YUTOPIA

As one might expect most of my outlook on Judaism has been influenced by my father. Also nearly as obvious is that my father's outlook has been extensively influenced by his own teacher Hakham Jose (Yosef) Faur. I have just been informed of a new website for Hakham Faur which includes several articles available for download. Though not not fully comprehensive there are some excellent ones up there, including Anti-Maimonidean Demons (PDF) in which I happen to be footnoted.

The discerning reader will notice differences between Haham Faur's, my father's, and my own writings (aside from the drastic dropoff in scholarship and sophistication as found on this blog). What was transmitted to me at least was more of a system of thought which could then be applied elsewhere, but will differ based on individual experiences.

Enjoy!

Posted by Josh at 2:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

The Jewish Week reports the "breaking news" that R. Hershel Schachter has once again made irresponsible and controversial statements. From a YouTube clip taken at Yeshiva Hakotel R. Schachter was to have said:

First you have to know what the army is going to do. If the army is going to destroy Gush Katif, there's no mitzvah to destroy Eretz Yisrael...If the army is going to give away Yerushalyim [Jerusalem], then I would tell everyone to resign from the army - I'd tell them to shoot the Rosh Hamemshalah [Prime Minister]," which prompted laughter from his audience...No one should go to the army if they [the army] are doing aveirus [sins]...We're talking if the army is seeing to it that the country is secure, if they're doing the right thing. I'm not sure if the army is doing the right thing...we have to look into that.

This is not the first time R. Schachter has made controversial or irresponsible statements, but rather one in a pattern of such remarks which leads us to the question of the viability of his Rabbinic leadership.

Continue reading "The Unmaking of a Gadol" »

Posted by Josh at 6:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (26)

Last night in my weekly Rambam havruta, we started chapter 5 of Yesodei Hatorah. Rambam begins the chapter by discussing the obligation to sanctify God's name (kiddush hashem) and its corollary prohibition against desecrating God's name (hillul hashem). In providing examples, Rambam segues into the laws of yehareg v'al ya'avor - the conditions under which someone should allow himself to be killed rather than violate a commandment under duress.

But while the laws in Rambam are usually straightforward, the laws of yehareg v'al ya'avor have several qualifiers and criteria to evaluate, to the point that it became difficult to keep track of all of them in proper sequence. Being the computer geek that I am, I figured that pseudocode could come in handy. The following snippet assumes the functions do(); which entails preforming the sin in question and die(); means to allow oneself to be killed. It's not necessarily the most efficient code mind you, but I'm going for maintainability.¹

big3[] = {murder, idolatry, illicitSexualRelations};

if (governmentDecree == true){
    die();
}
else {
    if (big3[].contains(sin)){
        die();
    }
    else{
        if (nonJewBenefits == true){
            do();
        }
        else if (numJews < 10){
            do();
        }
        else {
            die();
        }
    }
}



There, that should make everything perfectly clear.

Update: Seth Berger contributes the following optimized code:


if( (!governmentDecree || !big3[].contains(sin)) && ( nonJewBenefits || numJews < 10)) {
    do();
}
else {die();}



Update 2: Reuven Weiser corrects Seth's optimization since in Seth's code a non-big 3 sin could still result in do(); if a non Jew benefits. This is incorrect and should rather be:
if( (!governmentDecree && !big3[].contains(sin)) && ( nonJewBenefits || numJews < 10)) {
    do();
}
else {die();}

This sort of confusion often comes up with too much negative logic. We can flip things around to create a slightly more readable optimization:

if ( (governmentDecree || big3[].contains(sin)) || (!nonJewBenefits && numJews >10)){
    die();
else {do();}


1. For Brisker's, of course

Posted by Josh at 4:34 PM | Permalink

In belatedly commemorating Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel's 100's birthday, the Center for Jewish History bemoans the absence of a contemporary equivalent, asking "Where are the Abraham Heschel's of today?" For many liberally inclined Jews, Heschel was the Gadol Hador - a prolific, erudite, knowledgeable scholar who synthesized traditional texts, academia, with contemporary sensibilities and ethics of activism. The problem, apparently, is that no one - or at least not enough people - has sufficiently assumed Heschel's mantle.

Continue reading "The Abraham Heschels Of Today" »

Posted by Josh at 7:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

The big Jewish story of Summer 2007 was Professor Noah Feldman's now infamous New York Times Magazine article "Orthodox Paradox" (July 22, 2007) in which Feldman critiques Modern Orthodoxy as being inherently and irrevocably inconsistent. The specific "paradox" to which Feldman points is that on one hand Modern Orthodoxy claims to embrace the secular world, yet simultaneously maintains a religious prejudice against it. Feldman cites examples of Jewish particularism in the Talmudic law that Jews do not desecrate the Shabbat to save the life of a non-Jew and through the personal ignominy he faced at his high school reunion having been ostracized due to his intermarriage.

Feldman's article generated some of the most vociferous discussion among the Jewish intelligentsia and throughout the J-Blogosphere, with Feldman being vilified for betraying the Jewish people either for intermarrying or through voicing his critiques in a public forum.¹ While the frenzy has died down since the summer, Feldman exposed a nerve in the Jewish community which still rightfully still agitates many. To address some of those issues and the subsequent reaction, on Thursday October 18th NYU hosted a symposium entitled, "Orthodox Paradox: A Debate on Jewish Values" featuring the eclectic trio of Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, philanthropist Michael Steinhart, and the aforementioned Professor Noah Feldman.

Despite the event's classification as a "debate", there was little collective coherency among the three panelists. Instead of addressing one area of "Jewish values" each panelist discussed his own approach to the question based on his own individual set of values.

Continue reading "Orthodox Paradox: A Debate on Jewish Values" »

Posted by Josh at 10:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

One of the most important business commodities, intellectual or material, is the brand name. More than just a logo, a brand name is the symbolic representation of the entire company, implicitly defining the quality and integrity of its products. Building widespread brand name recognition can take several years, let alone correcting a negative impression, but acquiring an established reputable brand name quickly improves a company's legitimacy in the eyes of the public. For instance, Rupert Murdoch's purchasing of the Wall Street Journal gives his new business channel instant credibility (at least in theory).

On a smaller scale, brands can be leased to individuals in the form of franchising. In this system, a small business can leverage an existing brand name and benefit from it's reputation and advertising. However, the corporate office usually dictates uniform policies from products, pricing, and interior design in order to protect its brand and ensure a consistent experience for the consumer.

Religion follows a similar pattern in terms of connecting name recognition to external expectations. We expect Orthodox Jews to keep kosher, observe Shabbat, and follow the laws and ethics defined by Jewish law. The difference is that Orthodox Judaism has no authoritative "home office" to enforce uniform regulations. As such, the religious "franchisees" are left to argue over who has the most authentic characteristics, and in turn discredit and delegitimize their competitors.

