possible to read selfishness into apparent selflessness, especially as those alliances have not always been as solid as we would have wished.
And in part cynicism is a product of our education; our ancestors were cynical about the world, and about themselves. Talmudic sages reflected on the Roman contribution to civilization, and dismissed it as a side effect of hedonistic pursuits. The same sages looked upon their personal piety and deeds and questioned the purity of their own motivations. Our own contemporary roshei yeshiva challenge us every Elul to inspect ourselves with questioning eyes, and in their honest zeal for self-analysis and self-improvement they encourage us to feel better only when we succeed in finding weakness in our greatest successes.
There is a place, properly מוגבל (bounded), for cynicism,
But one result of cynicism, when taken too far, is an inability to accept Good as Good; an inability to subscribe to a philosophy or support an initiative without qualification; an inability to believe that our role models are truly good and kind and sincere and well-meaning; an inability to respect people, including ourselves; an inability of religious leaders to believe that עמך, the rank-and-file Jew, longs for spiritual growth, if only in his/her own way; an inability to recognize the kindnesses that others have done for us; and an insistence upon finding the flaw and the smallness and the inappropriate in the Good and the philosophy and the initiative and the role models and the people and the עמך and the kindnesses.
This is devastating.
But then we have Pesach, the anti-cynical holiday.
On Pesach there is no cynic in our midst; the בן נכר, the one who has estranged himself from Gd and community, is not welcome. Instead, we are all believers.
It’s a celebration which summons us to immerse ourselves, and our families, in belief and trust, and not in self-conscious doubt.
It welcomes us to read biblical verses and sing ancient songs, to get into it with our children on their level and to re-live it late into the night on our own.
It begs us to drop our cloaks of intellectualism [I am not a fan of hyper-intellectual, pilpulish haggadot, although I recognize that they have their place] in favor of subjective personal experience and the haze that accompanies four cups of wine.
Its garment is the white of the kittel, pure and honest and uncomplicated as the day of death.
Its call is the romantic song of Shir haShirim, holy of holies, my beloved, my dove, my perfect one.
May the romance that is Pesach remain with us far beyond these few days.
Friday, April 15, 2011
You can't make this stuff up
File this under “You did what?!”
In February of 2009 I signed up – yes, voluntarily – to receive email from DMA, the Direct Marketing Association. I can’t remember why. Maybe I was looking for marketing tips for my community, or perhaps I wanted to order a book from them, I don’t know.
But I actually volunteered to receive email from the trade association for commercial emailers, cataloguers and telemarketers. Something must have been wrong with me that month.
Anyway – I’ve spent the past 30 months trying to get off of their various email lists. It’s like a Whack-a-Mole game; every time I unsubscribe from one list, I receive email from a new list. Or three new lists.
Don't get me wrong, I know that telemarketers, flyer publishers and so on are people like you and me, trying to make a living in a hard economy. I understand that. But being on the receiving end...
So the other day I received this remarkable DMA email, with the subject line, “Nominate a Leader-Make them a Legend”:
Who inspired you?
Nominate a direct marketing legend to the DMA Hall of Fame
Do you know someone who has made significant contributions to direct marketing? Someone who has established themselves as a leader in Interactive, Mobile, Social, Print, or TV? Someone who has mentored and inspired, achieved greatness and encouraged excellence?
Well, now is the time to give them the credit they deserve. Nominate them for the DMA Hall of Fame—the highest honor an individual can receive in the direct marketing community.
Anyone can be nominated — a boss, a mentor, a colleague. And hey, if you’re the best direct marketer you know, you can even nominate yourself. Nominees do not have to be DMA members, they simply have to be successful, inspiring, and influential.
So who do you think deserves to be honored? Nominate them today (or at least by April 30th). It’s quick. It’s easy. It’s the Hall of Fame.
A Hall of Fame for the people who brought you junk flyers and telemarketing. You can’t make this stuff up.
I can hear the acceptance speeches now:
"Growing up in the South Bronx, I always dreamed of making the Hall of Fame, like any red-blooded American boy. I listened to stories of my idols, men like Robert, women like Sandy, who would call skillfully thirty homes simultaneously, knowing exactly which buttons to press to reach a single mother putting her children to bed, or a man who had an hour to be with his kids before going back to work for third shift, and with some kind of sixth sense understanding which one to keep on the line while letting the others receive dead air when they answered the phone.
"I knew that this was what I wanted to do when I grew up - and that I would do it well, well enough that one day all of you would gather to pay tribute to my work, my persistence, my sales, my persistence, my dialing ability, my persistence. [emcee tries to signal him to wrap up, but he waves off the signal, to the knowing smiles of the crowd] I want to thank my mentors, my role models..."
Chag kasher v’sameach.
In February of 2009 I signed up – yes, voluntarily – to receive email from DMA, the Direct Marketing Association. I can’t remember why. Maybe I was looking for marketing tips for my community, or perhaps I wanted to order a book from them, I don’t know.
But I actually volunteered to receive email from the trade association for commercial emailers, cataloguers and telemarketers. Something must have been wrong with me that month.
Anyway – I’ve spent the past 30 months trying to get off of their various email lists. It’s like a Whack-a-Mole game; every time I unsubscribe from one list, I receive email from a new list. Or three new lists.
Don't get me wrong, I know that telemarketers, flyer publishers and so on are people like you and me, trying to make a living in a hard economy. I understand that. But being on the receiving end...
So the other day I received this remarkable DMA email, with the subject line, “Nominate a Leader-Make them a Legend”:
Who inspired you?
Nominate a direct marketing legend to the DMA Hall of Fame
Do you know someone who has made significant contributions to direct marketing? Someone who has established themselves as a leader in Interactive, Mobile, Social, Print, or TV? Someone who has mentored and inspired, achieved greatness and encouraged excellence?
Well, now is the time to give them the credit they deserve. Nominate them for the DMA Hall of Fame—the highest honor an individual can receive in the direct marketing community.
Anyone can be nominated — a boss, a mentor, a colleague. And hey, if you’re the best direct marketer you know, you can even nominate yourself. Nominees do not have to be DMA members, they simply have to be successful, inspiring, and influential.
So who do you think deserves to be honored? Nominate them today (or at least by April 30th). It’s quick. It’s easy. It’s the Hall of Fame.
A Hall of Fame for the people who brought you junk flyers and telemarketing. You can’t make this stuff up.
I can hear the acceptance speeches now:
"Growing up in the South Bronx, I always dreamed of making the Hall of Fame, like any red-blooded American boy. I listened to stories of my idols, men like Robert, women like Sandy, who would call skillfully thirty homes simultaneously, knowing exactly which buttons to press to reach a single mother putting her children to bed, or a man who had an hour to be with his kids before going back to work for third shift, and with some kind of sixth sense understanding which one to keep on the line while letting the others receive dead air when they answered the phone.
"I knew that this was what I wanted to do when I grew up - and that I would do it well, well enough that one day all of you would gather to pay tribute to my work, my persistence, my sales, my persistence, my dialing ability, my persistence. [emcee tries to signal him to wrap up, but he waves off the signal, to the knowing smiles of the crowd] I want to thank my mentors, my role models..."
Chag kasher v’sameach.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
What if I don't like roast?
Here is the opening of my "YU To Go" article for Pesach:
Korban is one of the most tangible expressions of the relationship between human and Creator, an incarnation of thanksgiving or apology or loyalty or joy, celebrated in the sanctum of the Jewish nation. Such a powerful religious experience, so rich in possibility but so vulnerable to abuse and misunderstanding, must be governed by regulations regarding its substance, time and place, its attendants and its ritual.
Even in the regimented world of the korban, though, the korban pesach stands out for its unique Divine prescriptions. In particular, only the korban pesach must be roasted over an open fire.
I'm proud of this article, which sprang from an idea we explored in Daf Yomi for Zevachim. Getting to the point requires a trip through some fairly esoteric material, but I took a lot of time trying to make it clear, because I believe the message is important. In particular:
We cried out for relief from our Egyptian suffering, but we were selected for national exceptionalism without our agreement; no Jewish slave in Egypt requested a covenant or a land. Our pain was our only concern; indeed, when the enslaved Hebrews witnessed Moshe’s initial failure to deliver them from their agony, they protested his very presence, calling upon HaShem to judge and punish Moshe for catalyzing Pharaoh’s increased cruelty.
Pesach is not about the realization of a national dream; rather, Pesach is about the My Fair Lady extraction of slaves from their milieu and their forced metamorphosis into the royalty that is Yisrael. In this context, Ceremony is of far greater importance than Volition. Giving a slave free rein does not convert him into aristocracy; an unfettered slave remains a slave in his thoughts and deeds, and his liberty is wasted. Ceremony is necessary in order to transform his worldview, his input and therefore his output, to suit the palace. As the Sefer haChinuch is wont to comment, “ אחרי הפעולות נמשכים הלבבות ,” “After deeds are the hearts drawn.”
Seen in that light, the Seder’s emphasis on ceremony is most sensible. The ritual of the Seder is the story of a slave learning his freedom and adjusting to the world of imbibing and reclining, to a sense of himself as someone who serves no man. And in this context, the korban pesach, too, must emphasize Ceremony over Volition. If the slave wishes not to roast the korban pesach but to boil it, he is told: Now you must become a king.
To see the rest of the article, go here. Comments wanted.
Korban is one of the most tangible expressions of the relationship between human and Creator, an incarnation of thanksgiving or apology or loyalty or joy, celebrated in the sanctum of the Jewish nation. Such a powerful religious experience, so rich in possibility but so vulnerable to abuse and misunderstanding, must be governed by regulations regarding its substance, time and place, its attendants and its ritual.
Even in the regimented world of the korban, though, the korban pesach stands out for its unique Divine prescriptions. In particular, only the korban pesach must be roasted over an open fire.
I'm proud of this article, which sprang from an idea we explored in Daf Yomi for Zevachim. Getting to the point requires a trip through some fairly esoteric material, but I took a lot of time trying to make it clear, because I believe the message is important. In particular:
We cried out for relief from our Egyptian suffering, but we were selected for national exceptionalism without our agreement; no Jewish slave in Egypt requested a covenant or a land. Our pain was our only concern; indeed, when the enslaved Hebrews witnessed Moshe’s initial failure to deliver them from their agony, they protested his very presence, calling upon HaShem to judge and punish Moshe for catalyzing Pharaoh’s increased cruelty.
Pesach is not about the realization of a national dream; rather, Pesach is about the My Fair Lady extraction of slaves from their milieu and their forced metamorphosis into the royalty that is Yisrael. In this context, Ceremony is of far greater importance than Volition. Giving a slave free rein does not convert him into aristocracy; an unfettered slave remains a slave in his thoughts and deeds, and his liberty is wasted. Ceremony is necessary in order to transform his worldview, his input and therefore his output, to suit the palace. As the Sefer haChinuch is wont to comment, “ אחרי הפעולות נמשכים הלבבות ,” “After deeds are the hearts drawn.”
Seen in that light, the Seder’s emphasis on ceremony is most sensible. The ritual of the Seder is the story of a slave learning his freedom and adjusting to the world of imbibing and reclining, to a sense of himself as someone who serves no man. And in this context, the korban pesach, too, must emphasize Ceremony over Volition. If the slave wishes not to roast the korban pesach but to boil it, he is told: Now you must become a king.
To see the rest of the article, go here. Comments wanted.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Rav Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (Netziv) on Right-Wing, Left-Wing and Jewish Unity, Part III
[For previous parts of this series, click here.]
The Netziv continues to respond to an editorial which argued that observant Jews should separate from non-observant Jews, for the sake of protecting their piety.
