Frumteendex

Frumteendex comments will be closed

2007-08-17T05:40:00.000-07:00

I'm leaving to Yeshiva soon, Biezras Hashem. It wont affect this index, if anyone is reading it, but I wont be able to put up comments anymore. The only other person who knows the password is the head Moderator of Frumteens, and he is way too busy for such a job. Thank you.

Finished!

2007-07-02T12:38:00.000-07:00

The editing of Frumteendex is over. At least for now. Should I include any more sections?

Mitzvos

2007-01-03T18:14:00.000-08:00

There are certain Mitzvos, which, by their very nature, obligated people differently according to their levels. These are notable exceptions, the ones that come to my mind offhand being Kedoshim Tihiyu, and Talmud Torah. The amount of Kedusha and the amount of Torah you must learn depends on your level.

---

You do a Mitzvah because Hashem said so. While we do get closer to Hashem by doing Mitzvos, and Mitzvos "lift up" the world, and it is fine to have all those things in mind when doing the Mitzvah; the reason you are doing the Mitzvah is none of the above, but rather because a Mitzvah is the will of Hashem.

To illustrate this, consider a hypothetical case where you could (a) get closer to Hashem, or (b) lift up the world, by going against the Ratzon Hashem. Would you do it?

No, you would not.

Then consider a case where you could fulfill the Ratzon Hashem but by doing so you would get further away from Hashem, or bring the world down. Would you do it?

Yes, you would.

The question, rather, is what should be your motivation to listen to Hashem?

The answer is, there are different levels: There is Ahava, the higher level, where you listen to Hashem's will because you love Him. The reason you love Him is because of the wonderful things He does for you, that is, out of gratitude to Him.

The lower level is Yorah - out of fear.

---

Kaddish is not "such an important part" of Judaism. It is actually a custom - not one of the 613 Mitzvos, not even a Rabbinic Mitzvah, and surely not one of the 13 Fundamentals of the religion.

Among the non-religious, Kaddish became like the most important part of Judaism, and that is because the non-religious Jews used to have religious parents, and when those religious parents died, the non-religious children figured they'd do something nice and honorable for them religious-wise in their honor, since the parents always believed in the religion anyway. So Kaddish became it.

Of course, where the custom applies, it is considered honoring one's parents to say the Kaddish. That means if you do not have a minyan, or if you are a woman, or a slew of other circumstances as well.

Women do not say Kaddish because a custom, by definition, is followed according to its established methods, and when Kaddish was instituted, it was explicit that women do not say it.

The reasons it was instituted that way could be many: don’t forget - if you read the words of Kaddish, you will find not a single mention of death, deceased relatives, honoring the dead, or anything at all that would motivate someone to say this prayer in honor of or in memory of a deceased relative. In fact, the main part of Kaddish - yehai shemei rabbah - is merely an Aramaic translation of the prayer "boruch shem kevod malchose l'olam vaed", which we all say twice a day anyway, women included, and even without a Minyan.

The kabbalistically-aware sages who instituted this custom did so because as per to Jewish mysticism, this prayer, when recited in a certain way (with a minyan), at a certain time (after the aleinu prayer, and sometimes some other places, during the davening, for the first 11 months after the death of certain - not all - relatives, and on the anniversary of their death thereafter), and by certain people (men), if is of benefit to the soul of the deceased. When said not under the specific designated conditions, it does nothing for the soul, and for all we know can perhaps even be harmful.

There are times and circumstances that the Kaddish is optional; there are times when the Kaddish is mandatory; and there are times when the Kaddish is prohibited. All of this is based on the original, kabbalah-based reasons for the kaddish in the first place.

But as I said, Kaddish is NOT a main part of Judaism at all, and it is not to even the main way to honor deceased parents. The main way to do that is available to males and females both - if the children follow the Torah's path, it is a greater merit and honor for the soul of the deceased than 1,000 times saying Kaddish.

