129 Responses to News & Links

1. shaul shapira on July 13, 2012 at 10:33 am

   IH-

   “The problem, to restate it, is that inclusivism assaults the self-respect of the liberal Jew.”
   Only if he cares what the O says.
   “It rests on a distinction between liberal Jews and liberal Judaism.”
   Quite so.
   “To legitimate the former it must delegitimize the latter.”
   Delegimate what?

   “To include dissenting individuals, it must exclude dissenting ideologies.”
   Kind of like Reform Judaism excluding Jews for Jesus? (or do they?)
   “Tradition can only interpret the covenantal community as a community of faith and practice. To include those who stand outside the boundaries of traditional faith and practice, it must see their stance as non-essential, the result of environmental influence and excusable error.”
   I’d use a stronger word than ‘non-essential’, but then I’m not as polite as Chief Rabbi Sacks.
   “Liberal Judaism asks Orthodoxy to respect its integrity.”
   They also sometimes ask people to BDS part of the ‘amcha’. http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-head-of-reform-movement-favors-bds.htmlity,
   “That is precisely what Orthodoxy, for the sake of Jewish unity proposes not to do.”
   It’s also helpful for Jewish continuity. Care to link to Reform’s intermarriage rate?

   “The issue in Israel, of course, is one of delegated authority from the [secular] State which complicates the situation enormously.”

   Enormously indeed. That’s one of the reasons R Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld was against the rabbanut in the first place. Whatever Weizman was offering wasn’t likely to be good. (I’m not necessarily identifying with this postion, just pointing out that you’re not the first one to realize this. See also Yeshayahu Liebowitz’s article in Tradition.)
2. Anonymous on July 13, 2012 at 10:43 am

   Wasn’t there a link to the article linking RMYS to the CR of England job? What an odd thing to censor.
3. avi on July 13, 2012 at 10:47 am

   “shaul shapira on July 13, 2012 at 10:33 am”

   You admit to not understanding, and then ask questions and make comments that make no sense.

   Do you respect Jews who think differently than you or not? Is Ahavat Yisroel a Jewish concept that all must strive for, or only those who think, talk and act like you?
4. MiMedinat HaYam on July 13, 2012 at 11:45 am

   while RMF’s position re: non orthodox marriages was not necessarily accepted by many other poskim, it is the standard today. otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to marry BT’s and others that have the compunction to marry with chuppa ve’kiddushin (like those sfardim mentioned, though i disagree that it applies only to sfardim. chilonim israelis, for example). its a practical (if halachically problematic) solution.

   shas leaders cannot leave israel they’re making too much $$$ to not stay.
5. IH on July 13, 2012 at 12:33 pm

   Shaul — please email my AOL address UWSIH. I’m happy to copy Gil on what I feel the need to say privately, or even to send it via Gil if you prefer.
6. shaul shapira on July 13, 2012 at 1:41 pm

   avi-
   I’m not quite sure what you found problematic. Let me try to provide a couple of real life examples.

   Example A
   CR David Wolpe-
   1) From everything I know about him (not a whole lot), I have no reason to believe that he isn’t sincere.
   2) He probably cares very much about his congregants.
   3) I wouldn’t be at all shocked if he stays up nights worrying about their welfare.
   4) I also believe his viewes are utterly heretical and,
   5) Ultimately suicidal to Judaism.
   6) I also believe in saying so and not pretending that I think there is anything legitimate about his form of “Judaism”

   Example B
   1)My father’s cousin used to send me his used but still useful undershirts.
   2) That cousin is now intermarried.
   3) I am grateful for his undershirts even as I mourn the fact that his kids won’t be Jewish.

   Does that satisfy you? Can you at least justify my religious feelings?

   IH-
   I can’t quite make out that adress. Here’s mine-
   shaul.shapira@yahoo.com
   I probably won’t have much more to offer via e-mail than I do here.
7. Anonymous on July 13, 2012 at 2:15 pm

   Benny Brown rejoice; the hashkafa ha’tehora is back!

   http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/General+News/133199/HaPeles-Hits-the-Newsstands.html
8. shaul shapira on July 13, 2012 at 2:21 pm

   ▪ Text-Message Halakhah

   Probably my all time favorite from R Aviner (and I have alot)
   is this one:

   Text Message Responsa
   “Q: I haven’t seen [the equivalent of ] text message responsa (i.e. short Q&A) among the Ultra-Orthodox.
   A: You haven’t looked well enough. For example, there are many volumes of rulings from Ha-Rav Chaim Kanievski which have even shorter answers than those of text messages.”

