The Irony... (UPDATED)

You've got to love it when a weekly newspaper such as the Israeli Yated puts the following letter in their paper.

All of the weeklies and freebies, including Mishpachah, distort and blur the holy Torah world view we received from our rabbonim and one should not, choliloh, bring newspapers of this sort into the home or promote them in any way.

And granting any hechsher to such newspapers is clearly out of the question.

This applies even more to radio of any kind and all Internet sites, all of which are provocative and destroy the soul, and are the root of impurities and harm.

Signing at the end of Nisan 5771.

Nissim Karelitz

Perhaps my reading skills are lacking, but do you see any exemption for the Yated (which, I believe is a weekly publication)?

On a side note, it looks like Mishpacha is "officially" out.  

UPDATED (5/6 3PM EDT):  Well, now, that's embarrassing.  S. informs me that the Yated is a daily and not a weekly and hence not included in the above referenced statement.  There goes the point of the post.  My apologies to the Yated for the error.

The Wolf

Against Ban Harassment & Threats

This is a joint statement by many bloggers about the recent ban on VIN and the actions taken against VIN and the companies that advertise on the site.  Kudos to R. Gil Student for drafting this statement and to the other bloggers who were primarily responsible for pushing the effort forward.


A little over a month ago, a number of rabbis signed onto a ban that forbade advertising on or otherwise working with the website VosIzNeias. This ban singled out one website without addressing other websites or public forums like newspapers or magazines. The singling out of a solitary website raises many questions, particularly when newspapers in the same community regularly publish arguably libelous stories and online discussion forums for the community are essentially unbounded by civility. Additionally, VosIzNeias has publicly stated that it has already raised its standards and is willing to do even more with rabbinic guidance, provided the same guidelines are applied to its competitors.

Bans of this nature are generally brought into fruition by activists and this one is attributed to a specific activist who seems to have business and political interests in this ban. He ignored VosIzNeias’ request to meet with the rabbis in order to explore ways to satisfy their concerns. With this ban, the activist is threatening the commercial viability of the VosIzNeias business.

We have now received reports of continued harassment by this activist, who is threatening to publicly denounce people, companies and charitable organizations who continue to cooperate with the website. He has also reportedly threatened to remove the kosher certification of companies that fail to adhere to the ban. However, on being contacted, the activist behind the ban denied all knowledge of this harassment and attributed it to someone acting without authorization. We are, therefore, making no formal accusation as to who is conducting this campaign of harassment.

To the best of our understanding, this activity is illegal. One individual told us he reported that harassment to the police.

Harassing good people with threats is illegal and inexcusable. We call on rabbis and people of good faith to denounce this behavior, and we encourage victims to respond to this activist as follows:

If he calls or e-mails you or your organization, thank him for bringing the ban to your attention and say that you will decide how to proceed after consulting with your rabbi or other advisor. And because of rumors that there is harassment involved in this matter, you regret having to tell him that if he contacts you or anyone else in your organization again, you will have to report him to the police.

We have a copy of an e-mail forwarded to us by people involved, which includes a pseudonym and phone number, and we have been told of intimidating phone calls. Note that at this time we are withholding this activist's identity. If he continues harassing people, we will have to be less discrete.

Signed,

The Wolf (along with many other Jewish bloggers)

If you agree, please feel free to sign in the comment section and post this on your blog as well.

Once Again, Banning Is Not The Way To Go...

YWN is reporting that teachers/administrators in Israel are being called to meetings to learn how to deal with students who come from homes where the Internet is available. The report states:

According to the latest HaMevaser report on the Internet concerns among Gedolei Yisrael Shlita, the organization of the nation’s seminaries are planning a kinos this coming Sunday to address the pressing matter. Principals of Chinuch Atzmai affiliated mosdos are also expected to convene in the near future to address the Internet problem.

Rabbonim have indicated they will not permit talmidim in mosdos if they come from homes with Internet connectivity. The same holds true for children of people who own, operate, or maintain an affiliation with chareidi websites, which have already been ordered shut, resulting in partial compliance.

I think that there is a frighteningly large potential for this type of ban to backfire that I wonder if the gedolim are truly analyzing the potential risks/rewards of their ban.

For a community that is experiencing massive parnassah problems (more so than the world at large), the decision to order the closure of websites that employ chareidim only exacerbates the problem. Now, people who were previously employed must go out and find other jobs -- probably in environments that are not as understanding of their social and religious needs as the chareidi websites were.

A person who cannot access the Internet will probably find it harder to find a job. I don't know what the situation in Israel is like, but when I need to find a job, the Internet is the first place I go to. I would be highly surprised to find that there weren't Israeli equivilents (or branches of) Monster, Dice, CareerBuilder and the like. Again, in a community where there is a large degree of poverty, we should be making it *easier* for those who are looking for jobs to find them, not harder.

By closing chareidi websites, people who used to get their news from "clean" sources will now have to go sources that are more likely to present the news in ways that the gedolim wouldn't approve of. Just to give an example... imagine that the gedolim ordered (and had the power to enforce) the closure of YWN, VIN and Matzav. What would happen? People would turn to FailedMessiah and OUJ and other sources for their news. Regardless of whether what those sites publish is true or false, I'm sure the gedolim wouldn't want people to go there for their news. The same applies to the chareidi websites -- by closing the "good" ones, they're only pushing people to ones where more salacious news will be reported. I believe this is the exact opposite of what the gedolim intended.

I also find it hard to believe that the ban is going to change the behavior of very many people. Those who were already listening to the gedolim long ago abandoned their Internet connections. Those that were already disregarding the gedolim in this regard will continue to do so. All that's going to change is that those who were accessing the Internet openly will now do so clandestinely. I think the last thing we need to be doing is setting up a situation where parents will be showing their kids that dishonesty is acceptable.* The gedolim certainly don't want to set up situations where kids will learn that it's okay to pay lip service to the words of the gedolim while secretly disobeying them behind their backs.

Then there is the issue of what will happen when a parent is caught with an internet connection. I have long been a proponent of the idea that you don't punish kids for their parents' sins. I said it with regard to Neturei Karta and I am willing to repeat it here -- unless the sin of the parent causes the kid to become a threat to the school or other students, you deal solely with the parent and not the kid. Yes, some might make the argument that the kid might see something on the Internet and repeat it to his/her classmates, etc. Hogwash. Firstly, the school can easily make a rule that *students* are not allowed to access the Internet and punish them for breaking it. Secondly, if you're going to punish the kid because he might pick up something, you can say the same thing about relatives/friends of the kids. Will you ban a kid from school because he has friends in his neighborhood with an Internet connection? Perhaps he might see something at his friend's house. What if his cousin has a TV? Maybe we should kick him out because his cousin might tell him a joke he heard on a Dick Van Dyke rerun that might make it back to the school? In other words, if you're going to kick a kid out of school because he might have secondhand access to material that you consider objectionable, then you have to extend the ban (and penalty of expulsion) quite a bit further than a parent with Internet access.

The worst part of all this is that the gedolim don't seem to realize that the battle is already lost. I can only believe that there are a significant number of chareidim in 2010 that still have Internet connectivity in their homes -- if it were a small minority, then there wouldn't be a need for such a strong public measure. If there are still a significant number of chareidim who are not willing to abandon the Internet after several years of decrees by the gedolim, then I am forced to conclude that the Internet is here to stay -- even among the chareidim.