That is what Orthodox Judaism says - if you want to honor and commemorate your parents after they are gone from this world, let your behavior be proper, do Hashem's will, and let your parents be proud of you.

The Kaddish is only a custom.

---

Misc./Undecided

2007-01-03T18:12:00.000-08:00

Whether time travel is possible depends on whether "time" exists as a real entity at all. Meaning, it is possible, and there have been those who have said this, that time is nothing but a way to measure history, the same way that inches, say, is a way to measure distance. According to this, even before the world was created, there was still "time", since time is not a thing that needs to be created. The Tashbetz holds like this.

So just as you cannot have distance without inches, so too you cannot have events without time. What happened, happened. Time isn’t a thing that you can travel through, or remove, or override. It’s merely a measuring stick that our clocks created the same way rulers created inches. If this is so, then time travel is impossible.

However, the majority of Torah authorities hold that time is a thing, the same way space is. It is not merely a measuring stick but rather a creation that came into existence with Brias HaOlam. Prior to Brias HaOlam, there was no time! Rav Saadia Gaon is the first that I can think of off hand who says this, and he is followed by countless others.

Of course, it is impossible to imagine a world without time, but it is also impossible to imagine a world without space either, which is the way things were before Creation. In fact, it was a world without a "world". It’s impossible to describe, to understand, and Chazal say we are not supposed to contemplate the way things were before creation.

According to this, it would definitely be possible to travel in time, since time is a measurable entity, rather than merely a method of measuring other entities. And just as you could travel through space, you could, theoretically, travel through time.

Of course, regardless of the above dispute, Hashem exists above and beyond time, and is aware of past, present and future, kavyochol, all at once. This applies only to our world, not to Hashem.

Although I am not aware of anyone in Torah who has actually traveled through time, we do know that people have been shown the future, even to the point of seeing "every generation and its leaders."

As far as the scientists are concerned, pre-Einstein they basically believed that time is absolute but motion is relative. Meaning, something can be moving in relation to me but not in relation to you. Example: I am on a bus traveling 60 MPH. I throw a ball to the back of the bus at a speed of 60 MPH. To me, that ball seems to be moving. But to someone outside the bus, the ball isn’t moving at all, since the bus is going 60 in one direction, and the ball is going 60 in the opposite direction, meaning, the ball is standing in exactly one spot suspended in mid air!

But time, they held, was not relative, but rather absolute.

In 1887, the Michaelson-Morley experiment showed that they were wrong.

Einstein held that even time was not absolute, but rather relative as well. Under different circumstances, time itself would move slower or faster. (I know this is weird sounding stuff, but it appears to work).

If this is true, time is not really independent of space, and time travel may well be within the realm of possibility, just as space travel is. (Sounds like science fiction, I know. Maybe it is. These things change a lot).

As for the Maharal, if you get a hold of Rabbi Aryeh Carmel's translation of the Maharal's Hakdoma to Gevuras Hashem ("The Book of Divine Power"), the appendix explains in illustrated laymen's terms, what the Maharal means in light of the relativity theory of time.

According to these opinions, time doesn’t really exist. The entire concept is merely a creation of the clocks and watches, just like inches. What you call "time" I am referring to as "history", meaning, the occurring of events. "History" is what happens, "time" is when it happens. The "when" is merely a measurement, a point in history, the same way an inch is a point on a line. This opinion says, you can’t travel through time, since time doesn’t really exist, it’s not a thing. Events are things, and when they happen, they’re over and done with. Time is not something that can be over ridden since it is not real.

The Divrei Yoel quotes the Nezer HaKodesh who explains the phrase "Hamachlif es hazemanim", meaning, that Hashem "switches times". The NZH"K says it means that Hashem kind of "cuts and pastes" one day onto another time period, so that you can have, let's say, Jan. 15, 2055 happening tomorrow. He says that’s what happened with Yetzias Mitzrayim - Hashem took the day that was supposed to happen after 400 years of Golus and made it occur 210 years after, which is how we explain the discrepancies.

