Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Little Froggie, you mentioned that Dovid Hamelech
s army...constituted Talmidei Chachomim of repute...`Certainly some of them were. Others, though, were not even Jewish, like Ittai HaGitti and his 600 men who were from Gat, making them Plishtim, Like the Kraisim and the Plaisim, like the allies from Tzor that eventually became not only allies but builders of the Beis Hamikdosh under Shlomo Hamelech. Kings used mercenaries – in fact, where there were no standing armies, only tribal levies as described in Yehoshua, Shoftim, and Shmuel, mercenaries were vital bodyguards for Dovid Hamelech and others after him.
Kings used relatively unlearned farmers and shepherds when the need arose. And they used Talmidei Chachomim as well.
Our yeshivas need to teach more Neviim and Ksuvim so that our received wisdom doesnt contradict our holiest and oldest writings.
B’Avur Zeh osoh H’ Li Btzeisi Mimitzrayim. Li velo Lo. Ilu Hoyo Shom Lo Hoyo Nig’ol.
I daven that you will lift the veil from your eyes, see the rebirth of Torah in a place that was bereft of it; the rebirth of nationhood, however imperfect, that we were forced to abandon for almost 2000 years but which is an integral part of who we are; that you will abandon the conceit that your spiritual destruction is more important to a Zionist than his own happiness and fulfillment; and that your children will value achdus and hakoras hatov and ahavas chinom more than you do.
And if not, well, you are choosing to separate yourself from Am Yisroel. You can stay in Mitzrayim. But we love you and we will miss you.
Well, kudos to Joseph who attributed material that he cut and pasted from another site to its author. Its a good start.
OTOH, the point of the post? Its nothing that doesn’t happen in conversations that take place face to face, across the table at lunch, at kiddush, or in the letters to the editor. Sure, there’s less in the way of anonymity, but unless you know your interlocutor quite well, you don’t know what qualifies them to offer an opinion on anything. And yet, they do, no doubt influencing yo, the listener at least as much as an online post.
Once again we must rely on the sechel HKBH gave us and the upbringing our parents and our melamdim ensured to help us navigate through life, which includes what restaurant to eat at and and where to get new tires, and most pertinently, what advice makes good sense and what does not.
Read all the comments, listen to all the know it alls over cholent and rye, but use the head HKBH gave you.
I don’t need to trumpet my Zionist credentials here – I think all know where I’m coming from. But the writer of this article, I am afraid, is a bombastic, insensitive, and uninformed advocate for Aliyah. He makes blanket assumptions about the Jews of houston, not noticing the Jews who live below the poverty line, who are elderly, infirm, or alone, who arent motivated by greed as he assumes Jews in America are. He denigrates the Federations who help these people. He trumpets the Aliyah of Russians and Ethiopians, and they are indeed miracles. But who does he think raised billions of dollars to pay for them? The Jews of Houston, and everywhere across the continent. HKBH used them as his instrument to accomplish this as much as he did anyone in Eretz Yisrael. I share his concern about assimilation. I even share his conviction that ultimately we will all build our lives in Eretz Yisrael. But denigrating the active role North American Jews have played in the rescue of those hundreds of thousands of Jews, questioning their loyalty to HKBH and Am Yisrael? Calling those who sustain kehilos and minyonim one day a week Jews? Thats the mehalech of an ingrate and an uninformed blowhard. I’m not impressed.
I find myself reading through these older posts and I come to the conclusion, surprisingly, that many of the more “conservative” opinions here are right (as regards tzniusdik dress and activity and alcohol consumption at kiddush).
Someone who is brought up with seychel and derech eretz will be taught to dress modestly and appropriately in shul, regardless of denomination. It all starts and ends in the home, so a parent will and should model this kind of dress and behaviour. Now, I don’t think either of the two letters in the OP were complaining about sleeves to the elbow and skirts to the knee. It seems a lot more than that was displayed. It seems that much more immodest dress and behaviour was described. There’s no place for this in anyone’s shul, or for that matter any place of worship.
I’ve also seen the growth of the drinking phenomenon, though I haven’t personally encountered much of it with the youth. And the immodesty of drinking can sometimes be of a gaaivadik variety – oh, I brought a $200 bottle of single malt…Oh, I brought a $300 bottle of vodka…etc. That is as untzniusdik as a low neckline on a dress, or worse, because it incorporates pride, greed and gluttony along with immodesty.
