- This topic has 142 replies, 46 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
Bless you, Kapusta.
Amen, thank you.
(Had I known there was a blessing involved, I probably would have found it a lot funnier. ;))
ayid:
Yes, I purposely blurred the lines. That was my point. Not every action has a mesorah attached to it. What it should have, as alluded to in my last sentence is that it be done according to halacha. For me, it means following my Rav and his psak, for you it means following your Rav and his psak and for the makers of the Simchat Bat mentioned by the OP, it means following the psak of her Rav.
I agree that not every action has a mesorah attached to it, but I think that this is restricted to things like eating milichigs or fleishigs on a Wednsday night. Not creating religion inspired rituals.
But again, I am not saying what they did was wrong from a halachic perspective. But I think it is an expression of something fundamentally wrong with the person’s relationship to Judaism. On the other hand, if this was done wit the hamlataza of their Rabbi, then maybe the problem is not with the parents alone…
Derech HaMelech,
I’m curious, what was the mesorah for Chassidus and their adoption of a whole new nussach and minhaggim?
Lesschumras,
Hmmmm. . . there was no mesorah for chassidus, was there. All those changes to nusach, shechita, glatt, mysticism, rebbes, new rituals, ect, ect, ect. It was a movement to change the way Judaism was practiced because many of the masses had emotional/spiritual needs that were not being met by what was then the “traditional” way. The traditionalists fought against it and even called its proponents kofrim and reformists. In the end, the criticism tempered the changes, the positive impact of the changes tempered the critics, and both sides recognized that they could both exist within the bounds of halacha.
Sound familiar?
. . . and the wheel, it keeps on a turnin’.
Hmmmm. . . there was no mesorah for chassidus, was there. All those changes to nusach, shechina, glatt, mysticism, rebbes, new rituals, ect, ect, ect. It was a movement to change the way Judaism was practiced because many of the masses had emotional/spiritual needs that were not being met by what was then the “traditional” way. The traditionalists fought against it and even called its proponents kofrim and reformists. In the end, the criticism tempered the changes, the positive impact of the changes tempered the critics, and both sides recognized that they could both exist within the bounds of halacha.
Sound familiar?
. . . and the wheel, it keeps on a turnin’.
And sometimes the opposite happens. Conservative started as an ostensibly halachic movement also. And after some time everyone saw what it is.
So what do you think makes some movements be accepted, and some movements just go further and further until they are totally cut off?
Poppa,
I think that how these kinds of movements turn out depends on how there 2nd and 3rd generations of adherents handle them. We never know how they will turn out until years later when they actually do turn out. We didn’t know how Moses Mendelshon’s inherently legitimate approach would turn out until his students and his student’s students turned his views into the reform movement; we didn’t know how JTS would turn out until the 1930s; and we didn’t know how chassidism would turn out until the late 1700s. We can speculate, but we won’t know how YCT or Open Orthdoxy, or JOFA or whatever will turn out for quite some time.
Don’t get me wrong, a lot of it doesn’t sit well with me – mostly hashkafic reasons (which I can mostly brush off), but sometimes for halachic reasons (which are a lot harder to be complacent about). That’s why I think that healthy criticism of these developments is appropriate – discussion of hashkafic objections, and very strong disputation (framed in halachic terms, not unilateral “kol korei’s”)in halachic matters. What I think is not appropriate at this point is blanket and strident condemnation – calling them reform, apikursim, ect. That sort of thing is not called for until we know how they turn out. Not being neviim, we really can’t know yet. Will this be another chassidic/TIDE/TuM change or will this be a reform/conservative type change. Time will tell. Until it does, I think we should keep the lines of communication and reasoned halachic and hashkafic discourse and disagreement open and active.
lesschumras:
I’m curious, what was the mesorah for Chassidus and their adoption of a whole new nussach and minhaggim?
The mesorah begins by our gedolei hador. They are the ones to institute or remove elements of our hanhagah according to their da’as Torah. The Besh’t is obviously included in this elite group.
(You may argue that the opposition would disagree and I would turn your attention to the quote of the Chofetz Chaim by R’ Elchonon in koyveitz ma’amarim.)