Let's look at three recent examples from the world of Jewish news:

Continue reading "Franchising Judaism: The Politics Of Exclusion" »

Posted by Josh at 11:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

I was registered and supposed to attend YU's medical ethics conference on Fertility, Modern Medicine, and Jewish Law this past Sunday but instead paid a shiva call to R. Moshe Tendler, my teacher of two and a half years, and pioneer in the field of Jewish medical ethics. Thankfully, CuriousJew has her typically thorough writeup of the event.

Some quick-hit second-hand thoughts and observations:

• If you ever have the opportunity to hear R. Johnathan Sacks, do so. An exemplar of the "integration" model of Torah U'Madda if there ever was one (and a captivating speaker no less).


• Regarding various fertilization methods, I must cite the classic R. Tendler quote: "You cannot commit adultery with a hypodermic syringe."


• One of the "misconceptions" of infertility attributed to Dr. Richard Grazi is that a pelvic exam creates a niddah. I do not have access to the sources presently, but my father agrees saying that it's really a dispute between R. Yohanan (lenient) and Reish Lakish (strict) in which case we usually follow the teacher. However, he does point out that in a YU shiur he attended, the Rabbi paskened l'humra, apparently buying into the "misconception."


• There was some discussion related to multiple births and viability. This discussion is predicated on the Jewish perception of abortion, a topic into which I will not get. However, I do recall R. Tendler discussing the McCaughey septuplets and praising the family for adhering to their beliefs by not aborting any fetuses.


• The halakhot of shichvat zera levatala are more complicated than simply assur. The Conservative Teshuva on Homosexuality covered many of the nuances despite ultimately punting on the pesak.

Not having been there or having a better command of the subjects, I can't comment further. Hopefully I will not have such a reason to miss it next year.

Posted by Josh at 9:50 AM | Permalink

A few odds and ends today from non-work life:

• Last night I posted my Rosh Hashana derasha which was a fun challenge to write and deliver. R. Schnaidman gave me a time range of 30-35 minutes which is normally beyond how long I can talk, so for the first time in many years I had written out most of it beforehand and spoke both from the sheets and extemporaneously. Feedback was positive, though one person asked if it was intentional that I didn't cite any Zohar or Ba'al Shem Tov.
  
  I said yes, and politely explained that I was following my mesorah. After all, it was Rosh Hashana...



• As certain individuals know, we had some now resolved issues with my landlord. Apparently, lots of other people had worse experiences: there's a class action suit against them.



• I know this is late for Rosh Hashana, but this song seems relevant (music starts at 2:18) even if it doesn't count as an official zemer.



• Speaking of simmanim, the line between what is an innocuous simman and outright avoda zara is somewhat complicated. I gave a shiur on it some time ago, and based on far too many conflicting sources, couldn't reach a definitive conclusion. I did conjecture that the degree of seriousness which one takes these simmanim is likely proportional to the potential issur, with the litmus test being how one one would feel if the simman wouldn't be performed. For example, R. Tendler once told us that a woman came to him Erev Yom Kippur looking for a chicken to do kapparot because if she didn't, she would die that year. That, he said, was avoda zara.
  
  Regarding the simmanim of Rosh Hashana, I'm beginning to think that most are fine given that most are simply puns - some even bilingual puns. In other words, they seem more for entertainment purposes rather than a magical act. For another R. Tendler example, I first heard from him the one "lettuce, half a raisin, celery" = let us have a raise in salary.
  
  If you still take these seriously, then in addition to avoda zara problems, you likely have no sense of humor - which could pose problems when people start calling you an idol worshiper.



• In what should some as no surprise, I don't do kapparot following Shulhan Aruch's admonition that it's darkhei emori. I also have never been a fan of tashlich especially since a former Hindu co-worker once asked me, "what was that thing where you pray to the river."
  
  However, for efficiency's sake I suggest that next year we could work on combining the two practices during the asseret yemei teshuva by simply flinging chickens into the water - perhaps even feeding them bread first. I'm sure God would really appreciate that much more than doing them separately as it would double the mehillah power.



• And on a more serious note, through a great set of hashgachic circumstances (and the ubiquitous chords directory I will soon be teaching an Introduction to Jewish Guitar. Even with some nervousness, I'm really looking forward to the entire experience which I hope to recount afterwards.

If I don't post before Yom Kippur, Gemar Tov to all. Looking back at what I last year I don't think I can even hope for less erratic blogging given my new work schedule. Despite the infrequent or sporadic posting, we still had an eventful year with preliminary thoughts and detailed rebuttal of the Conservative Teshuva on Homosexuality and the aftermath, a conflict and conversation in Washington Heights, the RCA's gerut policies, and of course, the Negiah.org fiasco. However, I can and still will ask forgiveness if I have inadvertently or unnecessarily offended people through carelessness or laziness. Although I do stand by what I write I freely admit everything could use more editing, not just for typos, but for tone or imprecise syntax.

Naturally I have no idea what the next year will bring, but I do hope to at least maintain the status quo of quality (if not quantity). Thanks again for reading, commenting, and reminding me why I'm still at this nearly five years later.¹

Shana Tova,
Josh

Update: I will be sans computer for a few days while it's being repaired, and as such may be slower in responding to e-mails or the like.

1. Yep, it's been that long; the forthcoming retrospective should be fun.

Posted by Josh at 10:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (9)

Last Sunday I had the opportunity to attend Yeshivat Chovevei Torah's fourth Chag Hasemikha and extend best wishes to all the new musmakhim, especially roommate Rabbi Yonah. This was the first time I attended a non-Yeshiva University Chag Hasemikha, and throughout the proceedings we could not help but compare the two ceremonies especially having attended my own Chag Hasemikha just last year. What I found particularly striking was the contrasting emphasis and tone of the ceremony, with YU celebrating the institution and YCT highlighting the individuals.

Continue reading "The Yeshiva And The Bazaar" »

Posted by Josh at 5:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)

One of the reasons why I don't post that often is because I try to let thoughts percolate so that I can post something more substantive than a reflexive rant. Last Friday I first found the OU's new abstinence website www.Negiah.org and posted a quick response to one of their articles. Since then I've had the opportunity to read through all the articles on the site, and it appears I was inappropriately glib.

My argument was that the site was condescending towards teens in a painfully clumsy attempt at being cool and relevant. Other bloggers have similarly blasted the OU for either being naive or promoting an irresponsible health policy. But after carefully reading the entirety of the site, I have concluded that the problems are quantitatively and qualitatively far worse than initially reported.1 Sadly, the sanctimonious tone of the OU's site is merely one example of a systematic disregard for teenagers and Torah.

Continue reading "How to Handle Negiah.org" »

Posted by Josh at 10:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (45)

Update: Also see the later and more detailed post How to Handle Negia.org

SIW points us to the OU's new site dedicated to abstinence with the redirected link www.negia.org.

