▪ Men Protest Panels Excluding Women
▪ Did Moses Have a Speech Impediment?
▪ ‘Torah archaeology’ sheds light on ancient Talmudic dispute
▪ Cadets dismissed over woman’s song
▪ Honoring Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Kook
▪ Jewish Educators Unite at Groundbreaking Youth Conference
▪ The Shomrim: Gotham’s Crusaders
▪ Clergy told to take on the ‘new atheists’
▪ SALT Friday
▪ Mea She’arim ‘mafia’ harasses, vandalizes businesses
▪ Throwing blows in Beit Shemesh
▪ ‘Harry Potter rabbi’ teaches the magical thread linking boy wizard to Judaism
▪ R Meir Soloveichik: Mysteries of the Menorah
▪ Rabbi Druckman Shocked at Dismissal of Cadets
▪ Empower Your Jewish Life by Creating Rituals
▪ Italian Marranos hold historic seminar
▪ New Volume of Igros Moshe – An Overview
▪ Senator Lieberman Talks Sex, Palin and Sabbath
▪ Kosher Bookworm: The 9/11 Legacy Ten Years Later
▪ “Terrorism” in Bet Shemesh
▪ After Sixty Years: Thoughts on Jewish Education
▪ Agunot, DNA Evidence, And Shooting Down Hijacked Planes: An Interview
▪ SALT Thursday
▪ Soloveichik Retracts re SheAsani Yisrael
▪ R. Broyde: Jewish law is more paternalistic than U.S. law
▪ September 7 Declared ‘Gilad Shalit Day’ in NYC
▪ Mossad and Morality on Film
▪ Can There Be Judaism Without Belief in God?
▪ Israel Becomes an Issue for Jewish Democrat
▪ U.S. threatens to send rabbi back to jail if he doesn’t testify
▪ Church voting site nixed after Orthodox concerns
▪ Beit Shemesh: Haredi-religious war escalates
▪ Cadets walk out as female soldier sings
▪ Writing new chapter in kid safety: Spotlight on molesters in new book geared for Orthodox Jews
▪ Central Park: Social Networking On Shabbat
▪ Rav Lichtenstein on 9/11
▪ SALT Wednesday
▪ Going holy hog: Hasidic bikers spread word
▪ Rachmastrivke Rebbe’s Gabbai Stabbed by Petitioner Who Wished to See the Rebbe
▪ Security Breach Bares U.S. Efforts to Spy on Israel
▪ Petah Tikva schools in chaos over struggle to absorb Ethiopian children
▪ The ultra-Orthodox can’t all study all the time
▪ Hundreds of thousands of Israelis demonstrate for social justice
▪ Israel as a crucible
▪ Haredim disrupt girls’ school activities
▪ SALT Tuesday
▪ More Israelis Choose Religious Schools
▪ Top 10 Non-Jews Positively Influencing Jewish Future
▪ Poles march in protest of anti-Semitism
▪ Greek Jews’ citizenship reinstated
▪ Watching over the 9/11 dead with shmira
▪ Ultimate Frisbee and the next generation of Jewish men
▪ SALT Monday
▪ Last week’s news & links
Rules: link
Abba’s Rantings
TAL:
“The officer in the Army likely thought to himself, “what, I’m going to let these dirty dossim push me around?”
i don’t think they were “dossim” (not that it matters)
And just what do you think the perjorative dossim refers to? Do you think it is limited to people who wear kapotas and black hats? Let me disabuse you of that notion.
