Does Modern Orthodoxy Not Believe in Fun? A Response to Rabbi Yitzchak Blau
Guest post by Avi Woolf
Avi “aiwac” Woolf is a translator/editor residing in Efrat. He has a BA in Land of Israel Studies and has taken courses in the Bar-Ilan Contemporary Jewry Dept. He blogs at QED and reads everything from Leszek Kolakawski to Richard Pipes to Rav Soloveitchik and lehavdil Rav Dr. Michael Avraham – when he’s not watching TV, of course.
In the latest issue of Tradition (44:2), Rabbi Yitzchak Blau unleashed a powerful and thorough, if scattershot, critique of television from the point of view of the ideals of Modern Orthodoxy. Rabbi Blau argued emphatically in favor of getting rid of the television in the house, and having children and adults spend their time more constructively. This can be done by reading newspaper articles on serious issues of the day, reading serious books like Dostoevsky and generally being an intelligent religious Jew and democratic citizen.
In the following essay, I intend to critique Rabbi Blau’s important, but in my opinion deeply flawed, essay on two fronts. The first will deal with Rabbi Blau’s primary criticisms, which I address according to their general category. The second will deal with the more fundamental issue which Rabbi Blau touches on, but does not address directly – the contemporary inability of Orthodox thought to view leisure, or “fun”, as anything other than a necessary evil to be restricted as much as possible.
A brief confession is in order before we begin. I am an avid consumer of both serious articles and books and of television and movies. I have downed several tomes that come close to or exceed a thousand pages on matters from political philosophy to military history and everything in between. On the other hand, I have also spent much of my life absorbing television shows and movies of varying quality – from the powerful and insightful to the cringingly bad. I write, therefore, as one who is fully cognizant of the advantages and disadvantages of both media.
Is TV Really So Bad?
Before we continue, let’s make something clear. Even the most ardent defender of television will admit that it is full of garbage, filler and useless information. The time spent on it is often far beyond what could be called necessary or even fun. Too often, our addiction to the “boob tube” will result in flipping channels aimlessly for hours, not even gaining the enjoyment television is supposed to provide.
My argument against Rabbi Blau in the post below is not to argue that TV is flawless. Rather, my purpose is to point out that TV is a tool of communication, one of many, which can greatly contribute to knowledge and moral understanding as well “corrupt youth” if misused. In this post, I will deal directly with Rav Blau’s primary arguments against television, organized according to category. Each accusation of Rav Blau will appear with my verdict regarding the charge. The verdict will then be explained.
Accusation #1: TV Dumbs Down Content
Verdict: Not applicable
As I said above, television is nothing more than a form of communication – no different from the oral communication of conversation, the textual communication of print and writing, or the oral and visual communication of plays. It contains both fiction and non-fiction, high-level and low-brow. Like any form of communication, it has its own grammar, vocabulary and rules of presentation.
To say that TV “dumbs down” content presumes that oral communication must follow the rules of print communication. Anyone who has ever held a conversation will know that what can be tolerated in print will never work in speech. Even in universities, no one would tolerate the oral presentation of an argument in the same form as the long, tedious and often convoluted and esoteric technique used in academic writing. It may sound distinguished, but the point would never get across.
In order to convey points orally, TV must resort to different methods, which include making the message as simple or at least as concise as possible. At most, TV can use visual aids, backgrounds, music and human expression to add resonance to the concise message.
As an educational tool, TV can work wonders in making complex subjects written in often unreadable or at least specialized tomes accessible to ordinary humans. Channels like National Geographic and the History Channel, the great documentaries like Ken Burns’ Civil War and Jazz, Steven Speiberg’s Band of Brothers are all products made for TV. Not only do they often explain issues better, they make them relatable in ways very few books can.
I also find myself puzzled by Rav Blau’s attack on TV news and his subsequent glorification of print news. Yes, it’s true – TV news shows and political programs, even the more sophisticated ones, cannot, by definition, reach the level of detail of a printed argument. Yet what they lack in this department, they more than make up for in relative clarity. Not everyone has the time to read magazine-level analyses of issues on a daily basis, and many aren’t interested in the first place, for reasons that have nothing to do with TV.
I also have to wonder what possible interest or understanding an 8-year old, or even a 13 year old, could have of the budget debates or deep moral quandaries that Rav Blau is so desperate to have them be engrossed in them? Why is there a need for them to do so?
I realize I have left out the issue of fictional shows, and this omission is deliberate – I will deal with that with accusation #3.
Accusation #2: TV destroys critical faculties
Verdict: Partially Guilty
Another accusation Rabbi Blau levels against TV is that its emphasis on sound bytes and visual means makes it a useful tool for emotional manipulation. The images on TV are irresistible and brook no rational argument. If you want proof for how destructive this can be, look no further than the Al-Dura blood libel, where a single picture of a frightened child mixed with false accusations led to mass demonization of Israel.
There is some truth to this charge, but I believe it Rav Blau is exaggerating this issue, for two reasons:
While it is true that images and TV can lie and manipulate, they can also inspire and enrich. The sight of the Israeli soldier in the river in the Six Day War, the landing of Man on the Moon and other images lead to positive, not negative results. Furthermore, there are many alternative sources of information available for the average person, including other news channels with different political slants and most importantly, the internet. In a world where TV is the only means of communication, or when the audience is totally ignorant on the issue, TV can sway them. Otherwise, it adds little.
