Building Fences vs. Building Walls
Dear Reader,
This is an addendum to "The World's a Stage and We Are All Hams"
"אֵ֣ת כָּל־הַדָּבָ֗ר אֲשֶׁ֤ר אָֽנֹכִי֙ מְצַוֶּ֣ה אֶתְכֶ֔ם אֹת֥וֹ תִשְׁמְר֖וּ לַֽעֲשׂ֑וֹת לֹֽא־תֹסֵ֣ף עָלָ֔יו וְלֹ֥א תִגְרַ֖ע מִמֶּֽנּוּ׃"
"All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."
Deuteronomy 13:1
".הוא היה אומר, כל שרוח הברייות נוחה הימנו, רוח המקום נוחה הימנו; אין רוח הברייות נוחה הימנו, אין רוח המקום נוחה הימנו."
"He would also say: One who is pleasing to his fellow men, is pleasing to God. But one who is not pleasing to his fellow men, is not pleasing to God."
Avot 3:10
There is a common concept in Orthodoxy today that observers in many places can observe. The Jewish community is a very insulated community where each member tries to become God's favorite by creating fences and safeguards to prevent transgression. These safeguards are called חמרות, Chumrot in Hebrew. The gravity of each of these particular safeguards vary, but this is still a method of 'keeping up with the Jones". Observations within the Jewish community show a marked rightward movement towards the more religious, but with the same beliefs. If the belief is the same, why shouldn't the observence? We serve the same God in the same way, why should we take on extra difficulties?
-Marc Kolb
This is an addendum to "The World's a Stage and We Are All Hams"
"אֵ֣ת כָּל־הַדָּבָ֗ר אֲשֶׁ֤ר אָֽנֹכִי֙ מְצַוֶּ֣ה אֶתְכֶ֔ם אֹת֥וֹ תִשְׁמְר֖וּ לַֽעֲשׂ֑וֹת לֹֽא־תֹסֵ֣ף עָלָ֔יו וְלֹ֥א תִגְרַ֖ע מִמֶּֽנּוּ׃"
"All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."
Deuteronomy 13:1
".הוא היה אומר, כל שרוח הברייות נוחה הימנו, רוח המקום נוחה הימנו; אין רוח הברייות נוחה הימנו, אין רוח המקום נוחה הימנו."
"He would also say: One who is pleasing to his fellow men, is pleasing to God. But one who is not pleasing to his fellow men, is not pleasing to God."
Avot 3:10
There is a common concept in Orthodoxy today that observers in many places can observe. The Jewish community is a very insulated community where each member tries to become God's favorite by creating fences and safeguards to prevent transgression. These safeguards are called חמרות, Chumrot in Hebrew. The gravity of each of these particular safeguards vary, but this is still a method of 'keeping up with the Jones". Observations within the Jewish community show a marked rightward movement towards the more religious, but with the same beliefs. If the belief is the same, why shouldn't the observence? We serve the same God in the same way, why should we take on extra difficulties?
-Marc Kolb
posted by Marc Kolb | 11:09 PM
14 Comments:
I may not agree with it, but if these Jews choose to take on extra difficulties (as you call them), what's wrong with that? It seems to me that there could be some value in these chumrot, considering the other direction the Jewish community is unfortunately drifting towards- assimilation. In today's epicurian society, where morals are relative and people do "what is right in their eyes" (throwback to Sefer Shoftim), it seems there are increasing challenging to one's staying a religiously observant Jew. New technology, itself a neutral thing, can be used for good as well as for evil. It seems to me that certain extra restrictions, particularly ones in the area of shmirat einayim (guarding ones eyes from viewing certain types of content on the internet or television), make a lot of sense. These concepts are alien to our Western thought processes, but if we can extract ourselves from this mindset for a moment and consider the matter from a purely spiritual perspective, we might not have such problems with these people. I for one would much prefer someone taking on extra chumrahs than doing the opposite and dealing lightly with the halacha. Just different perspectives I guess.
How come you haven't bashed the CJF in a while?
"Tikkun Olam" huh? Sounds good. Can you please add the end part of the phrase though? "Tikkun Olam b'malchut shakai" -- we want to fix the world, but not all solutions are good ones. We want to fix it under the kingdom of Heaven-- according to the Torah and its values. We must remember this or the Jewish people's purpose will inevitably be distorted.