“and you know him as the benefactor of a local college sports complex? (and if this all you attribute to him, at least be accurate, it’s more than just a rink)”
I only knew of the rink-when there was an NHL hockey strike-the NCAA frozen four was played at Columbus and the NYTimes referred to center of North American Hockey being at the Schottenstein Rink.
to give the Schottenstein Center its proper due
from
http://www.ohiostatebuckeyes.com/facilities/schottenstein-center.html
Ground was broken April 2, 1996 for Value City Arena at The Jerome Schottenstein Center – a testament to the vision of The Ohio State University Department of Athletics to provide modern, state of the art facilities for student-athletes, coaches, staff, supporters and fans – a commitment to excellence. After an aggressive construction schedule (3,888 cement trucks made their way to the building site to complete the 770,000 square foot building), the Center opened its doors November 3, 1998 for a Men’s basketball game kicking off an opening month with only one dark day. First and foremost, the Schottenstein Center is the home of the Ohio State University Men’s and Women’s Basketball teams as well as Men’s Ice Hockey, the $115 million multipurpose facility also hosts a wide variety of special events, concerts, family shows and touring productions … Home of the Buckeyes – Arena to the Stars!
“In fact, in Israel, the Artscroll Hebrew Gemara is simply called “Schottenstein.” I also know about their donations to YU”
I suspect all Hirhurim bloggers know about these donations-I suspect many don’t know that they are obviously gigantic givers to secular causes in Columbus.
I think Gil had preciously posted the views a hareidi, who has served/is serving, in the IDF about the sensitivity that the IDF shows towards the religious needs of dati’im. If you haven’t read it, here’s the link. http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2011/08/22/a-second-look-at-the-idf/. It’s clearly a difficult issue in which may different values must be balanced. But while this particular incident seems to have been a foolish error, I’ll take the insight of the hareidi with personal knowledge of what the IDF’s attitude is over the second-hand broad brush attackes of some expressed here.
TAL:
unless the term has taken on new meaning or my memory fails, “dossim” was used (including by DLs) generally to refer to haredim (ie those who pronounce datiyyim as dosim).
i won’t stake my house on it.
“mycroft: I agree that once the order was issued the soldiers qua soldiers had the responsibility to obey it. But I still believe the regimental commander was an idiot for issuing the order in the first place. The fact that he is described as being angry when issuing the order does not speak well of his judgment. He basically forced the issue unnecessarily. His order may have been a lawful order; that does not mean it was necessary or right.”
Essentially agree.
“However, his nasty comments on the discussions between R M Willig, and Poskim in Israel ”
from
http://www.forward.com/articles/142447/
“The barely decipherable exchanges between Rabbi Mordechai Willig of the Yeshiva University and the Bronx’s Young Israel of Riverdale synagogue on the one hand and the Israeli sage Zalman Nechemia Goldberg on the other, will be utterly baffling to English readers not familiar with the cadences and jargon unique to rabbinic literature. Worse, the translators have rendered these exchanges literally, resulting in dozens of atrocious mistakes in English usage.”
Read more: http://www.forward.com/articles/142447/#ixzz1XThBxDFD
The above statement could essentially equally apply to a literal translation of the Talmud-what is nasty about the review.
far more important is this part of his review
“By far, the most impressive chapter of all is the brilliant philosophical essay by the only contributor who is not a rabbi. David Shatz, professor of philosophy at Yeshiva University, engages in a profound, dialectical consideration of the need to balance legitimate, even admirable religious passion that may lead its adherents to martyrdom, with the need to maintain our reason and morality. Marshalling the profound insights of such luminaries as rabbis Abraham Isaac Kook and Joseph Soloveitchik, Shatz concludes the book with a powerful indictment of those clerics who claim to know the “reasons” for tragedies such as 9/11, from Bible decoders and fraudulent kabbalists to apocalyptic preachers.
Shatz points out that while some derive comfort from false “knowledge” of a divine “why” that explains cataclysmic tragedies, from earthquakes and floods to terrorist attacks, such mystical explanations have the deleterious effect of stymieing any rational religious quest for true understanding of the ways of God, a struggle that, like the Lord himself, must remain infinite.
Shatz thereby wisely postulates that the truly religious, indeed pious, response in the face of such a tragedy is a humble acknowledgment of the limits of even the greatest clerics in deciphering the sudden, cruel fate of so many innocents. I have yet to read a more sagacious response than Shatz’s to the tragic events of a decade ago. His essay alone makes this book well worth owning.