   I wish I could see the expression on his face when he writes these things.
9. IH on July 13, 2012 at 3:18 pm

   The people who should be protesting the loudest about the Shaare Zedek story are those who become incensed at complaints (from “radical feminists”) that halacha objectifies women. I find the silence rather telling.
10. MiMedinat HaYam on July 13, 2012 at 3:54 pm

    IH — actually, the manufacturers of the products relabeled should protest. (in the US, the lanham (trademark protection) act would allow them to refuse to sell them anymore. since its an import situation (the pictures look like american products, though undoubtedly made in china) the importer / distributor should be told to refuse to sell them anymore.

    we’ll then see stories of charedim refusing to buy the better but non “tniut” products, and hurting themselves in the proceess. why, they’ll even call on american jews to stop buying these items.
11. joel rich on July 13, 2012 at 4:12 pm

    The Shas daily “Yom Leyom” (“Day to Day”) has suggested some original ways to protest the government’s plan to draft yeshiva students, including leaving the country altogether and filing charges againt Israel in the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague.

    In a piercing op-ed published Thursday, the newspaper’s editor, Rabbi Moshe Shafir, warned of “anarchy” or “chaos” in case the haredim will no longer be exempt from army service.
    =================================
    Leaving is certainly their right (although it’s an interesting halachic question to be sure) but The Hague???? (Did I hear someone say moseir?)

    I would agree it’s piercing but I couldn’t help but think about Titus/gittin 56b
    KT
12. shaul shapira on July 13, 2012 at 4:25 pm

    IH on July 13, 2012 at 3:18 pm

    “The people who should be protesting the loudest about the Shaare Zedek story are those who become incensed at complaints (from “radical feminists”) that halacha objectifies women. I find the silence rather telling.”

    I posted a reply to you but it appears to have vanished along with the pictures of those women. Hopefully this one will stick.
    Very briefly: Not looking at women has nothing to with her being an object and everything to do with her being a person.
13. IH on July 13, 2012 at 4:56 pm

    Not looking at women has nothing to with her being an object and everything to do with her being a person.

    I don’t know what that means. Are pictures of men also labeled over, or are they not persons?
14. shaul shapira on July 13, 2012 at 5:20 pm

    “I don’t know what that means. Are pictures of men also labeled over, or are they not persons”

    They’re persons that don’t generally cause other the other gender of persons to go ad libido. (Feel free to provide whatever Latin term actually makes sense here.)
    You remind of a comment I once saw in a YU Observer spoof. A girl from Stern comlained that the YU rabbonim had condemned the G part of LGBT but said nothing about about the L part. She thought that to be utterly sexist.

    BTW-Professor Naomi Graetz appears to have left a comment on R Gil’s second thread about her re wife beating. Whereas the comment arrived some 30+ hours after the last one, I’m not sure how many people actually saw it.
    http://torahmusings.com/2012/06/wife-beating-in-jewish-law-ii/

    …Gutshabbes[1]

    [1] Yeshivish word generally translated as ‘Shabbat Shalom’.
15. IH on July 13, 2012 at 5:52 pm

    Shaul — that women “cause other the other gender of persons to go ad libido” is the very meaning of objectify. Meaning, women are not persons in their own right, rather objects that cause some effect simply by being there.
16. Lawrence Kaplan on July 13, 2012 at 7:21 pm

    Shaul: You mean pictures of women on medical products evoke sexual reactions in Haredi men?
17. Dude on July 14, 2012 at 3:19 pm

    “I would encourage Ashkenazic Jews to drop their labels and divisions and return to the faith of their ancestors as it was taught for thousands of years. This, and not the creation and validation of competing movements, is what will help us progress one step closer to our ultimate redemption as a people.”

    Thank you, Rabbi Maroof. So, we should ignore the last 200 years? And how do we “drop” major movements?

    Is he that naive?
18. aiwac on July 14, 2012 at 3:22 pm

    Prof. Kaplan,

    It has nothing to do with whether the pictures objectively arouse people. In the view of the radical tzni’ut mongers, Women are the Devil, end of story.
19. avi on July 14, 2012 at 4:26 pm

    “shaul shapira on July 13, 2012 at 1:41 pm”
    4) I also believe his viewes are utterly heretical and,
    5) Ultimately suicidal to Judaism.
    6) I also believe in saying so and not pretending that I think there is anything legitimate about his form of “Judaism”

    Example B
    1)My father’s cousin used to send me his used but still useful undershirts.
    2) That cousin is now intermarried.
    3) I am grateful for his undershirts even as I mourn the fact that his kids won’t be Jewish.”

    Then you should be making sure that you are treating all such people as heretics and that bans are made kicking all such people out of the congregation of Israel. However it does become a bit of a problem when there are more Jewish hertics than there are Jewish non-heretics.

    The point of the quote, and what you fail to be missing is that you can’t consider them Jewish and say they are tinok Shenishba without degrading them as people. It’s a bit of a problem.
20. avi on July 14, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    “Leaving is certainly their right (although it’s an interesting halachic question to be sure) but The Hague???? (Did I hear someone say moseir?)

    I would agree it’s piercing but I couldn’t help but think about Titus/gittin 56b
    KT”

    I’m more and more convinced that really, they don’t study Torah at all. :)
21. IH on July 14, 2012 at 9:35 pm

    Three weeks ago, I unsuccessfully attempted to crowd source:

    “This year I was really struck by Rivei’i in today’s Parsha (Num. 17:9-15) and was not satisfied by the mefarshim in Mikraot G’dolot, nor did I see any relevant Talmudic reference in Torah Te’mima.

