I’m preparing a parshah shiur for tomorrow, and I’ve chosen Bereishit and Betrayal as a theme.
I define “betrayal” as failure to honor a relationship of trust, whether that trust is natural to the relationship (ie family) or whether trust has been earned (ie by an act of kindness).
I am not including general deception here, like Avraham and Sarah hiding their relationship from Pharaoh. In adversarial relationships, one is not required to divulge all of his information.
So I just developed a quick list of the betrayals involving the Avot and Imahot (patriarchs and matriarchs); it’s a fascinating list:
• Avraham abandons his father and family (Bereishit 12)
• Hagar is elevated by Sarah, and then she abuses Sarah (Bereishit 16)
• Sarah first matches up Hagar with Avraham, and then evicts her (Bereishit 21)
• HaShem tells Avraham to slaughter Yitzchak, the son he had been promised as an heir (Bereishit 22)
• Avraham attempts to slaughter Yitzchak (Bereishit 22)
• Lavan and Rivkah’s mother renege on their pledge to send Rivkah to Yitzchak (Bereishit 24)
• Avimelech pledges protection for Yitzchak and Rivkah, but then they are mis-treated by Avimelech’s people (Bereishit 26)
• Esav reneges on his sale of the birthright to Yaakov [assuming this blessing is the same as the birthright Yaakov purchased] (Bereishit 27)
• Rivkah betrays Yitzchak’s and Esav’s trust in her, substituting Yaakov for Esav (Bereishit 27)
• Yaakov betrays Yitzchak’s trust in him (Bereishit 27)
• Rivkah betrays Yitzchak’s trust in her regarding her desire to send away Yaakov (Bereishit 27)
• Lavan and Leah betray Yaakov and Rachel with the substitution of Leah for Rachel (Bereishit 29)
• Lavan betrays Yaakov regarding his salary (Bereishit 30)
• Rachel takes Lavan’s terafim (Bereishit 31)
• Shechem betrays Dinah’s affection (Bereishit 34)
• Shimon and Levi betray the trusting relationship they affected with Shechem (Bereishit 34)
And then, of course, we start on the sale of Yosef, and Potifera’s scam, and Yosef’s concealment of his identity, etc.
I’m sure there are more I’m missing; please add.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Banning Muslims and Jews from the US Military
[Note: Haveil Havalim is here!]
I am a big fan of the Treppenwitz blog; David Bogner often makes me laugh as well as think.
The other day he commented on Ed Koch's suggestion that Muslims in the US military be exempt from fighting wars against Muslim countries. An excerpt:
I don't see the value in allowing Muslims to serve in the U.S. military if the only place in the whole world that their expensive training can be utilized is along a 155 mile stretch of the 38th Parallel. And even there, with North Korea, Syria and Iran being all chummy... well you see the problem.
I hear his point (which is somewhat exaggerated, of course; there are a few US deployments that relate to conflicts involving non-Muslim entities). Still, it makes me uncomfortable. I am reminded of the Jewish response to Napoleon's sixth question to his Sanhedrin:
Question: Do Jews born in France, and treated by the laws as French citizens, consider France their country? Are they bound to defend it? Are they bound to obey the laws and to conform to the dispositions of the civil code?
And part of the Jewish response:
The love of the country is in the heart of Jews a sentiment so natural, so powerful, and so consonant to their religious opinions, that a French Jew considers himself in England, as among strangers, although he may be among Jews; and the case is the same with English Jews in France.
To such a pitch is this sentiment carried among them, that during the last war, French Jews have been seen fighting desperately against other Jews, the subjects of countries then at war with France.
(For the full text, go here.)
I believe many modern observant Jews would not follow this pseudo-Sanhedrin's formulation, in the absence of a direct threat. So should Jews be banned, publicly declared persona non grata, as well?
In truth, David does distinguish between Jews and Muslims. He notes that the US deploys a significant portion of its forces in conflicts involving Muslim countries, but does not currently deploy forces against Israel - and that even were such a thing to happen, that would still leave many other places a Jew could serve. According to this argument, the issue is not moral philosophy, but military utility; a Muslim will have few places to serve, a Jew will be able to serve more. The Jew would be the equivalent of a Catholic during a conflict against Vatican City; he could avoid this war, and still fight in others.
But I think this still misses a key point; the issue is fundamentally about morality.
I believe that what offends the American mind about Nidal Malik Hasan, even before the horror of his mass murder, is his distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim. Apparently, he is comfortable with the idea of going to war for the US to kill Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus or atheists, but he would not be comfortable killing Muslims. Loyalty to the US can justify killing anyone except a Muslim.
That Muslim/non-Muslim distinction is what brings about the call to exclude Muslims from the US military - the fear that they are Muslim first, and American second.
And in this regard, Jews may be no different - we might have difficulty shooting at a co-religionist over a territorial dispute, too. Therefore, an exclusion of Muslims must also lead to an exclusion of Jews. That's why this idea makes me uncomfortable; I'd rather see an exclusion from this war rather than an exclusion from the military.
One question, though: Why are Protestants and Catholics different in this regard?
I am a big fan of the Treppenwitz blog; David Bogner often makes me laugh as well as think.
The other day he commented on Ed Koch's suggestion that Muslims in the US military be exempt from fighting wars against Muslim countries. An excerpt:
I don't see the value in allowing Muslims to serve in the U.S. military if the only place in the whole world that their expensive training can be utilized is along a 155 mile stretch of the 38th Parallel. And even there, with North Korea, Syria and Iran being all chummy... well you see the problem.
I hear his point (which is somewhat exaggerated, of course; there are a few US deployments that relate to conflicts involving non-Muslim entities). Still, it makes me uncomfortable. I am reminded of the Jewish response to Napoleon's sixth question to his Sanhedrin:
Question: Do Jews born in France, and treated by the laws as French citizens, consider France their country? Are they bound to defend it? Are they bound to obey the laws and to conform to the dispositions of the civil code?
And part of the Jewish response:
The love of the country is in the heart of Jews a sentiment so natural, so powerful, and so consonant to their religious opinions, that a French Jew considers himself in England, as among strangers, although he may be among Jews; and the case is the same with English Jews in France.
To such a pitch is this sentiment carried among them, that during the last war, French Jews have been seen fighting desperately against other Jews, the subjects of countries then at war with France.
(For the full text, go here.)
I believe many modern observant Jews would not follow this pseudo-Sanhedrin's formulation, in the absence of a direct threat. So should Jews be banned, publicly declared persona non grata, as well?
In truth, David does distinguish between Jews and Muslims. He notes that the US deploys a significant portion of its forces in conflicts involving Muslim countries, but does not currently deploy forces against Israel - and that even were such a thing to happen, that would still leave many other places a Jew could serve. According to this argument, the issue is not moral philosophy, but military utility; a Muslim will have few places to serve, a Jew will be able to serve more. The Jew would be the equivalent of a Catholic during a conflict against Vatican City; he could avoid this war, and still fight in others.
But I think this still misses a key point; the issue is fundamentally about morality.
I believe that what offends the American mind about Nidal Malik Hasan, even before the horror of his mass murder, is his distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim. Apparently, he is comfortable with the idea of going to war for the US to kill Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus or atheists, but he would not be comfortable killing Muslims. Loyalty to the US can justify killing anyone except a Muslim.
That Muslim/non-Muslim distinction is what brings about the call to exclude Muslims from the US military - the fear that they are Muslim first, and American second.
And in this regard, Jews may be no different - we might have difficulty shooting at a co-religionist over a territorial dispute, too. Therefore, an exclusion of Muslims must also lead to an exclusion of Jews. That's why this idea makes me uncomfortable; I'd rather see an exclusion from this war rather than an exclusion from the military.
One question, though: Why are Protestants and Catholics different in this regard?
Saturday, November 14, 2009
The Ethics of Second-Hand Smoke
I'll be delivering a shiur on "The Ethics of Second-Hand Smoke" on Sunday evening. Gd-willing, I'll post the audio and video links when they become available, but here is the source sheet.
[Update: The audio is now available here. It wasn't as strong as I would have liked - I'll blame it on fatigue - but I think it's coherent.]
[A question: I've often wondered whether posting source sheets would interest people. I'm doing it for this topic because it's of interest to many, and because the shiur itself should be available on-line soon after I deliver it. Would on-line source sheets interest you in the future?]
Seven questions
I am not the only smoker!
It’s a public space
It’s not constant
It was always accepted
They are hyper-sensitive
Financial liability
How far must I go?
Avoid Harming Others
1. Talmud, Bava Batra 22b
Mishnah: We distance a ladder four cubits from a dovecote, to avoid allowing a predator to leap. We distance a wall four cubits from a drainpipe, to permit [the owner] to place a ladder upright.
Gemara: Shall we say that our mishnah disagrees with R’ Yosi, who said, ‘This one may dig within his space and this one may plant within his space?’
Even R’ Yosi will agree; Rav Ashi reported that when he was in Rav Kahana’s yeshiva he heard Rav Kahana declare that R’ Yosi agreed regarding one’s own arrows. Here, too, at the same moment that he places the ladder, the predator may be sitting in a hole and it may leap.
But is this not indirect causation? R’ Tuvi bar Matnah explained: This teaches that indirect causation of harm is prohibited.
Rav Yosef had date-trees, and blood-letters would come sit beneath them, and ravens would come to eat the blood. The ravens would sit in the trees and ruin the dates. Rav Yosef told the blood-letters: Remove the kor-kor from here!
Abbaye protested: This is indirect causation! Rav Yosef told him: R’ Tuvi bar Matnah said, “This teaches that indirect causation of harm is prohibited.”
But did the blood-letters not have a chazakah? Yes, but Rav Nachman cited Rabbah bar Avuha to say that there is no chazakah for harm.
But did we not learn that Rav Mari says this is specifically for smoke, and Rav Zvid says this is specifically for a latrine? Rav Yosef replied: I am of a delicate mind; for me, these are like smoke and a latrine.
2. Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Sh’cheinim 11:5
If a person has established a practice of working with blood, corpses or similar items in a certain place, and ravens and similar creatures come for the blood and eat and disturb neighbors with their voices and chirping and with the blood in their feet as they perch in trees and dirty the fruit, then if the neighbor is a demanding person, or is ill such that the chirping harms him, or is someone whose fruit is damaged by the blood, then the vandal must cease to perform that work or must distance himself to the point that he will no longer cause harm. Harm like this is like the scent of a latrine, and similar practices for which there is no chazakah.
Similarly, if a member of a side-street or a yard becomes a blood-letter and others do not protest, such that he develops a chazakah, and people enter and depart to make purchases and they are silent, he does not have a true chazakah with this and they may always object and say that they cannot sleep from the sound of the traffic. This is an on-going harm, like smoke and dust, and the Gaonim ruled thus as well.
3. Lechem Mishneh, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Sh’cheinim 11:5
How did he derive the idea that they cause harm with their voices and chirping? If it’s because Rav Yosef mentioned the kor-kor, which sounds like the cry of a voice, that was still insufficient; it was his delicacy of mind from the dirtying of the fruit!
Perhaps “delicacy of mind” includes someone who is ill, and harmed by the chirping, and since one could explain Rav Yosef in two ways – chirping or dirtying – therefore he wrote his explanation, as he does in some places, because both appear to him to be true as far as the law.
But isn’t it a group effort?
4. Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Chovel uMazik 1:13
If two people harm a third as one, both are liable and they divide up the payments between them.
It is not constant
5. Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 155:37
Mechaber: When we mention smoke, that is specifically constant smoke, like bakers’ and craftsmen’s ovens. An individual’s oven for baking bread, or a stove, where the smoke does not remain for the bulk of the day – that is not constant. If one were to see it and be silent, he would then forgive it, and he could no longer protest.
Rama: Some say that one may not even complain initially for smoke that is not constant.