More importantly, the idea that any particular segment on TV is irresistible and not subject to criticism is belied by the fact that people have different taste in TV shows – they avoid shows they don’t like, drop shows that change not to their liking. Indeed, the very phenomenon of “channel surfing” would seem to refute the idea that whatever’s on TV will suck you in.
More than that, though – unless people live entirely alone, they will often discuss TV shows with their friends or at least family, and disagreements on characters and plots are often inevitable. TV is certainly often a time-waster and can be manipulative if one is not careful or knowledgeable, but the idea that TV watchers lose all or even the majority of their critical faculties in selecting and approving of TV content just doesn’t seem to ring true to me.
Accusation #3: TV contributes nothing of moral value
Verdict: Not Guilty
The best expression of Rav Blau’s contempt for television and movies is his statement that while he can recommend hundreds of worthwhile books, he can recommend maybe 30 movies of intrinsic worth (likely about as many TV shows). The message inherent in these words is obvious – very, very little of visual media provides material of value.
Perhaps it is because I have always had a penchant for cop and law shows, but my experience has generally been the exact opposite of Rav Blau’s. No one, in my opinion, can watch shows like Homicide: Life on the Street or Hill Street Blues, or even Law and Order, and say that these shows do not discuss issues of value in a powerful and generally balanced manner.
The plethora of ethical, legal and psychological issues raised in these shows is breathtaking. In fact, I would argue that Rav Blau would benefit from using them as great examples for a discussion of sachar va’onesh, or the debate between objective individual justice and maintaining the integrity of the justice system at large (“technicalities” etc.).
Even putting aside cop shows, though, good science fiction shows can bring up issues of what it means to be human; a well-made drama can demonstrate the complications of human relationships. Show of hands: who has watched House, or lehavdil Scrubs, and not been fascinated by the many ethical and emotional issues of practicing medicine? My point is that discerning TV viewers can gain much of value if they learn, or are taught, how to look for it.
Rav Blau knows only 30 worthwhile movies? I can name at least a hundred off the top of my head, only a small number of which I will mention here: Citizen Kane, Casablanca, The Shawshank Redemption, The Truman Show, Judgment at Nuremberg, Cast Away, Se7en, Up, Beauty and the Beast, Toy Story (1, 2 and 3), American History X, When Harry Met Sally, Defiance, The Godfather I and II, Tootsie, Kramer vs. Kramer, To Kill A Mockingbird, Wall Street, Saving Private Ryan, Marvin’s Room, and so on and so forth.
Notice that I restricted myself largely to the uber-serious movies and generally avoided comedies and dramas. If I had included them (and there are many that are worthwhile), the list would have been much longer. I believe, however, that my point has been made. There is much value in visual fiction both on TV and in movies – the trick is to lean or be taught how to tell the good stuff from the trash.
Accusation #4: TV Endorses Sexual Promiscuity
Verdict: Guilty – With A Caveat
Finally, Rabbi Blau refers to an argument that is often the clincher in these discussions – the open endorsement or toleration of frequent and open sexual relations on TV. Programs talk about sex, hint at sex and sometimes obliquely film sex. Girls especially are sent the message that they must do nothing but focus on their looks and do everything to “get physical” with boys.
There is no point in denying the above-described phenomenon; I personally received my sexual education from Beverly Hills 90210. TV programs, especially those aimed at teenagers and young adults, are generally contemptuous of abstinence, especially the kind endorsed by religious groups. If anything, many of them do everything possible to entice the viewer sexually to the point of outright voyeurism, whether it’s watching a hot guy or girl or waiting for them to kiss or get down and dirty. It is only natural, then, that many impressionable girls, already naturally raging with hormones, would be affected.
All this is true but it is not the whole story. The other side of the coin is the complete failure of Orthodoxy in general, and Modern Orthodoxy in particular, to deal with sex except as a complete taboo. Indeed, until very recently, the policy of most Religious Zionist high schools was little different from their Charedi counterparts. Sex is not discussed, except to scream and yell about the evils of masturbation and run private inquiries about student’s virginity or lack thereof, or go on patrol to expel girls who hang out with boys and/or wear attractive clothing. Even pre-marital sex education focuses almost exclusively on prohibitions, and very little about not only the positive aspects of sex, but also its crucial nature as a means of pleasure and marital physical communication.
The result is a split population – a highly devout, but extremely neurotic group that thinks they’ll go to hell every time they masturbate or kiss a girl, and the other group that does it anyway and just doesn’t care.
My point in all this rambling is that TV is not the cause of all this but merely a symptom. It wins the day not just because TV is so bad, but because Orthodoxy doesn’t offer anything else, and if it does, it doesn’t mention it. The almost paranoid fear of people committing sexual sins of various kinds is at the root of the gender-separation craze, and MO has yet to come up with a more rational way of coping.
Of course, MO could always learn to teach kids (and adults, esp. rabbis, educators and communities) to have a sense of proportion. They could knock it off with the “masturbation/sex=damnation” rhetoric and emphasize the always present possibility of teshuva. They could also spend much more time on sex as a positive, and far less obsession with whether or not someone accidentally miscounts one of R. Zeira’s seven nekiyim. But go ahead, blame TV. It’s much easier.