SIW himself is critical of the OU's position on condoms:

Read through the literature on the abstinence movement making its way through public schools and other childhood education, and you’ll find that it leads to decreased condom use among the sexually-active, that self-proclaimed “virgins” frequently choose instead to engage in sexual activity that they simply don’t consider “sexual intercourse” and tend to do it in an unsafe manner, and myriad other issues. Now, if you were thinking that when Jewish groups, with so many health professional among their ranks having spoken out against these pro-abstinence tactics, would veer away from suggestions that could tempt Jewish youth into unsafe practices, you’d be wrong.

There's an exchange I had with my Niddah Rabbi in smikha which may help explain the rationale. Given the increase in sexual activity in the Jewish community (especially among teenagers), I asked if at some point we should encourage women to go to mikvah even single to at least negate the issur karet. The response was that were that to be the policy the result would be an even greater increase in sexual activity and no greater likelihood of taharat hamishpacha. I'm guessing the OU is doing something similar here, advocating a stricter halakhic stance, because allowing for anything less would tacitly approve of sexual activity.

What bothers me here is not so much the content, but the obviously condescending and pandering tone. From the design of the site it seems clear that they're trying to speak to the younger generation - e.g. a section called "Your Bod" - but such attempts are like your parents trying to act "cool" and "hip." This approach never works because it's artificial and eventually the charade will be exposed. Case in point, here's one attempt at cultural relevancy:

Deciding to abstain can be easier said than done. In our society, sex is literally everywhere, from magazine covers to billboards and from car ads to beer commercials. "Back in the day," only soap operas might feature sexually active characters. Lucy and Ricky slept in separate beds. All Greg Brady might get after a date was a peck on the cheek. When Natalie lost her virginity to Snake on The Facts of Life, that was huge - and it was only 1988! Now, shows like Friends and Seinfeld, whose characters routinely jump from bed to bed, are considered "quaint." The personalities of characters on shows like Will and Grace, The OC and Sex and the City are virtually defined by their sex lives! All this makes it seem as if promiscuity is the societal norm. It isn't, nor should it be.

Demonstrating moral decay from television shows is not a new argument. While they get points for knowing about The OC and Sex and the City, who under the age of 27 would remember a specific episode of Facts of Life let alone I Love Lucy? More importantly, what teenager would find this argument compelling?

Teenagers may be growing up faster, but that also means that they can expose and reject condescending tripe much easier. In other words, just as the behaviors and mentality of teenagers changed over time, the OU would need to adjust accordingly. I'm not arguing against the OU's agenda given the alarming rise in sexual activity and the dangers involved, but there has to be a more appropriate and effective strategy to communicate and influence behaviors.

Posted by Josh at 2:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (9)

The Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) and the Bet Din of America (BDA) recently announced an overhaul in its policies regarding Jewish conversions by drafting the Geirus Policies and Standards (GPS). This move was largely to placate the Israeli Rabbinate (Rabbanut) which last year openly challenged the halakhic validity of RCA/BDA conversions. These new guidelines were developed in conjunction with the Rabbanut, presumably with the understanding that any conversion which follows the RCA/BDA polices will be readily accepted in Israel as well.

Though instigated by the Israeli Rabbinate, the GPS will drastically reshape how conversions are processed in America. In addition to some guidelines for the conversions themselves, the most significant innovation of the RCA/BDA is the organizational consolidation of regional Batei Din with the intent of establishing objective standards throughout the nation. But as is the case with many "solutions," the new RCA/BDA policies solve some problems while creating others.

Continue reading "Measuring Conversions" »

Posted by Josh at 3:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (24)

In a statement released yesterday, the Jewish Theological Seminary has officially changed its policy and will admit gay and lesbian students to its rabbinical and cantorial school. We have previously covered this issue with our initial reaction when the news broke, a detailed response to the Dorff teshuva which provided the halakhic basis for the policy change, and a brief survey of the reactions from other denominations.

For most observers the official decision to admit homosexual students was a forgone conclusion and largely anti-climatic. Given the history and hermeneutics of Conservative Judaism, it would of little suprise that the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS) would eventually rationalize a dispensation, and once articulated the dispensation would likely be implemented.

However, this controversy is particularly interesting as not only exemplary of how Conservative Judaism functions organically, but also of its most recent trends and implementations. In our previous discussions, one of our recurring themes was that despite the specific innovation of ordaining homosexuals, the decision and process followed well established ideological, halakhic, and social patterns of Conservative Judaism. In his explanation of the decision, JTS Chancellor-Elect Arnold Eisen continues in the Conservative tradition through the lens of his own personal interpretations.

Continue reading "The Energies of Conservation" »

Posted by Josh at 6:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)

Like all Jewish communities Washington Heights has its share of internal controversies, but rarely do they become publicized. Most discussions on the Maalotwashington message board did not get circulated and at times they were moderated when the discussion happened to get out of hand. In the rare instances that a significant problem arose, we have usually been able to achieve some resolution or at least mutual understanding and do so with minimal fanfare.

But as the community continues to grow and the transient community constantly changes, the internal dynamics will naturally have to adapt. Having more people in the community means more ideas and opinions among the congregation, but fewer outlets for an individual to express them. In Washington Heights this can be particularly frustrating since the community is ideologically diverse (relatively) there are more opinions and perspectives which would be ignored or in some cases suppressed. From the other point of view, it is likely that an established community would have confronted many of the "new" issues at some point and would not wish to repeatedly revisit old arguments every few years given the high turnover of members. The mutual question at hand then becomes how can individuals express themselves, and in turn, how does the community respond.

The past few weeks have been unusually eventful with a heated debate over women speaking in the synagogue and the formation of a new "progressive" minyan. While both could be considered controversial to varying degrees, the discussions surrounding them demonstrate different examples of expression within a religious community.

Continue reading "A Voice In The Heights Is Heard" »

Posted by Josh at 9:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I had barely taken a few steps in the apartment upon returning from Chicago when Roommate Yonah asks me if I had been following the big news on the blogosphere. Apparently, the Israeli newspaper Yated Ne'eman printed more missives directed against Yeshivat Chovevei Torah (YCT) where Roommate Yonah is currently finishing smikha. This of course led to several discussions, points, counterpoints, and of course the expected flamewars.

During my time off I had intentionally minimized my web surfing, so I was blissfully ignorant of this whole brouhaha. My initial reaction when Yonah summarized the happenings is exactly how I feel right now:

To be perfectly blunt, I just don't care.

In other circumstances I would not waste the time and energy in continuing this discussion, but I do feel that a meta-analysis would do some good. Specifically, why is it that Yated's editorials are so important to so many people to warrant such outrage?