Read more: http://www.forward.com/articles/142447/#ixzz1XTi9zkBU
“lawrence kaplan on September 9, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Perhaps mycroft would like to explain what he meant by his silly and demeaning Schottenstein comment. Maybe it was a poor attempt at a joke that did not come off well. Otherwise, it’s almost as if he wished to provide ammunition to those who see him as an unreconstructed cynic.”
Given the apparent importance of the Schittenstein Center in Ohio State it is apparent more people have heard of the last name from that context than all the people who have heard of Art Scroll. I don’tthink the comment was demeaning obviously theSchottensteins are proud of their Ohio State gifts-otherwise they wouldn’t have hadthe Center named after them. I did not intend t9o get into a serious discussion of the
Schottensteins how they or anyone spend their own money. It is up to them-the same as I would not criticize anyone who doesn ot wish to spend their money on day school education for their own children ifthey are not comparatively well off.If anything Prof Kaplans comment “Maybe it was a poor attempt at a joke that did not come off well.” was probably the most accurate of a throwaway line that I wrote combining trivia knowledge of an NCAA final four in hockey from years ago-I was not even aware that the whole center was named after them.
Mycroft-WADR, my point was not about the quality of the translation, but the Halachic give and take-which Professor Nadler dismissed, and you which you seemingly did not quote in the entirety of your posted link.
Mycroft-are you seriously defending the following:
“The barely decipherable exchanges between Rabbi Mordechai Willig of the Yeshiva University and the Bronx’s Young Israel of Riverdale synagogue on the one hand and the Israeli sage Zalman Nechemia Goldberg on the other, will be utterly baffling to English readers not familiar with the cadences and jargon unique to rabbinic literature.
But it was while struggling through the tour de force of arcane halachic learning from Israel’s former Sephardi Chief Rabbi Ovadia Yosef — an essay that cites many hundreds of talmudic and medieval sources, precious few of which bear any direct relevance to the cases at hand — that I could identify powerfully with the disgust felt by the maskilim toward rabbinical obscurantism in the early days of the Jewish enlightenment. These feelings were most explosively expressed in Yehudah Leib Gordon’s epic 1875 poem “Kotso Shel Yud.” But, almost a century later, Chaim Grade’s Yiddish novel, “The Agunah,” issued a similar indictment against the tragically inhumane consequences of excessive rabbinical legalism
Perhaps feeling constrained by the fact that the cases were, ultimately, no-brainers, thanks in large part to the massive evidence garnered through 21st-century technology, Willig, Goldberg and Yosef revert to an embarrassing and convoluted medievalism.”
Willig, Goldberg and Yosef’s casuistic indulgences unwittingly explain the reason that the tragic plight of the agunah was such a cause célèbre for the maskilim who sought to modernize Judaism beginning in the mid-19th century”
WADR, such comments show an almost complete lack of appreciation for the halachic process and how Talmidei Chachamim work thru the issues, as opposed to a maskilishe demand for an answer in lieu of an approach that solved the problem.
Nadler’s review is nasty because he belittled the authors and judged their work by inappropriate standards. Instead of asking what the articles are and discussing them from that perspective, he decided what they should be and criticized them for not being it.
He also simply misread R. Ovadia Yosef.
He is, by the way, a regular writer for Jewish Ideas Dail and the Jewish Review of Books despite being non-Orthodox and arguably anti-Orthodox, or at least anti-Orthodox-establishment.
For those interested in who funds Israel’s far left NGOs such as BTzelem and their POVs re the future of Israel, see the following link.http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/09/06/wikileaks-new-israel-fund-endorses-end-of-jewish-state/
“Steve Brizel on September 9, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Mycroft-are you seriously defending the following:
“The barely decipherable exchanges between Rabbi Mordechai Willig of the Yeshiva University and the Bronx’s Young Israel of Riverdale synagogue on the one hand and the Israeli sage Zalman Nechemia Goldberg on the other, will be utterly baffling to English readers not familiar with the cadences and jargon unique to rabbinic literature.”