Our shuls are places of holiness, learning, and Jewish unity. If that is recognized by secheldik people, they won’t come dressed immodestly, and they won’t come to drink themselves silly.
I’d make a couple of exceptions and comments, though. First, often enough there are those who do not have the upbringing to know what is appropriate, and are wearing what to them might have seemed the most appropriate. If these are one-offs, there for a simcha, it is the responsibility of the baal simcha to try to educate them on expectations in a place of sanctity.
If the individual is in shul for the first or a rare time, it can be a teaching and learning opportunity even if they aren’t dressed appropriately. As hard as it might be, such an individual should be treated with respect and kindness. That way they may come back, and they would likely emulate the dress of those who go frequently.
Finally, where I vehemently do not agree is with the focus on women and their tzniyus responsibility, while indicating that the only male tzniyus responsibility is to keep his women caged at home. Each of us, man and woman has a responsibility to live a Torah life in the world, meeting the challenges of tzniyus and all other challenges with the education, mussar, and guidance of our parents, teachers, and those who we take as our leaders. We should all turn inwards to protect the vitality of our homes and our families and their holiness, at the appropriate times, in the appropriate ways. And in that, as in so many other ways, our mothers, sisters, wives and daughters can show us the derech.
DY, I’ve experienced all of that devastation. I don’t know if most could be saved with enough effort, but certainly many could. But effort is not enough. If you try but don’t take personal achrayus, and make the changes only you can make, it wont work. If you try but can’t forgive or be generous the way a healthy marriage demands, it wont work. If you aren’t self aware and able to articulate what hurts, scares, confounds, confuses, angers or worries you, and you don’t bother to share what encourages you, strengthens you or makes you smile, it won’t work. But even the most selfish and self unaware individual begins with the mistake that they can make their fantasy work – that may be stupidity, but it is not criminality.
Back to those who try honestly and can not make it succeed. Even rhetorically, I take massive exception to the notion it is “criminal” It is a blanket assertion thrown at people who for the most part are already pained and damaged by their experience. In what rhetorical world is that kind of callous disregard for others anything other than a reckless disregard for our responsibilities bein odom lechaveiro? “rhetoric” can be and often is a weapon of public embarrassment. I admit I am far from perfect in this regard. I do try not to let my emotion get the best of me, and I hope that I never have nor will throw a grenade like “criminal” at someone or many who are already dealing with the pain and isolation and loss of confidence and torn relationships that a divorce brings.
I know from my own interactions with botei din, with poskim, with marriage counselors, psychologists, social workers, with other divorcees, with couples that have figured out how to hold on to their marriage, with chosson and kallah teachers, that indeed many marriages can be saved, but only with the commitment I described above. And many marriages are foolishly entered into if the participants aren’t ready, but their parents, culture, and community push them forward anyways. My experience and my interlocutors indicate to me that 95% is a ridiculous number and 99% more so. I’d concede even that a majority could possibly be saved, again with the commitment described above. I have way, way more issues with the “criminal” assertion, actual or rhetorical.
Thank you, DY, for your good wishes.
The assertion that Divorce in 95% of circumstances, which Joseph made and has not retracted; and which you seem to have defended, flies in the face of halocho. Tell me, where in Devorim Perek chof daled do you see criminality described or implied? Do either the man or woman involved need to bring a korban chatos? Is there a punishment described, Or anything making it a La’av?
If Toras Moshe MiSinai doesn’t even describe it as a transgression or an undesired act like Nazir which needs a korban chatos at the end, Where does Joseph, or anyone he cites (and while he cites many who say divorce is often undesirable and avoidable, I don’t recall seeing qa source that says, like he did, that it is criminal) get the gumption to say it is criminal? And why would you defend the assertion?
DY – I suggest that describing what is clear from even the multiple names on this thread going back years, as well as the repeated plagiarizing from frumteens without attribution that Joseph has engaged is not only not ad hominem, it is essential to understand who it is who is making assertions that divorce is criminal.
I don’t share Joseph’s view of the gedolim. Nor do I disdain them as a group, or (with one or two exceptions that I can think of, based only on their actions and statements) individuals, but I have been critical of some actions and strategies that seem to cry out for explanation, because they haven’t worked or aren’t working out so well.