6. Siftei Kohen to Choshen Mishpat 155:19
The Mechaber appears to me to be correct, for the Rama wrote in Darkei Moshe, “Terumat haDeshen (Piskim uKtavim 137) rules thus from the Mordechai and Hagahot Maymoniyot and Hagahot Ashri, and it appears that so we should rule, for Terumat haDeshen was later and is a sage upon whom one may depend. This is against the Beit Yosef’s position that one could reject their view before that of Rav Moshe haKohen, who was a well-known authority.”
Had he examined the rulings of Terumat haDeshen himself, he would not have written this; this ruling was not even clear to Terumat haDeshen himself. Regarding this lesson he drew from the Mordechai and Hagahot Maymoniyot and Hagahot Ashri, he concluded, “Still, I would not call you mistaken in your ruling, since you found explicit corroboration in the rulings of Gaonim, and you already know that I do not normally analyze closely when we find explicit rulings of the Gaonim.” It appears that this is why the Beit Yosef ruled with Rav Moshe haKohen.
Also…
No one ever protested before
7. Tosafot, Bava Batra 23a בקוטרא
It appears to the R”I that this lack of a chazakah is specifically the smoke of a kiln, which is great and which causes great harm, as seen in Bava Kama 82b, “One may not establish kilns in Yerushalayim. Why? Because of the smoke.” Also, it was specific to their latrines, which were above ground and smelled more; ours are covered, and so a chazakah would be possible.
8. Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Sh’cheinim 11:6-7
6: If a person develops a chazakah engaging in a type of harm for which a chazakah is possible, such as opening a window or diverting a stream or failing to distance himself properly from others, and he claims, “You told me to do this,” or, “You forgave it to me after you saw this or after the harm was noticeable, and you were silent and did not protest,” and the victim says, “Now I see it, and I didn’t know before,” or “When I saw it I did protest, and you said you would distance yourself or halt, and you pushed me off from day to the next so that you could establish your chazakah,” in all such cases the burden of proof is with the victim. In the absence of proof, the vandal should swear an oath of contradiction, and be exempt.
7: If a person develops a chazakah engaging in a type of harm for which a chazakah is not possible, such as smoke or a latrine or similar items, and the vandal claims that he contracted with the victim to permit it, the burden of proof is with the vandal to demonstrate that there had been an agreement. In the absence of proof, the victim should swear an oath of contradiction that there had been no contract, and the vandal will remove his harm.
Changing policies in mid-stream
9. Responsa of Rashba 3:162
I am inclined toward the view of Rabbeinu Yaakov, that all of these types of harm are harms to the body, and one may say, “I thought I could bear it, but I cannot bear it.” So appears to me from the mishnah about a store in a yard, and from Rav Yosef’s case… However, most of the sages of Israel, and my masters, did not agree… and therefore, in practice I say that one who has already opened his window or brought his smoke or latrine nearby would not be obligated to stop them up or remove them.
10. Netivot haMishpat Chiddushim Choshen Mishpat 156:7
“They are ill” – It appears that if one was healthy and then became ill, chazakah would not be effective. Being ill makes the harm like smoke or a latrine.
Abnormal sensitivities
11. Talmud, Pesachim 113b
We have learned, “Three people’s lives are not life: Merciful people, angry people and people of delicate minds.”
Rav Yosef said: All of these apply to me.
12. Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 155:41
If it is known that a plaintiff cannot bear something, then there is no applicable chazakah even if others could bear it.
Financial Liability
13. Ketzot haChoshen Choshen Mishpat 1:7
Regarding actual monetary liability, even though we do not adjudicate a case today because it is rare or because there is no loss of money involved, still, one must pay in order to satisfy Heaven. One who does not pay is a thief. But regarding fines, satisfying Heaven is irrelevant, for fines depend on the court finding a person guilty…
14. How far must a smoker go?
Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 155:20
Rama: Regarding all harmful agents where the required distance has not been clarified, one must distance to the point that experts say no harm will be caused.
A few websites with key sources on halachot of smoking
References in my HaMakor
The RCA's Paper on Smoking
The Jewish Observer
[Update: The audio is now available here. It wasn't as strong as I would have liked - I'll blame it on fatigue - but I think it's coherent.]
[A question: I've often wondered whether posting source sheets would interest people. I'm doing it for this topic because it's of interest to many, and because the shiur itself should be available on-line soon after I deliver it. Would on-line source sheets interest you in the future?]
Seven questions
I am not the only smoker!
It’s a public space
It’s not constant
It was always accepted
They are hyper-sensitive
Financial liability
How far must I go?
Avoid Harming Others
1. Talmud, Bava Batra 22b
Mishnah: We distance a ladder four cubits from a dovecote, to avoid allowing a predator to leap. We distance a wall four cubits from a drainpipe, to permit [the owner] to place a ladder upright.
Gemara: Shall we say that our mishnah disagrees with R’ Yosi, who said, ‘This one may dig within his space and this one may plant within his space?’
Even R’ Yosi will agree; Rav Ashi reported that when he was in Rav Kahana’s yeshiva he heard Rav Kahana declare that R’ Yosi agreed regarding one’s own arrows. Here, too, at the same moment that he places the ladder, the predator may be sitting in a hole and it may leap.
But is this not indirect causation? R’ Tuvi bar Matnah explained: This teaches that indirect causation of harm is prohibited.
Rav Yosef had date-trees, and blood-letters would come sit beneath them, and ravens would come to eat the blood. The ravens would sit in the trees and ruin the dates. Rav Yosef told the blood-letters: Remove the kor-kor from here!
Abbaye protested: This is indirect causation! Rav Yosef told him: R’ Tuvi bar Matnah said, “This teaches that indirect causation of harm is prohibited.”
But did the blood-letters not have a chazakah? Yes, but Rav Nachman cited Rabbah bar Avuha to say that there is no chazakah for harm.
But did we not learn that Rav Mari says this is specifically for smoke, and Rav Zvid says this is specifically for a latrine? Rav Yosef replied: I am of a delicate mind; for me, these are like smoke and a latrine.
2. Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Sh’cheinim 11:5
If a person has established a practice of working with blood, corpses or similar items in a certain place, and ravens and similar creatures come for the blood and eat and disturb neighbors with their voices and chirping and with the blood in their feet as they perch in trees and dirty the fruit, then if the neighbor is a demanding person, or is ill such that the chirping harms him, or is someone whose fruit is damaged by the blood, then the vandal must cease to perform that work or must distance himself to the point that he will no longer cause harm. Harm like this is like the scent of a latrine, and similar practices for which there is no chazakah.
Similarly, if a member of a side-street or a yard becomes a blood-letter and others do not protest, such that he develops a chazakah, and people enter and depart to make purchases and they are silent, he does not have a true chazakah with this and they may always object and say that they cannot sleep from the sound of the traffic. This is an on-going harm, like smoke and dust, and the Gaonim ruled thus as well.
3. Lechem Mishneh, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Sh’cheinim 11:5
How did he derive the idea that they cause harm with their voices and chirping? If it’s because Rav Yosef mentioned the kor-kor, which sounds like the cry of a voice, that was still insufficient; it was his delicacy of mind from the dirtying of the fruit!
Perhaps “delicacy of mind” includes someone who is ill, and harmed by the chirping, and since one could explain Rav Yosef in two ways – chirping or dirtying – therefore he wrote his explanation, as he does in some places, because both appear to him to be true as far as the law.
But isn’t it a group effort?
4. Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Chovel uMazik 1:13
If two people harm a third as one, both are liable and they divide up the payments between them.
It is not constant
5. Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 155:37
Mechaber: When we mention smoke, that is specifically constant smoke, like bakers’ and craftsmen’s ovens. An individual’s oven for baking bread, or a stove, where the smoke does not remain for the bulk of the day – that is not constant. If one were to see it and be silent, he would then forgive it, and he could no longer protest.
Rama: Some say that one may not even complain initially for smoke that is not constant.
6. Siftei Kohen to Choshen Mishpat 155:19
The Mechaber appears to me to be correct, for the Rama wrote in Darkei Moshe, “Terumat haDeshen (Piskim uKtavim 137) rules thus from the Mordechai and Hagahot Maymoniyot and Hagahot Ashri, and it appears that so we should rule, for Terumat haDeshen was later and is a sage upon whom one may depend. This is against the Beit Yosef’s position that one could reject their view before that of Rav Moshe haKohen, who was a well-known authority.”
Had he examined the rulings of Terumat haDeshen himself, he would not have written this; this ruling was not even clear to Terumat haDeshen himself. Regarding this lesson he drew from the Mordechai and Hagahot Maymoniyot and Hagahot Ashri, he concluded, “Still, I would not call you mistaken in your ruling, since you found explicit corroboration in the rulings of Gaonim, and you already know that I do not normally analyze closely when we find explicit rulings of the Gaonim.” It appears that this is why the Beit Yosef ruled with Rav Moshe haKohen.
Also…
No one ever protested before
7. Tosafot, Bava Batra 23a בקוטרא
It appears to the R”I that this lack of a chazakah is specifically the smoke of a kiln, which is great and which causes great harm, as seen in Bava Kama 82b, “One may not establish kilns in Yerushalayim. Why? Because of the smoke.” Also, it was specific to their latrines, which were above ground and smelled more; ours are covered, and so a chazakah would be possible.
8. Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Sh’cheinim 11:6-7
6: If a person develops a chazakah engaging in a type of harm for which a chazakah is possible, such as opening a window or diverting a stream or failing to distance himself properly from others, and he claims, “You told me to do this,” or, “You forgave it to me after you saw this or after the harm was noticeable, and you were silent and did not protest,” and the victim says, “Now I see it, and I didn’t know before,” or “When I saw it I did protest, and you said you would distance yourself or halt, and you pushed me off from day to the next so that you could establish your chazakah,” in all such cases the burden of proof is with the victim. In the absence of proof, the vandal should swear an oath of contradiction, and be exempt.
7: If a person develops a chazakah engaging in a type of harm for which a chazakah is not possible, such as smoke or a latrine or similar items, and the vandal claims that he contracted with the victim to permit it, the burden of proof is with the vandal to demonstrate that there had been an agreement. In the absence of proof, the victim should swear an oath of contradiction that there had been no contract, and the vandal will remove his harm.
Changing policies in mid-stream
9. Responsa of Rashba 3:162
I am inclined toward the view of Rabbeinu Yaakov, that all of these types of harm are harms to the body, and one may say, “I thought I could bear it, but I cannot bear it.” So appears to me from the mishnah about a store in a yard, and from Rav Yosef’s case… However, most of the sages of Israel, and my masters, did not agree… and therefore, in practice I say that one who has already opened his window or brought his smoke or latrine nearby would not be obligated to stop them up or remove them.
10. Netivot haMishpat Chiddushim Choshen Mishpat 156:7
“They are ill” – It appears that if one was healthy and then became ill, chazakah would not be effective. Being ill makes the harm like smoke or a latrine.
Abnormal sensitivities
11. Talmud, Pesachim 113b
We have learned, “Three people’s lives are not life: Merciful people, angry people and people of delicate minds.”
Rav Yosef said: All of these apply to me.
12. Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 155:41
If it is known that a plaintiff cannot bear something, then there is no applicable chazakah even if others could bear it.
Financial Liability
13. Ketzot haChoshen Choshen Mishpat 1:7
Regarding actual monetary liability, even though we do not adjudicate a case today because it is rare or because there is no loss of money involved, still, one must pay in order to satisfy Heaven. One who does not pay is a thief. But regarding fines, satisfying Heaven is irrelevant, for fines depend on the court finding a person guilty…
14. How far must a smoker go?
Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 155:20
Rama: Regarding all harmful agents where the required distance has not been clarified, one must distance to the point that experts say no harm will be caused.
A few websites with key sources on halachot of smoking
References in my HaMakor
The RCA's Paper on Smoking
The Jewish Observer
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Cantors behaving badly
Some dozen years ago, I was hired by a great mentor of mine to translate the Aruch haShulchan's Laws of Shabbos. It was an incredible learning opportunity, on many levels - and one of those was intense exposure to R' Yechiel Michel Epstein's views on halachic debates of his day.