The simple answer is just that people don't like being insulted in any context, especially regarding one's spiritual beliefs (and possibly inherited traditions). When insulted and rejected on such a personal level, it should not be surprising to find people react defensively. But this is only a partial explanation since there are many occasions when we or our faiths are insulted and yet we ignore those insults without incident.

First, there is the issue of giving undue respect to the authors of the editorials and letters. I have a theory that the impact of insults and criticisms (and conversely compliments) is proportional to how much we respect our tormentors. For example, a five year old teasing "you're stupid" can be disregarded more easily than hearing those same words from your professor or boss. The difference is obvious; we are more concerned with how our professors and superiors view our intellectual acumen than a random immature brat.

Religious attacks are no different in this regard in that we only will be sensitive to attacks from those people whose religious beliefs we value or respect. What I do not understand is how Yated would deserve this level of acknowledgment. While there could be a reasonable debate as to which hashkafot are "acceptable" in Jewish thought, it appears that Yated failed in not only presenting a rational argument but did not bother to do rudimentary fact-checking in the interest of determining exactly what YCT represents. People who would criticize as such - both in terms of argument and evidence - would ordinarily not be considered a "bar plugta" deserving of a response.

Herein lies the second issue in that sometimes even absurd positions need rebutting. When the Niturei Karta people infamously participated in the Iran Holocaust Conferencethere was a near-universal outcry and even public protests. These were not done out of respect for Niturei Karta, but to demonstrate that their positions were fanatical and outside the bounds of the Jewish community.

But for whom were these protests staged? I doubt that any member of Niturei Karta would look at the throngs of people holding placards and consequently reverse his positions, and I suspect that the protesters had no such expectations. Rather, the statement was made for the uninformed people who could be influenced by the Niturei Karta's presence or more importantly a reaffirmation of one's own beliefs and to demonstrate solidarity in their own common cause.

When Yated publishes such editorials, they do so for a readership which demands little by way of journalistic evidence to justify existing religious prejudices. In a similar vein, YCT promotes its hashkafa not to convince the Haredi community of their legitimacy but to reach out to those who would be receptive. What makes these flamewars particularly pointless is that in the exchange people forget that they will not convince people who are predisposed to their own opinions, especially when the argument is as juvenile as "yes, you're koferim" and "no we're not - you're the koferim."

Despite the general need for more religious dialogue, we also have to realize that sometimes it is more useful not to engage in certain conversations. While YCT supporters could be justified in defending the institution, they ought to realize that not much will be gained in a confrontation but instead would be better served by focusing their energies on those whom they have a chance of influencing.

As for Yated, those who are predisposed to disagree with their opinions have a Talmudic suggestion for a more appropriate response.

Posted by Josh at 9:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

We have already written extensively about the Conservative decision regarding homosexuality. While there is still room to discuss the halakhic issues - including analyzing the other teshuvot, today's focus will be on some of the Orthodox reactions to the teshuva. Nothing here should be terribly surprising, especially considering the knee-jerk reactions, but we find the reactions to be enlightening and revealing nonetheless.

First up, we have this disclaimer from the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA):

This decision represents yet another significant step in the further estrangement of the Conservative movement from Jewish law (halachah) and tradition. Homosexual behavior is a clear and unambiguous biblical prohibition. The attempts to formulate halachic license or creative interpretation to permit prohibited behavior should not mislead anyone committed to traditional Judaism, into thinking that there can be any permissibility to homosexual activity, whether by rabbis or laypersons. And thus, to permit those who openly proclaim their non-adherence to Torah law, to assume positions of rabbinic leadership, is an entirely regrettable step.

This quote was probably rushed out in the need to say something quickly. Note that they have to speak in generalities of "prohibited behavior" and "homosexual activity" and assume that the teshuva overrode the biblical prohibition. As we demonstrated in the review, the teshuva did no such thing, and in fact was explicitly to the contrary. Still, their arguments are consistent with the old Orthodox party line criticisms against Conservative, that their innovations and changes are a threat to traditional Judaism, while the innovations of their own (or earlier rabbis) remain ostensibly remain legitimate.

Secondly we have my personal favorite from Union of Traditional Judaism:

The Conservative Movement's decision to issue contradictory opinions on homosexual behavior should confuse no one. The only opinion that really matters is the one that endorses gay commitment ceremonies and the ordination of professing homosexuals as rabbis.

In keeping with a decades-old pattern on a host of issues, the Conservative view which breaks ranks with Jewish law and tradition is the one which ultimately sweeps the movement. Given this reality, the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards would have been more forthright had it acknowledged a blanket reversal of the biblical prohibition on homosexuality. Its endorsement of same-sex commitment ceremonies and the ordination of homosexuals while ostensibly maintaining the traditional ban on anal sex is not only disingenuous. It is ludicrous.

Our hearts go out to the dwindling corps of traditionalists who until now have remained within the Conservative Movement. Any fig leaf of commitment to Jewish law within their institutions has now been utterly stripped away...

This response also came out fairly quickly and is just as incorrect as the RCA's statement. The teshuva still banned homosexual rabbinical students from violating the biblical commandment. However, in the other comments, UTJ reminds us of why they split off from the Conservative movement. It has been their experience - repeated time and again - that ultimately only the most liberal opinions will be accepted as normative. Egalitarianism, for example, is no longer an option but an expectation. Knowing how Conservative Judaism works from the inside, UTJ has little faith that Conservativism will sustain the limitations defined in the teshuva.

And of course, then end with a nice appeal to siphon off some traditionalist members. Nicely done.

Finally, we get to Agguda in the statements of R. Avi Shafran. Some of you may remember his controversial 2001 article "The Conservative Lie" in which, as you may expect, he was somewhat critical of the movement. The recent teshuva is for R. Shafran reason to gloat and tout the superiority of Orthodox Judaism. Not surprisingly, his comments are more ad hominem which leads him to make some careless statements of his own.

First, his comments from JPost:

And while the Conservative decision may technically claim to preserve the biblical prohibition on sodomy, it flouts clear halachic prohibitions on other forms of homosexual activity and de facto condones a homosexual lifestyle - imagine limiting a heterosexual couple to only certain expressions of affection.

Yes, imagine where heterosexual couples have limits on their expressions of affection. Perhaps we can have husbands and wives not touch each other for roughly 2 weeks out of every month. Or perhaps R. Shafran should just read Shulhan Aruch Even HaEzer Siman 25. In either case, I am pleasantly surprised to hear that hareidi Judaism had such progressively liberating views on married life.

Second, we have this official press release:

The entire corpus of halacha, or Jewish religious law," he said, "makes abundantly clear that homosexual behavior is sinful. That a movement claiming to uphold the Jewish religious tradition can arrogate to stand halachic Judaism on its head is tragic.