I am very critical of the notion that Gedolim are infallible and can’t be questioned. They aren’t popes, and we aren’t Catholics.
I have been at pains to describe that I do not think Divorce is a first option, even a second. I don’t wish my experience on anyone, and there are worse situations than mine. Counseling on both a professional and rabbinic level was done. Reconciliation after separation was worked on for many months. The road with the kids has been long and challenging.
Nothing Joseph asserts can approach or match the pain of a marriage that can’t be saved. But I can say unequivocally that I am a better man, a better father, and a better soon to be married choson for having made the decisions and done the hard work and taken the responsibility for my part in the pain that I did. And I believe the large majority of divorced couples, frum or otherwise, are not the simplistic, selfish oafs the examples Joseph brought make them out to be.
If you can’t see the simple wrongness of the assertion that 95% of divorce is criminal, then I hope and pray you never are put in a position to render help or counsel to someone who is going through a marriage breakup. With that perspective, you will have nothing to offer them but more pain.
Joseph – at the beginning of this thread, you said that 95% of divorces are criminal. Now you are saying “no one said divorce is always the wrong path”. While I can see that you left yourself 5% wiggle room, you seem to have changed your tune.
DY – My biggest problems are threefold.
First, this thread is the handiwork of a demonstrated plagiarist and serial fake-name artist.
Second, he made the false, absurd, and infuriating assertion that almost every divorce is criminal.
Third, He brings up as rationale for his position examples like the “If you don’t like it you can divorce me.” Its a simplistic straw man. Do you think a statement like that comes from a healthy marriage or mature husband or wife? No. If it is ever uttered it comes from people who are oblivious, selfish, completely self-unaware, or unprepared to take any responsibility for their actions. In short, its useless rhetoric, and it insults the intelligence of the vast majority of people struggling in their marriages.
The question in a marriage breakdown is: is it fixable? and are both of the participants prepared to take responsibility and do the work necessary? If not, it will eventually fail, and the poison already there will spread and get worse. The children will have to live in an increasingly tense, angry and eventually hateful environment. Don’t tell me that anyone – Rav Shteinman, another Godol, or anyone else thinks its a good idea for anyone to endure that.
I’ve met poskim, many of them BH, in myy life. And they pay attention to the particular circumstances before they answer a shailah. Divorces are the most particular of particular circumstances. Divorce is awful. it is gut wrenching, it is a reflection of personally not measuring up to ones own and others expectations, it is terribly hard on kids, it is incredibly expensive, it is a last resort. But it is NOT criminal 95% of the time as OP-Joseph wrote, nor 1%.
Such malicious slander by such a demonstrably dishonest poster deserves the reaction it is getting from me.
“Why are there so many failed marriages today?”
Joseph quotes the question. Given Joseph’s history of plagiarism and multiple personalities, he has ZERO credibility in presenting this as the advice of R’ Shteinman or R’Kanievsky.
“People think that the reason things are not going well for them are because of their spouse specifically.”
Well, maybe. Certainly if you are talking about an individual who has no self awareness and takes no responsibility for their actions. Of course they will say its because of their spouse specifically.
But given the simplistic, robotic nature of his world view, the complexity capacity and imperfection of most people and most Jews is lost on Joseph. People with a modicum of self awareness will realize that they have to take responsibility for themselves and their actions, both within a bad marriage, after the divorce, and in any new relationship. If they don’t make change in themselves, they will make the same mistakes (and almost no marriage breakdown is the sole responsibility of one spouse only) in a new relationship.
I am surprised that a gadol would not recognize such a simple truth. That is another reason why I question the provenance of what the multiple-namer has shared here.
One last thing – interesting that though Joseph-of-the-many-names asserted at the top of this thread that divorce was criminal, here are the purported words of a gadol about divorce and he makes no mention of criminality at all.
Well, it was fascinating to see at least four incarnations of Joseph (Englishman, Shlishi, Droid, and Joseph) create and defend his diatribe against divorce. Split personality? Or just trying to rile up good Jews? Who knows.
That said, even at a distance of 4 years from the original post, it is nonsense. It is absurd, it is hurtful to those who don’t share Joseph’s ignorance of the matter and those who have experienced the painful circumstances firsthand.