Here is one of my favorite passages, on disobedient chazzanim; it came to mind today because I included it in this week's Toronto Torah, in our Biography/Torah in Translation section:
For some decades, due to our great sins, a tzara'at has spread among cantors. These cantors hold a small silver fork or a lump of iron (termed kamar tone) when standing before the platform on Shabbat and Yom Tov, for setting the song’s pitch. The cantors place the fork between their teeth, and they hear a musical sound; they then know how to arrange the song.
This is, literally, a musical instrument, designed to produce music. We do not have the power to protest their claims that they cannot generate music without these instruments. Due to our great sins, our generation is loose and the masses support these cantors. Not only are we unable to protest, but even exiting the synagogue causes a fight, as is known.
Perhaps it is possible to suggest that this device is not among the “musical instruments” which our sages prohibited, for the following reasons:
•The sound of this music is not heard other than from the cantor’s mouth to his ear,
•The sound is only momentary, and
•The purpose is to generate vocal song, which was never forbidden.
This matches what we wrote regarding whistling and placing one’s hand in one’s mouth.
We need to justify this; it would be disgraceful to say that the Jewish nation would stumble in a shevut (rabbinic Shabbat prohibition), all the more so when standing in prayer before the King of Kings, Gd Himself!
[Further, regarding the practice of saying words, and repeating them twice and three times, and spreading notes before the platform to sing in the style of a performance – all who have awe of heaven are pained by this, and they cannot protest, for the masses are undisciplined, and they will not listen to the words of the sages in this matter! They say that this is their enjoyment of Shabbat and Yom Tov!
In truth, perhaps there is no prohibition in this, but one who is good before Gd will flee therefrom. We have come to justify the actions of the sanctified descendants of Israel, whose eyes are sealed. Perhaps, from the fact that our Sages said one silences a cantor only for repeating the word “Shema,” we may say that this is not true for other words that they repeat twice and three times.
As to the notes they spread before the platform, we cannot present a reason to state a clear prohibition here, and so, “Let Israel practice as it will; better for them to practice in error, etc.”]
Here is one of my favorite passages, on disobedient chazzanim; it came to mind today because I included it in this week's Toronto Torah, in our Biography/Torah in Translation section:
For some decades, due to our great sins, a tzara'at has spread among cantors. These cantors hold a small silver fork or a lump of iron (termed kamar tone) when standing before the platform on Shabbat and Yom Tov, for setting the song’s pitch. The cantors place the fork between their teeth, and they hear a musical sound; they then know how to arrange the song.
This is, literally, a musical instrument, designed to produce music. We do not have the power to protest their claims that they cannot generate music without these instruments. Due to our great sins, our generation is loose and the masses support these cantors. Not only are we unable to protest, but even exiting the synagogue causes a fight, as is known.
Perhaps it is possible to suggest that this device is not among the “musical instruments” which our sages prohibited, for the following reasons:
•The sound of this music is not heard other than from the cantor’s mouth to his ear,
•The sound is only momentary, and
•The purpose is to generate vocal song, which was never forbidden.
This matches what we wrote regarding whistling and placing one’s hand in one’s mouth.
We need to justify this; it would be disgraceful to say that the Jewish nation would stumble in a shevut (rabbinic Shabbat prohibition), all the more so when standing in prayer before the King of Kings, Gd Himself!
[Further, regarding the practice of saying words, and repeating them twice and three times, and spreading notes before the platform to sing in the style of a performance – all who have awe of heaven are pained by this, and they cannot protest, for the masses are undisciplined, and they will not listen to the words of the sages in this matter! They say that this is their enjoyment of Shabbat and Yom Tov!
In truth, perhaps there is no prohibition in this, but one who is good before Gd will flee therefrom. We have come to justify the actions of the sanctified descendants of Israel, whose eyes are sealed. Perhaps, from the fact that our Sages said one silences a cantor only for repeating the word “Shema,” we may say that this is not true for other words that they repeat twice and three times.
As to the notes they spread before the platform, we cannot present a reason to state a clear prohibition here, and so, “Let Israel practice as it will; better for them to practice in error, etc.”]
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Olive, Fig and Grape: Don't say No! (Derashah)
[For the record: I have a poppy on my coat today.]
[Note: This week's "Toronto Torah" is now available here.]
I spoke at a UJA meeting earlier this week, and presented an idea I really like; it would be a good skeleton for a derashah if I were still in the darshaning business.
Here’s a digest:
Avimelech, son of Gideon, uses the aid of the population of Shechem to murder his half-siblings and gain the throne. Yotam, the sole remaining sibling, delivers a public rebuke before disappearing into hiding. (Shoftim 9)
As JPS translates the relevant part of Yotam’s speech:
He went and stood in the top of mount Gerizim, and lifted up his voice, and cried, and said unto them: 'Hearken unto me, ye men of Shechem, that Gd may hearken unto you.
The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive-tree: Reign thou over us.
But the olive-tree said unto them: Should I leave my fatness, seeing that by me they honour G-d and man, and go to hold sway over the trees?
And the trees said to the fig-tree: Come thou, and reign over us.
But the fig-tree said unto them: Should I leave my sweetness, and my good fruitage, and go to hold sway over the trees?
And the trees said unto the vine: Come thou, and reign over us.
And the vine said unto them: Should I leave my wine, which cheereth G-d and man, and go to hold sway over the trees?
Then said all the trees unto the bramble: Come thou, and reign over us.
And the bramble said unto the trees: If in truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and take refuge in my shadow...
Clearly, the main villain whom Yotam targets is his half-brother, the thorn, Avimelech. This is a completely unworthy, unproductive man, and he has accepted the throne.
It is also evident that Yotam blames the population itself for asking the thorn to lead.
But there is another set of villains: The olive, fig and grape, which decline to lead because they wish to preserve their unique attributes, which they fear they would lose if they were to take the throne. The olive is afraid it might lose its dignified position; the fig is afraid it might no longer be seen as the one that produces sweet, satisfying fruit; the grape fears that it will no longer be seen as the source of joy.
I see this all the time, in community work; it’s especially relevant for tzedakah solicitation. People are afraid that they will lose their respected positions if they run around asking for funds. People are afraid that they will be known as takers, rather than givers. People are afraid that they will spend their time talking about war and poverty and social services, and cease to be the life of the party.
But those are the people we need, for their talents! We need people who make community enterprises an honor. We need sweet people who make others feel good. And we need people who bring joy to these serious matters. These are the people who make good on the Torah’s עשר בשביל שתתעשר (“tithe so that you will become wealthy”) pledge – the people who enrich those who give, in many diverse ways that transcend finances. We need the olive, the fig and the grape.
All leaders bring talents to the table. None of us are thorns – but what sort of fruit are we?
And I closed with one more thought: The olive, fig and grape are reticent because they fear losing their dignity, they fear becoming known as takers, they fear being known for dull sobriety. But the truth, and I have seen it many times, is that those who lead end up with greater honor, end up known for the satisfaction they provide rather than the money they take, and end up increasing spiritual joy for themselves and for all they meet.
[Note: This week's "Toronto Torah" is now available here.]
I spoke at a UJA meeting earlier this week, and presented an idea I really like; it would be a good skeleton for a derashah if I were still in the darshaning business.
Here’s a digest:
Avimelech, son of Gideon, uses the aid of the population of Shechem to murder his half-siblings and gain the throne. Yotam, the sole remaining sibling, delivers a public rebuke before disappearing into hiding. (Shoftim 9)
As JPS translates the relevant part of Yotam’s speech:
He went and stood in the top of mount Gerizim, and lifted up his voice, and cried, and said unto them: 'Hearken unto me, ye men of Shechem, that Gd may hearken unto you.
The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive-tree: Reign thou over us.
But the olive-tree said unto them: Should I leave my fatness, seeing that by me they honour G-d and man, and go to hold sway over the trees?
And the trees said to the fig-tree: Come thou, and reign over us.
But the fig-tree said unto them: Should I leave my sweetness, and my good fruitage, and go to hold sway over the trees?
And the trees said unto the vine: Come thou, and reign over us.
And the vine said unto them: Should I leave my wine, which cheereth G-d and man, and go to hold sway over the trees?
Then said all the trees unto the bramble: Come thou, and reign over us.
And the bramble said unto the trees: If in truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and take refuge in my shadow...
Clearly, the main villain whom Yotam targets is his half-brother, the thorn, Avimelech. This is a completely unworthy, unproductive man, and he has accepted the throne.
It is also evident that Yotam blames the population itself for asking the thorn to lead.
But there is another set of villains: The olive, fig and grape, which decline to lead because they wish to preserve their unique attributes, which they fear they would lose if they were to take the throne. The olive is afraid it might lose its dignified position; the fig is afraid it might no longer be seen as the one that produces sweet, satisfying fruit; the grape fears that it will no longer be seen as the source of joy.
I see this all the time, in community work; it’s especially relevant for tzedakah solicitation. People are afraid that they will lose their respected positions if they run around asking for funds. People are afraid that they will be known as takers, rather than givers. People are afraid that they will spend their time talking about war and poverty and social services, and cease to be the life of the party.
But those are the people we need, for their talents! We need people who make community enterprises an honor. We need sweet people who make others feel good. And we need people who bring joy to these serious matters. These are the people who make good on the Torah’s עשר בשביל שתתעשר (“tithe so that you will become wealthy”) pledge – the people who enrich those who give, in many diverse ways that transcend finances. We need the olive, the fig and the grape.
All leaders bring talents to the table. None of us are thorns – but what sort of fruit are we?
And I closed with one more thought: The olive, fig and grape are reticent because they fear losing their dignity, they fear becoming known as takers, they fear being known for dull sobriety. But the truth, and I have seen it many times, is that those who lead end up with greater honor, end up known for the satisfaction they provide rather than the money they take, and end up increasing spiritual joy for themselves and for all they meet.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Must-See TV for synagogue rabbis, presidents, and anyone creating a community institution
This is it; this is the real deal: What if Starbucks Marketed Like the Church?
Everything from the reserved parking spots (yes, I had one)
to the locked doors
to the overt emphasis on winning souls/converts
to the harrassment-in-the-name-of-being-welcoming
to the hard-sell for new attendees
to the over-branding
to the lack of follow-through on positive initiatives
to the reliance on direct marketing
to the lack of helpful signage for new people...
Wow.
The video comes from a site called BeyondRelevance.com, and the commentary on their site is so on-key, so on-the-mark for everything I've seen over the years, it's scary.
Example: Their observation on the way we treat volunteers-
I think we feel so grateful for Bob (the guy who volunteers to do the PowerPoint), that on his first day, we do our best to make sure we do not upset him. After all, what if he stops coming? Then what are we going to do? No, what we will do is give him the least amount of information about his duty we can (as we do not have time to really train him) and then we will put up with him not doing it perfectly since he is so faithful (of course he has no real idea what perfection to us is), until one day we get fed up and fire him from his post and crush his spirit by telling how he "never" does it right, when we never trained him what right is.
[It's not just volunteers, either; I've seen the same thing happen to paid personnel.]
Must-See TV, indeed. I'm off to email the video link to several hundred of my closest friends.
h/t Or Am I
Everything from the reserved parking spots (yes, I had one)
to the locked doors
to the overt emphasis on winning souls/converts
to the harrassment-in-the-name-of-being-welcoming
to the hard-sell for new attendees
to the over-branding
to the lack of follow-through on positive initiatives
to the reliance on direct marketing
to the lack of helpful signage for new people...
Wow.
The video comes from a site called BeyondRelevance.com, and the commentary on their site is so on-key, so on-the-mark for everything I've seen over the years, it's scary.
