A couple of us mixed it up a while back on the issue of intrusive government. The following is a link to a clever illustration of the confluence of commercial database and information mining and a nanny state. Of course, the organization who created it is, imho, much more of the problem than the solution – but, with that caveat, enjoy:

http://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf

When I took high school biology, the English Peppered Moth, Biston betularia, was offered as an example of evolution in action via natural selection. Ordinarily these moths are light and mottled, and almost invisible against light, lichen-covered trees. But when those same trees were blackened by soot during the industrial revolution, it was the rarer black moths which were camouflaged — and the black moths quickly rose in number as the lighter ones declined. When the Brits decided to clean the air in the 1960s, the trees came out from under their layer of soot, and the process was reversed.

This theory was challenged by some, notably evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne of Chicago, because he felt the data did not support the conclusions. But there is, in fact, a far more fundamental problem with this example, even if the shifts described were entirely accurate — it shows no evolutionary process at all, merely a change in population in response to environmental conditions. There is no evidence that had either situation persisted, entirely new species would have developed. On the contrary, the indicators are that the blackness gene would have merely become more and more (or less and less) common.

What does … Read More >>

One of the most ubiquitous canards used against the Orthodox is that we are petrified and don’t change, or that we are petrified of change. For a change, though, we are now being accused of too much change. This charge was leveled by J. Shawn Landres in the comments section on the essay by Toby Katz (“Correspondence about my daughter’s bas mitzvah”).

Toby ruminated about the problematic innovations surrounding the Bas Mitzva observance introduced into Orthodox communities via German Reform practices. On the whole, Toby is correct in that the Orthodox preserve what we call “Yisrael Saba” – the traditions of previous generations. It was the Reform and Conservative who brought in non-halakhic change. But Shawn levels the following accusation against the Orthodox: there is a
myth of an authentic, essential, immutable ‘Orthodoxy’ that was always exactly as it is….There … is no question that Orthodoxy has changed.

Usually we are accused of being impervious to change. Now we are criticized for changing too much (rightward shift). Seems we’re darned if we do, and darned if we don’t.

In actuality the Orthodox do respond to their … Read More >>

While Jeff debated with Rav Reinman the virtues of forced population transfers in Israel, I was at least equally troubled — at least initially — by the use of the Palestinian “Naqba” (disaster, referring to the founding of the State of Israel) as a metaphor for the reaction of Torah-observant Jewry to the Reform and Conservative movements.

Certainly, any such metaphor is prone to be misunderstood. As Rabbi Reinman so eloquently demonstrated throughout his correspondence with Ammiel Hirsch in One People, Two Worlds, his attitude towards Reform Jews, and even the leading Rabbis of that movement, is one of love, patience, and understanding. If, indeed, there is a desire towards divergent creeds to “throw them into the sea,” this is accompanied by no desire to injure or weaken the practitioners of those creeds. On the contrary, the desire is to build them up, to open up worlds of Jewish learning, meaning and spirituality as found in the Torah.

This being the case, I do not understand the use of language of warfare to discuss Torah outreach and education. Who is the “ideological foe,” if not the same Ammiel Hirsch with whom Rabbi Reinman engaged in such civil discourse, and his colleagues? Are … Read More >>

R. Ballabon,

My comment about NATO bombing us was tongue in cheek. In any case, Israel will not expel the Arabs, and if it does, the United States will not support the action. I think talk about population transfers is devarim beteilim, pure wishful thinking and a waste of time.

R. Yaakov, I’m not sure we disagreed. Of course Israel will be demonized – the point is that Israel is demonized regardless of what it does – short of overtly suicidal acts – but that such hostility has no teeth. My other point was that I thought R. Reinman’s description was in itself objectionable.

Jeff, I take exception to your taking exception.

1 – You are absolutely right. Anyone on the planet could do that sort of transfer, and has. The Jews of Israel, however, cannot. We are a unique nation.

2 – It is truly ironic that the proposed “two-state solution” offers one state that has both Jews and Arabs, with both Jewish and Arab Knesset members, supporting two languages (many outside Israel do not know that Arabic is one of its two official languages) — and the other will be an Arab state, completely Judenrein.

3 – Laughable? Rhetorical excess, perhaps, but not laughable. Israel would be isolated to a degree that Hussein’s Iraq never endured, deprived of all commerce and aid. The economy would crumble, the military would crumble, and then the neighboring Arabs will prove that they have never forgotten their original aim.