The editor wrote as his eyes saw, as he is there, that our generation is not like earlier generations. In earlier generations [he alleges], intermediate people were not in such grave danger of rejecting the yoke of Torah and commandments, as are the wayward and yoke-rejecting people of every generation. Today’s time is different; the Jew who does not intend and desire to stray from the Torah of Gd and to weaken on his right, is still in danger if he does not place Gd opposite him always, being careful lest his feet stumble from the path of life. Without paying attention, he could lose his eternity and his hope from Gd and from His holy Torah. One cannot contradict what the senses perceive, but examination of why this has happened is required.
First, one should know that it is not as the editor wrote, that since Yehudah was sanctified and Yisrael became a nation, there was never a generation as lawless as this, Gd-forbid. The truth is otherwise.
Even when we first entered Israel, and for many generations afterward when the compulsion for idolatry reigned and burned like an oven, as seen in Sanhedrin 102b, no one could be certain about himself that he would not come to idolatry, unless he acted in a path of piety, to continually turn his thoughts and path to Gd. We learned this from Yehoshua’s message to Israel (Yehoshua 24) after he laid out before them the possibilities of serving Gd and of serving the gods of the Emorites. He wanted the nation, “You cannot serve Gd, for Gd is holy, etc” and they replied as one, “No, for we will serve Gd,” and Yehoshua continued to say, “You are witnesses to yourselves that you have chosen to serve Gd,” and they declared, “Witnesses.” He added, “Now remove all foreign gods from your midst, and turn your hearts to Gd, Gd of Israel,” and the nation replied, “We will serve HaShem our Gd, and we will listen to His voice.” It is not clear what warning Yehoshua added at the end and what the nation replied. It is that Yehoshua knew that the inclination for idolatry would reign in Israel… and so he warned them not to trust their current desire to serve Gd, and he said, “If you truly accept that you will not worship idolatry, remove the foreign gods from your midst” against your will, meaning, even that which the Canaanites worship in your midst, remove against their will, so thatyou will not be drawn after them. “And turn your hearts to Gd,” meaning not to depend upon the idea that you could never come to idolatry even were you not turned to Gd. Turn your hearts to Gd, place Gd opposite your hearts always. This was Yehoshua’s warning, knowing prophetically that the inclination for idolatry would be in Israel, but the Jews did not know and the nation of Gd did not contemplate Yehoshua’s warning, and they replied this time as well, “We will serve HaShem our Gd and listen to His voice,” meaning that we need not worry so much. Even without turning our hearts continually to Gd, in the manner of piety, we will worship Gd and not idolatry. But what happened? In those generations they violated Yehoshua’s warning and stumbled for many generations…
The editor ruled and advised this generation to be cautious, to separate from each other entirely as Avraham separated from Lot. I beseech the editor! This counsel is harsh as swords to the body of the nation and its existence! When we were in our holy land, almost in our dominion, in the time of the Second Temple, the land was ruined and the House was destroyed and the Jews were exiled because of the strife between the Pharisees and the Sadducees! And needless hatred caused much bloodshed, and all without legal grounds. When a Pharisee saw someone being lenient insome matter, even though that person had simply sinned and was not a Sadducee, still, because of needless hatred he judged the person a Sadducee, who could be caused to die! And so bloodshed spread with permission and as a mitzvah, in error. The Torah hinted to this in Bamidbar 36:34, as is explained in Haamek Davar and Herchev Davar there. It is not unimaginable to think that we could reach that stage, Gd-forbid, today as well, such that in the eyes of a person who holds on to religion, one who does not follow service of Gd could be judged a heretic and distanced, and one would pursue the other with false, imaginary legal permission, and – Gd forbid – he could destroy the entire nation of Gd, even were we in our own land and dominion.
This is certainly true when we are conquered, in exile, the Jews as scattered sheep among the nations, compared to dust of the ground in exile, as Gd told Yaakov, “Your descendants will be as the dust of the ground.” The nations are compared to great, flooding waters, as Yeshayah wrote… And there is no way to save a clod of earth in the flood of great waters, unless the dirt will become hardened stone such that a river flooding it would not be able to roll it other than from place to place, without destroying it entirely. So, the Jews among the nations have no way to be saved other than to be the stone of Israel, to be joined in one group, such that no nation or tongue could destroy them.
How, then, could we say to separate one man from another, so that the nations would come and drown us bit by bit, Gd-forbid!
Hebrew here, including phrases I ellipsized:
The Netziv continues to respond to an editorial which argued that observant Jews should separate from non-observant Jews, for the sake of protecting their piety.
The editor wrote as his eyes saw, as he is there, that our generation is not like earlier generations. In earlier generations [he alleges], intermediate people were not in such grave danger of rejecting the yoke of Torah and commandments, as are the wayward and yoke-rejecting people of every generation. Today’s time is different; the Jew who does not intend and desire to stray from the Torah of Gd and to weaken on his right, is still in danger if he does not place Gd opposite him always, being careful lest his feet stumble from the path of life. Without paying attention, he could lose his eternity and his hope from Gd and from His holy Torah. One cannot contradict what the senses perceive, but examination of why this has happened is required.
First, one should know that it is not as the editor wrote, that since Yehudah was sanctified and Yisrael became a nation, there was never a generation as lawless as this, Gd-forbid. The truth is otherwise.
Even when we first entered Israel, and for many generations afterward when the compulsion for idolatry reigned and burned like an oven, as seen in Sanhedrin 102b, no one could be certain about himself that he would not come to idolatry, unless he acted in a path of piety, to continually turn his thoughts and path to Gd. We learned this from Yehoshua’s message to Israel (Yehoshua 24) after he laid out before them the possibilities of serving Gd and of serving the gods of the Emorites. He wanted the nation, “You cannot serve Gd, for Gd is holy, etc” and they replied as one, “No, for we will serve Gd,” and Yehoshua continued to say, “You are witnesses to yourselves that you have chosen to serve Gd,” and they declared, “Witnesses.” He added, “Now remove all foreign gods from your midst, and turn your hearts to Gd, Gd of Israel,” and the nation replied, “We will serve HaShem our Gd, and we will listen to His voice.” It is not clear what warning Yehoshua added at the end and what the nation replied. It is that Yehoshua knew that the inclination for idolatry would reign in Israel… and so he warned them not to trust their current desire to serve Gd, and he said, “If you truly accept that you will not worship idolatry, remove the foreign gods from your midst” against your will, meaning, even that which the Canaanites worship in your midst, remove against their will, so thatyou will not be drawn after them. “And turn your hearts to Gd,” meaning not to depend upon the idea that you could never come to idolatry even were you not turned to Gd. Turn your hearts to Gd, place Gd opposite your hearts always. This was Yehoshua’s warning, knowing prophetically that the inclination for idolatry would be in Israel, but the Jews did not know and the nation of Gd did not contemplate Yehoshua’s warning, and they replied this time as well, “We will serve HaShem our Gd and listen to His voice,” meaning that we need not worry so much. Even without turning our hearts continually to Gd, in the manner of piety, we will worship Gd and not idolatry. But what happened? In those generations they violated Yehoshua’s warning and stumbled for many generations…
The editor ruled and advised this generation to be cautious, to separate from each other entirely as Avraham separated from Lot. I beseech the editor! This counsel is harsh as swords to the body of the nation and its existence! When we were in our holy land, almost in our dominion, in the time of the Second Temple, the land was ruined and the House was destroyed and the Jews were exiled because of the strife between the Pharisees and the Sadducees! And needless hatred caused much bloodshed, and all without legal grounds. When a Pharisee saw someone being lenient insome matter, even though that person had simply sinned and was not a Sadducee, still, because of needless hatred he judged the person a Sadducee, who could be caused to die! And so bloodshed spread with permission and as a mitzvah, in error. The Torah hinted to this in Bamidbar 36:34, as is explained in Haamek Davar and Herchev Davar there. It is not unimaginable to think that we could reach that stage, Gd-forbid, today as well, such that in the eyes of a person who holds on to religion, one who does not follow service of Gd could be judged a heretic and distanced, and one would pursue the other with false, imaginary legal permission, and – Gd forbid – he could destroy the entire nation of Gd, even were we in our own land and dominion.
This is certainly true when we are conquered, in exile, the Jews as scattered sheep among the nations, compared to dust of the ground in exile, as Gd told Yaakov, “Your descendants will be as the dust of the ground.” The nations are compared to great, flooding waters, as Yeshayah wrote… And there is no way to save a clod of earth in the flood of great waters, unless the dirt will become hardened stone such that a river flooding it would not be able to roll it other than from place to place, without destroying it entirely. So, the Jews among the nations have no way to be saved other than to be the stone of Israel, to be joined in one group, such that no nation or tongue could destroy them.
How, then, could we say to separate one man from another, so that the nations would come and drown us bit by bit, Gd-forbid!