Modern Orthodoxy vs. Fun, Or “Why So Serious?”
However, I believe that what Rav Blau is complaining about is deeper than the issue of TV – whether watched for value or the pure pleasure of it. I believe Rav Blau inadvertently exposed a very serious lacuna in Modern orthodox thought – the complete lack of intrinsic value attributed to leisure in general, and fun and play in particular.
For those who disagree with me, I invite you to take a look at leading publications, blogs and books of Modern Orthodox thinkers – left, right and center. Check out the discussions and read the histories. You will notice a recurring theme – an obsession with intellectual and “serious” issues, and a complete lack of attention to either popular culture or leisure in general. “High culture” – the fine arts, philosophy, science, politics – these are OK. Comic books, TV shows and sports – not OK.
Much like the issue of sex ed, pop culture and play are simply not a part of Modern Orthodox thought. At best, they are tolerated, to help get rid of stress or as a natural impulse of children that will eventually disappear. Ideally, a la Rav Blau, Jews should spend their time studying deep things, thinking deep thoughts and constantly maintaining a degree of ideological-psychological tension that is very high.
A la Rav Blau, Modern Orthodoxy is very much a religion by intellectuals, for intellectuals, with little room for enjoyment or development of other aspects of life such as music, sports and games. There is little place for just “living” outside of the MO “mission”. I believe Prof. William Kolbrenner summarized this point very succinctly when he suggested replacing the term “Torah U-Madda” with “Torah and Chaim” (Torah and Life). We should have “conversations” with all the parts of life, learn them, enjoy them, cherish them.
More than that, as the blogger who goes by then name “Benjamin of Tudela” has pointed out in a comment, we need to stop dividing the world into only “good and “bad” things. There are many phenomena in the world that are simply neutral. Furthermore, oftentimes “bad” things can contain “good” elements and vice versa, as any religious defender of secular Zionism can tell you. A sense of proportion is key.
I suppose Rav Blau would counter that this attitude is the same that has lead to the reviled “edutainment” phenomenon. However, I submit that this would be to confuse the symptom for the cause. People – children, teenagers and adults – have an instinctive and healthy need for play (that is not tied to “Seriousness”). Play not only relieves stress but is proven to allow people to grow and develop psychologically and intellectually at any age.
”Edutainment”, then, is a flawed answer to a true need. We need better ways of handling play, not forcing “seriousness” down our students’ throats 100 or even 90% of the time. Rather than seeing it as either a sworn enemy or a tolerated pest, we would do well to study and understand play as a natural phenomenon of life. Sometimes people really do need to shut off their brains, overheated from 24 hours and 7 days a week’s worth of “mission, mission, mission”. Sometimes Shabbat really does need to be an actual day of rest.
Perhaps Rav Blau is concerned about the isolating effects of the TV/internet. But play is not confined to these things. Give your kid the Dangerous Book for Boys or the Daring Book for Girls. Encourage sports or playing board games or cards. Come to think of it, play among MO adults should also be encouraged. Just because we’re grown-ups doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have fun.
Sir Ken Robertson said that the present Western educational system (ourselves included) is designed primarily to produce university professors (or Rabbis) who “live inside their heads”. We would do well to abandon that monochromatic model, and embrace our bodies, ourselves and life in its entirety.
The halakhic issues are separate and certainly deserving of treatment, but this post is about different issues.
I never suggested that we learn our values form TV. I argued against the idea that one cannot learn values (or see them debated) on TV. My point, as I said in the beginning, is that TV has both bad and good and is not “worthless”, either as a tool of pleasure or for the serious issues it brings up.
Let me address the issue of sex, which again seems to be the clincher here for many (again). Seeing a woman in a state of undress is certainly discomforting, and the values promoted are definitely not ours.
However:
1) Sex and endorsement of romance – including out of wedlock – did not start with TV. Nor did the phenomenon of women being less dressed. Kids and adults will encounter it wherever they go, including in print newspapers, at work or in any interaction with the non-religious public. It is an issue everyone will need to confront in any event.
Unless you seriously believe in the extreme Charedi view that seeing a woman in any context is assur because it might lead to arousal, you’re going to have to have more flexible boundaries. Some people’s boundaries will be stricter than others, but really, if a person’s core values are strong, then I think they won’t become licentious in practice.
2) The issue of the sins involved with looking at a women brings me back to the issue of proportion. Seeing a woman in a state of undress is not the same as porno. Hearing people talk about sex is not the same as having an orgy. Furthermore, it is certainly possible to watch or read the opinions or views of someone whose values are different than our own, even if we completely disagree with them.
Just because Dr. House is immoral (he’s portrayed that way) does not mean that I immediately absorb his worldview by watching the show. Or do the objectors think that everyone who watches House has gone to a lady of the evening? I’d think we’re stronger than that.
No-one is forcing you to watch the movies/television shows in question, and if your kid does, it would be better to calmly explain why we don’t hold like that and present a positive explanation as to why we don’t do that and not just scream “assur”.