Tafasta merubah, lo tafasta. If you grab for too much, you get nothing. Unique expectations are placed upon Israel — just look at the Hague’s condemnation of Israel’s defense wall, which exists only to stop terrorism and has proven its success every day. The UN would be much happier if the wall were not there, even at … Read More >>

Drive them all out in a campaign of ethnic cleansing as in Kosovo? I do not see Jewish soldiers dragging Arab mothers from their homes and throwing them into trucks. And besides, NATO would probably bomb us.

R. Reinman – I take serious exception to your definitions and your conclusions regarding the situation in E”Y.

I am not advocating anything, but for purposes of analysis and discussion, let’s get some clarity –

1. There is a stark difference between “ethnic cleansing” as practiced in Kosovo – which was a campaign to kill the ethnic minority – and a campaign to transfer and separate populations – which is done commonly and quite successfully to resolve tensions between groups occupying the same space. The use of the phrase in this context is offensive, like the use of “massacre” in Jenin. Population separation and transfer was done with many many millions during the 20th Century with great success and acceptance internationally.

2. Ironic, isn’t it, that we see Jewish soldiers prepared to drag Jewish mothers out of their homes and throw them into trucks? Why don’t you object to that?

3. NATO would bomb Israel? Laughable. The US wouldn’t countenance it. … Read More >>

In a few days, I will be going away for two weeks, and Rabbi Yitzchak Adlerstein asked me to make a contribution to the blog before I go. Reb Yitzchak, your wish is my command. This is in response to some of the opinions recently expressed on the blog.

The mission statement of the Pesach Seder is, I think all would agree, the “Avadim Hayinu” response to the Four Questions. It encapsulates the essence of the ritual. We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt. The Almighty miraculously brought us forth to freedom. In recognition, we spend the night discussing the wonders and glory of the Almighty.

There is another bit of information embedded in this mission statement. We declare that if the Almighty had not extracted us from Egypt we would still be there to this very day. This is certainly interesting and important, but why does it belong in the mission statement? Why is it so central to the essence of the Pesach Seder?

About twenty years ago, I had an argument with my father zecher tzaddik livrachah. I claimed that the Soviet Union would eventually fall and that the two Germanies would be reunited. He claimed it would never happen. I … Read More >>

Last week two conferences were held on the same night, one on Jewish History at Tel Aviv University (TAU) and the other on Halacha and the Disengagement at Bar Ilan University. I listened to the TAU lectures on history, or rather historiography, where the audience of several dozen mostly non-observant attendees listened politely to lectures on the writing of Jewish history; on whether Jewish history should be taught as separate from, or part of, general history; on gender & Jewish historiography. I mention the dispassionate session at TAU as a contrast to a passionate Bar Ilan conference, held simultaneously, where I managed to arrive in time to hear the critical discussions on Halakha and the Disengagement. At the latter the audience of hundreds, a majority national religious from their accoutrements, were actively engaged in the drama that was unfolding. The speakers and the audience didn’t just contemplate Jewish history, they were Jewish history in the making. Three speakers treated the issue of Daas Torah [lit. "Torah knowledge," this refers to knowledge and guidance from Torah scholars] and authority. They all wore knitted kippot, but reflected radically different views and some of the vibrancy and urgency of these issues today. … Read More >>

I couldn’t find this yet on the Internet, but I was chatting this morning with a friend in Israel and it sounded like he did a spit-take looking at the Jerusalem Post. Apparently, today’s JPost has a pic of Jimmy Carter and (former NJ gov and EPA Administrator) Christine Todd Whitman – in the area to monitor the Palestinian elections – paying their respects at Arafat’s gravesite.

I’d expect nothing less more of Carter, but am dismayed by CTW. Not that she’d ever impressed me, but there is something fundamental that you’d expect politicians from the Northeast to get about who Arafat really was. Paying homage at his gravesite is rubbing salt in the wounds of the bereaved – including, without mentioning names, Jews from New Jersey, who’ve suffered personally and whose situation is without a doubt known to her – and lionizing a murderer of Jews.

I find this not really shocking, just sickening. Whitman’s recent knife-in-the-back book “It’s My Party,” lambastes the Bush administration that made her a Cabinet-level official and laments the dominance of conservatives in the Republican party.

As Joseph Schick notes, Jonathan Rosenblum pointed out here last week that calling a single incident a “phenomenon” of Jews spitting on priests is a wild exaggeration. There was no reason to call upon the Chief Rabbinate to issue some sort of condemnation of the obviously disgraceful behavior of the teen who did this. Furthermore, the news reports describing the national-religious high school student conveniently changed his affiliation to “charedi” / “fervently Orthodox.” This maximized the negative impact, reinforced the old stereotypes, and provided a nice reflection of the classic bias of the media against charedim.