Hebrew here, including phrases I ellipsized:
הן המעריך כותב מה שעיניו רואות באשר הוא שם, כי לא כדורות הקודמים הדור החי עמנו. בדורות הקודמים לא היו הבינונים בסכנה כ"כ שיפרוק עול תורה ומצות כמו האנשים הזרים ופורקי עול שמצויים בכל דור, ולא כן העת החיה, האדם מישראל אשר מראש אין בדעתו ורצונו לסור מאחרי תורת ד’ ולא למוט מימינו, מ"מ אם לא ישוה ד’ לנגדו תמיד להזהר שלא ימוטו רגליו מני אורח חיים, הרי הוא בחזקת סכנה ומבלי משים יאבד נצחו ותוחלתו מד’ ותורתו הק', ואין להכחיש מה שהחוש רואה, אלא שנדרש לחקירה מדוע קראנו כל אלה:
ומראש יש לדעת שלא כדברי המעריך אשר מאז היתה יהודה לקדשו ישראל לגוי לא היה דור פרוץ כעת הזה ח"ו, לא כן האמת, כי גם בעת בואנו לאה"ק והרבה דורות אחרי כן אחרי שהיה יצרא דע"ג שולט ובוער כתנור וכדאיתא (בסנהדרין דף קב:) ממילא לא היה איש בטוח בעצמו שלא יגיע לידי ע"ז אם לא שהתנהג בדרך חסידות להטות מחשבותיו תמיד שיהא נוכח ד’ דרכו. ודבר זה למדנו מדברי יהושע לישראל (בס' יהושע כד), אחרי אשר הציע לפניהם עבודת ד’ ועבודת אלהי האמורי וגם הזהיר את העם ואמר לא תוכלו לעבוד את ד’ כי אלקים קדושים הוא וגו' והמה ענו כשורה לא כי את ד’ נעבוד, והוסיף יהושע לאמר עדים אתם בכם כי אתם בחרתם לכם את ד’ לעבוד אותו ויאמרו עדים, הוסיף עוד ועתה הסירו את אלהי הנכר אשר בקרבכם והטו את לבבכם אל ד’ אלקי ישראל ויאמרו העם אל יהושע את ד’ אלקינו נעבוד ובקולו נשמע, ולא נתבאר מה זה הוסיף יהושע באחרונה להזהיר ומה ענו אותו העם, אלא הענין שידע יהושע יצרא דע"ז ישלוט באה"ק וכדאיתא במדרש שה"ש עה"פ רחצתי את רגלי איככה אטנפם, שאמרו ישראל בדורו של עזרא שאינם רוצים לשוב לאה"ק משום שרחצתי את רגלי מיצרא דע"ז איככה אטנפם, שאותו מקום משיאנו לע"ז, ע"כ הזהיר יהושע אותם שלא תהיו בטוחים על רצונכם היום לעבוד את ד’, ע"כ אם באמת אתם מקבלים עליכם שלא לעבוד ע"ז, בע"כ תסירו את אלהי הנכר אשר בקרבכם, היינו אפי' מה שהכנענים עובדים ע"ז בקרבכם, תסירו בע"כ, כדי שלא תהיו נמשכים אחריהם,
וגם הטו את לבבכם אל ד’, פי' שלא תסמכו אשר גם מבלי משים לב אל ד’ לא תגיעו לידי ע"ז, אלא תטו את לבבכם אל ד’, לשוות את ד’ נגד לבבכם תמיד, זאת היה אזהרת יהושע אשר ידע בנבואה יצרא דע"ז באה"ק, אבל ישראל לא ידע עם ד’ לא התבונן באזהרת יהושע, ויענו גם בפעם הזה את ד’ אלקינו נעבוד ובקולו נשמע, פי' אין לנו לירא כ"כ, אלא גם בלי הטית הלב תמיד שהוא דרך חסידות, לא נעבוד ע"ז אלא את ד’ אלקינו, והנה מה עלה בדורות הללו עברו על אזהרת יהושע ונכשלו כמה דורות עד שבא שמואל הנביא וחזר להזהיר ע"ז כמבואר (בס' שמואל א' ז'), ויאמר שמואל אל כל בית ישראל אם בכל לבבכם אתם שבים אל ד’ הסירו את אלהי הנכר וגו' והכינו לבבכם אל ד’ ועבדוהו לבדו וכתיב שם דאז עשו כן ויסירו ב"י את הבעלים ואת העשתרות ויעבדו את ד’ לבדו, ומשמעות לבדו, לא את עצמו וביתו כי אם את ד’ והיינו אזהרת והכינו לבבכם וגו', שהוא מדה גבוהה למעלה מטבע האנושית והוא דרך החסידות ומש"ה נתקיים בידם הרבה דורות עד שהגיעו למלכי ישראל ויהודה החוטאים ומחטיאים ועוד סיבה אשר יבואר לפנינו וחזרו ליצרא דע"ז עד שגלו, ובביאורנו על התורה הנקרא העמק דבר בארנו שגם התורה הזהירה ע"ז ע"י משה רבינו ומוסרו בס"פ נצבים ראה נתתי לפניך היום וגו' ואין כאן מקום להאריך ולבאר יותר, אבל כ"ז היה בדור שהיה יצרא דע"ז בוער בישראל, ולא היה בכח האדם לעמוד בנסיון אם לא בדרך החסידות משא"כ מאז שהתפללו אנשי כנה"ג על יצרא דע"ז כדאיתא ביומא (דף סט:), שוב אע"ג שהי' בכל דור הרבה פורצי דרך התורה מ"מ לא הי' אלא בהתגברות התאוה או שארי מדות רעות ומי שאין בו טבע אותם המדות לא היה נמשך אחרי בעלי עבירה הללו, ולא היו הבינונים מסוכנים שלא יכשלו ברשת בעלי עבירה, אבל בדור החי שרבו אפיקורסות ושבושי דעות באמונת התלמוד וכדומה, וכבר אמרו חז"ל (במ' ע"ג /ע"ז/ דף כז:) לא ישא ויתן אדם עם המינין כו' ומפרש בגמ' מינות דמשכא דאתי לממשך בתרייהו, מש"ה מי שאינו משים אל לבו להזהר הרבה הרי הוא בחזקת סכנה שיהיה נגרר גם הוא במשך איזה זמן:
והנה המעריך הורו והוגו עצה להיות נשמר מדור זה להפרד זה מזה לגמרי כמו שנפרד אברהם מלוט, במטותא מן המעריך עצה זו קשה כחרבות לגוף האומה וקיומה, הן בשעה שהיינו באה"ק וברשותנו כמעט בבית שני נעתם ארץ וחרב הבית וגלה ישראל בסבת מחלוקת הפרושים עם הצדוקים וגם הסב מחמת שנאת חנם הרבה ש"ד מה שאינו מן הדין היינו בשעה שראה פרוש שאחד מיקל באיזה דבר אע"ג שלא היה צדוקי כלל אלא עשה עבירה, מ"מ מחמת ש"ח היה שופטו לצדוקי שמורידין אותו, ומזה נתרבה ש"ד בהיתר ולשם מצוה בטעות וכבר רמז ע"ז בתורה (ס' במדבר סי' לו מקרא ל"ד) כמבואר בהע"ד והר"ד, וכ"ז אינו רחוק מן הדעת להגיע ח"ו בעת כזאת ג"כ אשר עפ"י ראות עיני א' ממחזיקי הדת ידמה שפלוני אינו מתנהג עפ"י דרכו בעבודת ד’ וישפטנו למינות ויתרחק ממנו ויהיו רודפים זא"ז בהיתר בדמיון כוזב ח"ו, ושחת כל עם ד’ חלילה זהו אפילו אם היינו בארצנו וברשותנו:
ומכש"כ בשעה שאנו כבושים בגולה ושה פזורה ישראל בין אוה"ע, ואנו נמשלים בגולה כעפר הארץ וכמו שאמר הקב"ה ליעקב אבינו והיה זרעך כעפר הארץ ואוה"ע נמשלו למים רבים שוטפים כדכתיב בס' ישעיה הוי המון עמים רבים כהמות ימים יהמיון ואין תקנה לגוש עפר בשטף מים רבים אם לא שנעשה מן העפר אבן מוצק אז אפי' נהר שוטף עליו אינו מגלגלו אלא ממקום למקום אבל אינו מאבדו לגמרי כך ישראל בעמים אין להם תקנה אלא להיות אבן ישראל, היינו שיהיו מחוברים באגודה אחת אז אין אומה ולשון יכולים לאבדם, והאיך נאמר להפרד איש מרעהו ויבאו אוה"ע ושטפונו מעט מעט ח"ו:
ומראש יש לדעת שלא כדברי המעריך אשר מאז היתה יהודה לקדשו ישראל לגוי לא היה דור פרוץ כעת הזה ח"ו, לא כן האמת, כי גם בעת בואנו לאה"ק והרבה דורות אחרי כן אחרי שהיה יצרא דע"ג שולט ובוער כתנור וכדאיתא (בסנהדרין דף קב:) ממילא לא היה איש בטוח בעצמו שלא יגיע לידי ע"ז אם לא שהתנהג בדרך חסידות להטות מחשבותיו תמיד שיהא נוכח ד’ דרכו. ודבר זה למדנו מדברי יהושע לישראל (בס' יהושע כד), אחרי אשר הציע לפניהם עבודת ד’ ועבודת אלהי האמורי וגם הזהיר את העם ואמר לא תוכלו לעבוד את ד’ כי אלקים קדושים הוא וגו' והמה ענו כשורה לא כי את ד’ נעבוד, והוסיף יהושע לאמר עדים אתם בכם כי אתם בחרתם לכם את ד’ לעבוד אותו ויאמרו עדים, הוסיף עוד ועתה הסירו את אלהי הנכר אשר בקרבכם והטו את לבבכם אל ד’ אלקי ישראל ויאמרו העם אל יהושע את ד’ אלקינו נעבוד ובקולו נשמע, ולא נתבאר מה זה הוסיף יהושע באחרונה להזהיר ומה ענו אותו העם, אלא הענין שידע יהושע יצרא דע"ז ישלוט באה"ק וכדאיתא במדרש שה"ש עה"פ רחצתי את רגלי איככה אטנפם, שאמרו ישראל בדורו של עזרא שאינם רוצים לשוב לאה"ק משום שרחצתי את רגלי מיצרא דע"ז איככה אטנפם, שאותו מקום משיאנו לע"ז, ע"כ הזהיר יהושע אותם שלא תהיו בטוחים על רצונכם היום לעבוד את ד’, ע"כ אם באמת אתם מקבלים עליכם שלא לעבוד ע"ז, בע"כ תסירו את אלהי הנכר אשר בקרבכם, היינו אפי' מה שהכנענים עובדים ע"ז בקרבכם, תסירו בע"כ, כדי שלא תהיו נמשכים אחריהם,
וגם הטו את לבבכם אל ד’, פי' שלא תסמכו אשר גם מבלי משים לב אל ד’ לא תגיעו לידי ע"ז, אלא תטו את לבבכם אל ד’, לשוות את ד’ נגד לבבכם תמיד, זאת היה אזהרת יהושע אשר ידע בנבואה יצרא דע"ז באה"ק, אבל ישראל לא ידע עם ד’ לא התבונן באזהרת יהושע, ויענו גם בפעם הזה את ד’ אלקינו נעבוד ובקולו נשמע, פי' אין לנו לירא כ"כ, אלא גם בלי הטית הלב תמיד שהוא דרך חסידות, לא נעבוד ע"ז אלא את ד’ אלקינו, והנה מה עלה בדורות הללו עברו על אזהרת יהושע ונכשלו כמה דורות עד שבא שמואל הנביא וחזר להזהיר ע"ז כמבואר (בס' שמואל א' ז'), ויאמר שמואל אל כל בית ישראל אם בכל לבבכם אתם שבים אל ד’ הסירו את אלהי הנכר וגו' והכינו לבבכם אל ד’ ועבדוהו לבדו וכתיב שם דאז עשו כן ויסירו ב"י את הבעלים ואת העשתרות ויעבדו את ד’ לבדו, ומשמעות לבדו, לא את עצמו וביתו כי אם את ד’ והיינו אזהרת והכינו לבבכם וגו', שהוא מדה גבוהה למעלה מטבע האנושית והוא דרך החסידות ומש"ה נתקיים בידם הרבה דורות עד שהגיעו למלכי ישראל ויהודה החוטאים ומחטיאים ועוד סיבה אשר יבואר לפנינו וחזרו ליצרא דע"ז עד שגלו, ובביאורנו על התורה הנקרא העמק דבר בארנו שגם התורה הזהירה ע"ז ע"י משה רבינו ומוסרו בס"פ נצבים ראה נתתי לפניך היום וגו' ואין כאן מקום להאריך ולבאר יותר, אבל כ"ז היה בדור שהיה יצרא דע"ז בוער בישראל, ולא היה בכח האדם לעמוד בנסיון אם לא בדרך החסידות משא"כ מאז שהתפללו אנשי כנה"ג על יצרא דע"ז כדאיתא ביומא (דף סט:), שוב אע"ג שהי' בכל דור הרבה פורצי דרך התורה מ"מ לא הי' אלא בהתגברות התאוה או שארי מדות רעות ומי שאין בו טבע אותם המדות לא היה נמשך אחרי בעלי עבירה הללו, ולא היו הבינונים מסוכנים שלא יכשלו ברשת בעלי עבירה, אבל בדור החי שרבו אפיקורסות ושבושי דעות באמונת התלמוד וכדומה, וכבר אמרו חז"ל (במ' ע"ג /ע"ז/ דף כז:) לא ישא ויתן אדם עם המינין כו' ומפרש בגמ' מינות דמשכא דאתי לממשך בתרייהו, מש"ה מי שאינו משים אל לבו להזהר הרבה הרי הוא בחזקת סכנה שיהיה נגרר גם הוא במשך איזה זמן:
והנה המעריך הורו והוגו עצה להיות נשמר מדור זה להפרד זה מזה לגמרי כמו שנפרד אברהם מלוט, במטותא מן המעריך עצה זו קשה כחרבות לגוף האומה וקיומה, הן בשעה שהיינו באה"ק וברשותנו כמעט בבית שני נעתם ארץ וחרב הבית וגלה ישראל בסבת מחלוקת הפרושים עם הצדוקים וגם הסב מחמת שנאת חנם הרבה ש"ד מה שאינו מן הדין היינו בשעה שראה פרוש שאחד מיקל באיזה דבר אע"ג שלא היה צדוקי כלל אלא עשה עבירה, מ"מ מחמת ש"ח היה שופטו לצדוקי שמורידין אותו, ומזה נתרבה ש"ד בהיתר ולשם מצוה בטעות וכבר רמז ע"ז בתורה (ס' במדבר סי' לו מקרא ל"ד) כמבואר בהע"ד והר"ד, וכ"ז אינו רחוק מן הדעת להגיע ח"ו בעת כזאת ג"כ אשר עפ"י ראות עיני א' ממחזיקי הדת ידמה שפלוני אינו מתנהג עפ"י דרכו בעבודת ד’ וישפטנו למינות ויתרחק ממנו ויהיו רודפים זא"ז בהיתר בדמיון כוזב ח"ו, ושחת כל עם ד’ חלילה זהו אפילו אם היינו בארצנו וברשותנו:
ומכש"כ בשעה שאנו כבושים בגולה ושה פזורה ישראל בין אוה"ע, ואנו נמשלים בגולה כעפר הארץ וכמו שאמר הקב"ה ליעקב אבינו והיה זרעך כעפר הארץ ואוה"ע נמשלו למים רבים שוטפים כדכתיב בס' ישעיה הוי המון עמים רבים כהמות ימים יהמיון ואין תקנה לגוש עפר בשטף מים רבים אם לא שנעשה מן העפר אבן מוצק אז אפי' נהר שוטף עליו אינו מגלגלו אלא ממקום למקום אבל אינו מאבדו לגמרי כך ישראל בעמים אין להם תקנה אלא להיות אבן ישראל, היינו שיהיו מחוברים באגודה אחת אז אין אומה ולשון יכולים לאבדם, והאיך נאמר להפרד איש מרעהו ויבאו אוה"ע ושטפונו מעט מעט ח"ו:
Monday, April 11, 2011
The Weakness of the Rabbi’s Business Model
[I hope to return to the Netziv translation in a bit, but this has been sitting on my plate for a while.]