As someone with roots among the earliest proponents of chasidus, leaders who tried to integrate many of its principles into the kehilos they led (with mixed responses), I feel, RSRH, that you put it succinctly and beautifully. Popa, you are right as well, that sometimes these Hegelian movements within Yiddishkeit end up with a synthesis that is unacceptable…but sometimes they flower and enrich all of klal yisroel, like chasidus has done. Perhaps we are seeing a moment like that now, and our responsibility isn’t to stifle such a movement, but rather to influence it so that it stays within the boundaries of Halocho. That won’t be accomplished through denigration or calling it apikorsus or amaratzus or reform.
RSRH:
If I understand correctly, your point is that we should engage them in halachic debate and prove them wrong, instead of just calling them what they are.
Now, firstly I disagree with that. I think that engaging them in debate legitimizes them. The same way we don’t debate the church, or the talmud professors in the universities, or the conservative, we shouldn’t be debating these kookoos either. (Referring to YCT, and co.)
But secondly, I happen to disagree with you about how we have been acting towards them. For the most part, chareidi judaism has been ignoring them, and considering them a non-entity, and something of a joke. Which I happen to think is the best reaction.
The only place you see this discussed is on the internet, and mostly by right wing MO.
Derech HaMelech
My point was not to question the validity of Chassidus, just to point out that we tend to accept as mesora what was in existence when we were born and question the mesorah of the new. At the time the Besht was a minority of one and went against all the gedolei hador. If the Besht had come today, you would probably be among those questioning his mesora.
BY the way one example of ” we tend to accept as mesora what was in existence when we were born and question the mesorah of the new”. Many shuls now have a hashkomah minyan on Shabbos.
But do you know its origin, its mesorah? It’s roots go back only 100 years and they were started by Jews who gave into the pressure of having to work on Shabbos but still wanted to daven with a minyan and hear the laining.
Didnt the Vilna Gaon think Chassidus was Kefirah
we opposed the haskala very strongly too.
“Not creating religion inspired rituals.”
Zebed Habat (aka simchat bat) has been a part of the Sefardi mesora for quite some time. Get a copy of a siddur nusach “edut hamizrach”.
Zebed Habat (aka simchat bat) has been a part of the Sefardi mesora for quite some time. Get a copy of a siddur nusach “edut hamizrach”.
You know, you are arguing to a strawman. The main problem is not that it doesn’t have a sufficient basis. The main problem is the reason it is being done.
As an extreme example, if you find an old minhag to put a fir tree in your living room on Channuka, and you decide to adopt that minhag because you want to fit in with your goyish neighbors, you are still doing something wrong- even if there is some basis. Because of your motivation.
The motivation here is to not accept the roles that chazal and the torah define for men and women.
I agree with lesschumras. If the Best had come now, he’d be called an apikores. Looking back, people can say he was a gadol – but that’s only because chassidus took off. If the Vilna Gaon had his way, and chassidus had fizzled out, we’d probably be comparing the Besht to Mendelsohn.
I once started a thread about this: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/modern-orthodoxy-chassidus-and-the-rambam
Some think that chassidus did fizzle out, and that most of what the Gra was opposed to isn’t practiced anymore anyway (except by one certain group of chassidim, who are pretty much considered fringe by normative orthodoxy).
That is, all socities did had a lower opinion of women than modern society does; (no voting rights) now we have women running global corporations, something unthinkable in those times. Why can’t we say that the Gedolim were also influenced by the socities they lived in to a degree?
The fear of this Simchas Bas is that it will lead to something else. I don’t see the linkage though.
edited. You may state it as a question.
the dynamics of yiddishkyte permits different interpretations providing we do not transgress halocha. Most yidden it appears besides having so many opinions, hizharu bedivraichem, so that ultimately you will not be held responsible for encouraging them to stray from yiddishkyte. We learn from our learned sages that before you ‘rebuke’ someone, positive reinforcement needs to be first advocated and then gently invoke what you must. So many yidden are on the edge, it does not take much to ‘push’ them over.
Why can’t we say that the Gedolim were also influenced by the socities they lived in to a degree?