Example: Their observation on the way we treat volunteers-
I think we feel so grateful for Bob (the guy who volunteers to do the PowerPoint), that on his first day, we do our best to make sure we do not upset him. After all, what if he stops coming? Then what are we going to do? No, what we will do is give him the least amount of information about his duty we can (as we do not have time to really train him) and then we will put up with him not doing it perfectly since he is so faithful (of course he has no real idea what perfection to us is), until one day we get fed up and fire him from his post and crush his spirit by telling how he "never" does it right, when we never trained him what right is.
[It's not just volunteers, either; I've seen the same thing happen to paid personnel.]
Must-See TV, indeed. I'm off to email the video link to several hundred of my closest friends.
h/t Or Am I
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Of Rabbis and Poppies and Remembrance Day
I’ve noticed more than a few people walking around with felt poppies attached to their lapels over the past week, in honor of Remembrance Day (November 11). I don’t recall ever seeing this in the US, but upon investigation I have found it to be the standard way to mark Remembrance Day/Veterans Day/Armistice Day in Canada, as well as several other countries.
The question, of course: Will I wear a poppy?
I’m torn on this issue. (No, this is not another semi-serious post about being an American in Canada. This one is serious.)
Why wear it?
1. I believe patriotism to a secular government is an important value for the Jewish community, on levels both moral and pragmatic.
2. Further, as a friend has pointed out, lack of overt patriotism in our institutions may contribute to the delinquency of those few but notorious Jews who violate the laws of the land.
3. I also feel personally patriotic, as I wrote here.
4. And how could one not feel and display gratitude to people who knowingly risked their lives – and lost that gamble – for the sake of fighting Nazism and other scourges? It would seem to me that the Jewish community should produce poppies en masse, and make them mandatory garb.
Further, this is clearly not “chukot akum (the ways of the nations - the Torah prohibits us from emulating the nations around us),” for two reasons:
A. As the Sifri (Devarim 81) points out, the major concern of the prohibition against emulating non-Jewish ways is about being drawn into acting like them, and I would be hard-pressed to apply that to the poppies. (Rashi also introduces the similarly inapplicable concept of superstition in Shabbat 67a.)
B. The halachah is fairly clear that we would not apply the rules of chukot akum to an ornament that is not, in its nature and definition, an irrational חוק. See Rama Yoreh Deah 178:1: This is all prohibited only as far as conduct they practice for the sake of immorality, such as the red clothes their aristocracy wears, and practices they have inaugurated and made into rules for themselves, without reason; there is cause to be concerned for Emorite superstition or idolatry behind these practices. If they have a beneficial practice, though, such as that expert doctors wear a certain garment which signifies their expertise, then one may wear such a garment. Similarly, one may wear garments which are worn for honor or for some other reason.
And yet, and yet…
Overt patriotism is still somewhat “un-cool” in the observant community, perhaps a product of centuries of harm wreaked by a range of governments upon our people, as well as our externally and internally imposed sense of being “other.” Although I have seen many observant Jews around Toronto wearing these decorations, my sense is that they are the minority. (This may change on November 11 itself; we’ll see.)
And then there is the added factor of my role as Rabbi, even sans synagogue. For those who do see the poppies as a sign of assimilation, I would be written off as left-wing, and that would make teaching in those parts of the communities impossible. (And, let’s not deny it – I don’t particularly cherish the possibility of personal unpopularity. I imagine teenagers go through the same thing re: poppies. Peer pressure lives.)
But I do think it's the right thing to do.
So I don’t know what I will do. I'm inclined to wear it... but I'm still mulling.
[Update: In the end, I did wear a poppy on my coat.]
The question, of course: Will I wear a poppy?
I’m torn on this issue. (No, this is not another semi-serious post about being an American in Canada. This one is serious.)
Why wear it?
1. I believe patriotism to a secular government is an important value for the Jewish community, on levels both moral and pragmatic.
2. Further, as a friend has pointed out, lack of overt patriotism in our institutions may contribute to the delinquency of those few but notorious Jews who violate the laws of the land.
3. I also feel personally patriotic, as I wrote here.
4. And how could one not feel and display gratitude to people who knowingly risked their lives – and lost that gamble – for the sake of fighting Nazism and other scourges? It would seem to me that the Jewish community should produce poppies en masse, and make them mandatory garb.
Further, this is clearly not “chukot akum (the ways of the nations - the Torah prohibits us from emulating the nations around us),” for two reasons:
A. As the Sifri (Devarim 81) points out, the major concern of the prohibition against emulating non-Jewish ways is about being drawn into acting like them, and I would be hard-pressed to apply that to the poppies. (Rashi also introduces the similarly inapplicable concept of superstition in Shabbat 67a.)
B. The halachah is fairly clear that we would not apply the rules of chukot akum to an ornament that is not, in its nature and definition, an irrational חוק. See Rama Yoreh Deah 178:1: This is all prohibited only as far as conduct they practice for the sake of immorality, such as the red clothes their aristocracy wears, and practices they have inaugurated and made into rules for themselves, without reason; there is cause to be concerned for Emorite superstition or idolatry behind these practices. If they have a beneficial practice, though, such as that expert doctors wear a certain garment which signifies their expertise, then one may wear such a garment. Similarly, one may wear garments which are worn for honor or for some other reason.
And yet, and yet…
Overt patriotism is still somewhat “un-cool” in the observant community, perhaps a product of centuries of harm wreaked by a range of governments upon our people, as well as our externally and internally imposed sense of being “other.” Although I have seen many observant Jews around Toronto wearing these decorations, my sense is that they are the minority. (This may change on November 11 itself; we’ll see.)
And then there is the added factor of my role as Rabbi, even sans synagogue. For those who do see the poppies as a sign of assimilation, I would be written off as left-wing, and that would make teaching in those parts of the communities impossible. (And, let’s not deny it – I don’t particularly cherish the possibility of personal unpopularity. I imagine teenagers go through the same thing re: poppies. Peer pressure lives.)
But I do think it's the right thing to do.
So I don’t know what I will do. I'm inclined to wear it... but I'm still mulling.
[Update: In the end, I did wear a poppy on my coat.]
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Would you watch this movie?
[This week's Toronto Torah is now available here!]
Here’s the movie review:
“The actors were stiff, their motions minimalist in the extreme. The movements the director prescribed to fill out the picture, to lend impact to their words, to convince the audience that they really meant what they were saying and to help the players themselves feel their roles, fell flat with a dispassionate listlessness. It was like watching a script read-through; they might as well have been sitting around a table.”
I certainly wouldn’t go to a movie like that.
This theatrical image came to mind the other day, when I was thinking about the movements we associate with davening (prayer). An entire suite of motions prescribed by talmud and shulchan aruch are meant to help us enter a fruitful frame of mind for davening (ספר החינוך: אחרי הפעולות נמשכים הלבבות):
• We cover our eyes for Shma, miming concentration
• We take three steps forward to begin the amidah, as though approaching royalty; ditto for the three steps back at the end, as though departing from royalty’s presence
• We stand with our feet together for the amidah, pretending to be the single-legged angels described in Yechezkel as well as the tight-stepping kohanim who served in the beit hamikdash (Tur Orach Chaim 95)
• We bow from our knees and waist, conveying humility
• We lightly beat our chest with our fist when apologizing for our sins, showing remorse
• We lean forward and shield our eyes for tachanun, demonstrating humbled apology for our errors
Tallit and tefillin have special dramatic practices:
• Those who wear a tallit enwrap themselves entirely while reciting the berachah, and some also wear the tallit over their heads for parts of davening, displaying isolation
• We kiss our tzitzit and tefillin at various points, showing love for these mitzvot
We can build up a powerful frame of mind, drawing ourselves out of our daily rush and into humility, into seclusion with Gd, into love of mitzvot, with these simple actions.
But what good are all of these dramatic gestures, what is the use of all of this drama, if the bows are perfunctory, the steps are casual, the tachanun-lean is more of an opportunity to take a nap than to plead embarrassed guilt?
Perhaps even before we address the problem of talking to others during davening, we could address the way we talk to Gd in the davening – in words and in deeds.
I think I could accomplish much more with my prayer, if I would view it this way, as a drama, and push myself to really act it out as it was meant to be acted out. It could be wonderfully positive.
I certainly want the Great Theater Critic to enjoy it, and to come back for more.
Here’s the movie review:
“The actors were stiff, their motions minimalist in the extreme. The movements the director prescribed to fill out the picture, to lend impact to their words, to convince the audience that they really meant what they were saying and to help the players themselves feel their roles, fell flat with a dispassionate listlessness. It was like watching a script read-through; they might as well have been sitting around a table.”
I certainly wouldn’t go to a movie like that.
This theatrical image came to mind the other day, when I was thinking about the movements we associate with davening (prayer). An entire suite of motions prescribed by talmud and shulchan aruch are meant to help us enter a fruitful frame of mind for davening (ספר החינוך: אחרי הפעולות נמשכים הלבבות):
• We cover our eyes for Shma, miming concentration
• We take three steps forward to begin the amidah, as though approaching royalty; ditto for the three steps back at the end, as though departing from royalty’s presence
• We stand with our feet together for the amidah, pretending to be the single-legged angels described in Yechezkel as well as the tight-stepping kohanim who served in the beit hamikdash (Tur Orach Chaim 95)
• We bow from our knees and waist, conveying humility
• We lightly beat our chest with our fist when apologizing for our sins, showing remorse
• We lean forward and shield our eyes for tachanun, demonstrating humbled apology for our errors
Tallit and tefillin have special dramatic practices:
• Those who wear a tallit enwrap themselves entirely while reciting the berachah, and some also wear the tallit over their heads for parts of davening, displaying isolation
• We kiss our tzitzit and tefillin at various points, showing love for these mitzvot
We can build up a powerful frame of mind, drawing ourselves out of our daily rush and into humility, into seclusion with Gd, into love of mitzvot, with these simple actions.
But what good are all of these dramatic gestures, what is the use of all of this drama, if the bows are perfunctory, the steps are casual, the tachanun-lean is more of an opportunity to take a nap than to plead embarrassed guilt?
Perhaps even before we address the problem of talking to others during davening, we could address the way we talk to Gd in the davening – in words and in deeds.
I think I could accomplish much more with my prayer, if I would view it this way, as a drama, and push myself to really act it out as it was meant to be acted out. It could be wonderfully positive.
I certainly want the Great Theater Critic to enjoy it, and to come back for more.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
At last, an ally to break Ontario’s DriveTest Strike?
[Warning: There is no Torah in this post, just frustration. And another reason to wonder about Canada.]
680 News reported this morning that truckers would protest Ontario’s DriveTest strike today – I’m glad to finally have an ally.
We moved to Toronto in August, and our auto insurers want us to get Ontario driver’s licenses. It’s a reasonable enough request, but we can’t fulfill it; the Serco DES corporation responsible for licensing has been on strike for months (since August 21, four days after we moved here), and there’s no end in sight.
Part of the problem is that the government lacks any incentive to bring the strike to an end; every day the workers stay home is a day that the government saves money. At one point the employees actually offered to go back to work provisionally, and the government told them not to bother.
Who’s going to lobby for this strike to end - the minuscule number of people who have immigrated to Canada over these couple of months? Even the soon-to-be-voting teenagers have no leverage as they wait to be licensed, since most of their parents are just overjoyed that they don’t need to pay for a car and insurance for their children.
More, strikes here are just part of the culture. They're part of an economic system that favors labor unions. They're as Canadian as the air you breathe, the water you drink, the trash you compost in those tiny rolling green bins you had better lock tight or the natives of the raccoon capital of the world will have a party Wednesday night (video here).
And so it goes. The auto insurers have agreed to extend our insurance for now, but there’s no telling how long that will last. There is one ServiceOntario office in Toronto offering licensing services, but that’s a joke; I went there last week and was told it would be a four-hour wait just to get to the head of the line.
Perhaps the truckers will be the ones to bring this mess to an end. Snarl enough roads, delay enough shipments, and maybe someone will listen.
Ah, for the days of Reagan and the air traffic controllers. Or even the days of the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919, when the Canadian Army (yes, there is one) came in to break the police strike.