By itself, this statement is fairly innocuous, but compare his vitriol for the Conservative teshuva with his ambivalence for a haredi rabbinic sexual predator:

Why would we have comment about the arrest of an individual? Because he was an employee, more than 30 years ago, of one of the camps we run (that have had thousands of employees over the years)? I don't think that requires comment on our part.
We are not even a party anymore to any lawsuit filed against the accused, as I understand it. The suit of the accuser who included Camp Agudah in his action (John Doe #1) has been dismissed (without prejudice, I believe, so it can still be refiled, but hasn't been).

In other words, Conservatives permitting rabbinic prohibitions represent a deviation from Judaism, but homosexual assault from a former employee is not worth a comment. These statements lead me to conclude that R. Shafran is more interested in the cultural perception of Aggudah than in morality or halakha.

We may see more responses in the near future, but the immediate reactions of the RCA, UTJ, and Aggudah reveal just as much about their organizations as it does about the teshuva itself.

UPDATE: 12/20/2006

I was just informed of a Masorati response by R. Barry Schlessinger who writes that despite the changes in the halakhic system, there must be limits:

As Jews we are obligated and commanded, and as Jews we have always asked questions in reference to the commandments. I hope we continue to ask questions and that rabbis continue to teach and guide. However, one should not always expect an answer to be positive; at times we must be forthright and respond with a "no."

As I referenced in my response to the teshuva, Conservative Judaism has usually been loathe to accept such an answer. Furthermore, R. Schlessinger himself does not address the halakhic decisions of the teshuva itself, or why it is worse than when other rabbinic laws are similarly disregarded. Case in point:

I recognize and support the ordination of women. I count women for a minyan and will pray in a minyan led by a woman shlihat tzibur.

While the halakhic reasoning for a minyan excluding women may be questionable,1 the result is that the Talmud clearly understands a minyan to be comprised exclusively of men over the age of thirteen. The question for R. Schlessinger is what makes some rabbinic laws normative and others expendable.

UPDATE: 12/21/2006

Another reader e-mails me this Jewish Week letter in which Rabbi Adam Kligfeld does his best John Kerry impersonation (4th letter down):

I'd like to complete the comment on which Stewart Ain quoted me regarding the recent Committee on Jewish Law and Standards vote on homosexuality. ("Testing The Waters," Dec. 8) I did indeed vote for both the Roth and Dorff/Nevins/Reisner papers, which do indeed contradict one another, because “it was important for me that change happen as a result of a majority of the committee."

Deeper than that, my double vote reflected not only the robust pluralism of the Conservative movement and the Law Committee itself, but also the very real pluralism of my own neshama. I take very seriously the Talmudic idea that two conflicting opinions can, simultaneously, have halachic legitimacy. I can see the truth even in a position I don't follow. I honor the complexity of this topic, from both a halachic and sociological perspective, and I honor the halachic rigor and honest religious struggling that were present in both teshuvot. I voted not as a policy maker, but as an evaluator of halachic arguments. Each teshuvah made strong arguments.

In other words, R. Kligfeld voted for the teshuva before he voted against it. How we take R. Kligfeld's position depends on the true role of the CJLS. If the CJLS is primarily a think-thank, then of course multiple opinions can be plausible. But if the role is for pesak in terms of what practical halakha ought to be then R. Kligfeld simply failed. Saying, something could be assur or mutar is not pesak but as R. Moshe Tendler pointed out, is the avoidance of pesak. If someone is unconvinced of an opinion, then perhaps he should abstain until resolves the issue for himself.

1. B. Megillah 23b cites Num 14:27 to define an "edah" as ten, but does not elaborate as to why men are included in this number to the exclusion of women.

Posted by Josh at 6:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (9)

When I made my preliminary comments on the Conservative movement's recent decisions regarding homosexuality, the best source available at the time were press releases and either superficial or inaccurate coverage in the mainstream media. Fortunately, Steven I. Weiss has graciously posted the text of the actual teshuva. At 55 pages including footnotes, it is not exactly a light read but it is an important read nonetheless, given the serious nature of the topic discussed, and when others comment without having read the actual text. If you are new to this site, you may find my post "Lonely Men of Faith" a helpful context. This post will focus specifically on the Conservative teshuva itself.

Advisory: Normally YUTOPIA is a family blog, but given the topic of the post, some readers may feel uncomfortable with this discussion.

Continue reading "A Response To The Conservative Teshuva On Homosexuality" »

Posted by Josh at 4:50 PM | Permalink

Conservative Judaism recently made headlines with their reevaluation of homosexuality in Jewish law. Although Conservative Judaism rejected homosexuality in 1992 (PDF), there was a request to reconsider the issue. When we covered homosexuality from an Orthodox perspective in "Lonely Men of Faith"1 we referenced the debate between Rabbi Elliot Dorf and Rabbi Joel Roth, but there has obviously been significantly more discussion on the matter culminating in yesterday's decision. From what limited information we have at this time, this new decision is hardly as groundbreaking as people might think.

Continue reading "A Conservative Compromise" »

Posted by Josh at 11:13 AM | Permalink

Anyone who has owned a lulav set knows the difficulties in keeping the aravot fresh for the entire chag. The etrog, haddasim, and lulav generally survive with little maintenance, but the aravot invariably dry and disintegrate by at least the 5th day, leaving behind a messy trail of leaves. In fact, some people specifically purchase two sets of aravot and switch in the middle of the chag to avoid any halakhic problems of the aravot drying out on Sukkot.

However, for the rest of us who are either cheap or don't want to grow our own there is that annual question of what is the best way for keeping aravot fresh for the whole chag?1 As you'd expect with Jews we've got several different theories. So far these seem to be the favorites I've heard:

• Water + plastic bag and refrigerate.
• Wet towels + tinfoil and refrigerate.
• Wet towels only and refrigerate. Quoth Yossi, "You gotta let 'em breathe."

Question for the day: What's your favorite method?

1. Cute and quickie devar torah: The aravot represent those who lack Torah and good deeds (Vayikra Rabbah 30:12). Just as the aravot demand extra effort to keep them fresh, so too we must put in the extra effort to keep those individuals in the community.

Posted by Josh at 10:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Brandishing the slogan of "Torah U'Madda," Yeshiva University promotes some form of synthesis between Jewish religious and secular culture. While the term Torah U'Madda is generic, in the context of YU it generally refers to its dual curriculum, combining the religious and secular subject matters in one university as opposed to having them be necessarily in conflict. But beyond the distinction of Torah U'Madda in subject matters, I noticed this past week two instances of Torah U'Madda in the nature of discourse itself.