Imagine living in a society where some people keep fierce guard dogs. The dogs are there partly as pets, but also partly for the utilitarian purpose of protecting the home from theives and other dangers. Of course, not every family has, or needs a dog. Some families may not have anything worth stealing -- and so they don't need a guard dog. Sadly, every so often, a guard dog may attack and injure a family member -- but yet a significant number of the community decide that the rewards of having the dogs around outweigh the risks. The mayor of the town, who is usually well-respected, starts speaking to people about the dangers of having the dogs around. Surely, he tells the people, you can get by without the dogs. So, some people get rid of the dogs while a significant number of them retain the dogs. Some start looking for ways to hide the dogs. Meanwhile, the families that had dogs but got rid of them begin suffering as thieves begin targeting their houses.

As time goes on, the mayor's opposition to the dogs grows. Anytime a child is taken to the hospital because of a dog bite, he takes the opportunity to hold a press conference about how badly the dogs need to go and how big a menace they are to the community. And yet, while some people heed his advice, others find the dogs too valuable to the functioning of their households to give them up. Finally, the mayor issues a law banning the dogs outright. Yet, despite that, there are still dogs in the community. Those that were inclined to heed the mayor already got rid of their dogs. Those that didn't, didn't. And so, even though the dogs are hidden, some people still managed to get attacked by dogs. Usually, it's in the dog-owning families, but occasionally, someone from a non-dog family might be attacked as well. And, of course, the thieves continue to strike because there are fewer guard dogs.

What's the next course of action to take?

The ideal course of action would be to understand that the dogs are necessary to the functioning of the neighborhood. Some people need the dogs to fend off the burglars and will not give them up. But by allowing people to have the dogs, you then have the opporutnity to encourage (and perhaps even mandate) training in dog-handling. You can teach people in the community how to react when a dog comes running down the street barking fiercely. You can teach the members of the community when and how to avoid the dogs, how to properly treat the dogs and how to properly use them. IMHO, education about the proper usage of dogs or the internet or anything else that is going to be encountered in life is the safest way to go. Will someone in this community still suffer the occasional dog attack? Certainly - but that's a far cry better than the situation they're in now.

The Wolf


* Note that this does not excuse parents from their actions -- but we shouldn't be intentionally setting up situations where this will happen on a large scale.

Dei'ah veDibur -- Are They Allowed To Have A Website?

As many of you know, the chareidi gedolim issued a ban on chareidi websites. At least two prominent sites -- Etrog and Chareidim, are closing their doors. One site that is not is Dei'ah veDibur, the website of the Israeli Yated.

Mordechai Plaut, the editor of DvD (heh, how's that for an acronym) put out the following statement concerning the ban and their website:

Statement about Dei'ah Vedibur

The focus of the campaign of the Gedolim against chareidi Internet sites is directed at the forums and blogs that are conducted on an anonymous basis for fun and profit.

Dei'ah Vedibur is the opposite of these. I am fully identified. The site is run on with a low-key style with the aim of informing about the issues that affect the chareidi community. The site has no advertising and no one benefits in any material way if there are more or fewer viewers.

We do not wish, by our presence, to be seen as in any way endorsing or encouraging use of the Internet.

Mordecai Plaut

OK, so Mordechai Plaut basically gives himself a pass because he doesn't make any money and is not anonymous. However, when I look at the translation of the ban that DvD put up, I see nothing that says that a site is exempted if it's owner is identified, if it's low-key or if it doesn't generate revenue. Their main concerns of the organizers of the ban are slander, lies, possible denigration of talmidei chachomim and increasing machlokes (dispute).

They then go on to state:

Even if these sites were free of all of the above prohibitions, they lead people to use the Internet, which is impure and has led to the downfall of numerous Jews.

and (bolding theirs)

These channels must be uprooted and removed from our midst.

I think it's pretty clear. Based on my reading of the ban, I don't see how DvD is exempted from this. I don't see how a site is exempted simply because they are low-key, non-anonymous or have no advertising. Or am I missing something?

The Wolf

(P.S. Personally, I think it's a good thing that DvD continues to operate -- for the chareidim's sake. As a commentator on YWN pointed out (comment #5), the internet is here to stay. By forcing two "clean" sites (Etrog and Chareidim) to close, the chareidim who are going to use the internet are only going to go to other sites which have far more objectionable content [from the chareidi point of view]).

Once Again, NonSequitur Says It Best....

(click to enlarge)

But There Is No Joy In Askanville, For the Mighty Banners Have Struck Out!

I'm sure that most of you remember the debacle that occurred last year concerning Lipa Schmeltzer's "Big Event" concert. For the few that don't remember, or are new here, I'll quickly recap:

Lipa Schmeltzer arranged to have a concert in Madison Square Garden in New York last March. Most (all?) of the profits were going to go to a tzedaka organization in Israel that (IIRC) helps orphans in Eretz Yisroel.

Some askanim who, it seems, have it in personally for Lipa, went around to several of the gedolim and lied about his concert. They reportedly told the gedolim that there was going to be mixed dancing (lie: there was even separate seating!) and who knows what would go on. This was all done less than a month before concert. The gedolim, upon hearing this, signed a ban on the concert without trying to ascertain for themselves if the information they were being given was truthful, without reaching out to Lipa to get his side of the story or without even consulting with one another. In short, 33 signatures were obtained and the ban was published. In the end, Lipa had to cancel the concert. Since this happened right before the concert was to occur, there were a great losses to Lipa and his partners -- not to mention the fact that the tzedaka organization in Eretz Yisroel lost out. To my knowledge (and I may be wrong), Lipa and his partners have not been reimbursed for their losses.

In the end, R. Shmuel Kamenetzky, one of the signers of the ban, to his credit, admitted that proper procedures were not followed and that the ban last year was a mistake.

Well, Lipa decided to hold another concert this year. As was the case with last year's concert, the date of the concert was well-known long in advance. And, sure enough, the banners tried it again this year. However, this year, they failed. Miserably.

The askanim managed to get some signatures for a ban, but by the time they got their act together, it was far too late -- the concert was pretty much sold out, some of the original banners refused to sign and it seems like no one is going to listen to the banners. Once again the banners decided to try to have the concert cancelled at the last minute, but this time, thank goodness they failed.

There's a particular aspect of this that bothers me - and it's not the ban itself. I personally don't listen to Lipa's music, so I can't honestly and in good conciense say that it's good or bad for Jews to listen to. So, if you feel that the music is spiritually harmful, then by all means say something -- that's your right. What bothers me the most about this whole ugly affair is the way the ban was carried out last year and the way it was attempted again this year.

In both cases, the concerts were heavily advertised well in advance. If anyone had any objections to the music, the venue, the seating or any other aspect of the event, they could have spoken up well in advance. But the banners decided to wait until the last minute before making their move. Because they waited for the last minute, the gedolim could not investigate the true story behind the concert and Lipa and his partners lost a great deal of money from the cancellation. I believe (and yes, it's only my opinion) that this was done on purpose.

The same thing occured this year. Again, the concert date was known well in advance. And again, the banners didn't raise their ugly heads until the last minute. Rather than standing up for their principles in the right way, they again chose the underhanded and cowardly way of going about their business. And this time they lost. The concert is going on as planned and, as I hear it, it's likely to be a packed house.