Ironically, this strike was about job security. What does “job security” mean when you sit at home without a paycheck for more than two months? And how much job security do you deserve, when 99% of the province can do just fine without you?
680 News reported this morning that truckers would protest Ontario’s DriveTest strike today – I’m glad to finally have an ally.
We moved to Toronto in August, and our auto insurers want us to get Ontario driver’s licenses. It’s a reasonable enough request, but we can’t fulfill it; the Serco DES corporation responsible for licensing has been on strike for months (since August 21, four days after we moved here), and there’s no end in sight.
Part of the problem is that the government lacks any incentive to bring the strike to an end; every day the workers stay home is a day that the government saves money. At one point the employees actually offered to go back to work provisionally, and the government told them not to bother.
Who’s going to lobby for this strike to end - the minuscule number of people who have immigrated to Canada over these couple of months? Even the soon-to-be-voting teenagers have no leverage as they wait to be licensed, since most of their parents are just overjoyed that they don’t need to pay for a car and insurance for their children.
More, strikes here are just part of the culture. They're part of an economic system that favors labor unions. They're as Canadian as the air you breathe, the water you drink, the trash you compost in those tiny rolling green bins you had better lock tight or the natives of the raccoon capital of the world will have a party Wednesday night (video here).
And so it goes. The auto insurers have agreed to extend our insurance for now, but there’s no telling how long that will last. There is one ServiceOntario office in Toronto offering licensing services, but that’s a joke; I went there last week and was told it would be a four-hour wait just to get to the head of the line.
Perhaps the truckers will be the ones to bring this mess to an end. Snarl enough roads, delay enough shipments, and maybe someone will listen.
Ah, for the days of Reagan and the air traffic controllers. Or even the days of the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919, when the Canadian Army (yes, there is one) came in to break the police strike.
Ironically, this strike was about job security. What does “job security” mean when you sit at home without a paycheck for more than two months? And how much job security do you deserve, when 99% of the province can do just fine without you?
Monday, November 2, 2009
How many offended women can you find in this picture?
Almost twenty years ago, I spent a wonderful summer in a YU “Summer Kollel” in Charleston, South Carolina. (I loved it so much that I went back and did it again a few years later; I highly recommend that community as a travel destination, both for the warmth of the people and the beauty of the surroundings.) One night, a gentleman with whom I was learning began to pose questions about the talmudic portrayal of women. After several rounds, I commented to him that the issues he was raising – the usual, fundamental cases, like Sotah, which emerge in Tanach and Talmud – didn’t trouble me nearly as much as the more subtle sources one would find upon learning more esoteric sources.
Herewith an example I saw this morning, from the Levush (Even haEzer 1):
יתברך שמו של הקב"ה אשר חפץ בטוב בריותיו, כי יודע בשער חכמתו יתברך שאין טוב לאדם היותו לבדו, עשה לו עזר כנגדו, דכתיב [בראשית ב, יח] לא טוב היות האדם לבדו אעשה לו עזר כנגדו. ומפני שהיתה אחת מן הכוונות בבריאת האדם שיפרה וירבה, דכתיב [ישעיה מה, יח] כי לא לתוהו בראה לשבת יצרה, עשה זה העזר בזה האופן שעל ידה יוכל לפרות ולרבות, דכתיב [בראשית ב, כב] ויבן [ה' אלקים] את הצלע, עשאה כמו בנין קצר למעלה ורחב למטה לקבל הולד, ועל כן צוהו לדבק בעזר זה שעשה לו דכתיב [שם כד] ודבק באשתו, שאז תהיה לו גם היא לעזר ולהועיל בכל צרכיו, לא לבד בענין הפריה ורביה.
In loose translation:
Blessed be the Name of Gd, who wants the best for His creations, for He knows through His wisdom that it is not good for man to be alone, and so He formed a help opposite him, as it is written, ‘It is not good for man to be alone; I will make a help opposite him.’
And because one of the intentions in creating man was that he should reproduce, as it is written, ‘For He did not create it to be empty; He formed it to be settled,’ therefore He made this help in such a way that through her he could reproduce, as it is written, “‘And Gd formed the side’ – He made it like a building, narrow above and broad below in order to receive the child.”
And therefore He instructed man to cling to this help He formed for him, as it is written, ‘And he shall stick to his wife,’ and then she will be an aid and benefit for him in all of his needs, and not only in procreation.
This is just asking for trouble, isn’t it?
• The woman was created because Adam needed an assist;
• The reason for a man to marry is so that he will find assistance for his path in life;
• The main feature in a woman’s design is that she should be an incubator.
In truth, I don’t have a problem with this source; I follow the view of Ramban, and the gemara at the end of Berachot, that Man and Woman were initially created as one body (“Adam”) and separate souls, and then Gd split them into separate bodies, to improve their functionality. To my mind, the Levush is not talking about the creation of the female soul, but about the division of men and women into separate bodies . (This is a logical read; otherwise, how would one understand his formulation of the original plan for reproduction?) And, yes, that female body is generally (although not always, of course) designed for reproduction.
But reading a source like this passage from the Levush is frustrating, because it just begs to be misinterpreted. Why should the reader analyze the text in depth, when it’s easier to read the material superficially and condemn it?
It makes me wish there had been female Torah authorities writing centuries ago; I believe they would have presented the same idea, but they would have done so with greater sensitivity…
Herewith an example I saw this morning, from the Levush (Even haEzer 1):
יתברך שמו של הקב"ה אשר חפץ בטוב בריותיו, כי יודע בשער חכמתו יתברך שאין טוב לאדם היותו לבדו, עשה לו עזר כנגדו, דכתיב [בראשית ב, יח] לא טוב היות האדם לבדו אעשה לו עזר כנגדו. ומפני שהיתה אחת מן הכוונות בבריאת האדם שיפרה וירבה, דכתיב [ישעיה מה, יח] כי לא לתוהו בראה לשבת יצרה, עשה זה העזר בזה האופן שעל ידה יוכל לפרות ולרבות, דכתיב [בראשית ב, כב] ויבן [ה' אלקים] את הצלע, עשאה כמו בנין קצר למעלה ורחב למטה לקבל הולד, ועל כן צוהו לדבק בעזר זה שעשה לו דכתיב [שם כד] ודבק באשתו, שאז תהיה לו גם היא לעזר ולהועיל בכל צרכיו, לא לבד בענין הפריה ורביה.
In loose translation:
Blessed be the Name of Gd, who wants the best for His creations, for He knows through His wisdom that it is not good for man to be alone, and so He formed a help opposite him, as it is written, ‘It is not good for man to be alone; I will make a help opposite him.’
And because one of the intentions in creating man was that he should reproduce, as it is written, ‘For He did not create it to be empty; He formed it to be settled,’ therefore He made this help in such a way that through her he could reproduce, as it is written, “‘And Gd formed the side’ – He made it like a building, narrow above and broad below in order to receive the child.”
And therefore He instructed man to cling to this help He formed for him, as it is written, ‘And he shall stick to his wife,’ and then she will be an aid and benefit for him in all of his needs, and not only in procreation.
This is just asking for trouble, isn’t it?
• The woman was created because Adam needed an assist;
• The reason for a man to marry is so that he will find assistance for his path in life;
• The main feature in a woman’s design is that she should be an incubator.
In truth, I don’t have a problem with this source; I follow the view of Ramban, and the gemara at the end of Berachot, that Man and Woman were initially created as one body (“Adam”) and separate souls, and then Gd split them into separate bodies, to improve their functionality. To my mind, the Levush is not talking about the creation of the female soul, but about the division of men and women into separate bodies . (This is a logical read; otherwise, how would one understand his formulation of the original plan for reproduction?) And, yes, that female body is generally (although not always, of course) designed for reproduction.
But reading a source like this passage from the Levush is frustrating, because it just begs to be misinterpreted. Why should the reader analyze the text in depth, when it’s easier to read the material superficially and condemn it?
It makes me wish there had been female Torah authorities writing centuries ago; I believe they would have presented the same idea, but they would have done so with greater sensitivity…
Sunday, November 1, 2009
You Make the Shiur!
[Haveil Havalim is here!]
One of the real attractions of my position with our new Beit Midrash in Toronto is the chance to work with our avrechim (fellows), helping them evolve as darshanim (orators) and maggidei shiur (teachers).
All of our avrechim are talented and learned, and all of them bring teaching experience to the table, so we are not talking about basic homiletics or lessons in how to structure a shiur. Finding ways to help them raise their game, so to speak, is a real challenge.
One innovation of which I am particularly proud is, “You Make the Shiur!” In this weekly program, I present the group with a מראה מקום, a text, and then they take some time during the week to develop a derashah or shiur involving that מראה מקום. Then we get together at the end of the week and review what each of us has done, and we make suggestions for improving each approach, or we point out ways that it could be challenged.
For example: This past week we looked at a gemara (Shabbat 89b) in which Avraham and Yaakov refuse to defend the Jews to Gd, but Yitzchak does so, first declaring that we are Gd’s own children, then minimizing the nation’s sins through a calculation of how much time we spend not-sinning, and finally arguing for mercy in the merit of his personal עקידה sacrifice.
Here’s what we did with it:
• One of us turned that source into a derashah on defending each other before Gd, using a comment by the Netziv in his introduction to Bereishit.
• Another suggested a derashah about the gap between our expectations from our parents and the way our parents act toward us.
• Another approach was to discuss the way that even chesed (generosity) has its limits, but that we may still be able to claim HaShem’s promises to us as a matter of justice.
• Another approach was to take an in-depth look at Yitzchak’s trait of Gevurah (strength), and its inner meaning, in a shiur.
• Yet another shiur avenue was to discuss Yitzchak’s association with Din (judgment), with a comment by the Maharsha and another by Rebbe Nachman miBreslov to explain how Din could be used for our redemption.
• And still another shiur approach was to fit Avraham and Yaakov’s refusal to defend us into a pattern of neviim who saw a limit to Divine forgiveness (Moshe, Yirmiyah, Eliyahu, Hosheia, Yonah, Chavakuk), because of the demands of Divine Justice. R’ Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon’s emergence from the cave fits as well. Yitzchak, though, knew what it meant to give one’s life for Divine Justice, and so he argued on our behalf.
I think you can see why I enjoy this method; it allows for a richness of individual creativity within a collaborative effort, and the result is rich and complex. It is also one of the many elements that make our Toronto Beit Midrash a unique development experience for our avrechim.
You can find the list of “You make the shiur!” sources we’ve used by clicking here; please visit, and make your own comments there.
One of the real attractions of my position with our new Beit Midrash in Toronto is the chance to work with our avrechim (fellows), helping them evolve as darshanim (orators) and maggidei shiur (teachers).
All of our avrechim are talented and learned, and all of them bring teaching experience to the table, so we are not talking about basic homiletics or lessons in how to structure a shiur. Finding ways to help them raise their game, so to speak, is a real challenge.
One innovation of which I am particularly proud is, “You Make the Shiur!” In this weekly program, I present the group with a מראה מקום, a text, and then they take some time during the week to develop a derashah or shiur involving that מראה מקום. Then we get together at the end of the week and review what each of us has done, and we make suggestions for improving each approach, or we point out ways that it could be challenged.
For example: This past week we looked at a gemara (Shabbat 89b) in which Avraham and Yaakov refuse to defend the Jews to Gd, but Yitzchak does so, first declaring that we are Gd’s own children, then minimizing the nation’s sins through a calculation of how much time we spend not-sinning, and finally arguing for mercy in the merit of his personal עקידה sacrifice.
Here’s what we did with it:
• One of us turned that source into a derashah on defending each other before Gd, using a comment by the Netziv in his introduction to Bereishit.
• Another suggested a derashah about the gap between our expectations from our parents and the way our parents act toward us.
• Another approach was to discuss the way that even chesed (generosity) has its limits, but that we may still be able to claim HaShem’s promises to us as a matter of justice.