Well, inasmuch as I believe that the torah is the source of my morality, I get my sense of morality from what chazal say.
So, it wouldn’t really make much sense to bring my outside morality which I get from the “great moralists of modern society,” and then imply that chazal were immoral.
It is quite an accusation against chazal, and quite anti-torah.
It is also a weird accusation. Chazal were not influenced by the morality of their day in any direction. While the goyim’s notions have been swinging wildly back and forth, we have stayed the same in our notions of morality. So it is a bit weird to say that chazal’s thinking about women was influenced by the drunken goyim in their Babylonian villages any more than their thinking about anything else.
As an extreme example, if you find an old minhag to put a fir tree in your living room on Channuka, and you decide to adopt that minhag because you want to fit in with your goyish neighbors, you are still doing something wrong- even if there is some basis. Because of your motivation.”
That would be because the fir tree has specifically come to symbolize the goyishe holiday. I would not color hardboiled eggs for Pesach, either. But making a Friday night oneg shabbos on the occasion of the birth of either a son OR daughter, does not seem to be commensurate with either of those things.
“As an extreme example, if you find an old minhag to put a fir tree in your living room on Channuka, and you decide to adopt that minhag because you want to fit in with your goyish neighbors, you are still doing something wrong- even if there is some basis. Because of your motivation.”
That would be because the fir tree has specifically come to symbolize the goyishe holiday. I would not color hardboiled eggs for Pesach, either. But making a Friday night oneg shabbos on the occasion of the birth of either a son OR daughter, does not seem to be commensurate with either of those things.
Ah, but you’re changing the topic. I am discussing only the motivation.
Won’t you agree that the fir tree motivation is bad. And that the motivation would be bad enough to sink it regardless of anything else?
Look, let’s get out premises out.
Premise: If the motivation is bad, the action is bad. (meaning, worse than a neutral motivation- a bad motivation.)
Now, we should either argue about that premise, or argue about what the motivation is in this case, or about whether that motivation is bad.
I think the motivation is to show that women and men are in all ways equal and have equal roles, and that any minhag we have which differentiates men and women was done for chauvinistic reasons. Do you disagree?
I think that motivation is bad, because it substitutes modern morality for chazal and the torah’s morality. Do you disagree?
“I get my sense of morality from what chazal say.”
Yes but Chazal were living in a time where women were considered less important than men were. Why can’t we say that the Chazal were influenced by the general societies they lived in. Or say that they were in retrospect immoral as regards to their views of women, being on the same level of children, and amei aretz.
Do you beleive that to be true?
Because I don’t. Yes there are differences between the sexes but I dont’ consider myself automatically smarter or more qualifies than my frum neighbor, who owns a global software company that she is the brains behind, growing it from a hubby and wife consulting team to employing thousands of people world wide.
“bit weird to say that chazal’s thinking about women was influenced by the drunken goyim in their Babylonian villages “
didn’t say that. Are all goyim drunkards are you saying.
Just like today we are influenced by outside society so were they.
“I get my sense of morality from what chazal say.”
Yes but Chazal were living in a time where women were considered less important than men were. Why can’t we say that the Chazal were influenced by the general societies they lived in. Or say that they were in retrospect immoral as regards to their views of women, being on the same level of children, and amei aretz.
That is precisely the point which I addressed in my previous post. I don’t see how you have added anything or responded to anything I said.
Just like today we are influenced by outside society so were they.
I’m glad you admit to that. Now, since you are influenced by the outside society, why don’t you agree that it is better to rely on chazal who presumably were better than you at discerning what is from outside society and what is from the torah?
Why are we questioning the motivations of those who make a simchat bat?
Why are we questioning the motivations of those who make a simchat bat?
We aren’t questioning their motivations- we are criticizing their motivations.
It would be questioning if there was some doubt what they were.
However, there isn’t.
Mostly because they don’t hide it. In fact, you can see posters on this very thread saying it. Or you can read one of myriad apikorsus blogs on the internet about it.
“we are criticizing their motivations.”