Again, I am not going to enter the argument of assur and muttar from an halachic POV for different matters. I am simply arguing for a more realistic approach that takes into account the fact that many of us do err in that area to one extent or another.
ספר מסילת ישרים פרק יא
ואם לחשך אדם לומר, שמה שאמרו על נבול – פה, אינו אלא כדי לאיים ולהרחיק אדם מן העבירה, ובמי שדמו רותח הדברים אמורים, שמדי דברו בא לידי תאוה, אבל מי שאמרו דרך שחוק בעלמא, לאו מילתא הוא ואין לחוש עליו – אף אתה אמור לו, עד כאן דברי יצר – הרע… אלא האמת הוא כדברי רבותינו זכרונם לברכה, שנבול – פה הוא ערותו של הדיבור ממש, ומשום זנות הוא שנאסר ככל שאר עניני הזנות, חוץ מגופו של מעשה, שאף – על – פי שאין בהם כרת או מיתת בית – דין, אסורים הם איסור עצמם, מלבד היותם גם כן גורמים ומביאים אל האיסור הראשיי עצמו.
See this post: http://torahmusings.com/2006/01/blessings-and-television/
Ah, you’re not listening to Nivul Peh, you’re listening to recorded Nivul Peh. Such fun.
>I can understand that some nivel peh doesnt bother you, but how about the naked women, does that bother you?
While I understand full well that there is a distinction between actual naked women (as in photos and video) and drawings, nude drawings and statues were absolutely rampant in certain parts of Europe in the Renaissance and early modern period. These nudes made it onto and into seforim and ketubot, and apparently no one lost their chelek in olam habah over it. For example, see this post of mine
http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/2010/05/golems-forgeries-and-images-of-disrobed.html
where you can see a nude woman on the title page of a sefer of the Maharal, which was published within the Maharal’s life time.
Or you can see this other post of mine
http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/2010/03/fantastic-hebrewbooks-updates-elias.html
which has a pair of bare-breasted women surrounding the beginning of Baruch Sheamar in a famous mazhzor.
Or you can see this Ketubah from Mantua, 1689:
http://goo.gl/PO6sI
These are three examples, but there are actually dozens and hundreds more (if you take into account the many seforim, ketubot and Jewish broadsides which included such images). If you do not want to acknowledge these as precedents worth considering, how about the Gemara with Rabban Gamliel in the bathhouse of Aphrodite, complete with its nude stature?
What do all these have in common? Okay, perhaps the fact that they weren’t real women. But also that at some points people were able to handle somewhat fleeting, mature nude depictions of human beings without, presumably, violating kamma ve-kamma issurim and losing their neshama. Maybe the same can be said for at least incidental nudity?
How do we know that these were approved by rabbinic authorities? Maybe these pictures, which I have seen cited by you and the Seforim blog, were just some wayward Jews who didn’t seek a psak about whether such is okay? Did the Haharal, during his lifetime, have control over the publishing of his seforim?
A great question. We don’t so much know that as we know that there is a complete absence of any condemnation or even comment about them. We also know that they were almost never ripped out and lined the shelves of Batei Midrash and rabbinical libraries the world over, ad hayom hazeh. Furthermore, these seforim had haskamos. Furthermore, presumably kesubos were read by chasunahs by people, including rabbis, including gedolim.
Granted, little nude baby angels aren’t exactly women, but here’s one with the Chavos Yair’s inscription in his own sefer
http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/2009/11/inscribed-chavos-yair-also-putti-on.html
The Maharal certainly had control in the sense that no one stole his manuscript and published it without permission. If it was assur to publish or buy such a thing, then who gave him the heter?
It’s very difficult to argue that the rabbis opposed this without any such evidence. The argument that this was tolerated is far stronger. I would say that it’s probably roughly equivalent to the question as to how Jews could walk down a street anywhere besides Jewland in the summer. The answer is that you can be normal and if you can’t, you’ve got a harder time proving that.
Here’s the title page in R. Moshe Rivkes edition of the Shulchan Aruch
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=42082&st=&pgnum=2
I think it’s reasonable to assume that his great-grandson, the Gra, had a copy and learned from it constantly.
I don’t have web access to R Blau’s article, but I have no reason to doubt the posted summary. Let me pose a comment:
1) The content of TV,generally speaking, as well as the movies, is at an all time low level. Even the documentaries that the author cited are at best interesting, but nowhere as compelling as reading about the subject.
2) TV, unlike a good novel, book or article, demands nothing more than you watch. If you don’t like a particular show, your options are clicking the channel or the off switch. It is not an intellectually challenging medium.
3) TV stopped projecting any positive fealty to moral values in the mid 1960s. Today’s TV line up provides “reality shows” of “celebrities” of all kinds, insights into the lives of drug dealers, prosititutes and worse.
4)TV does assume that the watcher has no objections to sexual promiscuity, both in terms of content, and commercials. For the best single article that I have read on teen age sexuality in our community, see Dr B Sorotzkin’s “The Pursuit of Perfection.” IMO, , your take on teenage sexual activity is correct, and parents, teens, rebbes , menahelim and moros should read the same, especially the quoted language from the Keser Rosh and the footnoted quote from R S Wolbe ZL.