• Another approach was to take an in-depth look at Yitzchak’s trait of Gevurah (strength), and its inner meaning, in a shiur.
• Yet another shiur avenue was to discuss Yitzchak’s association with Din (judgment), with a comment by the Maharsha and another by Rebbe Nachman miBreslov to explain how Din could be used for our redemption.
• And still another shiur approach was to fit Avraham and Yaakov’s refusal to defend us into a pattern of neviim who saw a limit to Divine forgiveness (Moshe, Yirmiyah, Eliyahu, Hosheia, Yonah, Chavakuk), because of the demands of Divine Justice. R’ Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon’s emergence from the cave fits as well. Yitzchak, though, knew what it meant to give one’s life for Divine Justice, and so he argued on our behalf.
I think you can see why I enjoy this method; it allows for a richness of individual creativity within a collaborative effort, and the result is rich and complex. It is also one of the many elements that make our Toronto Beit Midrash a unique development experience for our avrechim.
You can find the list of “You make the shiur!” sources we’ve used by clicking here; please visit, and make your own comments there.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
A Laptop in the Beit Midrash?
[Note: This week’s Toronto Torah עלון is now available on-line here.]
One afternoon a few weeks back, while waiting for minchah, I studied a teshuvah (responsum) by Rav Yitzchak Weiss, courtesy of my Bar Ilan CD-ROM – using a laptop. A gentleman strolled past and commented, “Try bringing that… kli [implement] into the Satmar beis medrash, it wouldn’t last a minute!”
I was non-plussed to be addressed that way, but, in truth, I share his sentiment; I am not a fan of having a laptop in the beit midrash, for several reasons:
• I like to make notes in my sefarim – not exactly do-able in a virtual margin, or at least not in the familiar way;
• Laptops, and their power sources, are clumsy, particularly in rooms that were not designed for this sort of use and which therefore lack outlets;
• This is a function of my generation, but I still find laptops stand out in a beit midrash, and distract people from their learning;
• Most of all, a laptop poses a distraction. It provides access to email and to games and to the Internet, and to distractions which can pose as legitimate for seder time (Israel News, updating our Toronto Torah website, working on our weekly Toronto Torah bulletin), but which are not.
Having said that, I now use a laptop in the beit midrash, for a few reasons:
• I have no time at home to write up shiurim and source sheets, so I need to do it in the beit midrash itself;
• I need access to sefarim beyond those stocked in our beit midrash here;
• I spend considerable time developing shiurim on new technologies (next week: Bionic Eyes), and sites like Tzomet have a lot of internet-only information necessary for understanding those halachot.
But I am still troubled – both by the problems I mentioned above, and one additional problem: Ease of Publication. Laptops, through their access to email and to the Internet, make publication entirely too easy.
Read a teshuvah and have a question, or an insight? Send it by email to your thirty closest friends. Think of a novel idea? Post it to your blog. Give a shiur? Post audio and video for all to download. Even without Net access - type up every quasi-chiddush that comes to mind and archive it for your eventual self-published sefer.
The result is that learning becomes shallow, with little thought and little review. Every question, every answer, every thought, is instantly conveyed to the masses, without careful error-checking, analysis, or even editing.
Certainly, other people are not vulnerable to this phenomenon; it’s likely only me. Nonetheless, for me, having a computer around is like being a football coach walking around with a mike on him; it lends itself to hyper-publication.
So I continue to lug my laptop to the beit midrash, but at heart I agree with my pre-minchah heckler; I am not comfortable having this kli in the beit midrash, either.
One afternoon a few weeks back, while waiting for minchah, I studied a teshuvah (responsum) by Rav Yitzchak Weiss, courtesy of my Bar Ilan CD-ROM – using a laptop. A gentleman strolled past and commented, “Try bringing that… kli [implement] into the Satmar beis medrash, it wouldn’t last a minute!”
I was non-plussed to be addressed that way, but, in truth, I share his sentiment; I am not a fan of having a laptop in the beit midrash, for several reasons:
• I like to make notes in my sefarim – not exactly do-able in a virtual margin, or at least not in the familiar way;
• Laptops, and their power sources, are clumsy, particularly in rooms that were not designed for this sort of use and which therefore lack outlets;
• This is a function of my generation, but I still find laptops stand out in a beit midrash, and distract people from their learning;
• Most of all, a laptop poses a distraction. It provides access to email and to games and to the Internet, and to distractions which can pose as legitimate for seder time (Israel News, updating our Toronto Torah website, working on our weekly Toronto Torah bulletin), but which are not.
Having said that, I now use a laptop in the beit midrash, for a few reasons:
• I have no time at home to write up shiurim and source sheets, so I need to do it in the beit midrash itself;
• I need access to sefarim beyond those stocked in our beit midrash here;
• I spend considerable time developing shiurim on new technologies (next week: Bionic Eyes), and sites like Tzomet have a lot of internet-only information necessary for understanding those halachot.
But I am still troubled – both by the problems I mentioned above, and one additional problem: Ease of Publication. Laptops, through their access to email and to the Internet, make publication entirely too easy.
Read a teshuvah and have a question, or an insight? Send it by email to your thirty closest friends. Think of a novel idea? Post it to your blog. Give a shiur? Post audio and video for all to download. Even without Net access - type up every quasi-chiddush that comes to mind and archive it for your eventual self-published sefer.
The result is that learning becomes shallow, with little thought and little review. Every question, every answer, every thought, is instantly conveyed to the masses, without careful error-checking, analysis, or even editing.
Certainly, other people are not vulnerable to this phenomenon; it’s likely only me. Nonetheless, for me, having a computer around is like being a football coach walking around with a mike on him; it lends itself to hyper-publication.
So I continue to lug my laptop to the beit midrash, but at heart I agree with my pre-minchah heckler; I am not comfortable having this kli in the beit midrash, either.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Taking all of the trouble out of writing a dvar torah
People need to write divrei torah (brief Torah-based speeches) for various occasions - a family celebration, a funeral ר"ל, a board meeting, an introduction to the parshah at minyan, a Shabbos table, etc. Unfortunately, many people have difficulty with this task; their knowledge, their sense of homiletic structure, or their available time may not be up to the task. What can they do?
Many people surf the Internet and print out their favorite dvar torah - meaning, usually, the first item that comes to hand that is less than three pages long (if they are merciful).
A few years ago, I taught a "How to prepare a dvar torah" class, to try to help people use commonly available resources to develop their own divrei torah. Didn't get much interest, although I have certainly had many people come to me over the years for one-on-one help in this area.
I once fantasized about creating a "Build-a-Dvar" seminar with our new Toronto beit midrash, designed along the lines of "Build-a-Bear." We would have each avrech staff a piece of an assembly line. One would work on core texts, the next on questions about the text, the third on source material, the fourth on openers and the fifth on closers - and there you are, dvar torah complete. It would be fun, I think, but I'm not sure how many participants we would get for it...
...Especially since someone else has come up with a new way to help people build divrei torah. I discovered a resource which is new to me: TorahInspirations.com.
Their website promises:
And the site even includes sample divrei torah, complete with the personalized pieces.
I wonder whether the siteowners get any business. I suspect that people who won't write their own are more apt to grab something off the Net, or solicit a relative/Rabbi for help, than to approach strangers on a website. But who knows?
Would you go to them for help?
Would you just grab the latest off of aish.com?
Would you decline the honor altogether?
In short: What is your approach, when solicited to deliver a dvar torah?
Many people surf the Internet and print out their favorite dvar torah - meaning, usually, the first item that comes to hand that is less than three pages long (if they are merciful).
A few years ago, I taught a "How to prepare a dvar torah" class, to try to help people use commonly available resources to develop their own divrei torah. Didn't get much interest, although I have certainly had many people come to me over the years for one-on-one help in this area.
I once fantasized about creating a "Build-a-Dvar" seminar with our new Toronto beit midrash, designed along the lines of "Build-a-Bear." We would have each avrech staff a piece of an assembly line. One would work on core texts, the next on questions about the text, the third on source material, the fourth on openers and the fifth on closers - and there you are, dvar torah complete. It would be fun, I think, but I'm not sure how many participants we would get for it...
...Especially since someone else has come up with a new way to help people build divrei torah. I discovered a resource which is new to me: TorahInspirations.com.
Their website promises:
On your special occasion your words will reflect your innermost thoughts and feelings and you will bring those you love into your world. We are experts in helping you define your own thoughts, and helping you find your own voice.
Are you having trouble gathering your thoughts?
We can help you express your thoughts and emotions in a clear, meaningful and powerful manner!
Have you run out of time?
Don't worry - we are quick, professional and provide an excellent service! You have enough to do - let us write your speech!
And the site even includes sample divrei torah, complete with the personalized pieces.
I wonder whether the siteowners get any business. I suspect that people who won't write their own are more apt to grab something off the Net, or solicit a relative/Rabbi for help, than to approach strangers on a website. But who knows?
Would you go to them for help?
Would you just grab the latest off of aish.com?
Would you decline the honor altogether?
In short: What is your approach, when solicited to deliver a dvar torah?
Sunday, October 25, 2009
I love this job
[This week's Haveil Havalim is here!]
It took me a little while (see here, here and here, for example), but I’m really starting to enjoy my position with the new YU/Torah miTzion Beit Midrash (aka “YU Kollel”) in Toronto.
Leaving the rabbinate is still difficult, but as I write this on the eve of our official “Launch,” and after a Shabbaton with our chevra in Thornhill, I can really say that this is turning out to be both challenging and fun.
Among the highlights:
• The great opportunities to work creatively with community institutions, ranging from the shuls to UJA to JCCs to schools to youth organizations;
• The tremendous chance to do this with my brilliant and energetic co-conspirator, Rabbi Azarya Berzon, our scholar-in-residence;
• The chance to work with four incredible avrechim and our Executive Director, each a unique mind, each talented in a unique way, and yet forming a positive, cohesive group;
• The opportunity to invent new ways to help these fantastic four avrechim develop. We are already doing some remarkable things in this area, such as our "Toronto Torah" עלון and a “You Make the Shiur” project I hope to discuss on this blog soon;
• The ability to spend much of my time in learning and shiur-development;
• The opportunity to work with great shul rabbonim across the spectrum;
• The chance to offer all sorts of shiurim, from minchas chinuch to Tanach to creative Jewish writing, in diverse venues;
• The opportunity to do all of this in Toronto, a cosmopolitan community with some 180,000 Jews of various stripes and flavors, an audience that demands creativity and offers me a great stage on which to try new approaches.
…Not to mention, I get to do all of this while living through Thursdays without the megastress I formerly faced, and I get to be with my children for so much more of Shabbos.
Pretty soon, our new websitewill be ready is now ready; you can preview it here. I hope you’ll let me know how we could improve it.
It took me a little while (see here, here and here, for example), but I’m really starting to enjoy my position with the new YU/Torah miTzion Beit Midrash (aka “YU Kollel”) in Toronto.
Leaving the rabbinate is still difficult, but as I write this on the eve of our official “Launch,” and after a Shabbaton with our chevra in Thornhill, I can really say that this is turning out to be both challenging and fun.
Among the highlights:
• The great opportunities to work creatively with community institutions, ranging from the shuls to UJA to JCCs to schools to youth organizations;
• The tremendous chance to do this with my brilliant and energetic co-conspirator, Rabbi Azarya Berzon, our scholar-in-residence;
• The chance to work with four incredible avrechim and our Executive Director, each a unique mind, each talented in a unique way, and yet forming a positive, cohesive group;
• The opportunity to invent new ways to help these fantastic four avrechim develop. We are already doing some remarkable things in this area, such as our "Toronto Torah" עלון and a “You Make the Shiur” project I hope to discuss on this blog soon;
• The ability to spend much of my time in learning and shiur-development;
• The opportunity to work with great shul rabbonim across the spectrum;
• The chance to offer all sorts of shiurim, from minchas chinuch to Tanach to creative Jewish writing, in diverse venues;
• The opportunity to do all of this in Toronto, a cosmopolitan community with some 180,000 Jews of various stripes and flavors, an audience that demands creativity and offers me a great stage on which to try new approaches.