This assumes you know their motivations. Had the OP made no mention of Rabbi Weiss, would you have assumed something “sinister” about a simchat bat? I would have assumed the person was sefardi. It is a common custom, and is found in their siddurim. Does the OP know that the person who made the simchat bat is not sefardi? Conversely, I know members of his congregation who have not made a simchat bat for any of their daughters. I think the OP took a leap of faith and everyone has run with it. This does not mean that there are not feminists about who have created a ritual and coopted the name simchat bat for their ceremony, however, your statement that you know the motivation of those who make a simchat bat and that you take issue with that motivation is difficult to take seriously.
So it looks like we agree. Good.
Actually, I do not believe that we agree. I do not believe there is anything sinister behind every simchat bat held while you appear to be inclined to think so.
just as we all thought, kfb. Thanks for that clarification.
apushatayid: We agree on the substantive issue, which is what motivations are kosher and what are not.
We even agree on the peripheral issue which is that many of these things have a unkosher motivation.
I don’t even think we disagree on anything. I don’t think there is something unkosher behind every one. Only the ones motivated by feminism, or some other anti torah hashkafa.
kfb – and the last one I was at was a friend who is the son, Grandson, and Great Grandson of a well known Moroccan Rabbinic family. The fact is anyone who has an agenda will imbue whatever they are doing religiously with that agenda, and anyone who is doing something religiously lishma will do so even if it is a new or distinct thing. It depends on the person, not the concept.
So why is a Bat Mitzvah acceptable and a Simcha Bat not?
KFB: Therefore? You have an issue with this persons Simchat Bat, fine. Not everyone who makes a Simchat Bat is a member of chovavei torah, a feminist or a sefradi. In fact, I would say that most people who make a simchat bat do not do so with nefarious intentions. However, your original question was, anyone ever hear of a simchat bat. Why not ask a sefardi for an answer to this question instead of assuming the one you attended is par for the course?
zahavasdad, Rav Moshe and others say that a bas mitzva ceremony is not acceptable.
I covered my ears for most of this discussion but what struck me was a comment (by someone somewhere) about wanting to do something for a daughter because she is just as loved as a son. Of course she is just as loved, but that has nothing at all to do with having a Shalom Zachor, bris or P”H. I wouldn’t want my girls in payis and I wouldn’t want my boys in skirts. I love my boys and thank Hashem thru the celebrations required of them. I love my girls and thank Hashem thru the kiddush and the blessing of not having to find something to wear one week after giving birth!
Not everyone can afford a kiddush or like to do that. Why can’t people decide how to celebrate?
Back when I had a more comfortable living, i also made Kiddush for my daughter, it was over $1000 for a little kiddish. so maybe people can save on that by making it in the house. and maybe they are more happy to have a couple of Brachos made what is the big deal? Is everything new automatically rejected?so lets not use those smart phones for Mincha- Maariv, or learn Gemara from a Torah web site, or listen to Torah tapes in the car, or use Nanny’s to raise their children. There is all sorts of changes that have been made from how out ancestors lived, why is this need to pick on something when it comes to women, we raise our muscular sensitivities.
“The main problem is not that it doesn’t have a sufficient basis. The main problem is the reason it is being done.”
So, you are arguing that even if there is a mesorah for something in a community, it should not be done if people will question the motive?
“Apushatayid- you’re right I should have rephrased the question- “Did anyone hear of ashkanazim making a simchat bat”? Happy??”
Yes. I have heard of ashkenazim making a simchat bat. some people call it a “kiddush in shul on shabbos”, while others do something during the week when the family can be together. there are many ways to thank hashem for the bracha of a daughter.
“at a simchat bat they do make a bracha.”
In fact, the bracha is found in sefardi siddurim.
Ashkenazim have no mesora for a brocha.
If the Rav says they can make the bracha, then they have a source for the bracha. I personally dont know of any ashkenazim who have made a bracha at a simchat bat, but I do know several who have made a simchat bat, including the mizmorim and pizmonim, everything but the bracha.
The fact that the person mentioned by the OP made a bracha does not mean there are sinister thoughts of feminism, it could mean they are copying what they see their sefardi friends do and figure works for them too. not everything in this world is motivated by something bad.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.