Continue reading "Religious Responsibilities and Academic Freedom" »

Posted by Josh at 4:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (11)

This past Sunday YU's newly formed Medical Ethics Society's held its first annual conference, this one being titled, "Organ Donation: A Matter of Life and Death - A Conference on Organ Donation in Jewish Law." In general when YU puts on one of these events, the result is positive and this was no exception. The organizers did a fantastic job of setting up the program and managing the flow of the conference, as well as adapting to unforseen scheduling conflicts. The speaker list was very impressive, including a nice range of speakers and topics, but more importantly, everyone spoke surprisingly well. Despite the complexities and nuances of the halakhic and medical issues involved, all speakers were clear, lucid, and articulate making these complicated topics accessibly to a lay audience. I found this to be especially notable in the Roshei Yeshiva R. Willig, R. Schachter, and R. Tendler who were all very well focused on their presentations. The end result was a highly poignant, informative and occasionally entertaining. I was told that there is a plan to have something published for the event, and perhaps the audio of the presentations will find their way on line. Until then, here's my recap and analysis of the conference including the classic R. Schachter/R. Tendler showdown on the controversial topic of Brain Death.

UPDATE You may also want to check out CuriousJew's transcription.

Continue reading "YU's Medical Ethics Conference: Organ Donation and Brain Death" »

Posted by Josh at 3:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

In this season of teshuva leading up to the yamim nora'im religious discussions primarily focus on personal change. We look to change our practices, ideally becoming more committed to Torah. We seek to change our religious perspectives, hopefully reconnecting with the Divine. For Rambam, this process of change is not simply behavioral, but existential. As we acknowledge and renounce our transgressions we also take measures demonstrating that we have changed to the point where we "are no longer the same person who committed these actions" (Hilchot Teshuva 2:4).

But what does it mean that we are no longer the same person? How does the process of teshuva effect a change so substantive that it alters our fundamental identity? In order to fully understand this transition we must tackle the philosophical question of what is the true essence of our personal identity - to find the essential determinant which makes us "us" such that changing this element constitutes a meaningful change in our identity. While this challenge may seem daunting to lesser minds, it is no match for the discerning duo of The Incredible Hulk...and an Oxford PhD.

Continue reading "Existential Teshuva And The Incredible Hulk" »

Posted by Josh at 2:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Weddings are supposed to be happy occasions celebrating the love and commitment of two individuals who choose to spend the rest of their lives together. And yet for some reason, bands play songs which are completely incongruous with the theme of the day, and incredibly they do so often at the couple's request.

AskMen listed 10 Wedding Songs to Avoid where people think these songs are romantic but have obviously never listened to the lyrics. While many Jewish weddings don't usually play secular music in full, every now and again the band will play a riff or two from rock songs just to shake things up a bit. And here too many of the selections can seem a little bit strange.

I first commented on this a while back, and noticed it again at the first wedding I officiated. Since I hear new things all the time I've decided to keep a running list of all the well intentioned but probelmatic songs I've actually heard at weddings. To narrow things down, I'm just focusing on songs in which the lyrics don't fit in with the spirit of the day. For example, while Get Down Tonight might not be the most romantic or subtle song in the world, it still makes sense in its own way. On the other hand, the ones listed below are a little more difficult to explain.

• Live And Let Die
• Od Lo Ahavti Dai
• Mrs. Robinson
• Angry Young Man
• Beat It
• Stairway To Heaven1
• Baker Street - The sax solo doesn't mitigate the song's meaning
• I Will Survive²
• Desperado

I'm sure I'll be adding more in the future - especially if I get married myself.

1. Though in fairness, Robert Plant does refer to Stairway as a "bloody wedding song."
2. For Jewish weddings, note that the "Yiddin" dance fits perfectly.

Posted by Josh at 10:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

As word gets around of my proficiency and legality in performing weddings I've been getting more questions about the laws of weddings and keeping track of everything which is required. I complied a checklist for the first wedding I officiated and I've already needed to forward much of the contents a few times to other people asking similar questions. So once again as a combination of personal convenience and public service, I give to you the Jewish Wedding Checklist.

I'm going to assume that you have the big things like a wedding date, a hall, F.L.O.P.1 (or F.L.O.P.S2 as the case may be) taken care of and I'm going to focus on the aspects relating to the actual marriage ceremony. Note that some of the things will be taken care of by the mesader kiddushin or the caterer/wedding hall. While this should be useful in preparing for the ceremony and knowing what to expect, all halakhic matters should be discussed with your mesader kiddushin.

Continue reading "The Jewish Wedding Checklist" »

Posted by Josh at 2:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (18)

You might remember the post we did a while back on extravegant Bat Mitzvahs. Today's Fark links to a cameramen's detailed account of the $10 Million Bat Mitzvah held at New York's Rainbow Room last November. Quoth the cameraman:

This wasn't a concert in a restaurant. This was a f-----g arena show tucked into a closet. This was overkill. This was excessive. This was a rich man's fantasy concert, not a Bat Mitzvah.

Hard to argue with the assessment given the entertainment:

• Eagles Don Henley and Joe Walsh
• Stevie Nicks
• 50 Cent
• Tom Petty
• Aerosmith's Steven Tyler and Joe Perry

I can't imagine what her wedding will be like, but if it's also going to be in NYC, I'm available.

Posted by Josh at 9:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

As of this afternoon and in accordance with New York City regulations, I can now legally officiate weddings in the city of New York. While anyone could be a mesader kiddushin, clergy need to register with the city in order to sign the marraige licence.1

While I'm not planning on officiating any weddings in the near future, you never know when it could come in handy. A few years ago I was Shabbat walking through Fort Tryon Park and I was approached by a Hispanic contingient asking me if I was a Justice of the Peace. Apparently their minister was late and who else goes walking through the park on a Saturday in a suit. Sadly I was not able to perform the ceremony - I was still in smikha at the time - but it did get me thinking that I could otherwise be in a position to help out some people. The rabbinic prohibition against getting married on Shabbat would be inapplicable (B. Shabbat 148b) and I doubt that it would violate existing RCA policy (not that I'm currently a member).

At any rate, if you're planning on getting married in NYC and need the marriage licence signed, you know where to find me. Words of Wisdom at no extra charge.

1. This is only for weddings performed in the city of New York proper, and I do not believe it is necessary for the rest of the state. I know that in New Jersey all that is require is an address. A few years ago there was an issue where a Conservative cantor was found to be a fraud and the state government needed to pass an emergency legislation to retroactively validate those weddings.

Posted by Josh at 10:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Most people probably do not consider utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill to be any sort of an authority on Judaism. In fact, I doubt Mill himself would have considered himself to be such an expert. But I did find one passage of his which perfectly captures the state of discourse and debate in Orthodox Judaism.

The following paragraphs are from the beginning of Mill's The Subjection of Women which I proudly bought for $6 at a Barnes and Noble moving sale. Mill's basic argument is against the automatic social, economic, and political disadvantages imposed on women from birth. As an introduction to his argument, Mill explains the uphill battle he faces in challenging the widely accepted status quo. While his observations are generic enough to be applicable in many other areas (politics, business, academics etc), I'd like to put this in the context particularly in how Orthodox Jews engage matters of religion be it halakhic or theological, and perhaps recalling my own personal hashkafa series.