Now, however, there’s a new report of an “Armenian priest assaulted by yeshiva students.” The report itself is somewhat suspicious — it says that three more students came along after the first was already in an altercation with the priest, and “got into a heated argument… over who had attacked whom.” If there’s another side to the story, why aren’t we hearing it? But if true, it’s the second time in the last three months that this has happened.

What is with these kids? Regardless of who this was and what they do or don’t wear on their heads, I have yet … Read More >>

R. Yitzchok’s post, specifically his recounting of Rav Avigdor Miller’s story, led me to consider once again something that I’ve pondered over the years. In my experience, people constantly and unsuccessfully use physical evidence and events to argue for or against the Divine. Post-Enlightenment, certainly, there has been a stridency about the need for external tangible evidence, but it is clear that the roots of this go far deeper – by way of illustration, tales of Avraham Avinu’s own recognition of G-d relate entirely to his deductive reasoning from observations about the working of the physical world.

And, as a corollary to this, it generally seems that moments of contemplation are triggered by physical events which illustrate the immediacy and absolute nature of the reality that we are not in control of our own existence. But those moments of clarity also are moments of confusion, because they tend to elicit emotional responses akin to panic and a desire for pattern, security, reassurance.

I think that all this says much about psychology and the need to provide explanations, but little about belief qua belief; neither its nature nor its validity.

Is it OK to be angry with G-d for allowing great disasters?

It is much better than the alternative, argues Jeff Jacoby. A poll on Beliefnet shows that, of five descriptions of G-d’s possible role in the recent tsunami, 51% of respondants favored the option that He had nothing to do with it. Rightfully so, Jacoby finds this kind of thinking theologically untenable, part of a trend made fashionable by the quintessentially un-Jewish thinking of Harold Kushner in Why Bad Things Happen to Good People. It is better, argues Jacoby, to be angry with G-d for the suffering we witness than to assume that while guiding the course of humanity, He sometimes falls asleep at the wheel. Anger is certainly better than Kushner’s blasphemous suggestion that G-d gets credit for trying, but there are some things even a G-d can’t do.

Jacoby is certainly correct that a G-d Who is outside any event at all – even the ones we call evil – has no room in Jewish thought. Well before Kushner, people wrestled with the problem of the existence of evil. One facile solution was to posit, like the … Read More >>

I wrote the other day about my daughter’s upcoming bas mitzva. (Jan. 4, if you want to look for it.) I want to thank all the people who wrote to say mazal tov, and also those who had kind words for my maiden effort at this blog-spot.

I would also like to clarify one point about the bas mitzva party I’m planning for my daughter tomorrow night, G-d-willing: when I call it a “fancy” party, that’s only in comparison to what we used to do for a bas mitzva, which was nothing. I am basically making a birthday party, with all 40 girls in her class and a few more from the neighborhood. No printed invitations, live music or catered meal!

Now I would like to respond in some detail to one particular letter that was posted in response to mine–the only negative feedback I received.

Here’s what Moishe Potemkin had to say:

I just wanted to express my disappointment with this post. We’ve just finished an exchange wherein Rabbi Menken et al attempt to convince us that the Orthodox dispute with Reform Jews is not personal, and lo, we get this declaration that … Read More >>

The Corner’s John Derbyshire highlights the ominous in this lighthearted feature about popular kids’ names in England…

I know, I know – C-C’s probably not the right blog for this, but it’s where I’m spending my time.

__________________________
*United Kingdom. Get used to it.

I’m not sure what the expectations for this blog are among its participants or its readers, but I think that one of the reasons I was invited might be my political involvement. There’s an issue of great political significance brewing for some time now which I’m contemplating bringing to this blog. Although the issue – the bitter partisan battles over judicial nominations – appears to me to be off the radar screen of many in the Jewish community at the grassroots level, it is very front-and-center for the groups in Washington which claim to represent us.

Some quick background:

In the last go-around, during the battle, several prominent Jewish groups under political pressure broke with their previous policies and took positions supporting or opposing (actually, it may be that the only ones who broke with their traditions actually were in opposition – we can clarify later) nominees. This time, those same groups are not waiting. They are preparing for battle, have declared that they will engage again, and the tension is almost palpable.

I view this as an issue of great significance. It is one of the central debates in Washington and touches on the role played by Jewish … Read More >>

R. Noach Weinberg famously says “Clarity or Death”…Over the years, I’ve come to see this not as a quip, not as hyperbole, but as true wisdom – an extremely precise statement of the way the world works. First I saw it in the context of Jews in Israel; then I saw it as it relates to all of Western Civilization.