In my opinion, a synagogue rabbi doesn't need all that many ingredients in order to do a good job: He needs a head, a heart, and a work ethic. And yet, it seems to me, based on anecdotal reports, that North American synagogues and rabbis part ways at an alarming rate, often in the first few years of a relationship. Why is that?
There are many reasons, of course. It’s not always that congregants are evil. (heh) And it’s not always that rabbis are ill-suited for their shuls. And part of it is the North American rabbinic job description.
But part of it, I think, is that the rabbi-shul business model is inherently challenged by five factors:
1. The rabbi's product must satisfy a large percentage of the customer base, providing their needs, as a basic definition of successful performance.
Contrast this with food producers, who need to satisfy a much smaller percentage of the market in order to be considered a success. Coca-Cola, for example, has a 17% market share, and Diet Coke is #2 at 9.9%, followed by #3 Pepsi at 9.9% – Imagine a rabbi with that kind of “success”!
2. The rabbi's product is served to the customer base daily, or with even greater frequency, so that there is a high rate of producer/customer interactions, opening the possibility of occasional failure to satisfy.
Contrast this with attorneys and stock brokers, who meet with their clients only occasionally.
3. The rabbi's product is marketed directly to the customer, with little investment by the rabbi or by any middle man in promotion.
Contrast this with makers of just about any commercial product, who invest in promotion directly or through a middle man or vendor who has an investment in successful promotion.
4. The rabbi's customers are highly connected, and communicate virally, so that negative feedback is spread quickly.
Contrast this with clients of professionals, or customers of stores, who are far less connected even in today's age. I don’t know anyone else who drinks Boost Plus, or eats Liberte Yogurt, and could not communicate a critique to any of them other than via an at-large tweet or blog post.
5. Alternative products are easily available in many markets.
Contrast this with the airline industry.
Indeed, the rabbinate isn't the only 'business' to face most of these challenges, and to have trouble as a result. Consider the following three industries which experience an oft-noted high turnover rate, due to challenges inherent in their industries as well as many of the factors listed above:
• Restaurants (60% fail in their first three years) - Challenged by factors 1, 2 and 5
• Airlines (Take a look at Warren Buffett's quote re: airline investing) - Challenged by factors 1, 2 and 4
• Politicians - Challenged by factors 1, 2, 4 and 5
I don’t know how to change this. Promotion can be solved, I suppose, but that’s it. Shuls are never going to want rabbis who satisfy 17% of their congregants, since they can’t afford to hire other rabbis to reach the remaining 83%. Rabbis will continue to have a great many regular interactions with congregants. The viral communication remains, as does the existence of alternative ‘products’.
So is there any hope for the rabbinic business model?
In my opinion, a synagogue rabbi doesn't need all that many ingredients in order to do a good job: He needs a head, a heart, and a work ethic. And yet, it seems to me, based on anecdotal reports, that North American synagogues and rabbis part ways at an alarming rate, often in the first few years of a relationship. Why is that?
There are many reasons, of course. It’s not always that congregants are evil. (heh) And it’s not always that rabbis are ill-suited for their shuls. And part of it is the North American rabbinic job description.
But part of it, I think, is that the rabbi-shul business model is inherently challenged by five factors:
1. The rabbi's product must satisfy a large percentage of the customer base, providing their needs, as a basic definition of successful performance.
Contrast this with food producers, who need to satisfy a much smaller percentage of the market in order to be considered a success. Coca-Cola, for example, has a 17% market share, and Diet Coke is #2 at 9.9%, followed by #3 Pepsi at 9.9% – Imagine a rabbi with that kind of “success”!
2. The rabbi's product is served to the customer base daily, or with even greater frequency, so that there is a high rate of producer/customer interactions, opening the possibility of occasional failure to satisfy.
Contrast this with attorneys and stock brokers, who meet with their clients only occasionally.
3. The rabbi's product is marketed directly to the customer, with little investment by the rabbi or by any middle man in promotion.
Contrast this with makers of just about any commercial product, who invest in promotion directly or through a middle man or vendor who has an investment in successful promotion.
4. The rabbi's customers are highly connected, and communicate virally, so that negative feedback is spread quickly.
Contrast this with clients of professionals, or customers of stores, who are far less connected even in today's age. I don’t know anyone else who drinks Boost Plus, or eats Liberte Yogurt, and could not communicate a critique to any of them other than via an at-large tweet or blog post.
5. Alternative products are easily available in many markets.
Contrast this with the airline industry.
Indeed, the rabbinate isn't the only 'business' to face most of these challenges, and to have trouble as a result. Consider the following three industries which experience an oft-noted high turnover rate, due to challenges inherent in their industries as well as many of the factors listed above:
• Restaurants (60% fail in their first three years) - Challenged by factors 1, 2 and 5
• Airlines (Take a look at Warren Buffett's quote re: airline investing) - Challenged by factors 1, 2 and 4
• Politicians - Challenged by factors 1, 2, 4 and 5
I don’t know how to change this. Promotion can be solved, I suppose, but that’s it. Shuls are never going to want rabbis who satisfy 17% of their congregants, since they can’t afford to hire other rabbis to reach the remaining 83%. Rabbis will continue to have a great many regular interactions with congregants. The viral communication remains, as does the existence of alternative ‘products’.
So is there any hope for the rabbinic business model?
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Rav Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (Netziv) on Right-Wing, Left-Wing and Jewish Unity, Part II
[This week's Haveil Havalim is here]
[Article very worth reading: Israel's Left Needs to Wise Up to Middle East Reality - at Ha'Aretz]
The first part of this translation of the Netziv's responsum was here. The Netziv continues to respond to an editorial which argued that observant Jews should separate from non-observant Jews, for the sake of protecting their piety.
First of all: One should know that the commandment we read daily, “You shall love HaShem your Gd,” includes two meanings, which are explained in the rulings of the Rambam. First: One should give his body, soul and desire to the desire of Gd. It is as one who loves his only son, such that he would abandon all he had for his only son’s life, for that is the entirety of a person. So one is commanded to give himself to sanctify Gd even in a case of danger, as the Rambam wrote, “How do we know that even in a case of danger one may not violate one of these three sins? As it is written, ‘And you shall love HaShem.’” This is possible and required for all Jews, for that is the entirety of the Jew. Second: One should draw close in his thought and desire to grasp Divine inspiration whenever possible… and so the Rambam wrote, “We are commanded to love the honoured and awesome Gd, as it is written, ‘You shall love HaShem your Gd.’...” And this latter element is not possible for every Jew… It is understood that not every person can merit to achieve this, and so is taught in the Sifri…
One who immerses himself in love of Gd and in drawing close to Him is following a path of special piety, for this is not possible unless one separates himself from the paths of the world. This is what is called “to the right”, meaning that he draws exceptionally close to the Shechinah. One who stands upon this lofty path cannot join with people, even to teach them Torah and proper behavior, for every conversation with people interrupts his thoughts of drawing close to Gd. It is possible only in isolation. Only Moshe Rabbeinu was on this level. Even when he spoke with Israel, after speaking to them he replaced the veil upon his face and ascended in his thoughts to his proper place. This is different from other prophets and people of great levels, even Avraham Avinu, who did not remain in his place and in his closeness to Gd when teaching others the path of Gd and Gd’s Torah, as he did when alone. The Chatam Sofer spoke about this… but since his spirit desired to be close to Gd always, he is also termed “to the right”, as will be explained.
And then there is one who serves Gd and observes Torah in all of its particulars, but he does not know the principle of love and of drawing close to Gd, and he does not live in isolation at all in order to achieve this love. This was the way of the early philosophers, who never left the way of Gd and His Torah, Gd-forbid, and they taught others of the greatness of Gd and His Torah, but they did not know how to love Gd closely. Those are called “to the left”, meaning that they are very far from nearness to Gd and to Divine inspiration.
And some travel an intermediate path, meaning that during Shema and the Amidah one draws his mind to love of Gd and being close to Him, but during the rest of the day he walks worldly paths. There are some who called ‘pious’ in this intermediate group as well, but in a way which is different from the ‘pious ones’ identified above. They are pious in their deeds. Within this group, too, there are two paths which are termed ‘pious’, one of a person who helps the community acquire merit… and the second a person who performs mitzvot separately, beyond human nature… So that there are three Jewish paths of special piety – those to the right who adhere to love of Gd, and two who are pious in their deeds.
To be continued...
Here is the Hebrew I translated here, including passages I omitted from the translation:
[Article very worth reading: Israel's Left Needs to Wise Up to Middle East Reality - at Ha'Aretz]
The first part of this translation of the Netziv's responsum was here. The Netziv continues to respond to an editorial which argued that observant Jews should separate from non-observant Jews, for the sake of protecting their piety.