Then he goes on to say that the reason Moshe said "Kachatzos" is because since that day was not really the day that Paroh had on his calendar, but rather a day that was transplanted from 190 years in the future, Chatzos would have come out a bit before or after Paroh expected.

It's a pretty cool "vort", but it’s actually the opposite of time travel. Time travel means you are traveling through time. Time remains the same, but you go from point A to point B in the time stream. Here, time itself is traveling from one point in history to another.

But I hear the point. The world actually experienced a day in time other than the one that was scheduled on the calendar to come. So I guess in a way that is time travel.

The yesod belongs to the Nezer Hakodesh. The Divrei Yoel merely used it.

Not everyone agrees that time is dependent on matter. Its possible that time is merely a "fact", that doesn’t need to be "created." Like, lets say the rule the A^2+B^2=C^2, is just a fact, not a creation, and did not need an act of creation to validate it (so says the Chazon Ish).

Note: Do NOT think into this stuff – it’ll make you nuts. We can’t imagine a world without time any more than we can imagine a world without matter.

---

Of course Hashem often allows good things to emerge from bad ones.

I know a Jew who became an atheist, and his Christian girlfriend dragged him to Church one day, which in the end led him to question and later discard his atheism. Eventually, he came back. If it wasn’t for his shiksa and her idolatry he would have remained an atheist.

Does that mean its OK to go out with shiksas? And to go to Church?

What about a guy who gets drunk, takes a drive, passes a red light, totals the car, and, laying there in the hospital, decides he has to straighten out. Does that mean drunk driving is OK?

It says nowhere that good things cannot come from bad - but that does not make them less bad.

---

Batsheva was divorced; all men who went to war in David’s army divorced their wives beforehand lest they be lost in battle and the woman remain an agunah. Uriah was deserving of the death penalty for the crime of Mored B’Malchus, when he declared loyalty to Yoav (“adoni Yoav”), who killed Avner ben Ner. Dovid gave the man a hero’s death in battle and his wife the status of a queen. This had nothing to do with lust. Nosson the prophet chastised King Dovid for this only because for a man of such a stature as Dovid, it should have been done in a more seemingly innocent way.

---

I don't always know the answers. But the way to know as much as you can is to be objective and always look for the truth.

Here's the rule: The way to always come out right in your arguments is to make sure you always argue for the right side.

---

In the "shmuezen" of Rav Nosson Wachtfogel ZT"L, the Mashgiach of Lakewood, Rav Nosson tells how he once came to the Satmar Rebbe ZT"L and asked him: "How does one acquire Yiras Shamayim?"

"I don't understand you," the Rebbe told him. "The posuk says in Mishle (2:4) "If you pursue it the way people pursue money and riches, then you will understand Yiras Hashem.

"Do you know how hard people work to acquire riches?" the Rebbe continued, "They work hard, long hours, leave their families to travel abroad, they work at dangerous jobs, they spend their live at it!

"And if you pursue Yiras Shamayim like that --- it doesn’t even say that you will acquire it! It says 'You will UNDERSTAND it'! Meaning, then you'll first understand what it is! When you reach that point, you then have to try to acquire it!"

At this point in your life, don't be upset that you haven’t acquired Yiras Shamayim. You are not expected to have it.

At this point in your life, focus on fulfilling the Mitzvos, acquiring proper Hashkofos, and improving your Midos. You have to walk before you can run.

---

The stronger and more sincere the commitment the more your chances of success.
This mainly has to do with your choices. It's not a formula that you can run but rather a decision and commitment on your part to do what needs to be done.

However, if your desire is there but you do not have the character strength to carry it out, you are probably carrying the spiritual malady known as "rifyonus". It means, simply, weakness of commitment. It's a milder form of apathy ("atzlus"). It's where you want to do something but do not have the strength to do it.