First I would like to respond to the earlier anonymous posting:
The problem with taking on extra hardships and difficulties is the outlook people have on it. It becomes a contest as to who is closer to God by means of more elite stringencies and the exclusion of those who do not follow those stringencies. I have observed this first hand and it is not a very pretty thing when religion becomes a race to God's side with respect to any of the curtesies that should exist בין אדם לחברו. I have been snubbed by the "religious elite" and I have been called "too religious" at times. Are we going to just disregard my sources as well, like the Biblical statement to not add or diminish:
"אֵ֣ת כָּל־הַדָּבָ֗ר אֲשֶׁ֤ר אָֽנֹכִי֙ מְצַוֶּ֣ה אֶתְכֶ֔ם אֹת֥וֹ תִשְׁמְר֖וּ לַֽעֲשׂ֑וֹת לֹֽא־תֹסֵ֣ף עָלָ֔יו וְלֹ֥א תִגְרַ֖ע מִמֶּֽנּוּ׃"
דברים פרק י’ג
Or the משנה in אבות that states:
".הוא היה אומר, כל שרוח הברייות נוחה הימנו, רוח המקום נוחה הימנו; אין רוח הברייות נוחה הימנו, אין רוח המקום נוחה הימנו."
אבות פרק ג
We have many laws that people do not follow despite taking on Chumrahs in other areas. In the ספר מדע of the רמבם, we learn that there is a balance to everything. Your comment, "I for one would much prefer someone taking on extra chumrahs than doing the opposite and dealing lightly with the halacha." would be much more suited to one who already follows the laws of the Torah rather than dismisses things like not embarassing others who do not follow that Chumrah. So I would not suggest taking Chumrahs until you know for certain that there is nothing else left to improve upon internally.
And now, the later posting (seemingly written by the same person if I am not mistaken):
Since we do not have one unifying authority among the Jewish people, how would you define "b'malchut shakai"? Undoubtedly you would define it as your own sect, but I think that this refers to the original mission of the Jews in ספר יהושע by which the Almight told him to overturn the current (at the time) social structure and introduce an ideal meritocracy where it did not matter what your 'Yichus' is or what you did before, but that you follow God with your brothers and sisters and establish the ultimate example of Heaven on Earth for the nations to follow.
Undoubtedly, you would prefer Judaism united under the banner of your sect, however, there are many sects that believe that same thing. I am sure that more left-leaning sects believe that they are the correct sect. It is only logical, otherwise, why would such a sect exist. The key to unification is not religious persecution based on theological beliefs. God existed before us and will exist after us. He does not need our service for Tikkun Olam, we need it. If any believe that we do things to please God, they are sorely mistaken because God doesn't need us. We are here out of His generous nature and exists by means of His word. Tikkun Olam is a matter of unification and an expungence of all that is bad within the community.
I would love to know your opinions on Metzitzah B'Peh and if you believe it to be correct, and if it is, should we still be practicing it today.
It's a nice idea you have, and I agree in principle to what you're saying. However, make no mistake. There are no "sects" or "streams" of Judaism. There is Judaism, plain and simple. Either you follow the halacha or you don't. There are disagreements between Sephardim and Ashkenazim, and between That said, Jews, regardless of their particular beliefs and practices, are still Jews (except those today who identify themselves as Reform Jews and are not really Jewish -- because their father was Jewish, not their mother -- and of course they disagree with this statement, but that doesn't change their halachic status). All Jews deserve to be treated with respect as Jews, but if they are doing something wrong, they are doing something wrong, and there is an obligation on your part not merely to not condone it, but to speak out against it and to tell the guy (in a respectful way of course) what he is doing wrong (and yes, that includes both matters bein adam lamakom and bein adam lachaveiro). He may disagree, and in today's day and age it's his right to do so. However, him believing something does not necessarily make it so.
As the great Zev Jabotinsky once said, "There is only one truth in the world and it is in your possession, if you are not sure about it, sit at home; but if you are sure, do not look back and everything will end up being as you want."