I was only commenting on at that paragraph
I interpreted “However, his nasty comments on the discussions between R M Willig, and Poskim in Israel IMO were rooted in a disdain for the halachic process, as opposed to the results therein.”
As referring to that sentence
“Mycroft-WADR, my point was not about the quality of the translation, but the Halachic give and take-which Professor Nadler dismissed, and you which you seemingly did not quote in the entirety of your posted link.”
I obviously misinterpreted your original comment and thus did not quote the entirety-I essentially agree with you about the three following paragraphs.
“He is, by the way, a regular writer for Jewish Ideas Dail and the Jewish Review of Books despite being non-Orthodox and arguably anti-Orthodox, or at least anti-Orthodox-establishment.”
One can obviously be anti Orthodox establishment without being non-Orthodox or arguably anti-Orthodox.
Mycroft-thanks for your clarification.
Mycroft: Are you saying that he is Orthodox or just making some vague comment about what is and isn’t mutually exclusive?
Myroft wrote:
“One can obviously be anti Orthodox establishment without being non-Orthodox or arguably anti-Orthodox”
WADR, isn’t that just Lashon Sagi Nahor for saying Dr Nadler is just another LW MO academic?
“Hirhurim on September 9, 2011 at 3:36 pm
Mycroft: Are you saying that he is Orthodox or just making some vague comment about what is and isn’t mutually exclusive?”
It was intended to be some comment about what is or isn’t mutually exclusive.
I have no intention of discussing whether someone is Orthodox or not-if one is interested in that question read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Nadler
and make ones own determination
Steve Brizel on September 9, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Myroft wrote:
““One can obviously be anti Orthodox establishment without being non-Orthodox or arguably anti-Orthodox”
WADR, isn’t that just Lashon Sagi Nahor for saying Dr Nadler is just another LW MO academic?”
that was not my intention-I wouldn’t describe him as LWMO-although ordained Orthodox if the following “ultimately led to his decision to leave the Orthodox Rabbinate,[citation needed] and quit the Rabbinical Council of America.”
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Nadler
is true.
Gils comment essentially guessed my comments motivation
“that has the Ohio State rink named after them”
doesnt he have an opera (or classical music) house named after him, too? in ohio.
the truth is, that may be his outside interests. besides (some form of) torah. like many other donors. when i make my second million, i may want to donate to some secular causes, besides torah causes. (though not a hockey or classical music rink.)
2. if this (quasi orthodox) academic has such a background, shouldnt it be fully disclosed by the newspaper’s editor? or does he represent himself as complatible with the image of that paper (which is somewhat limiting in his editorials. and almost all the paper’s serious articles are opinionated, to a large degree. though i personally like reading the paper regularly, errors and all.)
having said that, his concept of talmudic minuteau (?sp?) in deciding halachic issues, often does fail to look at the big picture (igrot moshe, yabeaa omer, among others, does look at the big picture, often. not always). may be worth a post of its own.
3. mens panels exclude women — i see enough baking, cake decorating, at evebts such as those mentioned. (humor)
MMY:
“doesnt he have an opera (or classical music) house named after him, too?”
and various arms of OSU, including in the OSU medical center.
“when i make my second million, i may want to donate to some secular causes”
why only the second million? jews don’t need first rate health care facilities and research institutes like the OSU medical center?
“why only the second million? jews don’t need first rate health care facilities and research institutes like the OSU medical center?”
IMHO it is essential for Jewish money to help Jewish cauuses no one else has a reason to be concerned with Jewish survival-BTW supporting AECOM IMHO is no different Jewishly than supporting OSU medical center.
MYCROFT:
i agree with you that the jewish community supports causes that funnel money away from parochial jewish needs. regarding AECOM that you mention, i agree and think that YU should spin it off as an independent entity (uness it can be argued that AECOM somehow brings in money or other real benefit to YU in general).
however i distinguish between how the jewish community assigns its financial priorities (which should be strictly jewish) and how jewish individuals do so.
and i sincerely hope that no one you care about ever requires care at an OSU-type medical facility or needs to benefit from research conducted there.