This is unfortunately a very common experience. It's a negative Middah that has to be eradicated, just like Gaavah or Achzorius or any bad Middah.

It needs work, but it can be done. Slowly, but surely. You can change yourself so that you will be able to have the strength to fulfill your sincere committments.

You need to get a Sefer and study it. It's called Chovas HaTalmidim, by Rav Klonimus Kalman Shapiro of Warsaw. You can get it in English - "A Student's Obligation" by Aronson Press, but the Hebrew is much better. Get both, if you need the English.

He deals head-on with this Middah, and his Sefer was written specifically for teenagers. Please follow his advice, and slowly you will be able to strengthen yourself and do what you really wish you were doing.

---

Obviously, involvement in sports (watching, not playing) is a waste of time etc. But the fact is that Yeshiva guy do outgrow it, it doesn’t seem to do harm in the long run, so I would say choose your battles and leave it alone. Don’t worry.

That having been said, it is also true that our actions when we are young have a lasting impact on us. Rav Sheinberg shlita was in America once during world series time, and he told someone that even though now he is obviously millions of miles away from these things, he still feels a little "surge" when he hears the Yankees won. A throwback from his childhood years.

In a l'chatchilah world, we would not have sports. But it’s not worth fighting over.

---

The Gemora (Shabbos 96b) has a complaint against Rabbi Akiva because he revealed the name of the "mekoshesh" (i.e. Tzelofchos), since the Torah did not want to reveal the name of the sinner. We see from there that when the Torah did reveal the name of a sinner it was done so for that particular case. And the reason invariably is for us to learn a lesson from it --- often it may be to teach us that even great people can be nichshal in various ways.

I once heard from Rav Shimon Schwab ZTL that he holds history books do wrong by revealing negative information about various personalities. He told me that when the Torah does it, it is al pi nevuah, and comes for an important toeles. But when people do it in history books there is no excuse.

(That having all been said, according to the letter of the law, the Torah prohibition of loshon horah does not apply to deceased people. Of course, that is not a contradiction to anything I mentioned above).

---

Sometimes, the seforim will bring down Chazals that are nowhere to be found in our collection of Chazals.

Sometimes, a sefer will bring something in the name of the Zohar, and it's not found in our Zohar - such as the famous quote "man denafach midilei kanafach", which is brought in some chasidishe seforim in the name of the Zohar, even though it's nowhere in our Zohar (it is, however, found in the sefer hakanah of Rav Nechunia ben Hakanah).

Other times, the Rambam will bring something that has no source anywhere except the Zohar, even though it is pretty clear that the Rambam didn’t have the Zohar. This is either because the Rambam figured out these facts on his own, without the Zohar, since he was, after all, the Rambam, or he must have had Medrashim that we no longer have.

Some unscrupulous pontificators even used to make up Chazals and then create complex explanations to "interpret" them - see Maharsha (Mahdura basra) Shabbos 88b.

However, when a reliable sefer openly quotes a Medrash or a Chazal, we can be sure they exist. Problem is, sometimes Chazals they quote just aren’t anywhere to be found. Examples:

The Maharsha himself (Chulin 91 and Bava Basra 15) quotes a statement that Talmidei Chachamim are careful on even less than a perutah. This is not to be found in our chazals.

The HaKosev in the Ain Yaakov (and if memory serves part of this is also quoted by the Daas Zekeinim al HaTorah) quotes a Chazal in the introduction to Ain Yaakov: Ben Zoma says, we find a posuk that includes more, i.e. shema yisroel; ben nanos says, we find a posuk that contains even more - veahavta lereacha komocha; shimon ben pazi says, there’s a posuk that contains even more ..." This is not to be found in our chazals.

The Panim Yafos in chukas quotes a Chazal that says there will not be a generation like that of Dovid and Shlomo until Moshiach comes (this is quoted in the name of Kabalah sefroim, but seemingly not found in chazal).