Obviously people behave a certain way because they believe that way to be correct. Unless you want people to abandon their belief systems, you idea "unity" will not come to fruition. However, if we recognize that there is one truth, and we may disagree with one another what that truth is, without coming to hating the other person, then unity is possible. If you believe, as I'm sure someone who calls himself Orthodox (modern or otherwise) in certain basic principles of faith (take the Rambam's 13 principles for example), then do not feel hesitant to voice this "opinion." You believe that there is a God, other people born Jews do not. You believe him to be wrong, he believes you to be wrong. So what? If you really believe in what you profess to believe, you will acknowledge this and attempt to convince him of your "opinion." Whether he likes it or not is not relevant. Not embarrassing him when you tell him he's wrong is. That is the major distinction which I think is bothering you, from what you've written. Not that what they're doing is wrong per se (I hope you have not ruled it out btw), but that the way they go about trying to convince you has offended you. I'm not sure there is a solution but good luck.
One more point I left out:
You seem to make the case for moral relativity with regards to specific religious practices. In other words, you imply that "my sect" is inherently equal to "their sects," when you say that there are plenty of left-leaning sects who believe they are the "correct" sect. So what? What does that prove?
There are plenty of different religions out there, each one professing a different meaning of truth and a different conception of God. For example, Jews believe in one incorporeal God, and Christianity believes in the Trinity (Of course there are arguments within each religion amongst the different factions, but this is a generalization of course). Jews believe God gave them the Land of Israel, and the Muslims believe Allah commanded them to conquer it because it is dhar al harb. So what?
People have different ideas of what many words mean. For example, "justice." Does that mean there's no objective justice? "Moral" is another term that has been subjected to many different understandings. Just because an anthropologist like Margaret Mead goes to some deserted island and sees people eating their mother in laws does not mean such a practice is a moral thing to do. We as [Orthodox] Jews have an objective standard of morality. It is codified in the halacha. It is not merely social justice, as many liberals try to make it out to be. There are concrete rules, and priorities in place in our morality which is based on what was given to us by God Himself in the Torah and Torah shebeal peh. If others don't believe in this objective morality, that is their choice and their problem, because such a thing does exist, whether they accept it or not. And yes, I do not believe the leftist "sects" are following the Torah and the halacha, as a general rule. The "right" is also not perfect, but their ideology tends to coincide with traditional Jewish belief more than the left's. That is my opinion, and you're free to disagree, but the key is that we recognize when our positions are motivated from true belief and the heritage of thousands of years, or when they stem from modern, western social norms.
What you are saying in this post has been the main arguement line for many a crusade. The Jews were not put here to crusade, we were put here to set an example. I am not asking people to unify under my banner of what I believe to be correct, I am asking that they tolerate those that disagree.
If what you say is logically sound, then Hillel and Shamai would have always been at each other's throats for rulings. They respected and believed in what they said, and therefore they could respect what the other said. This is all that I am trying to impart. אהבת חינם despite the actions of a person is precisely what will be the salvation of the Jewish people.
There is a famous story in מסכת פסחים by which you had one Rabbi arguing against the majority. Both parties would not withdraw their opinions. It ended in almost the destruction of a בית מדרש. How do you explain that? If those Rabbis had just left the other to their own devices, would our theology have changed that much?
Your zealous spirit is admirable, despite my comments. Do not misinterpret me, I do believe your attempts to be genuine, but they just aren't passable in the modern world. One must be able to embrace another Jew without judging them. Who are you to judge another being that is בצלם אלוקים? Who made you the prosecuter of your fellow man? Are you blameless and completely free of sin that you can condemn another man? What will stop them from condemning you? It reminds me of a משנה in אבות:
"אף הוא ראה גולגולת אחת צפה על פני המים; אמר לה, על דאטיפת אטיפוך, וסוף מטיפייך יטופון."
אבות פרק ב
"He saw a skull floating on the surface of the water. He said to it: They have drowned you because you have drowned others, and those who drowned you will themselves be drowned."
Avot, Chapter 2
Are you going to continue the vicious cycle of perpetual drowning or are you going to break the cycle by loving your fellow despite their theological differences with you. Just as you believe one way, so do they.
What you call a strict moral and ethical code is under dispute. In the text of Nachmanides disputation against Pablo Christiany, he states that there is a dogma of 13 true beliefs in Judaism, but even what those thirteen are are under dispute. Judaism is all about disputing what the Torah means for us today. Not too long ago there was something called the Karaite heresy that believed exactly as you do: the Torah delineates one doctrine and that is that. They rejected the halachic modifications of the mainstream Rabbis. Who gave them the authority to modify the religion? Why would something that was allowed a century ago not be allowed? For example, poligamy was once allowed, but then with the decree of Rabbeinu Gershom, poligamy is no longer allowed. Centuries of the legality of poligamy thrown to the wind because of a Rabbinical ruling. You are arguing your case like a Karaite. You believe that no doctrine but your interpretation (yes, that is what it is, an interpretation, even the orthodox argue about rulings) exists, yet I say from observation, experience, and a wide range of Jewish history that more than one interpretation exists.