First of all: One should know that the commandment we read daily, “You shall love HaShem your Gd,” includes two meanings, which are explained in the rulings of the Rambam. First: One should give his body, soul and desire to the desire of Gd. It is as one who loves his only son, such that he would abandon all he had for his only son’s life, for that is the entirety of a person. So one is commanded to give himself to sanctify Gd even in a case of danger, as the Rambam wrote, “How do we know that even in a case of danger one may not violate one of these three sins? As it is written, ‘And you shall love HaShem.’” This is possible and required for all Jews, for that is the entirety of the Jew. Second: One should draw close in his thought and desire to grasp Divine inspiration whenever possible… and so the Rambam wrote, “We are commanded to love the honoured and awesome Gd, as it is written, ‘You shall love HaShem your Gd.’...” And this latter element is not possible for every Jew… It is understood that not every person can merit to achieve this, and so is taught in the Sifri…
One who immerses himself in love of Gd and in drawing close to Him is following a path of special piety, for this is not possible unless one separates himself from the paths of the world. This is what is called “to the right”, meaning that he draws exceptionally close to the Shechinah. One who stands upon this lofty path cannot join with people, even to teach them Torah and proper behavior, for every conversation with people interrupts his thoughts of drawing close to Gd. It is possible only in isolation. Only Moshe Rabbeinu was on this level. Even when he spoke with Israel, after speaking to them he replaced the veil upon his face and ascended in his thoughts to his proper place. This is different from other prophets and people of great levels, even Avraham Avinu, who did not remain in his place and in his closeness to Gd when teaching others the path of Gd and Gd’s Torah, as he did when alone. The Chatam Sofer spoke about this… but since his spirit desired to be close to Gd always, he is also termed “to the right”, as will be explained.
And then there is one who serves Gd and observes Torah in all of its particulars, but he does not know the principle of love and of drawing close to Gd, and he does not live in isolation at all in order to achieve this love. This was the way of the early philosophers, who never left the way of Gd and His Torah, Gd-forbid, and they taught others of the greatness of Gd and His Torah, but they did not know how to love Gd closely. Those are called “to the left”, meaning that they are very far from nearness to Gd and to Divine inspiration.
And some travel an intermediate path, meaning that during Shema and the Amidah one draws his mind to love of Gd and being close to Him, but during the rest of the day he walks worldly paths. There are some who called ‘pious’ in this intermediate group as well, but in a way which is different from the ‘pious ones’ identified above. They are pious in their deeds. Within this group, too, there are two paths which are termed ‘pious’, one of a person who helps the community acquire merit… and the second a person who performs mitzvot separately, beyond human nature… So that there are three Jewish paths of special piety – those to the right who adhere to love of Gd, and two who are pious in their deeds.
To be continued...
Here is the Hebrew I translated here, including passages I omitted from the translation:
ראשית דבר, יש לדעת דבמ"ע ואהבת את ה' אלקיך וגו' שאנו קוראים בכל יום, נכלל שני משמעות ושניהם מבוארים בפסקי הרמב"ם ז"ל, פי' אחד שימסור גופו ונפשו וכל רצונו לרצון ה', כמו מי שאוהב את בנו יחידו ונוח לפניו להפקיר כל אשר לו בשביל חיי בנו יחידו כי זה כל האדם, כך מ"ע למסור עצמו על קידוש ה' במקום סכנה וכמש"כ הרמב"ם (בה' יסה"ת פ"ה ה"ז) ומנין שאפי' במקום סכנה אין עוברים על אחת מג' עבירות הללו שנאמר ואהבת את ה' וגו' וזה הפי' אפשר ומחויב כל איש מישראל, כי זה כל האדם מישראל,
פי' השני שיהא דבק במחשבתו ותשוקה להשיג רוה"ק בזמן שהי' אפשר או עכ"פ הערה גבוהה למעלה למשכיל ובלשון לועז מכונה אהבה זו [דיא ליבע] וכ"כ (הרמב"ם שם פ"ב ה"א) הקל הנכבד והנורא מצוה לאהבו וכו' שנאמר ואהבת את ה' אלקיך וגו' והאיך הוא הדרך לאהבתו כו', וע"ז הכונה איתא בירו' ברכות פ' הרואה שאמר ר"ע בפי' מקרא זה רחמתיך בכל לבי רחמתיך בכל נפשי, ומשמעות רחימה הוא מלשון המקרא ארחמך ה' חזקי, וכתיב התשכח אשה עולה מרחם בן בטנה דפירושו דביקות הרעיון באהבה עזה, וזה הפי' אינו אפשר לכל איש מישראל, וכמש"כ ג"כ הרמב"ם בזה"ל והאיך הוא הדרך לאהבתו כו' ומפרש והולך ומובן שלא כל אדם זוכה ומגיע לכך, והכי תניא בספרי ע"ז המקרא ואהבת וגו' והיו הדברים האלה אשר אנכי מצוך וגו' וכי מה ענין זל"ז, אלא האיך אדם אוהב להקב"ה והיו הדברים האלה וגו' שמתוך כך אתה מכיר את מי שאמר והיה העולם:
והנה המשקיע דעתו תמיד באהבת ה' ודביקות, זהו באמת דרך החסידות שהרי א"א בכך אלא במי שפורש עצמו מהליכות עולם, והוא המכונה מיימין, היינו שמתקרב עצמו לשכינה ביותר, ומי שעומד בזה הדרך הגבוה, א"א להתחבר הרבה עם אנשים אפי' ללמדם תורה ודרכי המוסר דכל שיח ושיג עם בני אדם מפסיקים הרעיון להדביקות שא"א אלא בהתבודדות, ורק משה רבינו היה במעלה זו גם בתוך דיבורו עם ישראל ותומ"י אחר דיבורו עמהם השיב המסוה על פניו ועלה במחשבתו למקומו הראוי לו, משא"כ שארי נביאים ואנשי מעלה אפי' אברהם אבינו, בשעה שהורה לרבים דרך ה' ותורתו לא עמד במקומו ובדביקותו כמו שהי' בשעה שהתבודד בפ"ע, וכבר האריך בזה רבינו הגאון חתם סופר בהקדמתו דברים מאירים וראוים אליו זי"ע, אבל מ"מ אחר שחשקה נפשו להיות תמיד דבק בה' אזי מכונה בשם מיימין כאשר יבואר עוד:
ויש עובד את ד' ושומר תורה בכל דקדוקיה, אבל אינו יודע טעם אהבה ודביקות, ואינו מתבודד כלל להשיג אהבה זו, וזה היה דרכי הפלוסופים הקדמונים אשר לא סרו מעולם מדרך ד' ותורתו הק' ח"ו וגם הורו לאחרים גדולת ה' ותורתו אך לא ידעו האיך אוהבים את ד' בדביקות, והמה מכונים משמאילים, היינו רחוקים מקרבת השכינה ורוה"ק ביותר:
ויש הולכים בדרך ממוצע היינו בשעת ק"ש ותפלה מקרב דעתו לאהבת ד' ודביקות אבל שאר היום הליכות עולם לו, ויש גם בזה הדרך הממוצע מכונים בשם חסידים אבל באופן אחר ממה שלמעלה אלא חסידים במעשיהם, וגם בזה יש שני דרכים הנקראים חסידים, אחד המזכה רבים וכמבואר ביומא (דף פז) שעל אלה כתיב לא תתן חסידך לראות שחת, והשני שעושים המצות בדרך הפלגה ולמעלה מטבע אנושי כידוע בפרקי דחסידי במס' תענית ונמצא שלשה דרכי חסידות בישראל היינו המיימינים הדבקים באהבת ד', ושני אופני חסידות במעשה, ושלשתם מבואר במקרא אחד בעשרת הדברות ועושה חסד לאלפים לאוהביו ולשומרי מצותיו, ותניא במכילתא לאוהביו זה א"א וכי"ב ולשומרי מצותיו אלו הנביאים והזקנים, ופי' אוהביו היינו כמו א"א שהיה משוקע הרבה בדביקות ואהבת ד', ולשומרי מצותיו היינו נביאים שהיו מזכי רבים בתוכחה, והזקנים שהיו זהירים במצות בהפלגה יתירה:
והנה הנוהג חסידותו במעשה המצות פשיטא שמוכרח להיות ת"ח ולומד ושונה איך להיות נזהר במצוה עפ"י דעת תורה ולא יהא בא לעשות זר מעשהו שלא עפ"י דעת תורה ח"ו והרי לוי ופנחס שניהם קנאו על הזנות ומסרו נפשם ע"ז, והנה פנחס עלה בשביל זה לגרם המעלות ולוי גער בו אביו וכיב"ז הרבה והוא משום שנדרש לזה דיוק רב לשקול הפעולה לפי הזמן והמקום וגם בכמה דברים נדרש לדעת כללי התורה שאינם מבוארים כ"כ, ע"כ א"א להיות חסיד בזה האופן אלא אחר הגיון תורה, אכן אפילו דרך החסידות של אהבת ד' ודביקות, שנראה לפי הדמיון שא"צ לזה הגיון תורה אלא תמימות והתבודדות ומחשבתו לאהבת ד', אבל באמת אינו כן, אלא אפילו מי שמתקדש ודבק לאהבה את ד', הוא מוכרח עכ"פ להיות נזהר מאד שלא יטה אשורו מני דרך התורה, ולא תהא תשוקתו הקדושה ואהבה עזה כמות מתעהו מדרך השכל, וע"ז הזהירה תורה במצות ציצית שמרומז בה אות על תרי"ג מצות וצונו הקב"ה לעשות חוטי לבן ותכלת לשני אופני הנהגת האדם מישראל, האחד מי שהולך בדרך הכבושה לרבים בהליכות עולם לו ועל איש כזה בא חוטי לבן מין כנף להזכירהו על מעשה המצות, השני מי שמופרש לעבודת ד' ומתבודד ומשקיע דעתו לאהבת ד' ועל איש כזה בא חוטי תכלת שהוא דומה לכסא הכבוד ומדבק מחשבתו בה, ומ"מ הוא מוזהר להפסיק דביקותו ולהזדקק למצוה שבאה בזמנה, ועל שני אופנים של היהדות כתיב שני מקראות של זכירת המצות היינו מקרא וראיתם אותו וזכרתם את כל מצות ד' ועשיתם אותם ולא תתורו וגו' בא אזהרה על המון עם ד' ההולכים באמצע או משמאילים, ומקרא למען תזכרו ועשיתם את כל מצותי והייתם קדושים לאלקיכם, בא אזהרה לחסידים בקדושה ואהבת ד' המה המיימינים שגם המה יהיו נזהרים במעשה המצות לפי דעת תורה, אז והייתם קדושים לאלקיכם, שתהיו מרוצים לד' להשפיע עליו שפע קדושה ורוה"ק ובכל אופני חסידות שנינו באבות (פרק ב' מ"ה) ולא עם הארץ חסיד:
