- This topic has 89 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Someone I know posted this on Facebook this past Sunday (not word for word, I’m writing from memory):
He was looking for a parking spot in Brooklyn, and saw a taxi with the driver inside. He asked him if he was pulling out. The driver said to him, “I heard about the tragedy that happened on your Sabbath. Terrible, terrible tragedy. You must be so brokenhearted. What a terrible thing. I was going to finish eating my lunch before pulling out, but I want to do something nice for you today, so I’ll pull out now so you can have the spot.” He then shook his head, and kept saying, “What a terrible, terrible thing to happen. The poor family!”
So my friend wrote, “Why did he do this for me? It wasn’t a relative of mine (genetically speaking), and even if it was, he didn’t know. He just assumed, that because I am a Jew, it automatically hits me hard. A non-Jewish taxi driver assumes that all Jews consider themselves brothers and sisters! If such a person realizes that, why can’t we, the Jewish people, treat each other as such?”
“A non-Jewish taxi driver assumes that all Jews consider themselves brothers and sisters! If such a person realizes that, why can’t we, the Jewish people, treat each other as such?”
We do. You need to give us credit. Even though not a single media outlet I saw pointed this out, did you notice that the crowd was a mix of Ashkenazim, Sefardim, Chareidim, Chasidim, Modern, Litvish, Daati and irreligious? In fact, despite the victims being Sefardim I would estimate that the majority by large were Ashkenazim (at the US levaya for sure – at the Israel levaya it was more of a mix). Yes, it was all a mix of everyone being one. So much so that no one even noticed it since it was so natural. No one blinked an eye or thought twice, wow what a mix, because it is so natural to think of each other as brothers and sisters. It is the imagination of outsiders that invent these non-existent barriers of imaginative separations. Of course we are all one. We know it. And we act it.
Anyone here is always on the best of terms with their siblings? Siblings can fight sometimes, but it doesn’t mean they don’t care about each other.
Gamanit, I agree.
It’s everyone’s choice to remain cynical or to be positive. In my opinion, ahavas Yisroel is best expressed by being positive.
DaMoshe- if you were to be getting your brother’s credit card bill, would you keep it between you and your brother? Or would you notify the credit card company that you and your brother, while related, are not the same person?
Gamanit – DaMoshe is saying we are usually apart but we come together at times. Your comment implies we are usually together but come apart at times. You can’t possibly believe that is true. Even among this one blog it isn’t true. I thought it was a really nice story and Im a bit confused about why it brought him abrasive-ish responses
Certainly all parts of the Orthodox communities are usually together – and the times apart or conflict are the exceptions. On most issues most Orthodox from all parts of Orthodoxy agree with each other. The contentious issues are a small subset of the non-contentious issues. And even among the contentious issues, most regular run of the mill plain ‘ole Orthodox Jews don’t engage in sparring, even verbal, against members of other Orthodox communities who disagree. The sparring is mostly limited to a minority of people.
You forgot to write lol at the bottom of your post.
If I’d have written lol it would have been out of the sheer happiness that the Jewish people are there for each other in times of need – as was best demonstrated this week in time of need and tragedy. 🙂
my point exactly! in-time-of-need! Thank you for clarifying.
“as was best demonstrated” this week in time of need. But it is the rule, by far, not the exception.
Syag Lchochma,
DaMoshe is saying we are usually apart but we come together at times. Your comment implies we are usually together but come apart at times. You can’t possibly believe that is true. Even among this one blog it isn’t true.
Can you provide your working definition of achdus so I understand where you are coming from? I’m not weighing in on the debate between DaMoshe and Gamanit at this point, but I am surprised that you perceive the discussion above as proof of a lack of achdus. Both sides stated their points respectfully as far as I can see, and I believe there is a difference between achdus and lockstep agreement on all issues.
I thought it was a really nice story and Im a bit confused about why it brought him abrasive-ish responses
What was abrasive?
You forgot to write lol at the bottom of your post.
This did seem a bit abrasive to me.
DaMoshe,
he said to me, “I would love to hear you daven for the amud. Unfortunately, it won’t happen. I asked the gabbaim this morning and they won’t allow it, because you wear a kippah srugah.”
This is very unfortunate, and must have made you feel very excluded from your cousin’s community. On its face, it seems to me that your cousin spoke rechilus. I cannot see any possible good reason for him to repeat to you what the gabbai said. You apparently did not ask to daven from the amud at his shul, and you in all likelihood would have been content simply to go and daven with your cousin. In his attempt to compliment you, your cousin ultimately drove a wedge between you and his shul and community.