To make the point more clear, the Wikipedia article on R. Nadler points out that he has semicha from what appear to be orthodox institutions, served on the orthodox va’ad in boston, and otherwise has orthodox credentials. On the other hand, he was the rabbi at Conservative shuls, and, according to the article, left orthodoxy and the RCA. However, there are no citations to that fact, and the Wikipedia article points that out.
Therefore, it seems as if the question of whether Rabbi Nadler has left Orthodoxy is unresolved, unless there is some proof to either side.
The larger question is why the tzitzis checking and does it matter? I found his book “faith of the Mitnagdim” to be fascinating and enlightening, and find his articles to be interesting, even if I dont agree with all of them. Why cant we discuss the content and leave the labels aside. Of course, if someone wants to deligitimize a person or point of view, applying the ‘non-orthodox’ label is quite an easy way to do that, but I dont think it is a very good or fair debating technique.
“regarding AECOM that you mention, i agree and think that YU should spin it off as an independent entity”
I don’t know the exact corporate governance but AECOM is at least quasi independent.
“(uness it can be argued that AECOM somehow brings in money or other real benefit to YU in general).”
If anything it has the opposite affect-it enables people who would give to a Jewish cause the ability to ease their guilt by killing two birds with one stone by contributing to AECOM Jewish wo being too Jewish. After AECOM YU lost contributors from outside NY that would give to AECOM instead. How many NYers give to OSU medical center=a lot of Jews from aroundNA gave to AECOM.
“however i distinguish between how the jewish community assigns its financial priorities (which should be strictly jewish) and how jewish individuals do so.”
Interesting thought
“and i sincerely hope that no one you care about ever requires care at an OSU-type medical facility or needs to benefit from research conducted there.”
I beleive that by my tax dollars, insurance payments copays etc I’ve been paying keseph maleh to US medical institutions over the decades. I have been a patient at hospitals with no religious name attached to it, hospitals with Jewish names attached to it,and Catholic hospitals.
We all benefit from research-but as a Jew my priorities are Jewish causes. I benefit from research from around the world-that does not mean that I believe that should be the priority of those whose primary interest is propoagting Yiddishkeit.
“The larger question is why the tzitzis checking and does it matter? … and find his articles to be interesting, even if I dont agree with all of them. Why cant we discuss the content and leave the labels aside. Of course, if someone wants to deligitimize a person or point of view, applying the ‘non-orthodox’ label is quite an easy way to do that, but I dont think it is a very good or fair debating technique”
Agreed-unless one is looking for a posek or answer in halacha where one has to know if the person is committed to halacha-I am not really concerned if historian X or Y believes or not-at least when dealing with modern issues-the question is the person accurate in his facts and is his analysis accurate. Thus Rabbi Arthur Green may well be the leading scholar on Hassidism and I would read his books to understand Hassidism but obviously I would never ask him a sheila. Not because of lack of integrity but rather one can only ask a sheila to one who accepts halacha as binding the way we do.
BTW I took out “I found his book “faith of the Mitnagdim” to be fascinating and enlightening,” from my agreement simply because I haven’t read it-and thus couldn’t comment on that part of the statement.
“The larger question is why the tzitzis checking and does it matter? … and find his articles to be interesting, even if I dont agree with all of them. Why cant we discuss the content and leave the labels aside. Of course, if someone wants to deligitimize a person or point of view, applying the ‘non-orthodox’ label is quite an easy way to do that, but I dont think it is a very good or fair debating technique”
Isn’t the same done here without exception to anyone that smacks of Charedi?