The Wolf

EDIT: Upon further review, I think the word "kanoi" works better than "askan" in this post. There are plenty of askanim for the Jewish community who are wonderful individuals who selflessly give of their time and money. However, since I put it in the title, I can't easily change it. But you all know what I mean.

The Wolf

Because We All Know That An Ipod + Kid Can Only Have One Outcome...

Matzav.com is reporting that a new poster (viewable from the link) is being used to highlight the inherent dangers in modern technology. The poster shows two pictures of a kid -- the first a typical yeshiva bachur in a white shirt, with a kippa and a nice smile.

The second picture shows a kid with a baseball cap on backwards, wearing a T-shirt, presumably in the act of yelling something and making an "L" with his fingers.

The two pictures are accompanied by a letter which reads as follows:

Dearest Abba and Mommy,

Just wanted to thank you for the iPod touch you got me for my birthday. It’s the coolest thing! Seriously. I use it all the time to access the most disgusting stuff in the world! You would like totally faint if you knew. Anyway, OMG! It’s like the sickest thing ever. And the internet is WAY fast. It only takes me a few seconds to download the WORST videos and photos imaginable. I can literally get anything I want and talk to anyone I want. Bet you had no idea when you bought it. That’s too bad, cuz, you know, I was just an innocent 7th grader full of potential. You probably had high hopes for me - sorry, but that’s history now. I don’t really care much about learning - or anything else - anymore and I’ll probably drop out of school pretty soon. So long and thanks for ruining me. You rule!

Love, Chaim (a.k.a. “tank”)

Of course, a more reasonable approach isn't possible, right? After all, it never occurred to them that this might be a possible outcome:

Dearest Abba and Mommy,

Just wanted to thank you for the iPod touch you got me for my birthday. It’s the coolest thing! Seriously. I use it all the time to listen to music!

I know that deep down you wouldn't give me something that could potentially be dangerous if you didn't think I could handle it responsibly. I know that if you didn't think I could handle it, you wouldn't let me have it. And I thank you for giving me the education and grounding to know how to use it responsibly. I've always appreciated that you were the types of parents of whom I could ask almost any question without fear. I'm so happy that we have the type of relationship where I can ask you, without fear of getting in trouble, if a particular song or video is appropriate for me. And because you've shown me that you're reasonable and not overbearing parents and that your opinion is trustworthy, I know that you have my best interest at heart if you say that something is not for me.

I know it must be very hard to let go and trust me to use this Ipod. I know that you're proud of me and because I know that you have such high hopes for me, I will do my best to make sure that I don't disappoint you.

Oh yeah, and I also know that you'll be watching over me as I use this Ipod. So I'd better not mess up if I want to keep it. :)

Thanks for showing so much trust in me and for being good and understanding parents.

Love, Chaim

How about, instead of demonizing the technology, educating kids in the responsible usage of it; and allowing parents to determine whether or not their children are capable of using a tool responsibly?

The Wolf

Mistakes of the Past Come Back To Haunt

Firstly, I'd like to thank everyone who wished me well when I was feeling ill earlier this week. I had been under the weather to one degree or another since the previous week, but Tuesday was, by far, the worst day. Normally, I fast extremely well, but Tuesday was such torture for me that by 1:00, I had to give it up. I ended up eating on a fast day for the first time since my Bar Mitzvah -- truly a weird experience. Baruch HaShem, I am feeling much better now. Now, on to business...

HaMercaz is reporting that R. Shmuel Kamenetzky is not objecting to Lipa's new concert. I suppose that's a good thing. The article goes on to discuss the events surrounding the cancellation of Lipa's "The Big Event" last year. In the article R. Kamenetzky is quoted as saying that people are upset about the cancellation from last year, and he doesn't understand why.

What's difficult to understand is why R. Kamenetzky doesn't understand the reason for people's anger. After admitting that he signed the banning document in undue haste, that the rabbonim did not follow the standard procedure for deciding on such matters and that they did not do due diligence in investigating the circumstances surrounding the concert which resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars for the concert's organizers and the loss of revenue for a worthwhile charity, I would think that he would understand why people are upset.

If people are going to entrust our rabbonim with the power to decide that certain events are permitted or prohibited, it is encumbent upon those very same rabbonim to investigate the matter before making a decision with large finanical consequences for many people. Had the rabbonim done their best to investigate the matter and gotten it wrong, I think that not so many people would be upset -- none one (including the rabbonim) are perfect and they, like everyone else, can make mistakes. But when they make important decisions without performing a diligent investigation into the matter, that's when people get upset. People expect leadership based on facts and information. People will accept if a rav says assur (prohibited) or muttur (permitted), provided that the decision is based upon a proper review of the facts surrounding the situation. But when the rabbonim "wing it" (so to speak) and make decisions based on a lack of information (or worse, biased and blatently false information), that's when people rightly become upset. To quote Stan Lee: with great power comes great responsibility. If a gadol is given the power to make important decision, then he has to be responsible for the inputs that goes into those decisions.

And, of course, the damage to Lipa is still ongoing. In the article, R. Kamenetzky relates the following:

“Last night I was at a certain affair,” R' Kamenetzky said on Monday. “Reb Lipa had to come there for some reason. He sang. And someone came over with Tainas to me. And I said, as far as I know there is no problem with letting him sing. As far as I know he is an Ehrliche Yid.”

The Wolf

Related Posts:
The Big Event Cancelleation: Lipa Says The Rabbanim Were Lied To (linked to in the post)
The Gedolim And How They Relate To The Common Person

Teaching Kids To Use The Internet Responsibly.

G (over at SerandEz) brings up a very interesting interview that Horizons Magazine had with Rabbi Yaacov Haber, the national director for education at the OU. In the interview, Rabbi Haber talks about some aspects of the state of Jewish education today. He champions (as I long have) the idea of education over banning. Here's his take on the matter:

The internet has proven to be capable of a great amount of damage to Jews of all ages. However, it is important to remember that the internet is a reality. There will come a time in the not-so-distant future when it will be impossible to pay a bill, bank, make a phone call or even turn on a light in your house without using the Internet. Instead of forbidding the Internet and non-kosher cell phones, it would seem to be more prudent to teach students how to interact with the Internet responsibly. If we were to forbid everything that we can use the wrong way we must include cars, mp3 players, and for that matter---women! We have to be very careful with internet technology---but forbidding it is not the answer in the long term.

The timing of this article is rather serendipitous for me. It was just this past week that Walter signed up for his first Facebook account. Eeees and I, as parents, allowed him the account, but with some restrictions. He knows that we are watching. He had to add Eeees and I as "friends." We can see what he posts on other people's walls and what they post on his wall. And, conversely, he can see how we use Facebook. Both Eeees and I are on Facebook (if you know who I am, feel free to send a friend request) and we both use it responsibly. We keep in touch with family, friends (both old and new) and classmates around the world. And this is how we hope he will use it. Sure we can give lectures about how it's to be used (and yes, we will be giving some instruction on responsible use), but more importantly, as we do in many other areas of life, we're hoping to teach by example. We realize that by acting responsibly ourselves, we deliver the strongest message that we can on the responsible use of technology.