    Anyone know of any articles that explore the theological issues inherent in the unwarned, uncontrolled and indiscriminate ‘ha’ketzef mi’lifnei adonai hei’cheil ha’negef’ and the unusual way in which it is stopped by Aharon?”

    As luck would have it, R. Ben Skydell was visiting Darkhei Noam and delivered a text study today including a provocative midrash from Bavli Sanhedrin 82b that was affirming of my earlier query. For those interested, it is on the 12th line starting with אמר לפניו רבש”ע על אלו יפלו כ”ד אלף מישראל.
22. Hirhurim on July 14, 2012 at 10:13 pm

    I seem to recall that the Netziv has an interesting take on the entire episode but I don’t have one handy to check.
23. IH on July 14, 2012 at 11:00 pm

    Thanks, Gil. Nothing stood out when I took a look (http://www.hebrewbooks.org/14025), but my eyes are pretty tired by now and I will need to take another look when refreshed.
24. Lawrence Kaplan on July 14, 2012 at 11:44 pm

    aiwac: And that is the problem.
25. Elon on July 15, 2012 at 1:26 am

    I find it hilarious that the article about women’s faces being covered over features an ad with a woman on it.

    As for the pictures themselves, I think it depends on what the picture was. If it was simply a picture of a woman demonstrating how to use a sling, the complaint is a silly overreaction. But if it was a picture of a woman in a bikini with a sling, I can see how the ad would offend the modest.
26. zalman on July 15, 2012 at 9:52 am

    suggested news link: Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/opinion/sunday/douthat-can-liberal-christianity-be-saved.html
27. shaul shapira on July 15, 2012 at 2:47 pm

    DR Kaplan: LOL. Depends who, depends where. I made that clear in my original reply to IH (the one that got censored). I said I know nothing about what actually happened here, and that it was possible that in this case they were simply doing it out of fear of ‘bleacher’- creature types.

    IH- I don’t get it. Is it not possible that a person in their own right causes a certain reaction to another person in their own right?! Whatever you think about hilchos tznius (and halacha in general) can’t you at least acknowledge that maybe just maybe, there is a different underlying concern here other than objectifying people?

    Here’s one question Shu’t SMS from R Aviner:
    http://www.ravaviner.com/2012/02/shut-sms-148.html

    Shomer Negi’ah
    “Q: Is it permissible for me to help a girl while ice-skating? After all, it is only so she doesn’t fall.
    A: Yashar Koach to the evil inclination for his creativity in causing people to stumble in Halachah!”

    And here’s another:
    http://www.ravaviner.com/2012/06/shut-sms-167.html
    Honoring One’s Wife

    “Q: Which is preferable – eating Shabbat dinner with one’s wife and kids at home, or together with one’s Rabbi at the yeshiva and hearing Divrei Torah?

    A: There is no question: At home. You are obligated to make your wife happy and honor her. The Torah obligates you and you signed the Ketubah.

    Q: But Torah learning is equivalent to all of the other Mitzvot?

    A: Torah learning obligates you to fulfill what is written in the Torah. You are certainly not more righteous or more important than the Satmar Rebbe, Ha-Rav Yoel Teitelbaum. It once happened that that the Satmar Rebbe’s wife set up her Shabbat candles at home and not in the hall where they have the Rebbe’s Tisch. The Satmar Rebbe asked the Rebbetzin why she did this. She responded: Tonight, you are eating at home with just me. He said: Thousands of Chasidim and other important people are coming to the Tisch (there were usually 3000 participants)?! She said: I want you to eat with just me. He immediately gave in, happily”

    Question for you, IH: Does R Aviner objectify women? Sometimes? Depends on the textee?
28. Shaul Shapira on July 15, 2012 at 2:53 pm

    “Then you should be making sure that you are treating all such people as heretics and that bans are made kicking all such people out of the congregation of Israel.”
    I have no idea what you’re talking about? In any case, do you think I run the Congregation of Israel?

    “However it does become a bit of a problem when there are more Jewish hertics than there are Jewish non-heretics.”
    Yes, it’s tragic that rove klal yisrael doesn’t believe in the Torah.

    “The point of the quote, and what you fail to be missing is that you can’t consider them Jewish and say they are tinok Shenishba without degrading them as people. It’s a bit of a problem.”

    This is getting ridiculous. They are either Jewish or not. I don’t command any ability to make a Jew into a Non-Jew or vice versa.
    I have every right do deny that their batei din have any sanctity. The same right they have to declare me a fundamentalist.
29. avi on July 16, 2012 at 1:47 am

    “I have no idea what you’re talking about? In any case, do you think I run the Congregation of Israel?”

    That didn’t stop anyone before.
    The laws of how to treat a heretic aren’t regulated to the san hedrin.