5)The issue re “fun” IMO is an non sequitur. Ever travel to a national park, historical site, etc? We used to attend one baseball game a year until the costs became prohibitive and the atmosphere became that of drunken bums.
S,
The question is whether or not the nudity in Film is prurient.
You can make the case that nudity need not always be sex-related. For example, pictures of naked Holocaust victims are clearly not prurient. (Though the practice of showing such pictures is not without criticism.) Ditto the pictures in the sefarim you posted. I assure you there are no boys stashing sefarim under their bed.
The nudity in Film and Television is designed to induce sexual thoughts.
>The question is whether or not the nudity in Film is prurient.
Exactly. I am trying to raise the question of whether there is a difference, since it seems that a lot of people don’t see a difference but a nipple is a nipple.
As for boys stashing seforim, I don’t know what 14 year old boys liked to look at 350 years ago. Do you? I do know that it wasn’t so long ago that 14 year old boys were eager to get a glimpse of very non-sexual nudes in National Geographic. So you’d be surprised.
Also, we’re not necessarily discussing what’s appropriate for children, but adults. Perhaps we should discuss both.
Two more points:
1) TV has lowered its lowest common denominator as it competes with the Net for the attention span of the critical audience level on a low intellectual level while skirting the boundaries of programming that either were previously only on pay for play or worse. It is no accident that the so-called “family hour” is a travesty .
2) Last year, I was laid up and hospitalized for several days. I had no choice but to watch the news and sports. Even the commercial content frankly discusses the positives of Viagra or the rewards of certain brands of lingerie, etc. Commercials in general promise instantanteous gratification -whether in the purchase of a brand of car or many other consumer goods.
FWIW, we do have a television. I do think that if you consider yourself MO, you have to explain why you watch certain shows that euphemistically speaking, “don’t express your values” or draw a line in the sand and view watching TV permissible for news, documentaries, and sports. IMO, I would suggest that the above or no TV in the house would be an eminently defensible POV, as opposed to viewing the TV as a primary source of information, news and culture.
AIWAC-WADR,in terms of your views of acceptable content, how do you square the same with the concepts of “Avizurahu de Arayos” or the implementation of Kedoshim Tihiyu as understood by the Ramban? I fully realize that many posters view watching TV, regardless of the content, as having no impact on their neshamah, that many of us need TV for a legitimate outlet, and that all of us have a level of Avodas HaShem which may differ in terms of what we deem an acceptable level of our interaction with secular culture. Yet, when that need serves as a rationalization for Bitul Torah or worse, IMO, that’s where serious consideration of the premises of R Blau’s article are warranted.
S-I think that is diffficult to compare the examples that you cited with today’s overly sexualized media atmosphere.
RAYH Kook:
שו”ת עזרת כהן (ענייני אבן העזר) סימן קח
ע”ד הציורים שבמחזורים, אם הם מצוירים צורת אשה ודאי יש לצאת במחאה גדולה על מחללי קודש ד’ הללו, אף על פי שמצד הדין צורת אדם בסממנים קיל יותר מצורת כוכבים ומזלות, מ”מ לענין זילותא ודאי גריעא טובא. ומה טוב הי’ שיטיב כת”ר לכתוב לעוד איזה רבנים מפורסמים בזה, ויכתבו יחד מחאה ע”ז ואזהרה למדפיסים שאם לא ישנו את דרכם לטובה יאסרו את המחזורים הללו. אמנם באמת אגיד שאנכי לא ראיתי כזאת, וצורת מזל אלול המצוייר במחזורים שלנו אינם כ”א רשמים בעלמא ולא קלסתר ממש, אך אולי ראה כת”ר כונים ממש שעשו איזה מדפיסים בצורה גמורה על כגון דא ראוי למחות בכל תוקף. ואם יהי’ צורך בחתימתי הקטנה על מחאה כזאת לא אמנע בל”נ מהשתתף בדבר מצוה זו, ויתגלגל זכות ע”י זכאי מר כת”ר שי’.
S,
I am willing to grant that there is a difference but I can not see how some of the examples in this post can be viewed as anything other than prurient. My point is that even if there is a difference between Nudity and Art, much of what is on television AIMS to be prurient.
In my opinion, the sex and off-color jokes on TV far outweigh any other consideration. It’s horrible and should be avoided. (I happen to agree with this blog post’s author that TV has benefits, but I don’t think they outweigh the loss in tahara.)
Regarding the criticism of MO dealing with sex: The answer to every problem is not to deal with it in a “kosher” way. Sometimes the only Torah approach is, in fact, to avoid, condemn, and shun.
>I am willing to grant that there is a difference but I can not see how some of the examples in this post can be viewed as anything other than prurient.
Sure. But it’s not about these specific examples. Or even if it is, what about duration? I will grant that for someone who is very very sheltered even two seconds of prurience can occupy brain space for a good long time, but what about someone who is less sensitive (and, probably, married)? Maybe two seconds doesn’t outweigh the other 90 minutes?
The topic of whether or not it’s mutar from the Torah to have “fun” or leisure per se is interesting. I don’t think you can rely on saying “If it’s not assur min hatorah, then it’s OK”. As we know, “veasita hatov vehayashar b’ainai hashem elokecha” is often called upon to fill in the gaps on what is or isn’t considered appropriate. We hear about great Rabbanim in Europe going to the Alps and the baths which we might call a vacation, but they might have justified it for medical reasons.