It seems that the coarseness of public discourse that Donald Trump has brought to the political process was anticipated by Joseph years ago. Who are you, who has no experience in the matter, to call it criminal, as you did? Who are you to judge? Your opinion is hanging like a bright autumn leaf on a solitary tree. Soon it falls, and crumbles to dust, and, as the tfilo says, Kachalom yauf.
Divorce is not desirable. If there is any constructive way to avoid it, to return the relationship from the brink, that should be tried. If there is any way to heal the relationship, it must be given some time to see if it works. But what the irresponsible OP known as Joseph and many other names doesn’t know, because he has no experience, is how a relationship that is broken and where both parties haven’t invested in fixing it or have ultimately found it unfixable, poisons the life of both parties, the kids, the grandparents, and the circle of friends and family. Life in a miserable marriage is THE most unhealthy circumstance for ALL.
I’ve BH encountered many Rabbonim -chariedi, MO, and others, who utterly reject Joseph’s characterization of divorce when necessary, and who have demonstrated a compassion and kovod habriyos that he seems patently incapable of emulating.
Criminal? only in the clouded mind of a poster who could wear terms like foolish, antagonistic, robotic, plagiarizing, judgmental, hateful and ignorant as readily as he wears so many fake identities.
To paraphrase a well known Author, You know nothing, Joseph.
Boruch hashem that we are all going to give din vecheshbon before HKBH who is Just and Merciful at the end of our days. Because if the judgementalism and the arbitrary conversion of stricture, vague suggestions for Hiddur Mitzva, and poorly understood minhagei hador to absolute current halacha is the standard of the heilige dayonim who walk among us, The Malochim above would be pretty lonely.
DY, I should clarify further, as my thinking on this has evolved a bit. On one hand, I think zahavasdad is right. Its one thing to accept, another to solicit. So if I had to write that again I’d write “ask for” instead of “accept”. On the other, As I wrote above, if they set standards going forward, and do not discriminate a priori, I can like it or not but cant call it reprehensible. Thank you for forcing me to clarify my thoughts.
No it would not be reprehensible to accept in that case. If the option to conform and be accepted is given, I have no argument against it.
We were discussing, though, the case of elitists and mosdos who reject kids a priori, who don’t even give people who WANT to be within their gedorim an opportunity to do so.
To answer you both directly, Joseph and DY, I think it is halachically acceptable but morally reprehensible. And there is precedent in halacha for this perspective. Chalitza is a halachic construct that permits but detests the decision of a man not to perform the mitzvah of Yibum. And the Torah permits an individual to be a Nazir, even though it detests the presumption of making such a neder and demands a korban chatos after doing so.
But we don’t even have to go as far as a non orthodox Jew. The elitist mosdos we were all talking about won’t even take in a frum kid who isn’t one of their Stepford Children.
And I am also prepared to consider that there are some basic standards that don’t necessarily make a mosod “elitist” by demanding them. (Shabbos, Kashrus, a reasonable level of tzniyus) At the same time, though, the demands may be a priori, but the acceptance should not be. And by this I mean, the mosod could be able to say – We will accept any Jewish child who from the point of his or her acceptance forward, their parents agree to abide by all the stringencies set out for all students. That would not be hypocritical, and it would maintain their integrity.
But the elitists aren’t prepared to countenance that either. They don’t even have the confidence in the hashpo’oh of their own mosdos to affect positive change. They just a) don’t want to give up the power this policy gives them, and b) don’t want to associate with the riff raff.
As I was at pains to say, It’s not wrong for the not-frum-enough philanthropist to make any donation he wants, and its not a halachic problem (at least from the perspective of hilchos tzedaka. It may be an issue of maaris ayin or chilul hashem) to take his money even if you wont take his kid. But it sends an immoral, hypocritical, inequitable and dissolute message to all those I mentioned earlier and to the entire oilem that elitists will reject you and your kids but take your money.
As I have been saying (a few times already) Just because one CAN do something doesn’t mean one SHOULD.
And that, DY, is my point. You can’t even see the moral abscess of taking money for institutions that is tamei, by the standards of the same institution. These heilige mosdos aren’t the bais hamikdosh, and the donor isnt bringing a korban looking for HKBH’s forgiveness. And even if you were to make the comparison, He isn’t taking it upon himself to change his ways upon giving the gift. His continuing in his lifestyle (one not holy enough for the institution) even after making the gift could be compared to pigul, and the readiness of the hypocritical institution to take his gift makes for a compelling comparison to a cohen who has forsaken his role.