Does that mean that it's impossible for something to go wrong? Of course not. There is always the possibility that something could go wrong in every aspect of life. Every time someone gets out of bed in the morning, there is some element of risk. But we can't live our lives by lying in bed all the time. We take the risks associated with going out of our houses each morning because we realize that the potential benefit of doing so (whether it's to go to work, school, the ballgame, etc.) exceeds the potential risk. The same applies to technology. As Rabbi Haber points out, there is going to come a time, in the not too distant future, where technology will be required to function in today's society. If we don't train our kids to use it responsibly we face one of three possibilities, none of them appealing:

1. We ban it outright. They accept the ban and choose to live life without the Internet. They are then marginalized by society. They will find it nearly impossible to go to college, get a decent job and function in daily life. In short, they will be marginalized in society.

2. We don't educate our kids and let them do as they will. Then they'll surely run into some of the seedier sides of the Internet and not be prepared to handle them.

3. We ban it outright. The kids don't accept it and sneak Internet usage behind our backs. Or, when they finally become adults and are no longer under our direct supervision, they move out and access the Internet in their own homes. Then scenario #2 (above) plays out.

Unless you're planning your children's adult lives (something no parent, IMHO, should do) and deciding that they should live a marginalized life (think of the Amish), the only responsible choice is to provide education on responsible internet usage. To do otherwise is akin to allowing your kid to using any other tool without basic training. You wouldn't allow your kid to use a circular saw without watching over him and making sure he knows the rules. The same applies here.

The Wolf

(Note: There were other parts of the interview that interested me as well. I think there may be another post in the future on this interview.)

Questions About The New Lakewood Ban

Blog In Dm points us to a news article on HaMercaz about a play for women that was banned in Lakewood yesterday. There were two things about this ban that were very unusual.

Firstly, it was delivered by autodialer. A machine called up homes in Lakewood to advise people that the Roshei Yeshiva in Lakewood had banned the performance.

The second unusual factor about the ban was it was announced right before showtime. Literally.
According to the article, the phone calls were made after 8:00pm on the night of the performance. Most people had already left their homes by then.

Blog in Dm makes the valid point that there is absolutely no reason in the world why this ban should have been issued at the last minute. Much like the ban against the "Big Event" in March, the event was well-advertised ahead of time and that if one was going to ban it, it should have been banned well in advance. Banning it on the night of the performance is inexcusable and laughable.

To me, however, the whole thing just doesn't pass the "smell test." There are just too many troubling questions here. Some of the questions I have are:

1. Was this for real? Did the Roshei Yeshiva really ban the concert just hours before showtime (or at all), or is this someone's idea of a sick joke? Or was it an attempt by someone with an agenda to sabotage the event without the approval of the Roshei Yeshiva? After all, anyone with the proper equipment can set up an autodialer.

2. If the ban is real, who described the planned event to the Roshei Yeshiva and what, exactly, did they say would happen at the event. How accurately was the program depicted to the Roshei Yeshiva? The phone call didn't say why the show was banned, only giving a vauge "not in the spirit of tznius."

3. Were the organizers of the event given an opportunity to defend the show? Were they even consulted? Or did the meeting and banning happen entirely behind their backs?

4. Why weren't we told exactly why the show was banned? What, specifically, is objectionable?

5. Why was the ban issued at the last minute? Why wasn't this talked about and any possible objections brought to the fore in the weeks preceeding the event?

There are probably other questions that can be asked as well. I'm curious if anyone knows the answers to these questions.

The Wolf

Related Posts:
The Gedolim and How They Relate To The Common Person
Do The Gedolim Understand the Nature of Today's Orthodox Jewish Community?
One Final Note On the Lipa Concert

Just How Far Does A Beis Din's Jurisdiction Extend?

Does it extend for five thousand miles? Or across three centuries?

It seems that (according to Vos Iz Neias) a Kol Korei was issued in Kiryas Joel* banning silver and gold shoes for women because such shoes are immodest, stunning and attention-getting.

According to the Kol Korei, the basis for the prohibition of gold and silver shoes is a ban issued by the Bais Din of R. Yechezkel Landau (the Noda B'Yehuda, who passed away in 1793).

Now, I'm sure that the people in Prague (where the R. Landau lived) would certainly have adhered to the ban. But just how far does the jurisdiction of R. Landau's Bais Din go? Does a local Bais Din have the power to prohibit all Jewish women everywhere in the world from wearing a particular style of shoe? Do the Rabbanim of Kiryas Joel follow the decrees of every properly constituted Bais Din in the entire world? If so, how could you possibly avoid running afoul of contradictory rulings? (It reminds me a lot of Ned Flanders' plea to God: "I've done everything the Bible says - even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff!")

Of course, I don't think that's the case. A local Bais Din's ruling should only apply to the community in which it is located. I can't see how basing this ban in Kiryas Joel based on a ban by a Prague Bais Din makes it legitimate.

Interestingly, according to the article, it seems that shoes that were bought in Prague before the ban were not included in the ban. This leads me to two thoughts:

1. The ban was not entirely for tznius reasons. If it was, why should shoes bought before the ban be exempted? Were they any more modest than the post-ban bought shoes?

2. The ban was about tznius, but R. Landau was concerned about the welfare of the community to such an extent that he didn't want to see people lose money on the shoes they already bought and was willing to let women in his community wear shoes that were non-tznius anyway, becuase he understood that you can't be a tzaddik with someone else's money.

If the latter point is true, then perhaps some of today's community leaders can take a lesson from this and understand that you shouldn't cause undue monetary losses to people in the name of enforcing chumras.

Nonetheless, I'd still be interested in hearing from people on this. How far does a Bais Din's jurisdiction last? How much time has to elapse before a ruling can be reconsidered? Or do we say that since we aren't as wise as R. Landau, we can't convene a Bais Din to overrule him and therefore the shoe ban lasts forever?

The Wolf


* I have not seen the Kol Korei. If anyone can send it to me, I'll be more than happy to put it up.

Two Quick Takes on MP4 Players and Non-Mehadrin Buses

Just a couple of quick takes on things that are happening. I may expand on these in later posts:

Banning MP4 players

It's been reported that MP4 players have been banned by rabbonim in Israel because of the possibility of accessing inappropriate content. This, of course, is on top of the ban on DVD players, computers, the Internet, and cellphones that aren't technologically frozen in the late 1980s.

Whenever there is a new technology available, there are two possible approaches to take:

(a) An outright ban
(b) A cautious acceptance with education

What are the possible outcomes of these approaches? My guess would be as follows:

(a) Some people will adhere to the ban while others will secretly disobey it. As the technology becomes more common in the mainstream, it will eventually filter into the hareidi society as well. Since there is an outright ban on the devices, no education on how to use it responsibly will be given. Youngsters may stumble onto content that they should not be accessing and, not having had any guidance in how to avoid it or why it is to be avoided, will stumble into it. Eventually, as the devices become common enough to be owned openly, you will have large numbers of people who have already clandestinely been viewing things they should not.

(b) Educate people on the dangers of having such devices. Teach them that it's better that they not own them and explain why. Play to the positives (i.e.... "It's not befitting a yid to waste his time watching videos. You're above that...") not the negatives. Encourage them to act responsibly. Will there be some who will go and search out bad stuff anyway? Of course there will... but I'm willing to bet that most of them will be the same people who would do so under the other scenario.