This was a very large shul in Lakewood. Is this achdus???
To address the shul’s policy and achdus – I would imagine that the shul has a policy that any shaliach tzibbur wear a hat and jacket, and the gabbai (assuming he said exactly what your cousin repeated to you) erroneously and insensitively extrapolated that kippa sruga wearers don’t wear hats and jackets, so they cannot daven for the amud.
DaMoshe –
If the shul had a rule disallowing a baas tefila wearing a colored shirt on Shabbos from davening for the amud, would you have been as offended as you were in the above story?
If not, why not? If it’s because it is acceptable to classify one shirt over another as more respectable then why cannot the same concept apply to a yarmulka?
Is it, perhaps, possible that the shul’s rule is to disallow a mispallel who lacks a hat be the baal tefila but your cousin inarticulately expressed it the way he did since your cousin equated kippa sruga with lacking a hat?
Avram –
I am not so talented with all the markups so bear with me please.
but I am surprised that you perceive the discussion above as proof of a lack of achdus. Both sides stated their points respectfully as far as I can see, and I believe there is a difference between achdus and lockstep agreement on all issues.
i agree. That was why I said ‘blog’, not ‘thread’. Maybe I misused the word.
This did seem a bit abrasive to me.
I asked why DaMoshe received abrasive-ish responses to his story, which was very nice. My response was not to his story and there is no relation one to the other.
I think it is more than reasonable for a shul to have a fair reason for having a rule requiring the baal tefila to wear a white shirt on Shabbos. I think it should almost be self-explanatory how a shul could have such rule that should strike everyone as being for a fair reason – even if they disagree with the rule.
You really think it would only be fair that BMG and Bobov and Brisk and Ponovoze should allow a guy in a colored shirt to daven for the amud on Shabbos?
Would you be upset with a shul rule precluding a man wearing green khaki pants with a black shirt from davening for the amud on Yom Kippur?
Syag Lchochma,
i agree. That was why I said ‘blog’, not ‘thread’. Maybe I misused the word.
Ok, that makes sense. The misunderstanding was on my end, not yours. Fortunately, it’s been my experience that most “real world” interactions among Jews have little acrimony. I think some of what goes on in the CR is a function of anonymity and Internet culture and the fact that this forum is geared towards debating.
I asked why DaMoshe received abrasive-ish responses to his story, which was very nice.
I agree that his story was nice, but I felt somewhat pained by his takeaway. I also didn’t detect any abrasiveness in the responses, just disagreement about the nature of relationships among Jews.
DaMoshe,
A person shouldn’t be judged on clothes. They should be judged on whether they are a good, frum Jew, with yiras shamayim.
I absolutely agree with every word you wrote.
I don’t think that a shul having a policy that anyone davening for the amud should wear a hat and jacket violates the above statements, however. You yourself provided the best reason by writing:
Remember, however, that the halachah is that a person should dress respectfully when davening, as they are speaking to Hashem
Different communities and shuls will have different definitions for dressing respectfully. You may disagree with their definition, and that is fine, but they have a right to their own definitions, and they have a right for their customs to be respected. Would you go to Japan and take offense from an innkeeper who won’t let you walk on his tatami floors because you have your shoes on? Or would you just take your shoes off and go in? I understand that this situation feels different because of the perception that your own culture is being degraded, but I honestly think that that unfortunate circumstance arose due to mistakes made by the people you interacted with, not the policy itself. Would it cause you harm to don a hat and jacket (or even a black velvet kippa) if you really wanted to daven for the amud at this shul?
The Baal Tefillah took off his hat and put the talis over his head. Shabbos morning, married men usually don’t wear hats, as they have a talis on.
I thought this story was regarding Friday mincha/Kabbalos Shabbos? Perhaps the shul would have no problem with you davening for the amud if you covered your head with a tallis too?
You really think it would only be fair that BMG and Bobov and Brisk and Ponovoze should allow a guy in a colored shirt to daven for the amud on Shabbos?
You ask that like it makes sense or something.
If someone who wears a white shirt came in dressed in weekday clothes or in a colored shirt, I would have questions. But if someone comes in in a shabbosdik colored shirt, does that automatically interfere with their level of ehrlichkite? I would have no problem with the shul making a “white shirt” policy if they also are very makpid on not allowing anyone who has been indicted, arrested, withheld a get for any reason, is rumored to have abused anyone etc. I believe that what is so offensive to some is the assumption that just wearing a white shirt implies more than it really does. If it is not part of a whole Torah lifestyle, it is nothing at all.