Note: Although I tried copying verbatim, I apologize for any spelling and punctuation errors. Because Mill has a tendency for run-on sentences, I bolded one particular segment for particular emphasis so as not to get lost in the paragraph.

Continue reading "John Stuart Mill On Orthodox Judaism" »

Posted by Josh at 3:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

When we last looked at Kosher Delight's health inspection report we found that they failed their 05/05/2006 inspection with 33 points of violations and required a full reinspection.

I just noticed that the reinspection was done on 07/13/2006 with a marginal improvement. KD did pass this inspection scoring 26 violation points - the failing mark is 28 points.

The violations cited are disturbingly similar to what was found previously. In addition to "Facility not vermin proof. Harborage or conditions conducive to vermin exist" and "Evidence of mice or live mice present in facility's food and/or non-food areas" this time we also have "Evidence of flying insects or live flying insects present in facility's food and/or non-food areas" and "Evidence of roaches or live roaches present in facility's food and/or non-food areas."

Kind of makes you want to go vegetarian elsewhere.

Posted by Josh at 1:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

One of the perks of living in America is that religious institutions are exempt from several taxes. Of course, there are rules for such things and of course, they're not always followed.

Take this recent example from the Jewish penal colony known as Rockland County. A multiple family house owned by a shul was granted a property tax exemption under the pretense that it would house the Rabbi and two assistant rabbis. The problem is that there were several illegal conversions to the building and there was no proof that the other rabbis actually lived there.

Gedalia Oberlander, who identified himself to the Assessment Review Board as the rabbi of the congregation, said he lived in one of the apartments, and two assistant rabbis lived in the others.

"I feel that not having a certificate of occupancy shouldn't interfere with having the exemption," Oberlander told the board at its meeting Thursday.

Even more comical is that they're having trouble finding the shul itself:

"There was no CO (certificate of occupancy) and we're unable to confirm the location of the synagogue itself, seeing that it wasn't in that location," Shedler said yesterday.

And for the coup de grace, the name of the shul?

Congregation Merkoz Halacha

Posted by Josh at 3:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

It seems like ages ago, but we once discussed college rankings, and how YU fared much more poorly by standards other than those used by US News.

On that note, Washington Monthly has a new ranking system aimed at determining the educational value of the universities, a metric which is unfortunately overlooked in choosing a college and nearly impossible to define based on most ranking systems.

But what's missing from all the rankings is the equivalent of a bottom line. There are no widely available measures of how much learning occurs inside the classroom, or of how much students benefit from their education. This makes the process of selecting a college a bit like throwing darts at a stock table. It also means that colleges and universities, like our imaginary mutual-fund managers, feel little pressure to ensure that students learn. As anyone who's ever snoozed through a giant freshman psychology 101 lecture knows, sitting in a classroom doesn't equal learning; knowledge doesn't come by osmosis.

Although there are tests out there to help guage students' collegiate academic progress (CLA, NSSE), most universities apparently keep their results to themselves. So, WM devised their own system which focuses on the university's social impact.

And so, to put The Washington Monthly College Rankings together, we started with a different assumption about what constitutes the "best" schools. We asked ourselves: What are reasonable indicators of how much a school is benefiting the country? We came up with three: how well it performs as an engine of social mobility (ideally helping the poor to get rich rather than the very rich to get very, very rich), how well it does in fostering scientific and humanistic research, and how well it promotes an ethic of service to country. We then devised a way to measure and quantify these criteria.

How does YU measure up? Despite ranking 45 in US News' survey, YU weighs in at an embarrassing 200 of 245 schools.

In fairness, WM's methodology took military and peace corps service into consideration, neither of which are areas which are conducive to perpetuating an Orthodox Jewish lifestyle. Furthermore, many YU students do in fact enter communal service, bet it as teachers, social workers, psychologists, and the occasional Rabbi. However since these professions serve a relatively small and exclusive community, these contributions would likely be overlooked.

Still, it might be nice for Yeshiva University to look beyond the 4 cubits of the Jewish world. Although there have been notable exceptions, most students I've known are either not interested or ideologically opposed to contributing to the non-Jewish world. We've covered some of the drawbacks of taking federal funding, and it might be a nice idea to contribute something to the society at large. Not only would probably help in kiddush hashem and tikkun olam departments, but it may also have other significant religious benefits.

Posted by Josh at 11:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Last night, Mt. Sinai hosted an evening with R. Ben-Zion Wosner, the "rabbinic advisor" of the new Washington Heights Eruv. On the whole the evening was light on the halakhic details of eruvin, but focused more on addressing and mitigating the communal disagreements with the Eruv. The Breuer's community has long been opposed to the Eruv and there are authorities such as R. Moshe Feinstein who hold that there cannot be an Eruv at all in Manhattan.

R. Wosner was extremely cordial and concilliatory and basically said that the Eruv follows "rov poskim," and no one has to use the eruv if they don't want to. R. Wosner continued to appeal to the amorphous "rov poskim" in the question and answer session, but given the circumstances I'm not sure he could have done more. Considering the communal tensions and the diverse educational background of those in attendance, a detailed shiur in Eruvin would not have been well received or appreciated and not entirely appropriate.

In terms of what halakhic content I did hear, I was not always in agreement, but again, his intent was more to quell communal tensions. For example, one woman asked why/how he could rule on the community's Eruv when other Rabbis in the community would not. R. Wosner responded that like being asked a question in tzitzit, as a rabbinic advisor he could give halakhic advice which is not bound by geography. Although the question raised a serious issue of mara de'atra and local authority, R. Wosner would not have had the time to give a more detailed answer.

All things considered, the shiur went over very well and was extremely well attended for a Monday night. I also think R. Wosner and R. Schnaidman should team up more often, but that's a different story.

Personally, I will not be using the eruv for reasons which apply to just about every eruv I've seen. I did ask R. Wosner one question, but was not impressed with the truncated answer he was forced to give. There is one more Rabbi I wish to consult before I post in detail my thoughts on Eruvin.

Posted by Josh at 11:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (23)

Despite the expectation from its title, Rabbi Herschel Schachter's recent Beit Yitzchak article "Kuntres B'Inyanei Pesak Halakha" (PDF) does not articulate a system or method of deciding and applying Jewish law. Instead of outlining his views of how pesak works, the article is nearly entirely comprised of sources and anecdotes illustrating the dangers of blindly following observed practices even when they have been approved or enacted by rabbinic authorities. For example in some cases a rabbi could be responding to extenuating circumstances and in a different situation could pasken differently. It is also possible (if not likely) that a person will simply misunderstand or misinterpret the given pesak and thus not be competent to apply that pesak to other cases.