“ccl on September 11, 2011 at 1:00 am
“The larger question is why the tzitzis checking and does it matter? … and find his articles to be interesting, even if I dont agree with all of them. Why cant we discuss the content and leave the labels aside. Of course, if someone wants to deligitimize a person or point of view, applying the ‘non-orthodox’ label is quite an easy way to do that, but I dont think it is a very good or fair debating technique””
No one says that what a chareidi says is automatically illegitimate-bloggers may question the statement and look for inconsistencies -but I don’t recall people challenging the statement that X is chareidi.
Isn’t the same done here without exception to anyone that smacks of Charedi?
For an interesting balanced discussion at least IMO about women singers and religious males in IDF see
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/religion-in-the-idf-army-needs-consistent-policy-to-avoid-offending-sensibilities-1.383339
Published 00:53 09.09.11 Latest update 00:53 09.09.11 Religion in the IDF / Army needs consistent policy to avoid offending sensibilities
Four religious cadets were ousted from officer candidate school for refusing to listen to women singing.
By Amos Harel
The growing conflict over the role of religion in the Israel Defense Forces caused another mass-casualty incident this week: Four religious cadets were ousted from officer candidate school (known in Hebrew as Bahad 1 ) for refusing to listen to women singing; five others who were slated to be ousted were reinstated after apologizing; rabbis issued a condemnatory letter; and the IDF once again found itself, against its will, in the thick of Israel’s culture wars.
A recent clarification of the army’s rules on women singing at ceremonies did not prevent the incident. That may be proof that it needs a comprehensive policy.
The current course for infantry officers has 223 cadets, of whom 93, or 41 percent, are religious. On Tuesday evening, the course held a seminar on Operation Cast Lead in Gaza in 2008. Most of it consisted of lectures on the operation’s lessons, but an Education Corps troupe containing two male and two female vocalists performed as well.
After several religious cadets were ousted last November for refusing to listen to women sing at a ceremony, the IDF Rabbinate, the Education Corps and Bahad 1 tried to forge a compromise to prevent further such incidents. The agreement, approved by IDF Chief Rabbi Rafi Peretz, adopted the view that the religious prohibition on men listening to women sing applies only to all-women troupes and not to music sung by men and women together. Hence religious cadets may not boycott the latter.
For 10 months, the compromise seemed to work. But before Tuesday’s event, two religious cadets told their superiors they intended to walk out, and despite being explicitly ordered to remain, they in fact did so. A group of almost 30 others then stood up to follow them.
Their battalion commander tried to block them, warning that leaving would constitute disobeying an order, and in the end, most stayed. But seven joined the first two in leaving.
On Wednesday, the nine were summoned to a hearing before Bahad 1′s commander, Col. Eran Niv. Niv decided to expel both the first two to leave and two others who refused to express regret. The other five were allowed to stay, both because they expressed regret and because, in some cases, it wasn’t clear they realized that leaving would amount to disobeying an order.
Unsurprisingly, a battle over the rule’s proper interpretation then erupted. Army regulations state that a soldier is not obliged to participate in cultural activities that offend his sensibilities. Bahad 1 viewed Tuesday’s event as a mandatory professional seminar. But the rabbis argued that the choral part of the evening was a cultural event, so the cadets should have been allowed to leave.
Niv’s view, however, is that “orders must be obeyed, period,” as discipline is the bedrock of all military activity. The cadets were entitled to appeal to their commanders, but the minute they were explicitly told to stay, they had to do so.
Yet Bahad 1 officers also acknowledged that the situation was not properly explained to the cadets beforehand, setting the stage for conflict.
Rabbi Haim Druckman, one of the leaders of the association of hesder yeshivas (which combine Torah study with army service ), termed the cadets’ expulsions “outrageous,” saying nowhere in the army’s rulebook does it say soldiers have to listen to women singing. Yet he took a more moderate stance after last November’s incident.
Chief of Staff Benny Gantz recently ordered the head of the IDF’s personnel directorate, Orna Barbivay, to work on resolving the issue of religion in the IDF.
But it seems that ad hoc compromises are no longer enough: The army will have to set a clear, comprehensive policy.