That’s your assumption about what they (he?) assume(s)? Or did they (he) tell you that?
Josheph: Pashtus is that having a rule that someone with a colored shirt can’t Daven for the Amud is Apikorsus.
Great Idea..
Why don’t you change your attire to that of the norms of the community you’re in. Something to the effect of ????? ?? ???? ???.. ???? ???????.
How simple!!!
“I think it is more than reasonable for a shul to have a fair reason for having a rule requiring the baal tefila to wear a white shirt on Shabbos.”
every locale is different. what is “respectable and accepted” in one place is not in another. ever see how an executive in brazil goes around in the summer? a jacket is already two steps up. in a place where a white button down shirt is standard weekday fare of course something more is expected on shabbos, or even for shul.
DaMoshe: Yes, because of the hashkofa it represents.
DaMoshe,
he said it to me while walking to shul for Friday night davening. The fact is they said no to any time because of the kippah I wear.
I feel uncomfortable with this, because based on your story, you learned this via rechilus, and I think it’s forbidden to believe what you heard from your cousin (although you can take precautions to protect yourself based on the information). You may well have been hearing a misinterpretation of a misinterpretation of the shul policy.
My issue is their assuming that someone with a kippah srugah is at a level that isn’t good enough for them.
This seems to be an extrapolation beyond even what you heard. At worst it is only a reflection of the gabbai’s own prejudices. Were you ill treated at the shul beyond not being offered the amud?
I’m not so obtuse that I believe that there are no people out there who look down on others because of what kippa they wear, or what shul they go to, etc. I cannot confirm or deny whether this was the case with this particular gabbai. What I’m addressing with my responses is a) that you accepted/believed this potential rechilus and b) that you’re using it to cast aspersions on an entire shul/community.
Were you ill treated at the shul beyond not being offered the amud?
I was thinking a similar thought. While I would not be surprised if a shul would not want to send up a shaliach tzibbur whose dress clearly represents a different hashkofo than the tzibbur he is supposed to be representing, it would surprise me if they would have a problem giving an aliyah, for example.
and b)
I find it ironic that this was done in a thread whose purpose was supposed to be about ahavas Yisroel.
It IS ironic, DY.
The CR members are all cranky these days.
The beautiful Ahavas Yisrael thread you started disappeared without a trace.
Maybe they’re all still hung over from Purim.
golfer – I disagree. I just don’t think posting about Ahavas Yisroel means anything unless it is carried over into other threads. You can find it well and good among many of the posts even if the thread of said topic has moved on.
p.s. I wanted to say, “shut up, stop calling me cranky” but I was afraid I would be taken literally.
In bemoaning it, you’ve promoted it, unfortunately.
So here we have another hashkafic difference: you think hashkafic differences should not make a difference in a shaliach tzibbur, and perhaps they do. However, you are being intolerant of that view.
I happen to not think it’s the actual hashkafic differences, but the external expression of it, but either way, my point stands.
DY ,Joseph and Avram
I’m curious what you would say if say in Teaneck there was a rule that a person wearing a shtreimel cant daven for the amud?
“shaliach tzibbur”
If the tzibur doesnt want him, can he be their shliach?
DY: That’s ridiculous. How can the problem of mistreating others with Hashkafic differences (assuming the problem exists) be fixed if it can’t be spoken about?
If I have a Hashkafa that necessitates beating my wife, is my wife being intolerant when she protests? There’s a line. It’s not always intolerance to disagree with a system.
Sam2 – so right you are. It is ridiculous to call someone intolerant of hashkafic views when it is not a hashkafic view that is not being tolerated. It is the idea that people who hold of different hashkafas are unworthy.
Ubiquitin, it would depend on the motive.
Sam, depends on who’s doing the speaking. If a Lakewood guy would give mussar to other Lakewood guys, or Teaneck guy to other Teaneck guys, that might be helpful, but when a Lakewood guy talks about the poor middos/ahavas Yisroel of Teaneck people, or vice versa, it just promotes sinah.
ubiquitin,
I’m curious what you would say if say in Teaneck there was a rule that a person wearing a shtreimel cant daven for the amud?