Lets also be clear about what’s at stake. You are making the argument because we both know that the “system” is unsustainable without the tamei (by the standards of the heilige elitists) money of the less frum, the andere. So any appeal for integrity and courage of conviction is a non starter. which is a horrible commentary on either the religiousness of Jews who can make substantial donations, or the integrity of the institutions that make a point of exclusion.
Your potato chips straw man is irrelevant, and you know it. We’re not talking about an individual’s choice of refreshments, we’re talking about the representative institutions of our society which will shape the lives of our children. Of course they have to have the highest standard of integrity, and no vestige of hypocrisy. If they don’t need that, I fear for the generation they are educating.
Does no one seriously care about the hypocrisy of the elite mosdos who will accept $$$ but not kids from those who don’t meet their “standards”? Clearly, there is little concern about the message this sends to people who are good, frum, God fearing Yidden, who maybe have a New York Times chas vecholilo in the house? Or who are maybe geirim, or baalei tshuva whose kids don’t get in because, well, pas’t nisht? And most importantly, what does it say to the kids themselves, that unseen and unknown people within a community they want to be part of reject them? DO you think a 14 year old girl who learns torah, dresses in a tzniyusdike way, doesn’t talk to boys, doesn’t go to movies is going to understand the calculated elitism involved? Explain to them (clearly, no one of the apologists here has been able to explain it to me) why they are treif but money from someone who isn’t even at their standard of frumkeit is kosher? ITS HYPOCRITICAL. It is evidence of a growing moral bankruptcy. And it is unsustainable.
DY you wrote “Can a school turn down the child of a family which won’t keep their television/internet/tznius/shmiras Shabbos/kashrus standards? Can they nevertheless accept a donation from someone who doesn’t keep those standards?”
As a private institution it CAN turn down the child. It CAN set the standards it feels necessary. Neither JUSTIFIES it taking not-frum-enough money from those it deems below its standards of holiness.
No, DY. If the individual donor is too treif to daven at your omud, or his kids are not holy enough to be in your school, or his wife isnt tzniyus enough to pick up her kids at your door, then it is hypocritical and self defeating to accept money that is by those heilige standards, tamei. Why don’t these elitists have the courage of their convictions and survive without the support of those who don’t meet their standards?
Here’s a good test for the heilige mosdos and the elitists they defer to. Let the board of each school commit to only taking funds and resources from individuals who would meet their standard for admissions for their children. That way, the only pressure would be internal, and schools would reach an equilibrium based on their admissions policies and practices. Some would admit a broader spectrum of kids, and would be able to access broader resources. Some less, and if their policy is financially unsustainable, they will be able to draw the appropriate conclusions about their policy. There would be great honesty in such a committment.
Hakatan – distancing a group from the “machane” isnt compatible with entreating them to return. And it calls into question the viability of the “machane”.
Shivim Panim Latorah is not subject to your definition and limitation. HKBH knows what it encompasses. You are not HKBH, and as holy and learned as they are, neither are those defined as gedolim.
Joseph, Rabbi Gordimer is not the OP, I think. Unless the OP plagiarized something of his without attribution. Is that what you are asserting, Joseph? You know, sort of like you have done word for word from Frumteens over the past several years in the coffeeroom? (as is evidenced in many postings that are searchable here)
And in any case his arguments are about Open Orthodoxy vs modern orthodoxy, not some validation of this particularly arrogant skein of chariedi vs Modern orthodoxy.
As I wrote above, the pendulum has begun to swing back. Moro D’Asroh’s of MO shuls are no longer swayed by the threats of local chariedi zealots (and I am at pains to say – its the arrogant and the zealots I am describing, not the majority) when they have a frum speaker of the wrong taam or politics. MO donors are harder to convince for support when there are many other good and needful organizations vying for the tzedokoh dollar who aren’t denigrating at the same time as they are asking for help.