What's the best answer in the short term? Probably the first one. However, I think it completely fails in the long term - and this is the type of problem that you want a long term solution for... not a short term one.

In many ways, I'm grateful that the telephone was invented over a hundred years ago, otherwise, there would be people banning it now (after all, you could use it to call a member of the opposite sex).

(Yes, I know I ignored the vandalism aspect of the story. Perhaps I'll address it later.)

Women and Public Transportation

There are reports that rabonnim in Israel are trying to create additional mehadrin buses by encouraging the Bais Ya'akov girls to monopolize the back of non-mehadrin buses, thus forcing men to sit in the front. To be honest, I'm not quite sure how this would really change matters... after all, there is still nothing preventing a woman from sitting in the front of a non-mehadrin bus and nothing preventing a man from sitting in a spare seat he finds in the back. In addition, how are they to enforce this? Will they start punishing Bais Ya'akov girls whom they find riding in the front?

In any event, I personally find the whole idea demeaning and insulting. To be fair, "back of the bus" doesn't carry the same ugly racial and social overtones in Israel that it does in the United States -- so it may only be my cultural biases that cause me to react so... viscerally to this idea. And, nonetheless, while I try to be dan l'kaf z'chus whenever possible, I'm finding it very hard to see this other than as a means to denigrate women. Women and men travel together on public transportation all over the world in many cities without nary a problem of impropriety. Why can't the hareidim in Israel be expected to behave any better than a subway rider in New York City?

The Wolf

The Big Event Cancelleation: Lipa Says The Rabbanim Were Lied To

Vos Iz Neias is reporting that in a recent interview, Lipa Schmeltzer maintains that the Rabbanim were lied to regarding what was going to happen at the Big Event Concert.

From the article:

Schmeltzer claims he has come to understand how activists work after speaking with several leading rabbonim. “Many gedolei hatorah have told me that people came to them with false information regarding my concert: they said it would have mixed dancing or mixed seating. But they weren’t satisfied with that—they brought photos of women dancing so as to ‘prove’ that that’s what would happen.”

Considering the fact that the concert was to have separate seating (and certainly no mixed dancing) it seems obvious that, assuming Lipa is telling the truth, it is apparent that the Rabbanim were lied to and that at least some of them did not even so much as speak to Lipa or the organizers of the concert to ascertain the truth before banning the concert and causing a massive financial loss to the organizers and a worth tzedakah organization.

Related Post

The Wolf

Infallible Gedolim Or Just A Looney Letter?

I'm sorry folks. I know it seems like I'm beating a dead horse but I can rarely resist when I see letters like this.

This week's Letters to the Editor of the Jewish Press contains a letter that is just so irrational and full of silly logic that I just have to step in and say something. Here's the letter verbatim:

Re the criticism leveled by readers at the banning of the Lipa Schmeltzer concert (Letters, March 21):

Whatever happened to “naaseh v’nishmah” or “kiymu v’kiblu”? Whatever happened to listening to daas Torah and emunas chachomim? Chazal say the common sense of people is the opposite of the wisdom of the chachomim.

The same rabbonim who pasken on whether the chickens we eat are treif are now paskening on whether our entertainment is treif. We trust them for kashrus – why not for our ruchnius? Perhaps we should have a mashgiach’s hechsher haskomah on our “kosher” entertainment, especially when we expose our children to it. Why can’t we have kosher concerts with completely separate seating with mechitzas and shomrim for tznius? We sit separately in shul and at simchas – why not at concerts?

It was a complete chillul Hashem that this story leaked out to The New York Times. The secular world does not have to see us degrade our rabbonim by calling them “dictators.” They are infallible! These gedolim from across the spectrum are very responsible, caring, concerned, sincere tzaddikim who worry 24/7 about our hashkafa – our ruchnius and our gashmius.

The cancelled concert was billed as “The Big Event.” The real Big Event for B’nai Yisroel was Mattan Torah at Har Sinai, when we accepted our zekainim our leaders, our daas Torah. We have to listen to our gedolim even when we have questions. If Chazal say it’s night, we must trust them even if it’s really day.

These rabbonim help people day and night with agunas, almonos, yesomim, shidduchim, children at risk, chinuch, parnossah etc. They daven for us and make time for us to answer our questions, solve our problems, etc. There’s an aveirah min haTorah of “Lo sosur m’divrei chachomim” – which applies even when we disobey the chachomim in our days. If we’re not going to obey our elders, why should our children respect us when they disagree?

On Purim, the Jews did teshuvah for disobeying Mordechai and once again accepted his leadership and decisions. Let us reestablish our own commitment to our chachomim, our gedolim, our tzaddikim, our rebbes.

Oy. Where to start? Well, I suppose we can start at the beginning:

Whatever happened to “naaseh v’nishmah” or “kiymu v’kiblu”?

Sorry, but when the Jews said "na'aseh v'nishma" they said it specifically on things that were coming from God, not from Moshe. In fact, having learned about the Dor HaMidbar (the Generation of the Wilderness), I'm always willing to bet dollars to donuts that they were only willing to accept what God gave them. Had Moshe said "oh, and I have this 614th mitzvah for you as well" they would have rejected it out of hand (the prohibition of Bal Tosif [adding commandments] notwithstanding).

Whatever happened to listening to daas Torah and emunas chachomim? Chazal say the common sense of people is the opposite of the wisdom of the chachomim.

Sorry, but "Emunas Chachomim" has never meant completely shutting off your brains and literally following the gedolim without seeking to understand why they rule as they do.

The same rabbonim who pasken on whether the chickens we eat are treif are now paskening on whether our entertainment is treif. We trust them for kashrus – why not for our ruchnius?

There is a very good reason why we should not trust the rabbanim on this issue (at least specifically with regard to the Lipa concert). When I bring a chicken to a rav and he rules trief, I know that I can be reasonably assured of four things: (a) he will actually look at the chicken in question and base the decision on his own findings (b) I can also inspect the chicken and look up the halachos and also determine that the chicken is treif, (c) if I take it to another rav, the overwhelming likelihood is that he, too, will say it's treif and (d) if I bring another identical chicken to the rav, he will give an identical ruling.

That's not the case here. The Lipa Schmeltzer concert was banned based on false information, rumor and innuendo. The gedolim (to the best of my knowledge and according to published reports) did not so much and pick up the phone and contact the organizers of the concert or the performers to find out if the rumors they were hearing were true or not. They simply took the word of the instigators and relied on that without any further efforts. In other words, they didn't even look at the chicken.

In addition, I know that if I bring my rav a chicken, I can ask him *why* the chicken is treif. I can ask him to show me where in the Shulchan Aruch or later authorities it says that it is treif. In other words, I can ask him what the basis for the ruling was. No real basis for the ruling was given in the kol koreh that was distributed.

The biggest problem, however, is the last item I mentioned above. There have been countless other concerts in the past that have gone on, some with mixed seating and some with separate seating, without any problem. In addition, there are concerts coming up in the future that have both mixed-seating and separate seating sections and there is no kol koreh concerning them. Why not? If one of the criteria for a concert being "bad" is the presence of mixed seating (as indicated later in the letter) then why haven't the 33 rabbanim who signed the previous kol koreh against Lipa also signing one against the upcoming Miami Boys Choir concert? In short, if a rav rules my chicken treif and then one that is more obviously trief is ruled kosher without explaining why, then I *have* to question the rav's judgement. Of course, if he can tell me the reasons for his ruling, then that's a different story. But that's not what is happening here.