Someone told me (I haven’t checked), that there isn’t even a word in Biblical Ivrit for fun. The common Israeli term “kef” is actually Arabic.
“Someone told me (I haven’t checked), that there isn’t even a word in Biblical Ivrit for fun. ”
There’s isn’t a word in English for “schadenfreude.” Doesn’t mean Anglophones don’t feel it.
There also isn’t a Biblical Hebrew word for “nature.”
Of course this gets into the philosophical question about whether or not Tanach is a lexicon of Hebrew.
What I meant is that if the word for fun doesn’t exist in the Torah, someone could suggest that therefore it’s assur – a bitul Torah – almost by definition.
“What I meant is that if the word for fun doesn’t exist in the Torah, someone could suggest that therefore it’s assur – a bitul Torah – almost by definition.”
Wouldn’t that be a very immature argument? Someone here cited the Gemara that part of each day Hakadosh Baruch Hu is משחק with the לויתן. Seems more powerful then one of those “Eskimos have 3 million words for snow” type of arguments.
“Sometimes the only Torah approach is, in fact, to avoid, condemn, and shun.”
Even in doing that, one can do it with “chochma”, as R. Hershel Schacter writes in his approbabtion to Sarah Diament’s book(which itself, though, has a different focus and age demographic than what is being discussed here).
Here is a link to an MP3 of Dr. Benzion Sorotzkin’s “Torah Perspectives on Boundaries, Restrictions and Sexuality” given at the Ohel Professional Training Workshop this February, which can be downloaded.
http://drsorotzkin.com/audiolectures.html#Chinuch_audio
There is actually another fundamental issue involved, namely, how to balance “yirah” with psychological health(something I think already discussed by R. Avroham Eliyahu Kaplan); Dr. Sorotzkin has his own approach in the MP3, and in his articles. Another point regarding these and similar matters, I think, is that there is a difference between publicly addressing a topic, and providing individualized guidance.
“Hirhurim on September 7, 2011 at 10:03 am
It was a fun movie with no educational value whatsoever. That’s the point of this post! Sometimes you need to have fun.
A little nivul peh doesn’t scare me.”
1) Because you hold there is no issur to listen…?
2) Regarding the movie Pulp Fiction see this post here http://www.olamhaemet.com/2011/07/redemption-amidst-the-darkness/)
3) This is an issue that I genuinely seek a discussion on, the halachic issue of listening to nuvel peh, watching violence and sex in movies and literature. I think it would be fair to say that the majority of the MO world watches movies of all sorts, how can this practice be defended on halachic grounds.
See this paragraph by Rabbi Moshe Weinberger in a RJJ Journal on studying secular subjects.
The Shulchan Aruch prohibits the reading of “secular
parables and romances.” Romances may involve the additional
issur of inciting the evil inclination,43 but there is no clear halachic classification for this type of material. Obviously a book, magazine, or poem which depicts sexuality in a way which is offensive to Torah values is forbidden. Although some Jewish scholars have written that an observant Jew has much to gain from classical fiction and poetry in terms of the development of his spiritual personality, (“Who can fail to be inspired by the ethical idealism of Plato, the passionate fervor of Augustine, or the visionary grandeur of Milton? … There is wisdom among the Gentiles, and we ignore it to our own 10ss.”44) such statements do not seem to take into account the halachic problems involved in attaining inspiration. Many outstanding books, even classics, present concepts or describe the human situation in ways that might be considered heretical, in spite of the possible inspirational effect they might have on the reader. Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein quotes the famous statement attributed to the Rambam, “Accept the truth from whoever states it,” but does not quote the Rambam’s explicit ruling: “It is forbidden to cause oneself to be sexually aroused orto think an improper thought.”45
steve b. –
1. tv shows in the last couple years is probably at the highest level in the last 15 years. or as my son said to me – tv is the new movies. – e.g. mad men, the good wife, house, lost, fringe, jon stewart – the daily show, simpsons, sopranos, curb, law and order – criminal intent, the office, 6 feet under, the wire, 24 (not all years), big love…. 30 rock
2. there should be no comparison to reading. its a different medium. just like there is great literature and trashy novels there is good quality tv (some fun and some thought provoking) and garbage. don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.
3.” TV, unlike a good novel, book or article, demands nothing more than you watch.”… so wrong – just like going to a baseball game you can only watch too? sometimes you have to think – lost (not that it help explain things). you are too dismissive of the medium. a book you can also put down anytime.
4.there is more than reality shows on tv. since you do not watch how would you know. prostitutes and drug dealers are not people too? – watch the wire – on of the top 5 shows ever – compelling as any book.
5.read lolita. sex permeates our society – it really always has in many ways.
6. there many modes of fun. buy better seats and never go to the bleachers – or go to basketball games where there is much less drinking. – heaven forbid you go to a football game.
“I do think that if you consider yourself MO, you have to explain why you watch certain shows that euphemistically speaking, “don’t express your values”” – that is where you are wrong and reflects a yeshivish or charedei (old world)attitude that has infected the mo world. the usual canard of bittul torah would stop you from doing many other things as well… and its over used in the religious world.