If you wish to peddle this message of supremacy – be it to the MO, or other Jews, go right ahead. marginalize yourself further. Or maybe you could learn something from Chabad. or many others who are involved in kiruv rechokim, kerovim, and all Jews. Many of them have figured out what you seem to be unaware of. We all have what to learn from all of our brothers. We all have a responsibility to each other that doesn’t start and finish with what we perceive the other is doing wrong. It starts at a yom tov table, in a quick gut shabbes, with making a minyan for a kaddish zugger. And you don’t have a monopoly on those things.
The inherent arrogance and insensibility of someone OUTSIDE of Modern Orthodoxy determining its problems and offering its solutions illustrates perhaps a more important problem: The increasing irrelevance of the “assumed leadership” of that element of Chareidi society which insists on telling others what to do and how to do it as if there were not shivim ponim l’Torah.
The day will come when Modern Orthodoxy will stop looking over its right shoulder. And then there will be a reckoning with those who will take a cheque from an MO donor but not let him daven at the Omud in their mosdos and kehilos.
A Far better thing to do than issuing circular arguments is to find those areas of common purpose and common action – and there are many – and build upon them.
KJ…and that’s why we can’t have nice things, like Mashiach.
Never in our history has there been so much Torah being learned by so many Jews; aside from any other consideration, its the “kofrim” you are deriding who have facilitated and significantly funded what the gedolim built. Never mind also the infrastructure (roads, electricity, health services) that the “kofrim” built which serve those learning Torah.
No need even to get in to the Zionism discussion. Hopefully, at this time of year, you can look in your heart and find something positive to say about your brothers and sisters.
Ah, Joseph. You know, with access to every single post I ever made here, you might have been able to see my perspectives instead of assuming them. But, given that its apparently a valid discussion tactic by you to denigrate someone’s observance and be yotze laaz on their opinions regarding ikkarei emunah, I shouldn’t be at all surprised by your clearly intimate and well researched knowledge of my opinions regarding Shchita, wearing a head covering, or mila.
Aside from your puerile attempt at being motzi shem ra, you hit the double double with a straw man argument too. congratulations. Women aren’t being and shouldn’t be forced to drive. If they choose not to, no problem. But their families should never be extorted into obedience by the exclusion or expulsion of their children from school because they are driving their kids in exactly the same way that was muttar a month ago but is apparently assur now. Dina Demalchusa Dina comes in there as well.
DY, I’m saying that I disagree with R’ Vosner’s perspective, but well beyond that disagreement I am disgusted by the actions taken by those who are leveraging it in a way that doesn’t seem to abide by local law, that “criminalizes” something that was halachically valid a month earlier without explaining the halachic reason for the change OR explains the halachic reason why it was OK a month earlier but is not now. I am deeply dismayed by actions taken by Belz that commits psychological and emotional violence on its own community members (call it blackmail, extortion, it doesn’t matter) by threatening to ostracize their innocent offspring if the diktat is not observed.
If you, however, wish to see a different approach in my words, that goes beyond simply disagreeing with R Vosner’s perspective, so be it. I just made 3 attempts to convince you otherwise. I’m not making a fourth.
DY, I wrote “Violating dina demalchusa dina for a questionable chumra is irrational. Making it more difficult for some mothers to accomplish their responsibilities when they are already nshei chayil binding the community together is illogical. And I find the way that the message was finessed and then walked back to be dishonest.”
Though I clearly do not agree with R Vosner’s take, the examples I gave for illogical, irrational, and dishonest were all about the application.
DY I am definitely arguing with both; and if anything I have more disdain for the application. It troubles me greatly that in pursuit of upholding a standard of tznius that a day, a week, a month before the women weren’t considered to be breaching, such psychological violence as extortion is used. That is transparently leverage of power and control. And not only of the women, but of their spouses as well. To me, this matrix of extortion indicates that tznius is a straw man here.
Sorry about questioning your use of the absurd word.
I suppose, DY, that a priori if I have an opinion that is in conflict with someone’s daas torah, no amount of explanation will make it less appalling to the followers of said daas torah. That being said – If a community gives its women a responsibility, and that responsibility can be accomplished by someone dressed, acting, and comporting themselves in a tzanuah way, and the means to most efficiently and effectively accomplish that responsibility in a way neither contemplated by nor addressed by earlier poskim upon which certain chumros purport to rely, and the use of which in itself transgresses no clear halacha, I find it irrational and illogical to assert and enforce such a prohibition, especially by extorting compliance by threatening to remove children from a school. Extortion, namely the threat of expulsion and exclusion of children who have no choice in the matter to ensure compliance, is a vile way for anyone to exert control or assert power. Violating dina demalchusa dina for a questionable chumra is irrational. Making it more difficult for some mothers to accomplish their responsibilities when they are already nshei chayil binding the community together is illogical. And I find the way that the message was finessed and then walked back to be dishonest.