The Ohev Yisroel in Vayeshev quotes a Gemora in Bava Basra 75b - asidin tzadikim sheyamru lifneihem kodesh ... and the gemora asks how is Hashem referred to l'asid lavo, and it answers, Hashem is call Kodosh forever. This is not to be found in our Gemora.

When this happens, it means that the seforim had chazals that we no longer have, or perhaps a Mesorah about it, or perhaps a different girsa in the Gemora.

---

Sholom doesn't mean everyone should just allow everyone else to do what they want, since you're forgetting Hashem is in the middle of all this. So in other words, if let's say you were married and someone was getting in between you and your husband, making him angry at you and breaking you up. Would you say it is better to continue being connected with her and letting her come between you and your husband or to have nothing to do with her?

So too, often, when people make Hashem angry at us and cause us to get into fights with Hashem we have to make Sholom with Hashem first even if it means severing relations with our friends.

The Meforshim point this out from the fact that Pinchas, in reward for killing Zimri, was given "a covenant of peace". Even though what he did was just the opposite of peace.

Or so it seems.

What Zimri was doing was causing a rift between us and Hashem. To make Sholom Bayis between us and Hashem Zimri had to be eliminated. So what Pinchas did was actually creating Sholom.

Another example: The Halachah is that is a heretic writes a Sefer Torah, we BURN THE SEFER TORAH! With Hashem's names!

The Gemora explains:

If we destroy Hashem's Name to make peace between a husband and wife (when we dissolve Hashem's name for the Sotah), all the more so should we destroy Hashem's name to make peace between Klall Yisroel and Hashem.

So burning this man's Sefer Torah is called making peace!

It is, because it's like throwing out the boarder in your house that is constantly causing fights between you and your husband.

If let's say a woman was tempting your husband to cheat, and you told your husband you don't want him to be friends with her anymore, and he said "Well, what about Sholom?", how would you respond?

We are supposed to have a real relationship with Hashem. Love, understand, connect, etc. He certainly loves us. This relationship is our most important relationship in the world. When someone tries to break us apart by making us do Aveiros or whatever, we cannot allow that.

Sholom is the most important thing.

And our Sholom Bayis with Hashem is our first Sholom priority.

---

An important comment: I have seen many times in posts, the phrase "frum but open minded" or some other variation of the sentence structure, but the idea being that "frum" and "open minded" are two opposing characteristics. This is the influence of the secular world.

Open-minded means the willingness to accept new ideas. I assume that in the context we are talking, that refers to ideas that should indeed be accepted, because the open-minded-ness that means to accept anything even if it is wrong, is not a positive trait.

Therefore, not only is being frum and open-minded not a contradiction, they go hand in hand. A person following the Torah needs to accept the truth regardless of whether it is new to him or not.

Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz ZTL points out that this was the greatness of Shimon HaAmsuni, who spent his life interpreting every instance of the word "es" in the Torah. His position was that the word "es" is there to include something else not explicit in the posuk. But when he got to the posuk "es Hashem elokecha tirah", he was stymied - what could "es" mean to include here? Surely we may not fear anything but Hashem!

Until Rabbi Akiva came and told him that "es" hashem elokechah tirah may include Talmidei Chachamim.

Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz says that the lesson in this story - and the reason Chazal related it to us - was the show the greatness of Shimon HaAmsuni. All his life he was utilizing his "es lerabos" idea, interpreting every instance of "es" in the Torah. The accumulated work of Shimon HaAmsuni on this topic was massive. It was his magnum opus, his own contribution - and a magnificent one! - to Torah Shebal Peh. It would go down in history.

But because he found a single instance that he could not find a viable interpretation for according to his opinion, he was ready to abandon his entire life's work, to abandon his opinion of "es lerabos".

Surely a sage like Simon HaAmsuni could have squeezed in some kind of contrived interpretation for this one single instance. But he did not. Instead, he was going to abandon the entire idea, because he saw it was not true. Until Rabbi Akiva came and saved it.