Why can’t we have kosher concerts with completely separate seating with mechitzas and shomrim for tznius? We sit separately in shul and at simchas – why not at concerts?

The short answer to your question is because there is no halachic requirement to have a mechitza by a concert. If you want to hold to the chumra of separate seating by a concert, then kol hakavod -- but don't force your chumras on me or everyone else.

The even shorter answer is that the Lipa concert had *ony* separate seating -- so don't try to pretend that that's the reason the concert was banned.

It was a complete chillul Hashem that this story leaked out to The New York Times. The secular world does not have to see us degrade our rabbonim by calling them “dictators.”

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... Seriously - if you're suggesting that the gedolim be given the power to dictate every last detail of our lives, then what else would you call them but dictators?!

They are infallible!

I don't know how any rational, thinking person can believe this. I have to conclude that the letter writer is completely ignorant of Jewish history where gedolim who were far, far greater than the current group have made errors - sometimes very grave ones with terrible consequences for the Jewish people as a whole.

Only God is infallible. To suggest that any human being is infallible is bordering on heresy IMHO. He is attempting to ascribe to a human being a quality that God alone has.

These gedolim from across the spectrum

From A to B (okay, maybe from A to D). I didn't see anyone outside the yeshivish/chassidic communities signing the prohibition. Or does the letter writer just assume that people who fall outside the narrow band of the communities represented by the gedolim aren't "Jewish enough" to be included?

are very responsible, caring, concerned, sincere tzaddikim who worry 24/7 about our hashkafa – our ruchnius and our gashmius.

I'm certain that some of them are. But that doesn't make every decision that they make very wise or even correct.

The cancelled concert was billed as “The Big Event.” The real Big Event for B’nai Yisroel was Mattan Torah at Har Sinai, when we accepted our zekainim our leaders, our daas Torah. We have to listen to our gedolim even when we have questions. If Chazal say it’s night, we must trust them even if it’s really day.

You might want to check out the Yerushalmi in Horiyos on that. It says that you should listen to Chazal only when it is correct -- not when they make obvious errors.

These rabbonim help people day and night with agunas, almonos, yesomim, shidduchim, children at risk, chinuch, parnossah etc. They daven for us and make time for us to answer our questions, solve our problems, etc.

That's all true and to their credit. And yet, it's completely irrelevant to the question of their fallibility.

There’s an aveirah min haTorah of “Lo sosur m’divrei chachomim” – which applies even when we disobey the chachomim in our days.

Again, see the Yerushalmi in Horiyos. And I'd like to ask the letter writer the same question that I asked last week -- if a rav told him to do something completely drastic (divorce his wife, move to the Congo, kill his neighbor, send his kids to live with frum strangers on the other side of the country, etc.) would he really then follow up and do so without a second thought or without *any* hesitation?

If we’re not going to obey our elders, why should our children respect us when they disagree?

There's a difference between respect and blind obedience. I respect my father, but if he told me to take my 401(k), cash it out, and invest it in a uranium mine in Asbury Park, or no-cal pizza, I'm not going to do it (unless he can really convince me that it's the right thing to do). We owe our parents respect for the hard work and effort they put into raising us, but not blind obedience. They same applies to the chachamim. They deserve respect for their Torah knowledge and for their efforts to the community; but not blind obedience.

The Wolf

Lipa Ban: JP Letters To The Editors

This week's Letters To The Editors in The Jewish Press is devoted entirely to the issue of the Lipa concert ban. Of the six letters published, five express concern and/or dismay at the ban and/or the way it was handled. The sixth letter, however, is from Dr. Yaakov Stern (I seem to recall hearing that name before on this blog). After telling over a story about a chassid and his rebbe, he continues:

This story illustrates the faith we must have in our religious leaders. Sadly, we see how far we are from this ideal in light of the reaction to the banning of the Lipa concert. I hate to use clichés, but in the matter of following Gedolei Yisrael, “Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do or…” You can fill in the blanks, and they should be taken literally because not only we are dealing with a lav of the Torah (Lo Tosur), but to malign our religious leaders is to undermine the foundation of Yiddishkeit.

It seems that Dr. Stern's position is that when a Gadol says something, we are to immediately turn off our brains and simply do what we are told to do. I suppose that's one way to conduct one's life... but I highly doubt that many of us would really do so. I'm wonder; if a Gadol told Dr. Stern to do something truly drastic in his life (give up his house, divorce his wife, kill his neighbor, etc.) would he actually do it without a second thought? I don't know Dr. Stern, so I can't rightfully answer that question - but I will say that if the answer is "yes," then it is downright scary the amount of control over his life that he's willing to cede to others; and if the answer is no, then he's simply being hypocritical -- after all, I don't think that in his Torah the lav (negative commandment) of Lo Tosur doesn't have any exemptions.

Rashi, on the verse of Lo Tosur, quotes the Sifri, which states that you have to listen to the sages even "if they tell you that right is left and that left is right." Well, that is one way of looking at it. Then, there is also the Yerushalmi's way of looking at it. The Yerushalmi in Horiyos (1:1) seems to state just the opposite. It states:

יכול אם יאמרו לך על ימין שהיא שמאל ועל שמאל שהיא ימין תשמע להם ת"ל ללכת ימין ושמאל שיאמרו לך על ימין שהוא ימין ועל שמאל שהוא שמאל. (I might think that if they [the Rabbis] tell you that right is left and that left is right that you should listen to them, the verse, "to go right or left) comes to tell you that [you should listen to them only] when they tell you right that is [really] right and left that is [really] left.

In other words, one is only required to listen to the Sages when, in fact, you know that the ruling is based on solid fact. If they make a ruling that is mistaken (telling you that right is left, for example), then you aren't under any obligation to follow them. I often find it interesting how whenever anyone brings up the topic of listening to the Gedolim, the Sifri is always mentioned, but the Yerushalmi is usually ignored.

But hey, we can say eilu v'eilu, right? He can follow his way if he likes and we can follow our way, right? Alas not. He continues...

Alas, I fear this exhortation will be lost due to the modern day Korachs who appeal to the masses to reject the edicts of those who seek only our best long-term interests.

Alas, it seems that someone who disagrees with anything a gadol says is a "Korach," no matter how sincere or well-intentioned he is in his belief that the Gadol may have made his ruling on facts in error. I find it interesting that Dr. Stern chose to use Korach to describe anyone to disagrees with him, since the dispute of Korach is given in the Mishna in Avos as the archetype of a dispute that is not l'shem shamayim (for the sake of heaven). If I read enough into his statement, I suppose I can say that he is implying that if you disagree with a Gadol, your opinion can never be truly l'shem shamayim, since you are just like Korach.

If that's the case, it's sad. Sad that some feel we've come to the point where differing opinions are bad and that one must shut off one's brain in order to be a good Jew. It's also sad to see that some people have to resort to ad hominem attacks (calling people with differing opinions "Korachs" to make their point.