ועתה הנני מפרש דבר ישעיה הנביא (בס' ל') ונתן לכם ד' לחם צר ומים לחץ ולא יכנף עוד מוריך והיו עיניך רואות את מוריך ואזניך תשמענה דבר מאחריך לאמר זה הדרך לכו בו כי תאמינו וכי תשמאילו, הכונה בזה שבימיו היו אותם השלשה כתות בישראל, היינו כת המתנהגת בקדושה ודבקות והמה מרכבה לשכינה, וגדולי אותה הכת היו נכנפים ונסתרים בחדרים שלא יהיו אנשים מפריעים אותם מדבקותם בד', והמה מיימינים והיה כת המתנהגים בחכמת הטבע ורחוקים ממחשבה רוחנית וגדוליהם אינם נכנפים כלל, אבל התלמידים אינם מתחזקים לראות פני רבם שהרי יכולים לעמוד ע"ד רבם ע"י כתב יותר מאשר ישמעו מפיהם, משא"כ למוד תורת ד' זהו סגולתה שיראו התלמידים את פני הרב, ומש"ה הסיר משה רבינו את המסוה מעל פניו בשעה שדבר עם ישראל דברי תורה, כדי שיראו את פניו, וזהו דבר הנביא בזמנו שהיה למוד התורה נחוץ בשביל מלחמת סנחריב וכדאיתא בפרק חלק /סנהדרין צ"ד, ב'/ עה"פ וחבל עול מפני שמן, חובל עול סנחריב מפני שמנו של יחזקיהו המלך שנעץ חרב בבהמ"ד ואמר מי שאינו עוסק בתורה ידקר בחרב, וע"ז אמר הנביא ונתן לכם ה' לחם צר ומים לחץ, היינו דרכה של תורה פת במלח ומים במשורה, ולא יכנף עוד מוריך היינו שלא יהא כדרך כת הראשונה להכנף בחדרים והיו עיניך רואות את מוריך, שלא יהיה כדרך השניה שלא היו התלמידים נדרשים לראות פני רבם, ואזניך תשמענה דבר מאחריך לאמר זה הדרך לכו בו, שתשכילו ותבינו כי אך זה הדרך של שקידת התורה אגוני ומצלי בעת מלחמה על ישראל, ואך הוא הדרך לקיום האומה, כי תאמינו, בין הכת המיימינים, וכי תשמאילו, בין הכת המשמאילים הכל יבינו כי אך עמלה של תורה הוא העיקר לשמירת היהודים, והרי ביארנו מהו ימין ושמאל במהלך אמונתנו:
וממוצא דברינו, שאין כל ההולך בדרך הממוצע בעבודת ד' מכונה בשם בינוני דיש מן הממוצעים ראוים להקרא בשם חסידים אלא שאינם חסידים משוקעים בהתבודדות באהבה ודביקות, אלא חסידים במעשיהם כמו שביארנו לעיל עפ"י רבותינו בעלי התלמוד ותנא דמכילתא בפירוש המקרא בעשרת הדברות, ושנויה בס' דברים ס"פ ואתחנן שומר הברית והחסד לאהביו ולשמרי מצותיו לאלף דור, ובינוני נקרא מי שאינו פורק עול וגם אינו נזהר כ"כ, והדבר מובן דבגדר בינוני נמצאים הרבה אופנים בין צדיק לרשע:
הארכנו והרחבנו הדבר, וקוינו שלא יהא למשא לא על מעריכי העלים ולא על בעלי נפש מחזיקי הדת, כי אך זה מטרת עלה זה לתרופה, ומעתה נבוא ליתר החקירה של מעריך העלה, וד' יהי עמנו:
פי' השני שיהא דבק במחשבתו ותשוקה להשיג רוה"ק בזמן שהי' אפשר או עכ"פ הערה גבוהה למעלה למשכיל ובלשון לועז מכונה אהבה זו [דיא ליבע] וכ"כ (הרמב"ם שם פ"ב ה"א) הקל הנכבד והנורא מצוה לאהבו וכו' שנאמר ואהבת את ה' אלקיך וגו' והאיך הוא הדרך לאהבתו כו', וע"ז הכונה איתא בירו' ברכות פ' הרואה שאמר ר"ע בפי' מקרא זה רחמתיך בכל לבי רחמתיך בכל נפשי, ומשמעות רחימה הוא מלשון המקרא ארחמך ה' חזקי, וכתיב התשכח אשה עולה מרחם בן בטנה דפירושו דביקות הרעיון באהבה עזה, וזה הפי' אינו אפשר לכל איש מישראל, וכמש"כ ג"כ הרמב"ם בזה"ל והאיך הוא הדרך לאהבתו כו' ומפרש והולך ומובן שלא כל אדם זוכה ומגיע לכך, והכי תניא בספרי ע"ז המקרא ואהבת וגו' והיו הדברים האלה אשר אנכי מצוך וגו' וכי מה ענין זל"ז, אלא האיך אדם אוהב להקב"ה והיו הדברים האלה וגו' שמתוך כך אתה מכיר את מי שאמר והיה העולם:
והנה המשקיע דעתו תמיד באהבת ה' ודביקות, זהו באמת דרך החסידות שהרי א"א בכך אלא במי שפורש עצמו מהליכות עולם, והוא המכונה מיימין, היינו שמתקרב עצמו לשכינה ביותר, ומי שעומד בזה הדרך הגבוה, א"א להתחבר הרבה עם אנשים אפי' ללמדם תורה ודרכי המוסר דכל שיח ושיג עם בני אדם מפסיקים הרעיון להדביקות שא"א אלא בהתבודדות, ורק משה רבינו היה במעלה זו גם בתוך דיבורו עם ישראל ותומ"י אחר דיבורו עמהם השיב המסוה על פניו ועלה במחשבתו למקומו הראוי לו, משא"כ שארי נביאים ואנשי מעלה אפי' אברהם אבינו, בשעה שהורה לרבים דרך ה' ותורתו לא עמד במקומו ובדביקותו כמו שהי' בשעה שהתבודד בפ"ע, וכבר האריך בזה רבינו הגאון חתם סופר בהקדמתו דברים מאירים וראוים אליו זי"ע, אבל מ"מ אחר שחשקה נפשו להיות תמיד דבק בה' אזי מכונה בשם מיימין כאשר יבואר עוד:
ויש עובד את ד' ושומר תורה בכל דקדוקיה, אבל אינו יודע טעם אהבה ודביקות, ואינו מתבודד כלל להשיג אהבה זו, וזה היה דרכי הפלוסופים הקדמונים אשר לא סרו מעולם מדרך ד' ותורתו הק' ח"ו וגם הורו לאחרים גדולת ה' ותורתו אך לא ידעו האיך אוהבים את ד' בדביקות, והמה מכונים משמאילים, היינו רחוקים מקרבת השכינה ורוה"ק ביותר:
ויש הולכים בדרך ממוצע היינו בשעת ק"ש ותפלה מקרב דעתו לאהבת ד' ודביקות אבל שאר היום הליכות עולם לו, ויש גם בזה הדרך הממוצע מכונים בשם חסידים אבל באופן אחר ממה שלמעלה אלא חסידים במעשיהם, וגם בזה יש שני דרכים הנקראים חסידים, אחד המזכה רבים וכמבואר ביומא (דף פז) שעל אלה כתיב לא תתן חסידך לראות שחת, והשני שעושים המצות בדרך הפלגה ולמעלה מטבע אנושי כידוע בפרקי דחסידי במס' תענית ונמצא שלשה דרכי חסידות בישראל היינו המיימינים הדבקים באהבת ד', ושני אופני חסידות במעשה, ושלשתם מבואר במקרא אחד בעשרת הדברות ועושה חסד לאלפים לאוהביו ולשומרי מצותיו, ותניא במכילתא לאוהביו זה א"א וכי"ב ולשומרי מצותיו אלו הנביאים והזקנים, ופי' אוהביו היינו כמו א"א שהיה משוקע הרבה בדביקות ואהבת ד', ולשומרי מצותיו היינו נביאים שהיו מזכי רבים בתוכחה, והזקנים שהיו זהירים במצות בהפלגה יתירה:
והנה הנוהג חסידותו במעשה המצות פשיטא שמוכרח להיות ת"ח ולומד ושונה איך להיות נזהר במצוה עפ"י דעת תורה ולא יהא בא לעשות זר מעשהו שלא עפ"י דעת תורה ח"ו והרי לוי ופנחס שניהם קנאו על הזנות ומסרו נפשם ע"ז, והנה פנחס עלה בשביל זה לגרם המעלות ולוי גער בו אביו וכיב"ז הרבה והוא משום שנדרש לזה דיוק רב לשקול הפעולה לפי הזמן והמקום וגם בכמה דברים נדרש לדעת כללי התורה שאינם מבוארים כ"כ, ע"כ א"א להיות חסיד בזה האופן אלא אחר הגיון תורה, אכן אפילו דרך החסידות של אהבת ד' ודביקות, שנראה לפי הדמיון שא"צ לזה הגיון תורה אלא תמימות והתבודדות ומחשבתו לאהבת ד', אבל באמת אינו כן, אלא אפילו מי שמתקדש ודבק לאהבה את ד', הוא מוכרח עכ"פ להיות נזהר מאד שלא יטה אשורו מני דרך התורה, ולא תהא תשוקתו הקדושה ואהבה עזה כמות מתעהו מדרך השכל, וע"ז הזהירה תורה במצות ציצית שמרומז בה אות על תרי"ג מצות וצונו הקב"ה לעשות חוטי לבן ותכלת לשני אופני הנהגת האדם מישראל, האחד מי שהולך בדרך הכבושה לרבים בהליכות עולם לו ועל איש כזה בא חוטי לבן מין כנף להזכירהו על מעשה המצות, השני מי שמופרש לעבודת ד' ומתבודד ומשקיע דעתו לאהבת ד' ועל איש כזה בא חוטי תכלת שהוא דומה לכסא הכבוד ומדבק מחשבתו בה, ומ"מ הוא מוזהר להפסיק דביקותו ולהזדקק למצוה שבאה בזמנה, ועל שני אופנים של היהדות כתיב שני מקראות של זכירת המצות היינו מקרא וראיתם אותו וזכרתם את כל מצות ד' ועשיתם אותם ולא תתורו וגו' בא אזהרה על המון עם ד' ההולכים באמצע או משמאילים, ומקרא למען תזכרו ועשיתם את כל מצותי והייתם קדושים לאלקיכם, בא אזהרה לחסידים בקדושה ואהבת ד' המה המיימינים שגם המה יהיו נזהרים במעשה המצות לפי דעת תורה, אז והייתם קדושים לאלקיכם, שתהיו מרוצים לד' להשפיע עליו שפע קדושה ורוה"ק ובכל אופני חסידות שנינו באבות (פרק ב' מ"ה) ולא עם הארץ חסיד:
ועתה הנני מפרש דבר ישעיה הנביא (בס' ל') ונתן לכם ד' לחם צר ומים לחץ ולא יכנף עוד מוריך והיו עיניך רואות את מוריך ואזניך תשמענה דבר מאחריך לאמר זה הדרך לכו בו כי תאמינו וכי תשמאילו, הכונה בזה שבימיו היו אותם השלשה כתות בישראל, היינו כת המתנהגת בקדושה ודבקות והמה מרכבה לשכינה, וגדולי אותה הכת היו נכנפים ונסתרים בחדרים שלא יהיו אנשים מפריעים אותם מדבקותם בד', והמה מיימינים והיה כת המתנהגים בחכמת הטבע ורחוקים ממחשבה רוחנית וגדוליהם אינם נכנפים כלל, אבל התלמידים אינם מתחזקים לראות פני רבם שהרי יכולים לעמוד ע"ד רבם ע"י כתב יותר מאשר ישמעו מפיהם, משא"כ למוד תורת ד' זהו סגולתה שיראו התלמידים את פני הרב, ומש"ה הסיר משה רבינו את המסוה מעל פניו בשעה שדבר עם ישראל דברי תורה, כדי שיראו את פניו, וזהו דבר הנביא בזמנו שהיה למוד התורה נחוץ בשביל מלחמת סנחריב וכדאיתא בפרק חלק /סנהדרין צ"ד, ב'/ עה"פ וחבל עול מפני שמן, חובל עול סנחריב מפני שמנו של יחזקיהו המלך שנעץ חרב בבהמ"ד ואמר מי שאינו עוסק בתורה ידקר בחרב, וע"ז אמר הנביא ונתן לכם ה' לחם צר ומים לחץ, היינו דרכה של תורה פת במלח ומים במשורה, ולא יכנף עוד מוריך היינו שלא יהא כדרך כת הראשונה להכנף בחדרים והיו עיניך רואות את מוריך, שלא יהיה כדרך השניה שלא היו התלמידים נדרשים לראות פני רבם, ואזניך תשמענה דבר מאחריך לאמר זה הדרך לכו בו, שתשכילו ותבינו כי אך זה הדרך של שקידת התורה אגוני ומצלי בעת מלחמה על ישראל, ואך הוא הדרך לקיום האומה, כי תאמינו, בין הכת המיימינים, וכי תשמאילו, בין הכת המשמאילים הכל יבינו כי אך עמלה של תורה הוא העיקר לשמירת היהודים, והרי ביארנו מהו ימין ושמאל במהלך אמונתנו:
וממוצא דברינו, שאין כל ההולך בדרך הממוצע בעבודת ד' מכונה בשם בינוני דיש מן הממוצעים ראוים להקרא בשם חסידים אלא שאינם חסידים משוקעים בהתבודדות באהבה ודביקות, אלא חסידים במעשיהם כמו שביארנו לעיל עפ"י רבותינו בעלי התלמוד ותנא דמכילתא בפירוש המקרא בעשרת הדברות, ושנויה בס' דברים ס"פ ואתחנן שומר הברית והחסד לאהביו ולשמרי מצותיו לאלף דור, ובינוני נקרא מי שאינו פורק עול וגם אינו נזהר כ"כ, והדבר מובן דבגדר בינוני נמצאים הרבה אופנים בין צדיק לרשע:
הארכנו והרחבנו הדבר, וקוינו שלא יהא למשא לא על מעריכי העלים ולא על בעלי נפש מחזיקי הדת, כי אך זה מטרת עלה זה לתרופה, ומעתה נבוא ליתר החקירה של מעריך העלה, וד' יהי עמנו:
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Rav Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (Netziv) on Right-Wing, Left-Wing and Jewish Unity, Part I
I love coming across random responsa by accident. Yesterday I accidentally came across Meishiv Davar 1:44, and I was floored that I had never heard of this responsa. This is Rav Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin’s response to an editorial that promoted separation of observant Jews from less observant Jews.