James-we saw Schindler’s List.IMO, the nudity therein was meant to show how the Nazis demumanized their victims. One need only recall the names and plots of other Holocaust era related films where the issue of power and victim and sexuality played a prominent role, as oppposed to a film where the purpose was to display the victims as not being human beings.
“שו”ת עזרת כהן (ענייני אבן העזר) סימן קח”
Anonymous, thanks!
“You will notice a recurring theme – an obsession with intellectual and “serious” issues, and a complete lack of attention to either popular culture or leisure in general.”
The medresh tells us [Beraishit Rabba 44:1] “The Mitzvot (commandments were not given (for any other purpose) but to refine human beings.”
By and large, you will not find much refinement in popular culture. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Nothing wrong with some leisure activities, IMHO, as long as they are spent in wholesome pursuits (e.g., exercise,playing sports, reading good books [e.g. Hemingway, a good biography, or even, say, an Agatha Christie mystery] or watching a good TV program/movie/play [e.g. Shakespeare, a "Frontline" Documentary, "Nova", etc.], listening to great music[e.g. Mozart]. Otherwise, one lives one’s life “tovel v’sheretz b’yado”, refining one’s character one second through mitzvot, and coarsening it the next with the stupidity [and worse] that passes for popular culture these days.
Ruvie-let me offer the following comment
1)You have posted quite a range of shows. Yet, I can easily show where the lifestyles depicted therein (mad men, the good wife, house, lost, fringe, jon stewart – the daily show, simpsons, sopranos, curb, law and order – criminal intent, the office, 6 feet under, the wire, 24 (not all years), big love…. 30 rock)
are hardly what a MO person should be striving for-see RAL’s writings.
2)Reading requires an active and critical mind.A great or even a good book compells you to read it because of the plot, issues, etc.
3) I read the Arts pages and search the TV listings in vain for something that is of socially redeeming value.
4) Full disclosure-I read Lolita years ago. Lolita is one message-however, the Torah posits a wholly different set of values for a Jew with respect to sexuality.
5) I have been to football and basketball games and baseball games. My POV re the crowds is what it is, and that there are far better ways for families to have fun than to sit with a drunken crowd.
6) Being a MO does not mean that one compartmentalizes one life, with one set of values for shul and yeshiva and a vastly different set for the so-called “real world.”
Actually, Lolita, which read a few years ago, is, in the final analysis, a very moral book.
steve b – you misunderstand the point. the shows are not something one should strive to be like. some are great shows (please add the latest bbc show – the hour) with great acting and plot lines with theme development.
its not tv messages vs torah values. are there great torah values in romeo and juliet? macbeth? or great characters, pathos, drama etc? they are both entertaining and thought provoking as well. there is plenty of violence and sex in the bible as well.
all mediums require an active and critical mind. one can watch tv and not be corrupted by its “values”. one doesn’t have compartmentalize anything or justify watching imho. then of course you can be a hermit and fine as long as it works for you.
its interesting how things that were standard in the mo community 30 years ago is now pas nisht today. going to coed camps like morasha is now verboten by many who attended as not kosher enough for their kids. mta needs an extra night seder for their freshmen for many to send their kids. tv and movies are now inappropriate while they watch with abandon when they are younger. why not just admit it just ain’t mo anymore its yeshivash or charedei lite(or modern charedei) and move on to other name calling.
would it be so bad to relate to your kids and watch say “24″ together (it so happens my daughter’s rebbi also watch the show and would discuss the show in school with her). we all learn with our children but we should also have fun with them in what they want to do – and tv is an activity that easy to do.
A discussion by Joel at 5:14am of Avoah Zara 3b and mentioned by S. is also discussed in Nefesh Harav p.69.There the emphasis is on not being so serious.This may be a good way of understanding theimportance of “fun.”Are we allowed to relax and smell the roses.
For example I have been told in all of Kiryat Sefer ,the newest,largest Chareidi city there is not one ball field.
Isn’t it a halachic obligation to be happy? If you make a war on Fun, and only allow things that are serious, which for the average person includes low bro unserious fun things like TV, you take happiness away from people.
I think the reason so many people go off the derech is this idea that you must always be serious.
“I think the reason so many people go off the derech is this idea that you must always be serious.”
really, and the data says:?
“’Second, the halachah is that all one’s actions must be l’shem Shamayim’
One needs to be realistic about this – how many people can really live in such constant ideological tension? There’s a reason a lot of people don’t make it in yeshiva, and one of these is the intensity of learning 24/7.”
I specifically did not say that one must learn 24/7 (or that O.C. 231 is an easy goal), but I believe your response and approach is dangerously close to rendering it a mere platitude.
In terms of the idea: A little nivul peh doesn’t scare me.
Let’s apply that logic to other areas of life:
Art: A few random scribbles on the canvas doesn’t scare me
Science: A few incorrect observations doesn’t scare me
Music: A few wrong notes doesn’t scare me
Mathematics: A few logical mistakes doesn’t scare me
Law: A few legal mistakes doesn’t scare me
Government: A few lies from my leaders doesn’t scare me
Engineering: A few calculation mistakes doesn’t scare me
We hear about great Rabbanim in Europe going to the Alps and the baths which we might call a vacation, but they might have justified it for medical reasons
==========================================
wouldn’t they have had a duty to publicize that reason so others wouldn’t make the mistake of thinking vacations were mutar?