The Torah is a manuscript meant for interpretation, but what gives your interpretation credence over other interpretations? What gives you the right to condone your interpretation and put down others? We deal in faith, my brother, faith. Faith is a very tricky thing to deal with, people have their own interpretations and peace with God, but the important thing is to accept them as brothers and sisters.
The first responce I had to that poem was wow . The poem you found was beautiful and definately strikes a true note with Jewish society today. We need to light the fire of activism and everyone must trust the other and let go of their logs and make the fire of unity bigger. In short, that was beautiful. Thank you, Shadow Mistress.
Word of the Oracle writes: "Are you blameless and completely free of sin that you can condemn another man?"
Hahaha! It seems you are reading from the wrong Bible again, my friend. That is a Christian concept ("Let he who is free from sin cast the first stone"), and it is totally alien from Judaism.
I too can quote religious texts. How about "הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך" -- that one is from the Jewish Bible, and it teaches us how to approach one who is erring in his ways. We should be trying to help people IMPROVE -- the "live and let live" philosophy simply does not work if we want to be following the Torah.
Do not misconstrue my words. Certainly there is room for debate amongst Torah scholars as to what the halacha is. "שבעים פנים לתורה", after all. The Hillel and Shamai argument was anticipated and addressed (albeit indirectly, when I referred to arguments between Ashkenazim and Sephardim). However, this example further demonstrates my point. Though Hillel and Shamai both argued the halacha for the sake of Shamayim, which is how I advocate such conflicts be done (so as not to alienate someone further). In the end though, we follow Beit Hillel (except for a few exceptions) and Beit Shamai conceded that this was the halacha, even though they disagreed. When we had a נשיא and אב בית דין, there were also disagreements between the two leaders. However, though discussion was allowed, there was one authority that had to be recognized at the end of the day. I've never said which authority to follow, nor have I stated my personal practices, because that is irrelevant. I'm saying there is an absolute truth out there. I believe it is one thing, you may believe it is another. And both of us are entitled to think the other one is wrong. We may both be wrong, but we cannot both be right. Stand true to your beliefs, or they are meaningless.
In any case, you seem to borrow a lot of terms from Christianity. This brings me to the assumption that you either just took a course in school on it and would like to show off how "worldly" you are by citing it, or that you truly do admire this religion, in which case I think you need to do some introspection and focus on your own identity. The allusion to the Crusades was both offensive and inaccurate; it is merely a buzzword that was intended to evoke certain imagery and emotion.
For someone as well versed in Christianity such as yourself, I'm certain you are aware of the implications and the inaccuracy of comparing any verbal argument to these atrocities. Very similar arguments are made very often today -- because of radical Islamists like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda who speak in the name of religion, people take that a step further to condemn all religions and the very concept of religion and a revealed Truth (with a capital T) in general. Your conclusion, like theirs, is a nonsequitur.
My point is not that we should be at each other's throats when we believe we are right, but that if we do believe something is true, we stand by it, even it's not politically correct or comfortable to do so. Certainly you must have some standards of what you consider to be authentic Judaism -- this blog is a case in point. You want to convince others that a certain way of thinking or behaving is incorrect. If someone disagrees with you, you tell them they are the cause of all the hatred and problems of the Jewish people, and that they are embarking on "crusades." Now, just for the record, I do not, as a general rule, take on these additional chumrahs that you so detest. I am not chareidi, nor am I chassidic, and I am clearly not completely secular. I do not like to make such distinctions. However, I am someone who believes in and respects the Halacha and those who are trying to observe it. There is certainly room for debate amongst rabbis, but their differences in rulings stem from interpretations of the halacha itself. Those who reject halacha out of hand are wrong -- it truly is a black and white case (and yes, that is my opinion, which is why I said it, but it is not a novel idea).