…Not to mention, I get to do all of this while living through Thursdays without the megastress I formerly faced, and I get to be with my children for so much more of Shabbos.
Pretty soon, our new website
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Food for thought
I have a few minutes to break for lunch, so here's some food to send your way:
1) Our new עלון (weekly dvar torah sheet) is here, with features including "Ha'Am v'Ha'Aretz (the people and the land)," parshah and seasonal articles, an article from Rav Herschel Schachter (via TorahWeb) in advance of his Sunday shiur in Toronto, Questions for thought, and more!
2) New audio on our Beit Midrash website: Introduction to Hosheia, Dina d'Malchuta Dina ("The law of the land is the law") and Use of self-heating meals on Shabbat (Part I). I hope to have video of that last shiur up soon, too (which is important for the demonstration segment at the beginning).
3) And a question:
A short while ago, someone mentioned to me a Kiruv (outreach) goal of "bringing people to greater mitzvah observance."
I don't think of that as my goal. I would be happy if people were more observant, because I believe it's what HaShem wants of us. I think it's good for people. And, of course, it would reinforce my own confidence in the path I have selected.
Nonetheless, I don't consciously direct my energies toward that as an immediate goal. I promote Torah study, I promote personal learning. Whatever comes of that is separate.
So here's my question: Am I doing Kiruv? Or just Talmud Torah (teaching Torah)? And does the difference matter?
1) Our new עלון (weekly dvar torah sheet) is here, with features including "Ha'Am v'Ha'Aretz (the people and the land)," parshah and seasonal articles, an article from Rav Herschel Schachter (via TorahWeb) in advance of his Sunday shiur in Toronto, Questions for thought, and more!
2) New audio on our Beit Midrash website: Introduction to Hosheia, Dina d'Malchuta Dina ("The law of the land is the law") and Use of self-heating meals on Shabbat (Part I). I hope to have video of that last shiur up soon, too (which is important for the demonstration segment at the beginning).
3) And a question:
A short while ago, someone mentioned to me a Kiruv (outreach) goal of "bringing people to greater mitzvah observance."
I don't think of that as my goal. I would be happy if people were more observant, because I believe it's what HaShem wants of us. I think it's good for people. And, of course, it would reinforce my own confidence in the path I have selected.
Nonetheless, I don't consciously direct my energies toward that as an immediate goal. I promote Torah study, I promote personal learning. Whatever comes of that is separate.
So here's my question: Am I doing Kiruv? Or just Talmud Torah (teaching Torah)? And does the difference matter?
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Defending Israeli Exceptionalism
Roger Cohen takes exception with exceptionalism, in general. Here he bashed Sarah Palin for exceptionalism, here he bashes Americans for their exceptionalism. I would guess he was also a fan of last month’s New York Times-hosted Op-Ed on Chinese exceptionalism.
Cohen doesn’t like the idea that people or nations should see themselves as special, lest that vision lead them to justify illegal or immoral activity in the name of their outside-the-norm status.
In particular, Cohen doesn’t like the way that Israel sees itself as under siege, since that view grants Israelis – in their own minds – exceptional status, licensing them to do as they see fit in order to survive. As Cohen wrote in the New York Times last week:
Some of Israel’s enemies contest its very existence, however powerless they are to end it. But the death-cult terrorists-versus-reasonable-Israelis paradigm falls short. There are various civilizations in the Middle East, whose attitudes toward religion and modernism vary, but who all quest for some accommodation between them.
One casualty of this view, of course, is Israeli exceptionalism. The Jewish state becomes more like any other nation fighting for influence and treasure. I think President Obama, himself talking down American exceptionalism, is trying to nudge Israel toward a more prosaic, realistic self-image.
In general, the point about Exceptionalism is valid. My problem, though, is that in addressing the Middle East Cohen resembles the carpenter who only possesses a hammer – to him, every problem looks like a nail.
To my mind, blaming the problem on Exceptionalism is simply wrong. Sometimes you are paranoid, but sometimes they really are out to get you.
1. Cohen argues that not everyone wants to destroy Israel. He points to “several (unnamed) Iranian leaders” who will accept a deal with Israel – even as Ahmedinejad continues to call of Israel’s destruction. He points to “various (unnamed) civilizations in the Middle East” who quest for accomodation with Israel, but elides the several who fund terrorism directly, or host it in their lands.
Perhaps these unnamed peacemakers really do exist – but why does that matter? If one nation fires a nuclear missle into Tel Aviv, will the hand-wringing of the others bring back the dead?
2. Cohen also argues that terrorists do not pose an existential threat to Israel, writing, “Some of Israel’s enemies contest its very existence, however powerless they are to end it."
Tell me something, Mr. Cohen: Would you mind if a weaker person only chopped off your arm, since he lacked the power to kill you? Are only existential threats worth opposing?
3. And Cohen’s most offensive line is this: “The Holocaust represented a quintessence of evil. But it happened 65 years ago. Its perpetrators are dead or dying. A Holocaust prism may be distorting. History illuminates — and blinds.”
Cohen ignores the realities of recent history, in his attempt to remove the Holocaust from the debate. Which evil disappeared with the Holocaust 65 years ago, leaving a bright new world in its wake?
• If “Holocaust” represents “enemies trying to destroy Israel,” why not update it with the 1967 invasion of Israel, the 1973 invastion of Israel, the 2006 double-hit of Hamas and Hizballah on separate borders?
• If “Holocaust” represents “enemies being capable of destroying Israel,” why not update it with Iraq’s failed attempt at nuclear weapons in 1981, Syria’s failed attempt at nuclear weapons in 2007, and Iran’s current attempt? (Please don’t tell me you believe their nuclear program is peaceful; if you believe that, I have a mountain in Qom to sell you.)
• If “Holocaust” represents “nations destroying entire popultaions,” why not update it with Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur and any number of other genocides in recent years?
The Holocaust was not a once-and-done; it remains, and the reasons for exceptionalism remain. Nations still exist who want to destroy Israel. Israel's enemies are capable of inflicting great harm. And the spirit of the Holocaust lives on, as evidenced on multiple occasions in recent history.
As long as there are nations who want to kill you, even if those nations are the minority, common sense dictates that you keep your guard up. And if that guard means to go outside the law, then you had better do it. Because even should the whole world oppose Ahmedinajad, that wouldn’t save us on the day he would push the button.
(For another take on Cohen’s article, take a look at The Bernstein Blog here.)
Cohen doesn’t like the idea that people or nations should see themselves as special, lest that vision lead them to justify illegal or immoral activity in the name of their outside-the-norm status.
In particular, Cohen doesn’t like the way that Israel sees itself as under siege, since that view grants Israelis – in their own minds – exceptional status, licensing them to do as they see fit in order to survive. As Cohen wrote in the New York Times last week:
Some of Israel’s enemies contest its very existence, however powerless they are to end it. But the death-cult terrorists-versus-reasonable-Israelis paradigm falls short. There are various civilizations in the Middle East, whose attitudes toward religion and modernism vary, but who all quest for some accommodation between them.
One casualty of this view, of course, is Israeli exceptionalism. The Jewish state becomes more like any other nation fighting for influence and treasure. I think President Obama, himself talking down American exceptionalism, is trying to nudge Israel toward a more prosaic, realistic self-image.
In general, the point about Exceptionalism is valid. My problem, though, is that in addressing the Middle East Cohen resembles the carpenter who only possesses a hammer – to him, every problem looks like a nail.
To my mind, blaming the problem on Exceptionalism is simply wrong. Sometimes you are paranoid, but sometimes they really are out to get you.
1. Cohen argues that not everyone wants to destroy Israel. He points to “several (unnamed) Iranian leaders” who will accept a deal with Israel – even as Ahmedinejad continues to call of Israel’s destruction. He points to “various (unnamed) civilizations in the Middle East” who quest for accomodation with Israel, but elides the several who fund terrorism directly, or host it in their lands.
Perhaps these unnamed peacemakers really do exist – but why does that matter? If one nation fires a nuclear missle into Tel Aviv, will the hand-wringing of the others bring back the dead?
2. Cohen also argues that terrorists do not pose an existential threat to Israel, writing, “Some of Israel’s enemies contest its very existence, however powerless they are to end it."
Tell me something, Mr. Cohen: Would you mind if a weaker person only chopped off your arm, since he lacked the power to kill you? Are only existential threats worth opposing?
3. And Cohen’s most offensive line is this: “The Holocaust represented a quintessence of evil. But it happened 65 years ago. Its perpetrators are dead or dying. A Holocaust prism may be distorting. History illuminates — and blinds.”
Cohen ignores the realities of recent history, in his attempt to remove the Holocaust from the debate. Which evil disappeared with the Holocaust 65 years ago, leaving a bright new world in its wake?
• If “Holocaust” represents “enemies trying to destroy Israel,” why not update it with the 1967 invasion of Israel, the 1973 invastion of Israel, the 2006 double-hit of Hamas and Hizballah on separate borders?
• If “Holocaust” represents “enemies being capable of destroying Israel,” why not update it with Iraq’s failed attempt at nuclear weapons in 1981, Syria’s failed attempt at nuclear weapons in 2007, and Iran’s current attempt? (Please don’t tell me you believe their nuclear program is peaceful; if you believe that, I have a mountain in Qom to sell you.)
• If “Holocaust” represents “nations destroying entire popultaions,” why not update it with Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur and any number of other genocides in recent years?
The Holocaust was not a once-and-done; it remains, and the reasons for exceptionalism remain. Nations still exist who want to destroy Israel. Israel's enemies are capable of inflicting great harm. And the spirit of the Holocaust lives on, as evidenced on multiple occasions in recent history.
As long as there are nations who want to kill you, even if those nations are the minority, common sense dictates that you keep your guard up. And if that guard means to go outside the law, then you had better do it. Because even should the whole world oppose Ahmedinajad, that wouldn’t save us on the day he would push the button.
(For another take on Cohen’s article, take a look at The Bernstein Blog here.)
Monday, October 19, 2009
What makes a good עלון (weekly dvar torah newsletter)?
This past Shabbos we published our first עלון (weekly dvar torah newsletter).
We wanted to include serious content, but we also wanted to make sure people would not be intimidated and would read it, and we also wanted to include many departments in order to reach different audiences.
As a result, our עלון currently includes:
• Parshah (naturally);
• An article relevant to the season (ie Rosh Chodesh, Chagim, etc);
• A piece on a place in Israel and its Torah-related significance (did not appear in the first issue, because we needed to use the space for an advertisement);
• A brief biography of a Torah leader, along with a dvar torah from that leader;
• Serious questions for thought, with bibliographic references for research;
• Questions for children (did not appear in the first issue, because we needed to use the space for an advertisement);
• A schedule of the coming week’s events (did not appear in the first issue, because we needed to use the space for an advertisement).
And, of course, all of this must fit into an 11 * 17 page, folded double. And its preparation must not take up seder time. Quite a challenge.
You can see our first week’s results here.
Please let me know: What could we add that would make this עלון stand out from other dvar torah publications? What would make it particularly worthwhile – and still fit our space and time constraints?
On a separate note: David Ostriker, from Koshertube, came to a shiur of mine last night (“Informed Consent and Patient Autonomy”) and recorded it; you can find it on-line here. It wasn’t my best ever, but it may be worth watching.
We wanted to include serious content, but we also wanted to make sure people would not be intimidated and would read it, and we also wanted to include many departments in order to reach different audiences.
As a result, our עלון currently includes:
• Parshah (naturally);
• An article relevant to the season (ie Rosh Chodesh, Chagim, etc);
• A piece on a place in Israel and its Torah-related significance (did not appear in the first issue, because we needed to use the space for an advertisement);
• A brief biography of a Torah leader, along with a dvar torah from that leader;
• Serious questions for thought, with bibliographic references for research;
• Questions for children (did not appear in the first issue, because we needed to use the space for an advertisement);
• A schedule of the coming week’s events (did not appear in the first issue, because we needed to use the space for an advertisement).