But I don’t believe I used the word absurd. You did, DY.
DY, thanks for the welcome.
When it comes to individuals, I start with respect and finish with it. When it comes to ideologies or “camps” I’ve come to the conclusion that respect is a two way street. No one gets a free pass if they aren’t demonstrating respect for other deiyos, even the ones they disagree with. So I’m not automatically respecting the policy of sensitivity to tzniyus, though I can respect an individual’s practice of it.
The reason boils down to two things. Power and Control. Now, it may be from a Belzer perspective the exercise of that power and control over the women in the community is good and appropriate. And it may also be true that some or even many of the women in the community welcome and accept that power and control over them. And it may even be true that the exercise of power and control over the flock is the most appropriate venue for daas torah in the community. But please, please lets not make irrational and illogical representations that it is a matter of tzniyus in any conventional sense. Dishonesty is a horrible midda.
Oh, Hi. I’m back.
Fair enough, DY. You are right. I’ll revise to say that Rav Goldstein seems to me to be someone I look up to as an example of the best qualities of an individual and a part of a distinctive nation that I could aspire to.
DY When I read some of what I have seen here, I can’t classify it as less than chutzpah, to arrogate HKBH’s powers of judgement and assessment, to assume the value of all of one’s mitzvos versus the value of even one done by someone less outwardly observant. This even without my concern about half of what it means to be a Jew being ignored. It IS chutzpah to make such assumptions. HKBH measures you against your own potential for doing mitzvos, not against the observance of anyone else, lesser or greater. We are instructed to fight against our Yetzer Horah. Our innate nature is to be competitive, even to measure ourselves against other Jews, or other people of all kinds. But HKBH wants us to be the best fullest realization of our own potential for avodas hashem as individuals, and our potential to act on and DO what he expects from us collectively.
You know who is superior? Someone like the Chief Rabbi of South Africa, Rabbi Goldstein, who not only has managed to gather a majority of ALL the Jews of South Africa of all stripes to keep a full shabbos together, but who has also demonstrated an ohr lagoyim there on many occasions, and who has reached out to dozens of Jewish communities across the planet to replicate the incredible kiddush hashem they did in SA.
If you want to demonstrate a superior Jew, he is an exemplar.
Maybe DY, or maybe the chutzpah of even discussing the superiority of our practice of Judaism when half of what it means to be a Jew is being willfully ignored sticks in my craw. I politely but firmly disagree with you. It is completely germane to what is being discussed here
I think that most posters here are operating under a grave misconception that is informing their answers. The statement was put, admittedly, as “Judaism is not a religion of superiority.” But it is clear from the words of HKBH that Judaism is only in part a religion. “V’Atem Tihyu Li Mamleches Kohanim V’Goy Kodosh.” is what we are commanded to BE. A Kingdom of Kohanim, a Holy Nation. A Kingdom. A Nation.
That which defines a nation and its self identification or self determination is vastly different than a singularly religious self concept.
Religiously, an individual has responsibilities, but few communal ones. Given our human nature – the same as everyone else – we are drawn to be competitive, to consider how we behave almost solely in the context of how well we measure up to our fellow Jew, and to identify ourselves and hold our self worth as intimately connected to the conclusion we come to compared to our neighbor.
And yet this ignores almost completely the national responsibilities HKBH set out for us. If I am busy perfecting myself, I have little cheishek to be an Ohr Lagoyim, or to reach out to a Jew who looks, talks, acts and understands differently than me, even though the gemoro mandates both him and me to do exactly that. (Kol Yisroel Areivim…)
If I ignore HKBH’s national definition of Jewishness or Judaism, I also dissociate myself from other responsibilities. I shy away from working the land, giving leket and peah to the indigent as a communal, national responsibility. I look to those responsibilities as a Jew that focus on individual elevation – like exclusively learning Torah bli kemach.