The Wolf

(Just as a final point, there is one point in his letter that I agree with Dr. Stern on. If one disagrees with a Gadol and thinks his ruling is based on facts that aren't true, that's one thing. But it's no license to "malign our religious leaders." Disagreement with anyone, whether it be a Gadol or a layperson, should be done with respect.

One Final Note On The Lipa Concert

Sometimes it's nice to receive a confirmation of one's words.

A few weeks ago, in this post, I said the following:

In the past, gedolim used to do first-hand research to discover the facts of a situation before they ruled on it. Yes, there were times that they got it right and there were times they got the facts wrong... but at least they tried to get them.

Today, however, it seems that gedolim simply take their cues from neighborhood zealots. They are fed misinformation about a situation causing them to rule on cases that do not exist. I can think of two examples off the top of my head:

a. The concert ban at hand. Chaim, at Life of Rubin, shows how gedolim are fed misinformation to get them to sign onto bans. One person signed only after he told that there would be mixed seating, when, in fact, the concert is separate seating.

b. The ban on Rabbi Slifkin's books. His books were banned by rabannim who, for the most part, had not even read the books. Even three years later, some of his opponents are still seeking to continue the ban (warning: PDF) based on misinformation and distortions of what he said.

We're all familiar the idea of GIGO -- garbage in, garbage out. In order for a posek to make a ruling on an issue, he has to have first-hand knowledge of the facts of the issue. If you're going to ban the circumstances of a concert, at least make sure that the facts are as they've been presented. If you're going to ban a book, at least make sure that the book actually states what you think it states.

This past Shabbos, the rav of my shul spoke and made the *very* same points that I did (and expanded on them a bit). He pointed out that the ban reflected a very severe lack of Ahavas Yisroel on the part of the askanim. After all, had it been their families' monies at stake, would they have pushed for this ban without so much as a phone call? Even if you want to be extremely generous, and state that their actions were l'shem shamayim (for the sake of Heaven -- motivated purely for the religious good), you can still bet that if it were their families monies, they would have at least tried to contact the producers and performers to express their concerns. They certainly wouldn't have had a ban instituted less than three weeks before the performance when the only possible outcome could be an extreme loss of money. The fact that they did this clearly shows a lack of Ahavas Yisroel on their part.

In addition, he also brought up the issue of the ban itself. Since it's apparent that at least some of the signers of the ban didn't have all the facts, he wonders how such a ban could have been signed. When issuing a p'sak (ruling), a rav has to have the facts of the situation. That means that he has to investigate all the details before issuing a ruling. He can't rely on second hand reports from people with axes to grind. Likewise, he pointed out, if you're going to ban a book, you have to make sure that it says what you think it says. You can't rely on a translation from someone who claims that it says something on page X without seeing it for yourself. Now, I should point out that the rav of my shul has been critical of Rabbi Slifkin and his writings -- but at least I know that he's read the books. He's ascertained that they actually say what it is he is critical of. To do anything else, IMHO, is irresponsible.

The Wolf

Do The Gedolim Understand The Nature of Today's Orthodox Jewish Community?

In the aftermath of the BigEvent concert cancellation, BloginDM has an excellent set of questions that need to be answered regarding what transpired. I don't actually expect any of them to be answered anytime soon, but they should still be asked.

In any event, there is one quote that has come out of all this that has troubled me very much. The quote comes from Rabbi Asher Friedman:

"The gedolei yisroel don’t want that issue [to be discussed] on the radio and in newspapers. It doesn’t belong for the public to decide on issues that belong for Da’as Torah.”

In short, this amounts to "shut up, do as we say, and don't ask any questions."

Personally, this attitude troubles me very much. Not so much because it demands unquestioning obedience and unquestioning compliance (which is bad enough) but because it shows a complete ignorance of the reality of the world of today as opposed to the world of a hundred years ago or more.

Specifically, the issue at hand is the assumption that the masses are not only unable to decide these things for themselves, but that they are incapable of even understanding the issues involved. In short, by stating that the issues shouldn't even be discussed in public (let alone decided there), Rabbi Friedman (or maybe even the Gedolim themselves -- I don't know for sure) seem to think that having the public informed of the reasons for the decrees which bind their lives is a Very Bad Thing.^TM

The problem with this approach is that while it might have worked a hundred years or so ago, it does not work today. The fact of the matter is that the laity today is far more knowledgeable and far more sophisticated than the laity of a hundred years ago. It is an ever-shrinking portion of our community who is saying that they will blindly and unquestioningly follow "Da'as Torah." The percentage is smaller today than it was a century ago, then it was fifty years ago, and even smaller than it was ten years ago. The Torah knowledge of the average Orthodox Jew today is much greater than it was back then. A century or more ago, a person took the rabbi's decree without question because they had no practical way to look up the issues involved. Today, thanks to better yeshiva educations, new and better translations of classical works, better communications and the proliferation of shiurim (Torah classes) available to the public, the average Orthodox Jew has a much better chance of looking up and understanding the Rishonim and Acharonim on any particular issue. In short, the average Orthodox Jew is far more "Talmudically literate" than he was a century ago. Whereas in the past, you pretty much had to take a gadol's word on the matter, today you can "double check" his answer and ask questions on your own.

It's the failure of Asher Friedman (and maybe the Gedolim -- although I don't see how they could miss this) to recognize this basic fact that is the most troubling of all. It shows that he (they?) doesn't have a grasp of how Jews today think and how to relate to the Orthodox Jewish community as a whole.

In addition, there is another factor that needs to be taken into consideration -- the fact that we live in the United States of America. One of the most basic ideas of Americanism is that the leaders are accountable to the people that elect them. The President, the Governor, the Mayor -- all of them have bosses -- the voters. If they want to implement a particular policy, they have to (at some level) explain it to us, the voters. Failure to do so is usually a good way to ensure that you don't get re-elected (unless you're in the New York State legislature -- but that's a rant for a different day). This idea (whether you like it or not) is creeping into American Jewish communities. While our gedolim are not elected, per se, they still need to be accountable to us. When they ban concerts, they have to explain why they are banning a concert and what the parameters of the ban are. While they can't be voted out of office for this, they face a worse danger -- being rendered irrelevant. If they can't (or won't) give people good reasons to listen to their decrees, they will find that larger and larger segments of the Orthodox Jewish world will simply tune them out and ignore them. And that would be particularly sad; because it will show that while they may have a great amount of Torah knowledge, they lack a very basic skill of leadership -- learning the needs of your followers and how to make them want to follow you. If you can't get people to follow you, then your relevance as a community leader is greatly diminished - no matter how big of a talmud chacham you might be.

The Wolf

What Is Happening To Us?

There have been several news stories over the past few months (and general trends that are observable over the last few years) that have me wondering where we are going as a people.

Of course, everyone knows about the violence on the buses in Israel. Last year, Miriam Shear was beaten on a bus for refusing to leave a seat that she was legally entitled to keep. This year, we have another story of a woman who was beaten for not leaving a seat (I don't know if this was a "mehadrin" [separate seating] bus for not, but even if it was, there is no excuse for beating someone up over this anyway), and an Israeli soldier was beaten for coming to her aid.

We have stories of vigilantes who go around destroying clothing they find offensive and torching people's businesses for selling items that they find offensive.