If a streimel wearing Jew came to the CR and said, “come see Teaneck as an example of a lack of ahavas Yisroel! I visited a friend there once, and he told me that he asked the gabbai if I could daven for the amud, and the gabbai said never because I wear a streimel”, I would say the exact same thing I’ve been saying here. That sounds like rechilus and should not be believed – and there may be a shul policy that’s being misunderstood by someone in the chain.
For the record, and perhaps this is my OOT mentality, I don’t think it’s a good idea to extrapolate someone’s hashkafa from his headgear. Not a good indicator.
I’ve also seen shuls that are very open with the amud: “hey, you’re new here! Are you visiting? Would you like to daven mincha?” And I’ve also seen shuls that are more closed, only allowing those affiliated with the shul to be shaliach tzibbur. There’s a wide range of policies, cultures and customs among shuls for a wide range of reasons, and I think people owe it to their brethren to give some benefit of the doubt before declaring an entire shul or community to be lacking in ahavas Yisroel based on hearsay.
Avram – I hope you don’t mind if I ask you a question. Your post brings to mind something I see over and over again and I would be interested in your perspective.
In your post above, you were making a point that if the teaneck question was posed as the BMG question was posed, you would have given the same answer. Interestingly, you wrote this come see Teaneck as an example of a lack of ahavas Yisroel! as your parallel to DaMoshe’s statement. Do you believe that that is what he wrote? I ask because I keep seeing posts that make quotes with those types of embellishments and the response is so often to the embellishment. I feel like people are getting responded to based on the re-make of their post instead of their actual post. I had wanted to ask it of the oilam but I was afraid of backlash so I’m just asking you what you think.
“before declaring an entire shul or community to be lacking in ahavas Yisroel based on hearsay.”
another example.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you all the way. My question is just about a tendency to make a posters comments more extreme, and then respond to him based on the “updated version”
For the record, your responses are very respectful and it is not your responses I am referring to.
DY
Say there motive was that they did “not want to send up a shaliach tzibbur whose dress clearly represents a different hashkofo than the tzibbur he is supposed to be representing”?
Also why don’t you assume this is their motive? Did Damoshe tell you this was their motive, or did you assume it in the lakewood case?
Avram that wasnt all you said, you also said this :
“Different communities and shuls will have different definitions for dressing respectfully. You may disagree with their definition, and that is fine, but they have a right to their own definitions, and they have a right for their customs to be respected. “
So what about in the no shtreimel in Teaneck scenario
Ubiquitin, if it really were, I would understand.
I’m hearing a story third hand, and guessing a motive. DaMoshe is also guessing a motive.
If you want to know why I might assume a different motive for different communities, the answer can be found in DaMoshe’s comment, “There are many people I have hashkafic differences with. But I don’t have a problem with them davening for the amud”. I think this accurately represents a more relaxed attitude found in certain communities towards other haskofos, both to the right and to the left. So it would be a chiddush if this were truly the motive in Teaneck.
Syag Lchochma,
Interestingly, you wrote this come see Teaneck as an example of a lack of ahavas Yisroel! as your parallel to DaMoshe’s statement. Do you believe that that is what he wrote?
I appreciate your feedback on my posts, especially since you consistently work to see the various perspectives in a thread. I am concerned that I remain as respectful and honest as possible in a debate, without misrepresenting anyone’s position. I don’t always succeed with this, and sometimes I’m not as aware of how my words are read by others as I should be.
When I wrote the sentence you quoted above, I was intending to parallel DaMoshe’s representation: …the fact that there isn’t enough achdus and ahavas Yisrael with Lakewood as an example. I did spin off of the thread title a bit to make it a bit more cheeky. I wasn’t intending to embellish or magnify his position at all, so if that’s how my post came across (maybe it was the exclamation point?), it’s good for me to clarify myself.
Thanks for answering. I wasn’t so concerned with your spin-off I did not find you in ANY way to be using it against him, I just find you to be a good candidate for a straight up response. I have been noticing a general tendency of people to reframe the posts in cheeky ways, and then “give it to” the poster based on the reframe. Then the subsequent posters will jump on the reframe as if that is what was SAID. Perhaps it was meant or implied, but maybe not. And either way, it isn’t really straightforward to misquote. In some threads it is worse because the person’s comment gets changed into a generalization and then responded to. It may not be a new ‘tactic’ but I am noticing it more recently and finding it frustrating to read.
Thank you so much for your insight, and please don’t take it personally.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.