This story is by:
Amos Harel
Interesting article about Moshe Rabbeinus speech. An example of article that one can read irrespective of the writers personal frumkeit.
“The larger question is why the tzitzis checking and does it matter?”
It could matter – it could also not matter, but it could as well. Why could it matter? It could matter because his view of halacha might be playing a role in his critique. If he views halacha as so much voodoo then it’s very easy to understand his frustration at the way responsa are written. All you need to do is look at the DNA instead of doing the rain dance through 19th century rabbinic literature. That’s great. But it’s not Orthodox, and it is not a valid complaint within the Orthodox system of halacha. It matters if his critique is as an Orthodox rabbi arguing against pilpulim shel hevel or if his critique is as someone who doesn’t actually accept rabbinic law as valid arguing against rabbinic law functioning at all. “Darn it, man! Forget the rabbis, just look a the DNA!” is what he seems to be saying.
I would argue that his biography is unnecessary altogether since you can pretty clearly see that he sees halacha as entirely medieval and you don’t need to know what he’s done in his personal life to see that.
“I would argue that his biography is unnecessary altogether since you can pretty clearly see that he sees halacha as entirely medieval and you don’t need to know what he’s done in his personal life to see that.”
I think this lies at the crux of the exasperation some feel (including me) at the constant “tzitzit checking” that has been going on in this blog recently. R. Nadler set out his position clearly and one certainly can take strong issue with the negative points he made about the book (although I would note that he was also extremely complimentary about many parts of the book including halachic parts). But what does his religious affiliation have to do with that? If he didn’t leave the RCA and had not been the rabbi of a Conservative shul, then those objecting to his comments would not have voiced their objections? Or they would have voiced them in a softer tone? He didn’t invoke personal authority to support his comments; he didn’t say the halachic discussions were unimpressive and believe me on that because I’m an O rabbi. He asserted criticisms and explained the basis of those criticisms. His basis was faulty? Say so and explain how. Calling him C is really quite childish and, equally important, irrelevant to an intelligent discussion of his review. It’s about time we stopped what is, in effect, name-calling.
“Charles Harary, OU National Vice President, and Founder of Milvado, an organization promoting innovative methods of teaching spirituality in a relevant and modern ways, emphasized the power and purpose of individuality – that we all have specific different strengths and unique roles within Jewish history. He asked, “What is Jewish education? We rely too much on formal Jewish education to educate our children Jewishly. We all approach the world differently. To bring each individual Jew to connect with his or her purpose will ignite their passion, and together we can become the nation that we are destined to be.””
Waiting for some main stream Jewish schoot to really run its school that way-putting out press releases and brochures does not equal running a school IMHO.
“He asserted criticisms and explained the basis of those criticisms. His basis was faulty? Say so and explain how”
Such logic should also apply to criticisms of all writers and commentaters-say where they are wrong-it shouldn’t matter whose saying something argue the position.
[...] will raise dependent dependents ▪ Rabbi Maroof takes on Open Orthodoxy ▪ SALT Monday▪ Last week’s news & linksRules: link Share and [...]
mycroft — being an vp of the o-u is an honorary po$ition. it means you bring in $.
as for my comment on giving to secular causes with my second million; this would not be part of my “maasser” (plus), but extra $. there are some causes i believe in, but they would prob be more along the lines of “business” investments, as opposed to the concept of tzedaka that we have. and it prob wouldnt be such a large amt of $
as for aecom, it (originally) served a purpose of opening medical school to religious students (notwithstanding the quota issue; it had other beni’s.) spinning it off would be the business equivalent of selling a major asset for no money. assuming it is an asset (i.e., it brings in $ to the parent org, or not.) i believe it is.
[...] been done. One need only read the “talkbacks” on the original article, the discussion in the comments of Hirhurim last week, and even the remarks of the pseudonymous Jerry Haber, your typical American [...]
[...] been done. One need only read the “talkbacks” on the original article, the discussion in the comments of Hirhurim last week, and even the remarks of the pseudonymous Jerry Haber, your typical American [...]