We have stories about ever-more extreme steps being taken to separate the sexes to the point where concerts are banned even when they have separate sex seating. We take away almost every opportunity for adult singles to meet each other and then we complain that there is a "shidduch crisis." In some circles, adult singles aren't even allowed to meet until the prospective date is vetted out for every possible detail from the truly legitimate avenues of inquiry to the downright silly questions of tablecloths and loafers versus laces.

We have stories where boys are told to extort large sums of money from their future fathers-in-law, even when they can't afford it, because the yeshiva's prestige is more important than the father-in-law's finances and shalom bayis.

Whereas once we were a people proud to be educated in all areas of endeavor, we now seek to become a people who shun all knowledge outside the daled amos (four cubits) of Torah. Women's education programs were banned in Israel (where, in Chareidi circles, women are the main breadwinners of the household) and those who already completed the program have found themselves blacklisted from employment in their chosen field of teaching. Instead of recognizing that there are matters that can be disputed within Judaism, we now seek to outright ban anyone who doesn't toe the official party line.

We've become a people who are so afraid of anything that isn't 100% Jewish in origin that we seek to ban pizza shops or mobile restaurants who dare to operate in our neighborhoods.

We've fostered an environment where not only is it not acceptable to simply "stay out of trouble," but we've defined "trouble" as not actively learning Torah at any given moment. Sporting activities, day trips and the like are now ruled out in many communities because the boys should be learning Torah and not wasting their time with recreation. My Rav recently refelcted on the fact that when he was a boy, there were Saturday night "fun programs" of sports and the like to keep boys out of trouble; now it's all learning programs, when, in fact, young boys (for the most part) are not really capable of keeping up such a schedule. In his words "they should be playing, not learning."

We've set up a society where everyone scrupulously follows all the rules, not because they want to, or because they think the rules are correct; but because they know that if they don't, it will be held against their children when it comes time for shidduchim. Everyone struggles to keep up with the chumra (stringency) -of-the-month club so that they shouldn't seem like second rate Jews.

We've created an environment where people are no longer trusted to be able to police and think for themselves. Cell phones with text messaging has been ruled assur (forbidden) because people might use it to contact others of the opposite gender. Schools have tried to institute policies where parents cannot have Internet access in their house on pain of expulsion on the pretense that they are protecting the children (which, if it were truly the case, then they should just ban the children's use of the Internet). I'm kind of surprised that no one has tried to say that it's forbidden to sleep in the same house with one's wife when she's a niddah.

We have set up a world where "work" has become a dirty word. For thousands of years, from the time of the entry into Eretz Yisroel until recently, the vast majority of our people earned their living while learning part-time, while the truly exceptional scholars among us were supported by the community in full-time learning. Now, it seems that everyone is *expected* to learn full-time and that people who work because they have to either face an economic reality or because they have the maturity to recognize that they aren't capable of full-time learning are looked down on and discriminated against in shidduchim.

We have a community that judges you more by the material that your yarmulke is composed of than the contents of your neshama (soul) and where the material that your skirt is made out of is more determinant of your observance than how well you actually observe the mitzvos (commandments).

With all this currently happening in our midst right now, I shudder to think at where we'll be in twenty to thirty years if nothing changes.

We need to stop leaning always to the right and return to a centrist position. In the sea, a ship that lists too far to the right or the left will eventually sink. Only a ship that is even and upright can survive the voyage. If we don't, the challenges we face in the next generation will be far worse than those we face now. The "teens-at-risk" and "adults-at-risk" situations didn't happen in a vacuum -- they came about at least partly because people have found that Orthodox Judaism has gone so far to the right that they no longer have a place in it. The further we go to the right, the larger these problems will become as more and more people will feel alienated in their own religion.

The Wolf

Rabbi Eli Teitelbaum: Kids Need To Have Fun

Rabbi Eli Teitelbaum wrote an article which appeared in The Yeshiva World today. In it, he decries how it has become standard operating procedure to ban anything that is remotely fun. Concerts, trips, sports and other youth activities which are, in varying degrees, banned in our communities, should be allowed and encouraged in a kosher environment. He correctly points out that kids need an outlet for their energies (aside from learning) and that if one removes all such outlets, kids will find other outlets... and they will be far worse. If you don't allow kids to participate in sports or cultural activities and the like, then they will be gathering in pool halls in the Catskills. Or, as he succinctly puts it:

When sports and concerts are forbidden, and all forms of kosher entertainment are off limits, we are asking for trouble. If our kids can’t find a place to vent their energy within a kosher environment, then they will find it elsewhere.

Amen.

In his article, he gives examples of times that he organized youth activities and met with resistance. In one case, he tried to have the boys in his Pirchei organization put on a play based on the book Family Aguilar. When people tried to have the play banned, the matter ended up being escalated to R. Moshe Feinstein. Instead of issuing a ban, R. Moshe gave it his blessing.

In another example, he arranged for a two-day trip to Washington at low cost for boys. The trip was going to be taken on the two days that the yeshivos gave off for Channukah. One Rosh Yeshiva wrote R. Teitelbaum a nasty letter accusing him of encouraging bittul Torah. Fortunately, R. Teitelbaum was able to fend him off.

It's very interesting that the difference between R. Teitelbaum's point of view and the point of view of others in our community is brought to my attention right now. Walter just began high school this week and it looks like he's going to have a great time there. He's encouraged about the learning programs, the secular education and the extracurricular activities. Indeed, when we went looking for a school, we purposely went looking for a place that had all three of these elements -- we wanted a school that had a great learning program that would keep him challenged and interested; we wanted a school with a quality secular studies department that would show him the possibilities that exist in our world, and a school that had supervised extracurricular activities for him to be able to channel his creative energies. I purposely didn't want to send him to a high school such as that I went to: where the learning was boring and uninteresting, where the secular studies were a joke, and the word "extracurricular" didn't exist because the school day went from 7:30 in the morning to 9:30 at night every day without variation; where the word "trip" didn't exist and the word "activity" might as well have been in Mongolian. In my old school, if it didn't involve learning, it shouldn't be done (although I suppose they did allow for some recreation -- boys were allowed to play basketball during recess). In looking for the type of school for Walter that recognizes that kids are kids and need kosher extracurricular activities, I find that I have explicitly rejected the opinions of the "banners" and embraced the opinion of R. Teitelbaum.

I can only be thankful that there are rabbis out there, like Rabbi Teitelbaum, who have not forgotten what it is to be a kid and to need an outlet for youthful energies.

The Wolf

The Internet Ban: Doomed To Failure

Bluke notes that in today's Hamodia, there is an article about the Chareidi population of Israel and the U.S. Embassy there. The problem is that the Embassy only sees people by appointment... and the only way to make an appointment is online. For those that are banned by their leaders from using the Internet, this could potentially be a very big problem. Furthermore, it appears that the Embassy has no plans to allow people to register for an appointment by phone.

As Bluke points out, this is a trend that will continue as many more services move toward an online-only model. Bill paying, banking, job searching, government services and many other essentials of modern life will eventually only be available on the Internet. Eventually, the Chareidi population will have to make a choice... to eschew technology altogether (no phones, no lights, no motorcars.... not a single luxury) or come to terms that the world is changing and if they want to remain a part of a functioning larger society, then they'll have to adapt to it.