I expect to translate the responsum in the next several posts, as I make time. (It’s more than 4500 words in the Hebrew, so give me time…) Here’s Part I:
I saw an editorial called “Right and Left” in the journal Machzikei haDat [“Those who hold on to religion”], #3, in which they came to address a question requiring reply. Since we are obligated to participate in strengthening religion in Israel, I cannot flee from this. I will present before the nation of Gd, those who hold on to religion, may Gd bless them, that which is in my heart in this analysis, and if someone else can reply and clarify the issue in some other way then may his words come and illuminate the path of life. Even if we are far from each other in dwelling, we are close to each other in our desire and yearning to come to the right target, with the help of Gd who provides intellect.
They arranged the question as: (1) Could the Jewish religion divide into three streams? (2) Is there a right, left and center in the path of our faith? They added that in their view, the elements of right, left and center in religion existed in years past, and perhaps in Israel there were three such groups, meaning righteous people who distanced themselves from the world’s issues and did not benefit even a pinky’s worth from this world, and opposite them were wicked people who threw off the yoke of Torah and awe, whether out of ignorance or wanton ill-intent, and that the middle people were those who were simple in their ways, traveling in the way of the world and not rejecting the Torah.
I saw, with all due respect to the editor, that he did not conclude with that with which he began. He began to investigate whether there is right, left and middle in religion and in the path of our belief, and he concluded that the left is an abandonment of the yoke of Torah and awe of Gd – but this is not within religion, it is outside of the path of our faith! Also, the language of, “Are there three groups like this in Israel” is unclear – what is the question? Regarding three groups, perfectly righteous, perfectly wicked, and intermediates?
Rather, this would be the way to analyze: Are there among the guardians of faith and religion, who do not break the fences, right, left and center. This is the question which requires proper clarification.
In truth, there are three groups in Israel, and according to our explanation, with our humble abilities, those are the ones identified in Torah as “to the right” and “to the left”, as will be explained.
-
The Hebrew for this section:
I expect to translate the responsum in the next several posts, as I make time. (It’s more than 4500 words in the Hebrew, so give me time…) Here’s Part I:
I saw an editorial called “Right and Left” in the journal Machzikei haDat [“Those who hold on to religion”], #3, in which they came to address a question requiring reply. Since we are obligated to participate in strengthening religion in Israel, I cannot flee from this. I will present before the nation of Gd, those who hold on to religion, may Gd bless them, that which is in my heart in this analysis, and if someone else can reply and clarify the issue in some other way then may his words come and illuminate the path of life. Even if we are far from each other in dwelling, we are close to each other in our desire and yearning to come to the right target, with the help of Gd who provides intellect.
They arranged the question as: (1) Could the Jewish religion divide into three streams? (2) Is there a right, left and center in the path of our faith? They added that in their view, the elements of right, left and center in religion existed in years past, and perhaps in Israel there were three such groups, meaning righteous people who distanced themselves from the world’s issues and did not benefit even a pinky’s worth from this world, and opposite them were wicked people who threw off the yoke of Torah and awe, whether out of ignorance or wanton ill-intent, and that the middle people were those who were simple in their ways, traveling in the way of the world and not rejecting the Torah.
I saw, with all due respect to the editor, that he did not conclude with that with which he began. He began to investigate whether there is right, left and middle in religion and in the path of our belief, and he concluded that the left is an abandonment of the yoke of Torah and awe of Gd – but this is not within religion, it is outside of the path of our faith! Also, the language of, “Are there three groups like this in Israel” is unclear – what is the question? Regarding three groups, perfectly righteous, perfectly wicked, and intermediates?
Rather, this would be the way to analyze: Are there among the guardians of faith and religion, who do not break the fences, right, left and center. This is the question which requires proper clarification.
In truth, there are three groups in Israel, and according to our explanation, with our humble abilities, those are the ones identified in Torah as “to the right” and “to the left”, as will be explained.
-
The Hebrew for this section:
ראיתי בעלה מחזיקי הדת גליון ג' מאמר נערך ממעריכי העלים, הנקרא המאמר בשם ימין ושמאל ובאו בזה לדרוש בתורת שאלה הנדרש לתשובה, ובאשר עלינו להשתתף בהחזקת הדת בישראל לא יכולתי מלט נפשי ולהציע לפני עדת ה' בעלי מחזיקי הדת יברכם ה' את אשר בלבי בחקירה זו, ומי שיש בידו להשיב ולברר הדברים באופן אחר יבאו דבריו ויאירו דרך חיים כי איך שהננו רחוקים זמ"ז במקום דירה הננו קרובים זה לזה ברצון וחשק לבא אל המטרה, בעזר הא-ל דעה מורה:
הן העריכו לשון החקירה, (א) היוכל דת ישראל להחלק לשלשה גזרים, (ב) הנמצא ימין ושמאל ואמצע במהלך אמונתנו, והוסיפו כי לדעתם ענין ימין ושמאל ואמצע בדת היו לפני שנות קדם, אולי נמצאו בישראל שלש כתות כאלה, היינו הצדיקים אשר התרחקו מכל הויות העולם על אשר לא יהנו מעולם הזה אפילו באצבע קטנה, ולעומתם נמצאו רשעים פורקי עול תורה ויראה אם מחסרון ידיעה אם בשאט נפש ובזדון, ואמצעים תמימים בדרכיהם הולכי בדרך העולם ולא בעטו בתורה:
והנני אומר במח"כ המעריך, לא במה שהחל לחקור סיים, הוא החל לחקור אם יש ימין ושמאל ואמצע בדת ובמהלך אמונתנו וסיים כי השמאל הוא פריקת עול תורה ויראת ה' והרי זה אינו בדת והוא חוץ ממהלך אמונתנו, וגם אינו מובן לשון אולי נמצאו בישראל שלש כתות כאלה מה זו שאלה, על שלש כתות, צדיקים גמורים, ורשעים גמורים ובינונים, אלא כך יש לחקור, אם נמצאו בשומרי אמונה ודת ואינם פורצי גדר ימין ושמאל ואמצע, זהו שאלה שנדרש לברר יפה:
אמנם גם בזה יש ויש שלש כתות בישראל, ולפי ביאורנו בעניות דעתנו המה הם מכונים במקרא בשם מיימינים ומשמאילים כאשר יבואר:
הן העריכו לשון החקירה, (א) היוכל דת ישראל להחלק לשלשה גזרים, (ב) הנמצא ימין ושמאל ואמצע במהלך אמונתנו, והוסיפו כי לדעתם ענין ימין ושמאל ואמצע בדת היו לפני שנות קדם, אולי נמצאו בישראל שלש כתות כאלה, היינו הצדיקים אשר התרחקו מכל הויות העולם על אשר לא יהנו מעולם הזה אפילו באצבע קטנה, ולעומתם נמצאו רשעים פורקי עול תורה ויראה אם מחסרון ידיעה אם בשאט נפש ובזדון, ואמצעים תמימים בדרכיהם הולכי בדרך העולם ולא בעטו בתורה:
והנני אומר במח"כ המעריך, לא במה שהחל לחקור סיים, הוא החל לחקור אם יש ימין ושמאל ואמצע בדת ובמהלך אמונתנו וסיים כי השמאל הוא פריקת עול תורה ויראת ה' והרי זה אינו בדת והוא חוץ ממהלך אמונתנו, וגם אינו מובן לשון אולי נמצאו בישראל שלש כתות כאלה מה זו שאלה, על שלש כתות, צדיקים גמורים, ורשעים גמורים ובינונים, אלא כך יש לחקור, אם נמצאו בשומרי אמונה ודת ואינם פורצי גדר ימין ושמאל ואמצע, זהו שאלה שנדרש לברר יפה:
אמנם גם בזה יש ויש שלש כתות בישראל, ולפי ביאורנו בעניות דעתנו המה הם מכונים במקרא בשם מיימינים ומשמאילים כאשר יבואר:
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Why Rabbis cannot agree on Halachah [sometimes]
[Post I’m reading: On Halakhic Integrity: A Reaction to Gordon and Levy at My Obiter Dicta]
This past Sunday night, I participated in a panel discussion on the topic of “Determining Death: The Brain Death Controversy and Organ Donation in the Jewish Community”. My primary goal, in my allotted 20 minutes, was to explain why this is such an intractable issue; there was no way I could actually go through the sources and debates in anything like that time, but I felt this was a good goal as well. [You can listen to my audio here.]
I identified four elements which I believe are necessary, in order to establish halachic consensus in any matter of law:
1. A clear understanding of our traditional sources
2. A clear understanding of physical reality
3. A culture that encourages healthy debate
4. A compelling argument
A clear understanding of our traditional sources
We need a clear understanding of the traditional sources, in order to develop an approach which is consistent with those sources.
A clear understanding of physical reality
We need a clear understanding of physical reality, in order to understand the circumstances in which halachah is operating, and to be able to apply halachic considerations to the specific cases involved.
A culture that encourages healthy debate
We need a culture that encourages healthy debate so that rabbis will be able to take positions or change positions, challenge ideas and receive serious replies.
A compelling argument
And we need a compelling argument that says, “We need to go this route,” when matters are not entirely clear or unanimous. Halachah is inherently conservative [ ברי ושמא ברי עדיף, שב ואל תעשה עדיף and so on], and quite comfortable saying, “I don’t know.” In order to move from “I don’t know” or “Better not” to a practical verdict of action in a case of uncertainty, there must be a compelling reason to do so – pikuach nefesh, for example.
In the Brain Death issue, we have none of the above.
1. The primary sources themselves are complex, and certainly appear contradictory.
2. Most of the responsa with which today's rabbis wrestle were written at a time when the scientific data on the state of the brain during "brain death" was still evolving - indeed, many argue it is still evolving today.
3. The discussion is taking place against a backdrop of acrimonious accusations and a resulting defensiveness.
4. The compelling arguments on each side balance each other out - Pikuach Nefesh is used on both sides. And the cases themselves are rare enough that the issue isn't coming up daily, to demand resolution.