We've discussed these concerns in our Perils of Pesak from the perspective of the posek in terms of taking care in formulating responses. Here, R. Schachter passively argues that there is a corresponding responsibility on the recipient or observer of the pesak. Specifically, while non-gedolim are expected to follow the "hachmei ha-mesorah," the typical Jew is not allowed to apply that pesak or observed practice to other situations since it is likely that a "ba'al ha-bayit" will be missing crucial information or intellectual sophistication to process and apply a gadol's pesak on his own.

By itself, this is a completely reasonable position considering how often people misunderstand or misquote Rabbis, but it does raise the question of what should be done. To answer this questions, R. Schachter tacitly argues for an additional level in a rabbinic hierarchy. Towards the conclusion of the first paragraph, R. Schachter refers to Rabba's statement in (B. Avoda Zara 5b (English) that a person "does not stand/rely on the thoughts of his teacher until after forty years," meaning it takes forty years to truly understand the methods of one's teacher. This citation reveals the intention in the article's first sentence, in which R. Schachter's refers to his education with R. Soloveitchik "more than forty years ago." Taking the Talmudic citation and the introductory statement together, R. Schachter establishes himself as one of the few genuine and authoritative interpreters of R. Soloveitchik.1

R. Schachter has previously argued for a restrictive model of halakhic discourse in which only certain individuals are entitled to an opinion. See for example his comments on Yom Tov Sheni:2

If one is a then he is entitled and indeed obligated to research each and every halakhic issue and to follow his own personal view on any matter. But, if one is not higia lehoraah (as the overwhelming majority of people who learned in yeshiva would be classified) then one may not pick and chose arbitrarily from amongst the various opinions of the poskim.

However, R. Schachter does not define exactly who is higi'ah l'hora'ah or how one achieves this status.3 From Kuntres, it is possible he is distinguishing higi'ah l'hora'ah with ba'al mesorah, where one can decide for himself but cannot speak for others, or if the two are in fact synonymous. In either case, pesak must only be made by approved people, but only those with the requisite experience may speak on behalf of the gedolim. I would suggest that for R. Schachter the two must work in tandem, since otherwise anyone who was in the Rav's shiur 40 years ago would have equal standing for interpreting R. Soloveitchik - a common perception considering how many people claim to speak for R. Soloveitchik.

Practically speaking, R. Schachter's suggestion further restricts the possibility of personal autonomy in following halakha. Only certain people allowed to go back to the original sources, and everyone else must ask them for halakhic decisions. However, even though one may have a pesak for one case, or observes how someone paskened in another case, one still should not repeat the pesak in other instances, but ostensibly should once again ask for another pesak. In other words, the solution to people not being able to follow the gadol system correctly, is to have an intermediary to explain and apply the gadol's pesak for us.

While I can understand the pragmatic need for such a position, I think this is ultimately unhelpful since adding the additional rabbinic level simply creates another person to be misunderstood. If there is a risk of misapplying the pesak of a gadol, there is an equal risk of misapplying or misunderstanding the pesak of his student. Furthermore, we would also have to assume that the student does not have an agenda of his own or a desire to see his Rebbe portrayed in a certain light. Again using R. Soloveitchik as an example, there are numerous Rabbis trying to re-create R. Soloveitchik in their own image which requires ignoring or rationalizing certain decisions or behaviors of the Rav which are inconsistent with the student's perception. For example, one Rabbi remarked at R. Soloveitchik's funeral that he never saw the Rav reading a secular book. While this may be entirely true, the implication is misleading. Or for another example, despite R. Soloveitchik's vehement stance against mixed seating, he allowed an uncle of mine to take a non-mehitza pulpit. When I mentioned this to one YU Rosh Yeshiva, the response was, "it couldn't be - he must have misunderstood." I cannot comment on who is right here, but the problem is the same regardless. If the gadol is widely accepted (or expected to be accepted), then of course there will be more of a desire to interpret his positions in a particular way to coincide with a student's own hashkafa.

It would seem to me that the cause of such misapplications of halakha is the very lack of perceived autonomy in the "gadol system" of halakha. We have trained people to simply follow the gedolim, and that is exactly what people are doing. If the problem is that people do not know what they are doing in following the gedolim, then perhaps education in the halakhic nuances of pesak would be a more effective long-term solution.4

1. And by constantly referring to R. Soloveitchik as our teacher (rabbeinu), R. Schachter implies that this authority is sweeping.
2. Hat tip to Shaya for the link.
3. Though it's clear that he does not consider most smikhas to be sufficient.
4. Or we could change the system, but that is not likely to happen anytime soon.

Posted by Josh at 9:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Menachem Butler has an excellent post on the current non-existence of Hamevaser. Having been involved with Hamevaser during a significant transitional period, I'd like to add a personal perspective as to the how's and why's Hamevaser is no more.

Continue reading "Hamevaser: Behind The Hocking" »

Posted by Josh at 1:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (9)

SIW is reporting on Orthodox mayors and not surprisingly, good 'ol Springfield, NJ gets overlooked once again. Not only have we had an Orthodox mayor in Clara Harelik, but a female Orthodox mayor who has served several terms1 and recently won the Mayor of the Year award for Union County.

Who knew Springfield could be so progressive?

1. For some wacky reasoning you don't vote for mayors directly in Springfield, but for a five-member Township Committee who selects the mayor from among themselves.

Posted by Josh at 1:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

It's not surprising that as we approach the GLBT World Pride in Jerusalem (August 6-12), we find increasingly critical and hostile rhetoric against the event. Jerusalem is no stranger to religious controversies, and the opposition to homosexuality is nearly universal among the major religions.

My understanding is that there are two major goals of the Pride events. The first is to provide support and encouragement for the GLBT community internally, and the second is to promote tolerance and acceptance. (Yes, I know this is an oversimplification). From the World Pride mission statement:

It is time to demonstrate to our community, to our neighbors and peers and indeed to the world, not only that we belong, but that our love and our pride can cross the harshest borders that divide people.

"In these times of intolerance and suspicion, from the home of three of the world's great religions, we will proclaim that love knows no borders." [emphasis added]

World Pride is not simply a matter of communal bonding or promoting tolerance, but a subliminal protest against intolerant religions. There is of course an intelligent strategy at work here. By assuming a greater challenge, the GLBT community can more effectively galvanize itself by breaking another barrier (if peaceful) or standing strong in the face of opposition.

But consider some of the stated themes of the upcoming World Pride:

• Our values are guided by tolerance, equality and pluralism.
• The parade in Jerusalem is conformed to the city's nature in respect toward the local orthodox populations.
• The pride events bring a new inner-faith message of equality and tolerance.
• Obeying the law and avoiding violence and harsh criticism are some of our messages.

Given the underlying attitude towards religion, these statements are disingenuous at best. If the values are guided by tolerance, then a better location should have been selected. The parade obviously does not conform in respect