What gives one person the authority to say that his "interpretation" (call it what you like) is more credible or correct than someone else's? Thousands of years of tradition, mesorah. New "streams," or "sects," (again, choose whatever term you like) of Judaism, are the product of the modern world, the enlightenment and other external influences that do not necessarily go hand in hand with the Torah and true Jewish principles. Judaism has been reformed, conservatized, and reconstructed unto death, and it's time Orthodox started standing up for what they believe in.
I am not disagreeing that unity is an important goal, perhaps one of the most important goals, but at what cost? Do we follow the rov (majority) when the majority is advocating something against the Torah? Some might say yes, but the Talmud disagrees.
When Shebna the Scribe and King Chizkiyahu had an argument over whether to make a peace treaty with Israel's enemy, the Assyrians(land for peace-- familiar concept anyone?) -- it's in Tractate Sanhedrin by the way, since you love to quote sources so much. Anyway, the Assyrians wanted Jerusalem, and King Chizkiyahu said "No, God does not want us to surrender to the enemy. It is the halacha." Shebna said we should surrender. So they put it to a vote. The results: 130,000 for surrender, 110,000 against. Chizkiyahu said "Maybe we should surrender. After all, the halacha is that we should follow the majority." Isaiah then came and said "It is a vote of wicked people, and קשר רשעים אינו קשר, a vote of wicked people does not count."
You do not vote on truth. You do not compromise on truth. You may respectfully disagree with someone else, but your disagreement should by no means acknowledge that the other is perhaps right and you are wrong. Unless of course you don't really believe it to be the truth. And again, if that is the case, I would recommend some introspection.
That said, the way to fulfill the commandment of "Hocheach Tochiach -thou shalt rebuke.." must be done properly. It must not be done out of hatred or spite or ego, but out of a genuine concern for the other person. We believe that by following the mitzvot and the halacha, a person is elevated spiritually, and will be rewarded in this world and the world to come. If you truly believe your friend is doing something that is detrimental to his own well-being, how could you not try to persuade him to change his ways? After all, "לא תעמד על דם רעך"
The problem today is that people go about rebuking others in improper and entirely offensive (and thus ineffective) ways. I am sure that the way you feel about a charedi guy taking on chumrahs and imposing "his opinions" on you, is similar to the way chareidim feel about secular people imposing their worldview on the chareidi community. There is genuine disagreement here, perhaps based in halacha, perhaps not. It is a delicate issue that should be addressed by both sides with sensitivity.
As for the Karaites argument you made, I am sure the same case can be made for the other side. The Rabbis of the time did not consider these sects to be true Judaism (as with other "sects" or "streams" of Judaism at the time -- take the Tzidukim for example) and did not compromise on this stance. As the Talmud itself attests to, there was much debate amongst the Rabbis, but there were certain standards that had to be upheld -- and this excluded those with views like the Essenes, the early Christians, the Sadducees (Tzidukim), and Karaites, among others. Were the Rabbis "intolerant?" Were they embarking on a "crusade?" I think not. They were merely stating what they saw to be the truth, having had the tradition passed down directly from Sinai.
Dearest Brother, the Anonymous Commenter,
Ad hominem attacks on my character will not be tolerated. Consider that a warning. I am very liberal about posting comments on my site, but remember that slander will not be tolerated. I am not an anonymous poster and I put my name behind all I do. You wrote: “This brings me to the assumption that you either just took a course in school on it and would like to show off how "worldly" you are by citing it, or that you truly do admire this religion, in which case I think you need to do some introspection and focus on your own identity.” I am not so sure that that is an appropriate argument and would certainly have no place in the Jewish ethic. Yes, I quote my sources, I cite them and show you the source for your own investigative purposes. I know about the Crusades during the middle ages as everyone should. The idea of it was a war for the glory of Christianity and to reclaim what Christians felt was rightfully theirs. It was a battle based on theology (its spread and its enforcement, willing or otherwise, much like some people with their chumrahs), and that was not what I proposed. The idea of veering from הלכה to the more stringent is a direct violation of “לֹֽא־תֹסֵ֣ף עָלָ֔יו וְלֹ֥א תִגְרַ֖ע מִמֶּֽנּוּ", as is veering away from it (you say I keep quoting from the new testament, are you aware of how many times I am quoting from the Torah as per legislation? Do you also note that when I quoted the New Testament, I did so as an historical document of no theological significance? Think on that. I could have used Josephus just the same, so think before you accuse me of being a charlatan in the guise of a Modern Orthodox Jew).