I believe this Set of 4 applies beyond the Brain Death issue; we can apply this to any number of on-going debates in the Jewish community, from Conversion to Use of Electricity on Shabbat to the Role of Women in the Synagogue.
If we have these four elements present, we’ll see a conclusion. Otherwise, we’re likely to be left with a תיקו [“Let the debate stand”]. {Which isn’t always a bad thing.}
This past Sunday night, I participated in a panel discussion on the topic of “Determining Death: The Brain Death Controversy and Organ Donation in the Jewish Community”. My primary goal, in my allotted 20 minutes, was to explain why this is such an intractable issue; there was no way I could actually go through the sources and debates in anything like that time, but I felt this was a good goal as well. [You can listen to my audio here.]
I identified four elements which I believe are necessary, in order to establish halachic consensus in any matter of law:
1. A clear understanding of our traditional sources
2. A clear understanding of physical reality
3. A culture that encourages healthy debate
4. A compelling argument
A clear understanding of our traditional sources
We need a clear understanding of the traditional sources, in order to develop an approach which is consistent with those sources.
A clear understanding of physical reality
We need a clear understanding of physical reality, in order to understand the circumstances in which halachah is operating, and to be able to apply halachic considerations to the specific cases involved.
A culture that encourages healthy debate
We need a culture that encourages healthy debate so that rabbis will be able to take positions or change positions, challenge ideas and receive serious replies.
A compelling argument
And we need a compelling argument that says, “We need to go this route,” when matters are not entirely clear or unanimous. Halachah is inherently conservative [ ברי ושמא ברי עדיף, שב ואל תעשה עדיף and so on], and quite comfortable saying, “I don’t know.” In order to move from “I don’t know” or “Better not” to a practical verdict of action in a case of uncertainty, there must be a compelling reason to do so – pikuach nefesh, for example.
In the Brain Death issue, we have none of the above.
1. The primary sources themselves are complex, and certainly appear contradictory.
2. Most of the responsa with which today's rabbis wrestle were written at a time when the scientific data on the state of the brain during "brain death" was still evolving - indeed, many argue it is still evolving today.
3. The discussion is taking place against a backdrop of acrimonious accusations and a resulting defensiveness.
4. The compelling arguments on each side balance each other out - Pikuach Nefesh is used on both sides. And the cases themselves are rare enough that the issue isn't coming up daily, to demand resolution.
I believe this Set of 4 applies beyond the Brain Death issue; we can apply this to any number of on-going debates in the Jewish community, from Conversion to Use of Electricity on Shabbat to the Role of Women in the Synagogue.
If we have these four elements present, we’ll see a conclusion. Otherwise, we’re likely to be left with a תיקו [“Let the debate stand”]. {Which isn’t always a bad thing.}
Monday, April 4, 2011
America the Not-Helpful?
[This week’s Haveil Havalim is here]
[Post very worth seeing: Conquests of Jerusalem and Israel's Control at Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations]
Some weeks back, I was sitting in a shul somewhere in Canada waiting for Maariv to begin, and I heard a man learning with his pre-adolescent son. They were talking about the mitzvah of לא תעמוד על דם רעך – “You shall not stand by your brother’s blood” – which requires us to act to save others who are in danger.
The father explained to his son that this is a critical mitzvah, that we must stand up on behalf of people who are in need. So far, so good. But then he said, “This is especially a problem in America; people there don’t help each other.”
Wow.
I wanted to say to him, "I’m an American, pal. Where do you get off generalizing about an entire country? That’s horrible chinuch (pedagogy)." (And I’m a New Yorker, so I also wanted to hit him, but that’s another matter.)
Not to mention, he was wrong – wasn’t he?
I instinctively assumed he had to be wrong, although I had no statistics to offer to the contrary. Of course he was wrong. How could he be right? Wasn’t my life saved by… um, no, come to think of it. But didn’t I have a relative who was in… no, not that, either. Didn’t I know someone who was saved by a stranger’s intervention, or something? Um… no.
So all I had to go with was my general intuition that Americans are not the soulless, internally focussed drones who ignored the screams of Kitty Genovese in the 1960’s. Not exactly convincing, that.
But it realy did bother me, and continues to bother me, in terms of the generalization. Did that really serve a purpose in educating his son? Did his son internalize the lesson of intervention by picturing genial Canada’s southern neighbor as a self-centered slob?
It reminded me of the way that some Jews generalize about non-Jews in teaching their kids, actually. Also a very uncomfortable thing.
Bottom line: I don’t think we need to put down others in order to teach our children lessons about positive behavior. And Gd bless America.
[Post very worth seeing: Conquests of Jerusalem and Israel's Control at Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations]
Some weeks back, I was sitting in a shul somewhere in Canada waiting for Maariv to begin, and I heard a man learning with his pre-adolescent son. They were talking about the mitzvah of לא תעמוד על דם רעך – “You shall not stand by your brother’s blood” – which requires us to act to save others who are in danger.
The father explained to his son that this is a critical mitzvah, that we must stand up on behalf of people who are in need. So far, so good. But then he said, “This is especially a problem in America; people there don’t help each other.”
Wow.
I wanted to say to him, "I’m an American, pal. Where do you get off generalizing about an entire country? That’s horrible chinuch (pedagogy)." (And I’m a New Yorker, so I also wanted to hit him, but that’s another matter.)
Not to mention, he was wrong – wasn’t he?
I instinctively assumed he had to be wrong, although I had no statistics to offer to the contrary. Of course he was wrong. How could he be right? Wasn’t my life saved by… um, no, come to think of it. But didn’t I have a relative who was in… no, not that, either. Didn’t I know someone who was saved by a stranger’s intervention, or something? Um… no.
So all I had to go with was my general intuition that Americans are not the soulless, internally focussed drones who ignored the screams of Kitty Genovese in the 1960’s. Not exactly convincing, that.
But it realy did bother me, and continues to bother me, in terms of the generalization. Did that really serve a purpose in educating his son? Did his son internalize the lesson of intervention by picturing genial Canada’s southern neighbor as a self-centered slob?
It reminded me of the way that some Jews generalize about non-Jews in teaching their kids, actually. Also a very uncomfortable thing.
Bottom line: I don’t think we need to put down others in order to teach our children lessons about positive behavior. And Gd bless America.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Dancing in the middle of the circle
[Post I’m reading: Richard Goldstone: I’m a loser at The Muqata]
During my first year of study in Israel, when I was eighteen or so, I celebrated “chutznik” Simchas Torah at what was then known as the Laromme Hotel in Jerusalem, along with a few hundred other Anglo students. We davened, we sang, we danced, we ate, it was wonderful.
We were yeshiva-student males, so most of our dancing consisted of concentric circles, with the more energetic working their way into the inner rings until they tired. I was among those in the center for quite some time, until I was tapped on the shoulder by a more senior student, who said something along the lines of, “You don’t always need to be in the middle.”
I don’t think I even answered him; as I recall at twenty years’ distance, I simply melted sheepishly into the outer circle and stayed there for the rest of the dancing.
I don’t remember who the killjoy was; I don’t know that I ever knew his name, actually. But his words stayed with me, and the doubt they generated remained strong over the years, in arenas far from Simchas Torah: Why am I in the center? Am I looking for attention, for approval?
This is a substantive question for a shul rabbi, and it bothered me greatly when I occupied the pulpit. Even as I knew I was doing a lot of good for a lot of people, I was always dogged by that doubt: How much of what I do is not to satisfy the Divine, but instead to satisfy the people around me? Do I visit, speak, teach, advise, eulogize, dispense assistance, sit in boards and on committees and so on because I know it’s the right thing to do, or because I want people to admire me? And it did cause me to back out of the spotlight, from time to time.
Of course, everyone must admit that there is an automatic element of self-service in their world-service. Human beings are insecure and seek approval. Human beings want the respect of others. Human beings enjoy praise. To deny this would be foolish. But I wanted to know that there was also a genuine altruism, a desire to do right for right’s sake.
So I found opportunities to lock off parts of my activities, keeping them away from the public eye. I suited up as Anonyrabbi, so to speak, doing favors and taking care of people’s needs without anyone knowing who had done it. Flowers for Shabbos, a tuition bill paid, a kiddush augmented. This way, I could prove my own sincerity to myself.
But that’s not necessarily a good long-term strategy for a Rabbi – because if a rabbi’s activities are under the radar, if the rabbi succeeds in avoiding the spotlight, then people start wondering why he isn’t involved in X, or taking care of Y. The rabbi needs to publicize his activities, unfortunately; he needs to dance in the middle of the circle, for utilitarian reasons, and live with the self-doubt that generates.
I thought leaving the pulpit would help me deal with this self-doubt, but I still hear that voice challenging me when I am in the center. I suppose I always will, because (1) Most things we do involve, to some extent, that search for approval, and (2) Many things we do are public.
On the other hand, it’s not a bad thing, being troubled by this question. It keeps me honest; I can hope that as long as I am asking the question, I won’t stray too far from the right answer.
During my first year of study in Israel, when I was eighteen or so, I celebrated “chutznik” Simchas Torah at what was then known as the Laromme Hotel in Jerusalem, along with a few hundred other Anglo students. We davened, we sang, we danced, we ate, it was wonderful.
We were yeshiva-student males, so most of our dancing consisted of concentric circles, with the more energetic working their way into the inner rings until they tired. I was among those in the center for quite some time, until I was tapped on the shoulder by a more senior student, who said something along the lines of, “You don’t always need to be in the middle.”
I don’t think I even answered him; as I recall at twenty years’ distance, I simply melted sheepishly into the outer circle and stayed there for the rest of the dancing.
I don’t remember who the killjoy was; I don’t know that I ever knew his name, actually. But his words stayed with me, and the doubt they generated remained strong over the years, in arenas far from Simchas Torah: Why am I in the center? Am I looking for attention, for approval?
This is a substantive question for a shul rabbi, and it bothered me greatly when I occupied the pulpit. Even as I knew I was doing a lot of good for a lot of people, I was always dogged by that doubt: How much of what I do is not to satisfy the Divine, but instead to satisfy the people around me? Do I visit, speak, teach, advise, eulogize, dispense assistance, sit in boards and on committees and so on because I know it’s the right thing to do, or because I want people to admire me? And it did cause me to back out of the spotlight, from time to time.
Of course, everyone must admit that there is an automatic element of self-service in their world-service. Human beings are insecure and seek approval. Human beings want the respect of others. Human beings enjoy praise. To deny this would be foolish. But I wanted to know that there was also a genuine altruism, a desire to do right for right’s sake.
So I found opportunities to lock off parts of my activities, keeping them away from the public eye. I suited up as Anonyrabbi, so to speak, doing favors and taking care of people’s needs without anyone knowing who had done it. Flowers for Shabbos, a tuition bill paid, a kiddush augmented. This way, I could prove my own sincerity to myself.
But that’s not necessarily a good long-term strategy for a Rabbi – because if a rabbi’s activities are under the radar, if the rabbi succeeds in avoiding the spotlight, then people start wondering why he isn’t involved in X, or taking care of Y. The rabbi needs to publicize his activities, unfortunately; he needs to dance in the middle of the circle, for utilitarian reasons, and live with the self-doubt that generates.
I thought leaving the pulpit would help me deal with this self-doubt, but I still hear that voice challenging me when I am in the center. I suppose I always will, because (1) Most things we do involve, to some extent, that search for approval, and (2) Many things we do are public.
On the other hand, it’s not a bad thing, being troubled by this question. It keeps me honest; I can hope that as long as I am asking the question, I won’t stray too far from the right answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