And, of course, all of this must fit into an 11 * 17 page, folded double. And its preparation must not take up seder time. Quite a challenge.
You can see our first week’s results here.
Please let me know: What could we add that would make this עלון stand out from other dvar torah publications? What would make it particularly worthwhile – and still fit our space and time constraints?
On a separate note: David Ostriker, from Koshertube, came to a shiur of mine last night (“Informed Consent and Patient Autonomy”) and recorded it; you can find it on-line here. It wasn’t my best ever, but it may be worth watching.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
A Tale of Two Tales, and of Stereotypes
[This week’s Haveil Havalim is here!]
This is a bit of a rant, and it's on a matter of common sense, so feel free to skip this post.
They tell the following story regarding Rav Jezrel, Rosh Kollel in a small New England town some 30 years ago:
Rav Jezrel was approached by one of his yingeleit, who wanted to leave the beis medrash and enroll in Yeshiva University. Rav Jezrel asked what courses he would be taking, and what would be the content of those courses. The young man explained that he would be studying accounting, biology and Spinoza.
Rav Jezrel shook his head. “Accounting, fine; you need it for a parnassah. Biology, fine; it will help you understand gemara. But Spinoza, in a yeshiva?! Der pasuk shteit “מבית ומחוץ בכופר,” not “מבית ובפנים בכופר!” [a pun on the Hebrew of Bereishit 6:14, reading it as “You shall keep the kofer/heretic from the house and outside,” and not “from the house and inside.”]
They also tell the following story regarding Rabbi Michaelson, a musmach (ordained rabbi) from Yeshiva University:
One morning, in shul, a yeshivish young man was honored with gelilah – the chance to wrap up the sefer torah. He rolled the Torah closed, then attempted to put the cover on the Torah before tying the Torah closed with its gartel.
Rabbi Michaelson quipped, “He doesn’t understand – the gartel belongs on the inside, not the outside. A gartel on the outside is a siman psul [a standard sign that the wrapped Torah is disqualified]!”
Neither story ever happened – I made them up this morning – but they fit the stereotypes surrounding two camps, the yeshivish and the centrist. (I could just as easily have attributed the first story to Rav Gifter and the second to Rav Soloveitchik, the way people tell stories about each, but I would not want to contribute to the already-great canon of misleading stories surrounding them.)
Everyone seems to be aware of these stereotypes, and people believe them and invoke them. Example: Someone commented to me on seeing me reading a teshuvah on my laptop at seder, “You wouldn’t last one minute in the Satmar kollel with that kli (implement)!”
But in real, person-to-person interactions, the stereotypes often fall apart; here in Toronto, I’ve worn my black hat at Modern Orthodox minyanim without anyone looking askance, and I’ve davened at yeshivish kollel minyanim and received an aliyah. I have yet to be treated in a hostile way by either side.
I don’t think we do ourselves any favors with these assumptions. These beliefs intimidate us, convincing us that we cannot cross lines, that we cannot enter a certain minyan or a beis medrash, or even speak to someone who is of different political beliefs, lest they attack or ridicule us. If I think Rav Jezrel won’t respect me, I’m not likely to approach him with a shailah. If I think Rabbi Michaelson looks down on me, I’m not going to attend his shiur. But until I ask them, I won’t know whether there is any substance to my fears.
Prejudice is a natural defense mechanism, a pre-emptive wall protecting us against attacks, but walls work both ways, locking us in as well.
This is a bit of a rant, and it's on a matter of common sense, so feel free to skip this post.
They tell the following story regarding Rav Jezrel, Rosh Kollel in a small New England town some 30 years ago:
Rav Jezrel was approached by one of his yingeleit, who wanted to leave the beis medrash and enroll in Yeshiva University. Rav Jezrel asked what courses he would be taking, and what would be the content of those courses. The young man explained that he would be studying accounting, biology and Spinoza.
Rav Jezrel shook his head. “Accounting, fine; you need it for a parnassah. Biology, fine; it will help you understand gemara. But Spinoza, in a yeshiva?! Der pasuk shteit “מבית ומחוץ בכופר,” not “מבית ובפנים בכופר!” [a pun on the Hebrew of Bereishit 6:14, reading it as “You shall keep the kofer/heretic from the house and outside,” and not “from the house and inside.”]
They also tell the following story regarding Rabbi Michaelson, a musmach (ordained rabbi) from Yeshiva University:
One morning, in shul, a yeshivish young man was honored with gelilah – the chance to wrap up the sefer torah. He rolled the Torah closed, then attempted to put the cover on the Torah before tying the Torah closed with its gartel.
Rabbi Michaelson quipped, “He doesn’t understand – the gartel belongs on the inside, not the outside. A gartel on the outside is a siman psul [a standard sign that the wrapped Torah is disqualified]!”
Neither story ever happened – I made them up this morning – but they fit the stereotypes surrounding two camps, the yeshivish and the centrist. (I could just as easily have attributed the first story to Rav Gifter and the second to Rav Soloveitchik, the way people tell stories about each, but I would not want to contribute to the already-great canon of misleading stories surrounding them.)
Everyone seems to be aware of these stereotypes, and people believe them and invoke them. Example: Someone commented to me on seeing me reading a teshuvah on my laptop at seder, “You wouldn’t last one minute in the Satmar kollel with that kli (implement)!”
But in real, person-to-person interactions, the stereotypes often fall apart; here in Toronto, I’ve worn my black hat at Modern Orthodox minyanim without anyone looking askance, and I’ve davened at yeshivish kollel minyanim and received an aliyah. I have yet to be treated in a hostile way by either side.
I don’t think we do ourselves any favors with these assumptions. These beliefs intimidate us, convincing us that we cannot cross lines, that we cannot enter a certain minyan or a beis medrash, or even speak to someone who is of different political beliefs, lest they attack or ridicule us. If I think Rav Jezrel won’t respect me, I’m not likely to approach him with a shailah. If I think Rabbi Michaelson looks down on me, I’m not going to attend his shiur. But until I ask them, I won’t know whether there is any substance to my fears.
Prejudice is a natural defense mechanism, a pre-emptive wall protecting us against attacks, but walls work both ways, locking us in as well.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Someone thinks I'm Kreativ
ProfK has honored me with a Kreativ Blogger award; thanks, Prof![I've posted my thoughts on blog awards here.]
Here are the rules for this award:
1. You must thank the person who has given you the award. Thanks!
2. Copy the logo and place it on your blog. Done!
3. Link to the person who has nominated you for the award. Done!
4. Name 7 things about yourself that people might find interesting. See below.
5. Nominate 7 other Kreativ Bloggers, link to them and let them know.
I can't fulfill this term of the award; I am certain there are many, many bloggers who deserve it, but I just don't read them. I read the same five or six blogs when I get the chance, and that's about it.
To compensate, though, I will go all-out to fulfill the third term of the award: To list seven interesting pieces of information about me. (I don't know that these are actually interesting, but they are the best I can do.)
1. Embarrassing teenage story: In high school (MTA), I once tossed an orange out the window, during a pre-class game of catch. Yes, it was on purpose. No, I did not mean to hit the (red-haired!) cop on the corner...
2. Formative influences: I can remember almost all of my grade school teachers (HALB) and how they influenced me positively.
3. If I had one hour to do anything in the world that was not one of the 613, I would: Watch a 3-year old play.
4. A hobby: I used to write fiction, although I haven't set aside time for it in years. I have written 3 full-length novels - one about a Torah-observant man trying to reconcile his homosexuality with his observance, one about a man masquerading as a rabbi and taking over a synagogue, and one about a man dying in a nursing home, and his family.
5. Odd chumra: I omit the Name of HaShem in singing zemiros on Shabbos, to remind myself to treat the Name with honor. I say it often in the course of learning, so I feel this precaution is necessary for me.
6. Something I despise: Pretense. Especially in myself. Which happens too often.
7. The great love of my life: Chocolate. Not the expensive kind - the Hershey's/Krackel/M&Ms kind.
There you go - seven items. Thanks, Prof!
Knee-biters
I ranted to a friend the other day about the knee-biters (alternatively, kneebiters) we encounter in the Jewish community. I didn’t realize I was coining a phrase; I thought the term already existed.
To clarify: I discovered, in drafting this post, that the word “knee-biter” does exist; it's in Life, the Universe and Everything by Douglas Adams. However, Adams uses it simply to describe an obnoxious person; my usage is more specific, and more colorful. I define knee-biters as small (and small-minded) people who attack those who are engineering great things; they only reach the knees of their betters, and so they simply bite at the reachable knees.
In a sense, knee-biters are the opposite of the far-sighted people who stand on the shoulders of giants; knee-biters busy themselves gnawing those giants’ legs and reducing them to knee-biter size.
My knee-biter is someone who seeks political strife on the grand stage, or who hunts for nits to pick in great and sprawling projects. These people are the death of political, philanthropic and religious leadership, and they are a major reason why potential leaders abdicate early. Further, they overshadow any important message they may carry, through their obnoxious methods. Who needs to live a life exposed to the nasty knee-biters?
Of course, knee-biters are nothing new; the Torah offers several examples. Think of Dasan and Aviram nipping at Moshe’s knees at every turn, or think of the naysayers who undermined various kings, such as Yoshiyahu, who tried to steer the Jewish people on a straight path. The hour is late, or I would give a few examples from the gemara and later Jewish history as well. These people may call themselves “the loyal opposition,” but their loyalty is only to themselves and their egos.
What should we do about our knee-biters?
In my rabbinic days, I appeased them. I understood their need for security, for feeling respected, and tried to find ways to fill that need so that they could then lend their talents to the community in positive ways. Indeed, this was what my friend encouraged. But I find in general that my rabbinic instincts are subsiding somewhat these days (I hope it’s only temporary, due to the stress of starting a new venture), and this is certainly true on the topic of knee-biters; today I would prefer to blow the whistle on their shtick.
What do you say: Feed the knee-biters to help them become more productive, or crush them?
To clarify: I discovered, in drafting this post, that the word “knee-biter” does exist; it's in Life, the Universe and Everything by Douglas Adams. However, Adams uses it simply to describe an obnoxious person; my usage is more specific, and more colorful. I define knee-biters as small (and small-minded) people who attack those who are engineering great things; they only reach the knees of their betters, and so they simply bite at the reachable knees.
In a sense, knee-biters are the opposite of the far-sighted people who stand on the shoulders of giants; knee-biters busy themselves gnawing those giants’ legs and reducing them to knee-biter size.
My knee-biter is someone who seeks political strife on the grand stage, or who hunts for nits to pick in great and sprawling projects. These people are the death of political, philanthropic and religious leadership, and they are a major reason why potential leaders abdicate early. Further, they overshadow any important message they may carry, through their obnoxious methods. Who needs to live a life exposed to the nasty knee-biters?
Of course, knee-biters are nothing new; the Torah offers several examples. Think of Dasan and Aviram nipping at Moshe’s knees at every turn, or think of the naysayers who undermined various kings, such as Yoshiyahu, who tried to steer the Jewish people on a straight path. The hour is late, or I would give a few examples from the gemara and later Jewish history as well. These people may call themselves “the loyal opposition,” but their loyalty is only to themselves and their egos.
What should we do about our knee-biters?
In my rabbinic days, I appeased them. I understood their need for security, for feeling respected, and tried to find ways to fill that need so that they could then lend their talents to the community in positive ways. Indeed, this was what my friend encouraged. But I find in general that my rabbinic instincts are subsiding somewhat these days (I hope it’s only temporary, due to the stress of starting a new venture), and this is certainly true on the topic of knee-biters; today I would prefer to blow the whistle on their shtick.
What do you say: Feed the knee-biters to help them become more productive, or crush them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