K
“joel rich on September 8, 2011 at 5:22 am
We hear about great Rabbanim in Europe going to the Alps and the baths which we might call a vacation, but they might have justified it for medical reasons
==========================================
wouldn’t they have had a duty to publicize that reason so others wouldn’t make the mistake of thinking vacations were mutar”
Never heard any claims that the Rav went to the Cape for medical reasons. When the Rav was a comparatively young RY he sometimes would send postcards from the shore to at least some of his talmidim-of course one text that I saw stated something a long the lines of looking forward to shiur resuming.
“ruvie on September 7, 2011 at 9:21 pm
“I think the reason so many people go off the derech is this idea that you must always be serious.”
really, and the data says:?”
Just a variation of what RMF famously said to someone who stated how tough it is to be a YId-don’t be surprised if children don’t stay in Yahadus if it is so tough.
BTW Mycroft variation it is bad to overemphasize in chinuch tragedies eg Holocaust-if it is so bad to be a Yid why stay one the world will usually let me escape that fate by leaving. That does not mean that I advocate ignoring tragedies Tisha Bav etc but there is no Fackenheim 614 commandment theologically and practically it is not the way to keep people.
“I specifically did not say that one must learn 24/7 (or that O.C. 231 is an easy goal), but I believe your response and approach is dangerously close to rendering it a mere platitude.”
How? Because I think that people should be able to have fun and take breaks in between serious religious or secular activities? How does that reduce it to a mere platitude? Are people not capable of negotiating the time they spend and prioritizing?
I really feel that many of the commenters have an all-or-nothing approach to life which proves my point about MO being too serious. The difference between the ideal and the real is not always the difference between good and bad.
“really, and the data says:?”
What data? There is no data on it…all we have is one person’s anecdotal evidence vs. anothers’…
A – when someone says …. In think the reason….. There isn’t even a hint of anecdotal anything.. It’s usually just bs or pontificating ….
There many reasons why people go off the derech but there has been attempts of analyzing data ( of surveys) like the book off the derech…. But to say it’s because you always be serious? Please ….at least some intellectual honesty that this is nonsense.
HAGTBG wrote:
“Casablanca’s main focus is the celebration of a relationship that appears adulterous. Even worse, the (apparently) cuckolded husband is an extremely sympathetic character, the leader of the anti-Nazi underground. I was shocked when I finally saw the movie because its considered such a classic great film. But how could you show this to children or even young teens? Yes, there is a message of sacrifice – of duty versus desire and love versus the greater good in the movie, but its the sacrifice of running off from your virtuous, kind husband.”
Go back and watch the movie again, and this time pay more attention. She states explicitly that word had reached her that her husband had died in a German prison camp. Considering his anti-Nazi activities, it was thoroughly reasonable — especially in wartime — to conclude that the report was true. Would you want her to call a Bet Din to confirm her availability to remarry? Their relationship is not adulterous and doesn’t even appear adulterous. Maybe the second time you watch the film you’ll see this and appreciate its greatness.
There many reasons why people go off the derech but there has been attempts of analyzing data ( of surveys) like the book off the derech…. But to say it’s because you always be serious? Please ….at least some intellectual honesty that this is nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
When I made the observation as to how the idea of always being serious contributes to off the derech, I was thinking of many of the observations and comments in the OTD book that is referenced aboveas well as the RMF comment listed above.
If you are required by Halacha, as many of the people here suggest, one must always be serious and things always have to have a deep meaning , you can’t for example watch some nonsense show on TV and relax your brain after a hard days work, the average person may think- why do I want to live a lifestyle that is so hard and seems to outlaw fun.
I find television very educational. Every time someone switches it on I go into another room and read a good book.
— Groucho Marx
“her husband had died in a German prison camp.” — the movie (ilsa, in explaining why she left rick in gare du sud, in one of those late nite meeting in rick’s office upstairs) said “concentration camp”. in 1941.
concentration camps were known even then, even before the american edition of the mishna berura which alludes to it, in 5702 ( = 1942).
wake up. honestly, what is wrong with nudity and sexuality? nothing at all. we read the song of songs in public in the synagogue. can’t get much more explicit than that. and tu b’av – what do you do with that? judaism is much more than the carping of a bunch of old rabbis about nakedness and erections.
I have not read all the comments, but the premise of the post is silly — it assumes that the only way to have “fun” is watching TV. There are much healthier ways (healthier spiritually, psychologically and physically) to have fun than watching TV. How about playing some ball? Bicycling? A hobby? Those are all light-years ahead of TV in every way, both halakhically/mussar and in terms of physical and psychological health.
“you can’t for example watch some nonsense show on TV and relax your brain after a hard days work, the average person may think- why do I want to live a lifestyle that is so hard and seems to outlaw fun”
Agreed-to most people religion is a discretionary good-the more one has to pay/sacrifice the less one is likely to use the good. Thus the more religion cost financially or causes changes to ones preferred lifestyle the fewer are going to be religious.