Do I believe there to be one universal and unchangeable doctrine? Of course, it would be silly to think otherwise. What I was proposing has little or nothing to do with theology, it is just a promotion of loving your fellow. Do you love all Jews? Do you really? Regardless of theological stance?
Your implied proposition is to unify the Jews theologically under one doctrine. As I believe you stated, that would be impossible. So why should we just set aside our differences and accept each other for who we are? Sure, there is the concept of “ הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך", but there is also a law regarding the giving of charity. You must first worry about your local beggars before worrying about foreign ones in distant lands. So to you must first worry about your own flaws before trying to improve upon the faults of others. What you call a Christian concept is actually a Jewish one. I wasn't talking about the parable of Jesus and the Prostitute, but rather our own applied laws. In fact, פרקי אבות states it far more succinctly in the very first chapter, “אם אין אני לי, מי לי". First look out for your own theology before imposing it on others.
As per your argument about Hillel and Shamai arguing for the sake of Heaven, don't you think that those who believe in their causes were also arguing for the sake of Heaven? You may have the perspective that you are right, but what if you aren't? Have you ever considered, even for one instant, that you are wrong? Think about the perspective. Each of us believe that our sect or division is the True (with a capitol T) religion and all others are false echoes. How do we know we are the right sect? How do we know the Essenes were not correct? I'll tell you the standard line of argument: because we are still here and they are not. We survive, but haven't the secular sects of Judaism survived as well? In fact, without those secular sects, do you really think Israel would exist as it does today? Each and every Jew plays their part in the symphony that is God's master plan.
As per קשר רשעים אינו קשר, how can we sort the wicked? How do we know how God judges us and thus how can we judge others (there's another Jewish source of that self-same concept you called me a Christian for)? How do we know which קשר is a קשר רשעים? Perhaps outlawing tap water due to a sub-visual organism is a קשר רשעים. Perhaps there are other rulings that are קשר רשעים as well. How can we judge how God measures us? As I'm sure you know, there are ways to achieve Heaven in a single instant through תשובה. They achieve Heaven as if they led a life of goodness. How are we supposed to figure out how things are measured in Heaven? Perhaps you have the Divine scale tucked away somewhere, but I certain know of none.
You wrote: “It must not be done out of hatred or spite or ego, but out of a genuine concern for the other person.” You also wrote: “The problem today is that people go about rebuking others in improper and entirely offensive (and thus ineffective) ways.” about rebuke. Now I safely can say that I believe you are rebuking my views, and yet you are not adhering to your own. Your slanderous attacks against me are noted and will not be repeated on this blog. Despite my moderation rights to this blog, I let all comments through. Don't make me have to change it.
As per your second comment, kudos for phrasing it less angrily and hostily, although angry and hostile nonetheless. Do you view me as threatening that you are so hostile with me? I digress, and now back to the topic. “They were merely stating what they saw to be the truth, having had the tradition passed down directly from Sinai.” Do we know this for certain? If so, why don't we just show the documentation to the others and make them see fact for the fact that it is? You see, the Karaites did not view us as the True religion just as we did not view them as the true religion. The Rabbis establish many laws that reinforce their authority. The respect due to a Rabbi is more than that due to a father. One can view that law as a bit suspect since the respect for the father comes from the big ten, the עשרת הדברות. So before taking for granted that the modern inception of halacha is the True path to God, consider all the other paths. All in all, it is a matter of faith.
As per your deplorable behavior in the last two comments, the post you responded to was about social reform, not a theological debate. Allow me the opportunity to remind you for the third time in this comment that ad hominem attacks on my character will not be tolerated. Haven't you read שמירת הלשון?
-Marc Kolb
Who are we to judge? There are standards, and I'm sure these differ depending on the community. But certainly you can't say that we have no way of knowing what the halacha says (assuming we accept the halacha as binding in the first place, which I think we both agree on). I don't think the Essenes were wrong merely because they are gone today. I think they are wrong because I believe that what the Rabbis of the time (the Prushim) was true, and that it came from Sinai by way of mesorah. As with any matter of belief, it is not possible to demonstrate whether the belief is correct or not (for then it would cease to be a belief and would become a fact). I don't believe all opinions are equally valid, though I do believe in everyone's right to hold and voice whatever opinion he wants.