I bring it up now to introduce this important piece…

Sholom Simon argues:

When some guy tries to insult another guy, he might say, “you’re not a real man.” News flash: he is not speaking in strictly biological terms. When we answer a Reform Jews complaint that the Orthodox do not regard Reform as “real” Jews by citing halacha that we do indeed consider them Jews, we are (deliberately?) missing the point.

In my opinion, it is Sholom who has missed something in his comparison. When someone says “you’re not a real man,” neither the speaker nor the victim thinks it is meant literally. Many fathers have eaten quiche.

In the case of the Jewish people, on the other hand, I would not agree that this is understood as some sort of metaphor. The very opposite is true. The conflict over the recognition of Reform conversions in Israel was portrayed as “Who is a Jew,” rather than “who is a convert,” or, even better, “what makes a rabbi.” Jews in America came to believe, quite literally, that they would not be recognized as Jews in the Jewish state. And much hatred came out of that.

As far as regarding them as “less Jewish,” I’m sure that for every traditional Jew who … Read More >>

We are hearing all kinds of lessons to be drawn from the catastrophe in Asia, such as: we need to cherish every minute of life; to strive for humility; to recognize the awesome power of Gd; to lend help and support to the victims; to pray for understanding; to draw closer to Gd – and much more.

While the air is filled with such noble and unassailable sentiments, very few people are talking about the theodicy issues raised by the catastrophe. Not that mortal man will come up with answers that will satisfy our limited understanding. But within the confines of our finite capacities, a look at the religious implications of what has taken place – even if we discover no answers – is, I think, in order. Even though the issue are terrible and terrifying, to push them under the table as if they do not exist helps no one, because the issues do exist. And it is possible that placing them squarely on the table might serve to provide some spiritual relief and succor to many of us.

Especially is this true of … Read More >>

I’m glad you asked for a clarification on “dialogue,” Jeff. Perhaps I didn’t express it well, because, as someone put it briefly on the comments board, “Isn’t the last paragraph what got Rabbi Reinman in trouble?”

In fact, having looked at the page to which Barry referred us, I have to concede the point. We do not want a situation where an Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Rabbi sit side by side and explain their views, any more than we look forward to a situation where two Reverends join our Rabbi for a nice three-way dialogue. People came out against Rabbi Reinman’s book precisely because it was portrayed as official recognition by one of the other. As you said earlier, “Reform Judaism” is an entirely different faith stream from “traditional Judaism.”

Traditional Judaism believes that we learn about G-d from the Torah, written and oral. Reform Judaism rejects the authority of Talmud, the Divinity of Torah (in an absolute sense), and (in the words of Rabbi Eric Yoffie) calls upon congregants to “reach out to our [Christian] neighbors and listen for G-d’s presence in their voices.” Reform Judaism values a type of dialogue that traditional Judaism regards as … Read More >>

In reading the last post as well as one of the comments, I guess I should clarify –

I am not interested in interfaith dialogue as an institutional concept and I don’t believe the Orthodox infrastructure or the Reform infrastructure really are either, except as posturing.

I personally am interested in learning about other faiths and their ideas and have spent lots of time doing that in various ways and with various people and think many other people are interested in doing that – it is not a function of sectarianism as much as personality and inquisitiveness and areas of interest. I like to think I’m not particularly close minded, but as one commenter suggested – I am utterly subjective in my approach to it and constantly measuring what I hear against what I believe – I’m not some objective blank canvas. To me, open-mindedness in any human being is understanding that and not conflating “belief” with “knowledge.”

I reject the idea of interfaith dialogue because I presume true dialogue in such matters implies an active interest in being changed in some way by what the “other” intends to communicate. Otherwise you are talking to hear yourself, not … Read More >>

Yaakov M responds to a (Reform) reader:

Oh, and as for your statement: “Sometimes I think we really should engage in dialogue with the OU or whatever” – hear hear! You’re not the first to notice that Reform Temples are faster to dialogue with liberal Christians than with Orthodox Jews. Can you make that happen?

Seriously, now, Yaakov. I think you’re responding to a post from a reader who has many unfortunate misconceptions about “Orthodox” Jews – including the idea that we somehow believe him to be different from us in some matter relating to Jewish status.

Fine, let’s try to clear up those misconceptions.

But, are you actually contending that the “Orthodox” are breathlessly waiting for “dialogue” with Reform institutions? Not in my experience. We aren’t; nor should we be.

The differences between the faiths we embrace are enormous and real – and, ultimately, we aren’t really interested in dialogue (c’mon – not me, not you, not us – I can’t speak for them). We are persuaded that we are correct and are interested in sharing what we have with our brothers and sisters because we feel a powerful bond and affinity (yes – regardless of … Read More >>