It isn’t difficult to figure out the why and how of this transformation of what it means to be Jewish. In millenia of exile, with expulsions, restrictions, persecutions, and denigration, it is close to impossible to assert national responsibilities. So our leaders shifted the focus onto individual religious observance. They weren’t wrong. We would have disappeared long ago if they hadnt done that. Nonetheless the shift happened – clearly – because of an obvious and compelling change of circumstances. We now have another obvious and compelling change of circumstances, and an opportunity to exercise our national responsibilities again. We must not ignore them.
WHY?
Because if we are to achieve this notional “superiority” that is being discussed, it will be because we have distinctively accomplished our national mission. Every living being HKBH put on earth has a purpose, but no nation is tasked as we are with perfecting the world. In the Jewish context, every individual Jew has a purpose in perfecting themselves and their actions, but none of them is accomplishing enough to be, feel, or regard themselves as superior if they aren’t fulfilling their national responsibilities.
In sum, “superiority” is as wrong a term to use in this conversation as is “religion”. It is not descriptive of the totality of what we are or what we as individuals strive to accomplish. Maybe we should replace “superiority” with “responsibility” or “accountability”. And maybe we should remember Mamleches Kohanim VeGoy Kodosh when we think of how to define Judaism and how it is fulfilled.
Verzogt, why don’t you speak with someone in Fairmont’s corporate head office. I know that many Fairmonts have done Kosher events across the world for many years, and there are most probably several caterers they deal with. There are 2 Fairmonts in Bermuda, both the most likely places for conferences, perhaps you could figure it out that way?
Maybe the boss wants us to form a union so that our negotiations with management have clarity. So that we know he approves when there are layoffs. So that management implements working conditions that abide by the boss’s mission statement. So that employees get the compensation he sets for them. So that the very small percentage of managers who are abusive or unworthy may be identified and replaced.
Hashem wants a righteous product. If he gets that solely through the dictates of management, excellent. If he can get that product through management which actively engages the employees, explains their plans to them, makes them part of the process, even better productivity and long term stability can be expected.
Understanding that both the Tal law and this one are less than they are made out to be leads to the likely conclusion that the objection is not really about zionism, IDF, working, or shmad at all. It is about control. Who wields it, who yields themselves to it, who benefits from it, and how is it to be used. Control is useful, and moreover, for those who wish to place themselves under it, its their right to have others make decisions for them. But it should be transparent.
Is the whole issue because the state and the IDF want to eliminate chareidi life, or is it because Daas Torah, societal control and emunas chachomim is threatened by the potential choices individuals might make? Does it even matter which of these is the real reason?
I believe it matters. As I wrote above, people should be free to yield up their freedoms if they so choose. But they should do it with full knowledge of why, not because they have been scared into it.
I may be in a minority, but I feel that if you have time, and you have not learned them in depth before, you should give some thought to learning Na’ch, particularly Neviim both spiritual like Yishayahu and Yirmiyahu and historical like Yehoshua, SHoftim and Shmuel, Trei Osor, Tehilim, and Megilos.
Its been my experience that many yeshivos do not encourgae study and knowledge of Na’ch. These are our foundational texts. Tfilos we say every day quote from them. They have fundamental things to say about our past and our future. And they have been very inspiring to me.
I second Oomis in applauding your efforts. R’Noach Weinberg, zt’l whose yahrzeit was yesterday, if I am not mistaken, said that we grow closer to the Almighty with the merit of even one mitzvah, and our tradition tells us that even the intention to do a mitzvah is meritorious, so kol hakavod.
I also wanted to mention that in Judaism, when we are not focusing on that wich we have done right, we focus most on the concept of averah – transgression, rather than cheit – sin. Why? Well, because of the concept of personal teshuvah, which differentiates us from other religions, the idea of transgression, “crossing over” to wrongdoing, allows us the ability to “cross back” or “return” – Teshuvah. Sin is a word which has been essentially abducted by the christians and imbued with meaning specific to their misconceptions. We don’t see it as a “state of being” so much as a transitory designation before it is withdrawn through sacrifice in the time of the Beit Hamikdash, or prayer and Hashem’s mercy nowadays.
Hatzlacha on your journey.
Worked with Fried last year. A pleasure to work with, has performed for us several times, and an inspiring individual.