You are right though. The purpose of this forum does not appear to be a theological debate (as exciting as those are), and I think we are agreeing on the social reform issue. Certainly unity is something to strive for. The question is how does one go about achieving such a thing without compromising his beliefs? I'm not sure what you mean by asking whether I consider the possibility that I am wrong and others are right regarding religious belief. Have you ever considered Zoroastrianism or Budhism? I have enough trouble studying my own religion than worrying about what others out there believe. If you want scientific verifiability for which religion is correct, I very much doubt you're going to find it. But if you accept, as I do, the tradition of thousands of years that God appeared at Sinai to about 2-3 million people, then that's truth, and you simply grab on to truth.
Anyway, the ad hominem attacks were uncalled for. I apologize. I was not rebuking you though. I was arguing/debating with you. There is a major difference. Here is a forum to express ideas, and in that respect we're on equal footing as far as I'm concerned. I read your posts critically, as I hope you read mine.
As for the quote from Pirkei Avot and the halacha about tzedakah priorities. I'm not sure you're using these things properly (it seems to be a hodgepodge of different halachic concepts - and I don't mean that to be offensive, I just see a few different ideas mixed into one), but I will think about it. I have noted the Jewish sources, and I still think your use of the Christian sources is unnecessary. It's your blog though, so I cannot stop you from continuing to do use it (nor would I stifle your ability to do so if it were my blog).
Ok I think this hostility has played itself out sufficiently already.
I have a different question: What do you think of the priorities of tzedakah you mentioned in light of the concepts of tikkun olam you advocate elsewhere on your site? The halacha says give to your own first, correct? How does that square with certain social justice advocates acting in the name of "tikkun olam" who give to non-Jews before Jews?
I apologize in advance for the brevity, I have an important engagement tomorrow and I need to be up, so I will need to go to sleep shortly.
We know what halacha states, and we do know that, but how are we to weigh what is more important than what, I was comparing chumrot. God may judge a man's tzitzit more than his tefilin, or perhaps it is the other way around, we do not know because we have not been there. That was what I was refering to.
As per religion verification, I keep repeating myself that this is a matter of faith. It is about taking what is told to us in faith.
As per your mesorah comment, they think that their mesorah and traditions are right and we have our own that we think is right.
As per my 'hodgepodge', we can apply certain concepts to others in order to formulate a logical conclusion. Doesn't it make sense that we need to improve ourselves before helping others? We must learn to swim before we can teach it.
I accept your apology for the ad-hom. attacks, just please keep it professional, yes, this is about social reform, and no, this is not a matter of theology. We must learn to deal with the society we have, not the society we'd like to have, and that is why unification under one sect would never work. I am not saying that we compromise our opinions, but I am saying that we respect those that also think they are right even though they are not from our point of view, because most attempts to win them over would fail. Save it for kiruv movements, they do quite an effective job of informing the secular Jews enough about the religion in order to make a decision for themselves and I really respect them for that. After all, free will is a big thing in Judaism.
As for your new topic, perhaps I will cover it in a future post about donations and dedications, but for now...
While giving to non-Jews provides us with an external Kiddush Hashem, it is more important to take care of our own first. Many ethnic groups do it, and I don't see why we should be an exception. The actual halachot of it must wait until tomorrow for I really need to make this brief, but I believe the Rambam gets into it.
Good article I thought you might find interesting. (The author is one of the leaders of Manhigut Yehudit - jewishisrael.org)
No Tsunami Money From Me
by Shmuel Sackett
Everywhere I look money is being raised for the victims of the Tsunami disaster. Hollywood stars are giving money, President George W. Bush donated $10,000, the NY Daily News spearheaded a campaign and the American Red Cross is soliciting funds. I expected that and am happy it is being done.
What shocked me is when Jewish organizations, specifically Torah observant ones, jumped on this bandwagon. These individuals and institutions should be ashamed of themselves and I want them all to know that from me, they won't get a dime. Not one penny of my hard earned Jewish money will go to the Tsunami victims.
Am I being insensitive? Unfair? Too harsh? Racist? I don't think so. Actually, I am being Jewish. Sometimes Judaism contradicts Western culture and this is a glaring example.
While the Torah teaches us to be sensitive to the needs of others it is emphatic about making sure Jewish money takes care of -- first and foremost -- Jewish causes. The Torah clearly says that the poor of one's city come first. This means that when giving charity we must help those in need in our own city. This is not an option… it is an obligation.
Do you realize how many people in Jewish neighborhoods go to sleep hungry each night? Have you seen how many Shabbat food packages go out each week… and how many more would go if there were additional funds?
Have you any idea how ill equipped many emergency Hatzalah volunteers are, lacking basic equipment to keep Jews alive?
Have you counted how many Jewish kids roam the streets of "religious neighborhoods" each day, smoking and hanging out? What makes this situation intolerable is that many fine programs exist to help these teens but they lack the resources necessary to expand and reach everybody.
How about Israel? How about helping to alleviate the unbearable poverty that exists there today? According to last month's National Insurance (Bituach Leumi) report, 1.426 million Jews live below the poverty line in Israel. That's 22.4% of the entire population!!!
Are we forgetting our own brothers and sisters???
I was thinking about writing this article for a while, and held off, until I read the most shocking thing of all. A Yeshiva, located in the Five Towns of Long Island, is raising money to restore schools in Sri Lanka. The Five Towns Jewish Times reported that this school, Rambam Mesivta, raised $5,000 in a single day. "The donation will be presented by a group of Rambam students at a ceremony at the Sri Lankan UN embassy."
Helping Sri Lankan schools with Jewish money??? Are we mad?
Normally, I love Rambam Mesivta. They have an excellent Torah studies program, their secular learning is on a high level and I appreciate and applaud their emphasis on activism. I loved this combination so much that when I began my shlichut a few years ago and needed a Yeshiva for my son to finish high school, I chose Rambam Mesivta. The choice proved to be the right one and he -- and I -- enjoyed every minute of his Rambam experience. He remains close with the Rabbonim and administration to this day. Nevertheless, when I saw their recent project to raise Jewish money for Sri Lankan schools, I felt compelled, and obligated, to protest.
Allow me to tell you a little about the country of Sri Lanka. It is an island in the Indian Ocean, just south of India. 20 million people live in Sri Lanka and 70% are idol worshipping Buddhists. An ethnic war is going on for the last 20 years between the Sinhalese majority (74% of the population) and the Tamil (18%). Over 100,000 people have been killed in this ethnic cleansing battle. The government, led by the Sinhalese, have set up 131 refugee camps for the Tamil and most of them live there, in unbearable conditions.
While Sri Lanka seems to care very little about close to 4 million Tamil people who live in their own country, they are deeply concerned with the 2 million Palestinians who live in Israel. Sri Lanka has always -- 100% of the time -- voted against Israel in the UN.
Recently a vote was taken in the UN on Resolution 54/37. The text read: "Israel's imposition of its own laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem is illegal, null and void." Sri Lanka supported that vote.
Shortly after that, Resolution 54/38 was voted on which called for Israel to immediately surrender the Golan Heights to Syria. Sri Lanka supported that vote as well.
Sri Lanka is in full support of the UN's "Palestinian Rights Committee" and urges Israel to accept the return of all Palestinian refugees.
What makes matters worse is the fact that this Jew hating, Israel bashing, idol worshipping country teaches this to their children in schools that are now being restored thanks to the "Kids for Kids of Sri Lanka" program founded by Rambam Mesivta of Lawrence.
My heart bleeds when I think of this. My Jewish souls cries when I remember how my children went to Yeshivot in Karnei Shomron and Kedumim and studied in trailers with no heat in the winter, sitting the entire day in coats and hats.
How about a "Kids for Kids" program for the 400 children in Atzmona who attend school and have no playground? How about a "Kids for Kids" program to restore the schools in Itamar and Otniel, which were attacked by terrorists paying with young Jewish lives?
When will we learn that Jewish money must remain in Jewish hands until every Jew has what to eat, where to go to school and receives proper medical care? Does every Jewish bride have a nice dress? Are our elderly being cared for? Are the security needs of those Jews living on "the front lines" attended to adequately? Are the "outreach" programs properly funded?
Until every one of those questions is answered in the affirmative, I am not giving a penny to the Tsunami relief effort. The only exception to this rule would be to the Chabad of Thailand that has been assisting Jewish families in their search for missing loved ones. Other than that, forget it.
I am a proud Jew who gives exclusively to Jewish causes. Above all, I will never give a penny to the "Jewish Enemy Club" of which Sri Lanka is an honored member.
Post a Comment
<< Home