Because he was open-minded.

Being frum requires one to accept the truth, to be open minded, and not to stick to what you want the truth to be. A "negiyus" is the biggest mind poison that can exist. Said the Chazon Ish: "Doing a serious aveirah is not a contradiction to being a Godol, but having a Negiyus is."

It is those who refuse to acknowledge the truth of the Torah that are the closed-minded ones. And those who insist on living their anti-Torah lifestyles or harboring their anti-Torah beliefs because they are comfortable with them, or because they allow them to fit into society better, or because they make them feel more "sophisticated", or "normal" , who are the closed minded ones.

Ain lecha ben chorim ele mi she'osek batorah.

So please, let's disabuse ourselves of using this manner of expression, "frum but open minded" or "open-minded" as opposed to frum. That’s not an open-minded outlook.

---

Jews are supposed to be loyal to their countries. Pollard was found guilty of betraying his country, breaching national security, and putting an untold number of America's operatives in mortal danger, all in the name of a foreign power.

Had he been guilty of just that, it would have been bad enough - and I'm not talking about his own personal crime - I'm talking about the danger that such actions, committed by a Jew, place the entire Jewish population in.

We don’t need people thinking Jews betray their country.

But when such a Jew does it in the name of the self-proclaimed "Jewish State", it's even worse, because now it's not just a spy who happens to be Jewish. It's the "Jews" spying on us!

But it’s even worse than that. Much worse. In an interview on 60 minutes, a few days before Pollard's sentencing Pollard's wife, Anne, announced to the entire United States of America, who her husband was found guilty of betraying in the name of a foreign power, quote: "I feel my husband and I did what we were expected to do, and what our moral obligation was as Jews ... and I have no regrets about that."

She's saying, to the entire country, that we Jews are indeed a security risk - and proud of it! - that Jews should and would betray their country. That is their "moral obligation."

We should do nothing bust distance ourselves from such people, saying "We have nothing to do with them. We do not support them. We are loyal to our country. They are renegade evil lunatics that do not represent anyone but themselves."

And that 60 Minutes interview was not an isolated incident. Pollard's behavior throughout his entire ordeal was consistently driven by the arrogant attitude that what he did was what Jews should be doing and it is the obligation of Jews to support him.

There was an article in the Jewish Week, June 21, 2002, titled "Why Pollard is still in Jail," by Edwin Black. It was good. You should try to dig it up. Here's an excerpt from there:

"Keeping one's mouth shut and displaying remorse is the first priority when seeking the mercy of the court. But the Pollards tried to outsmart mercy. They decided to rally the American Jewish community and massage public opinion, hoping to create outside pressure on the judge and prosecutors to dispense a reduced sentence. Without the knowledge of his attorney, Pollard granted two exclusive prison interviews to Wolf Blitzer, the CNN journalist who was then Washington correspondent for the Jerusalem Post. In these interviews, Pollard presented himself as a highly motivated Jew determined to help Israel in the face of an intransigent American intelligence community that was endangering the Jewish State.

" 'No Bumbler But Israel's Master Spy,' the headline declared. Moreover, a letter from Pollard ran on the front page of the Jerusalem Post decrying his 'judicial crucifixion,' and assuring 'the gains to Israel's long-term security were worth the risks' he took. The letter even lamented the fact that 'no one has summoned the [Jewish] community to put a stop to this ordeal.'

"The result of the interview was a disaster for Pollard, who infuriated the government with his defiant stance.

"After learning of one of the interviews, Pollard's defense attorney, Richard Hibey, is said to have shrieked so loudly into the phone, a partner rushed in to see if he was hurt. As damaging as the Jerusalem Post interview was, Anne Pollard's interview with '60 Minutes' a few days before the scheduled sentencing did far more damage..."

At the very least, if someone wants to try to help such a person because they feel he is being treated unfairly, it needs to be done in a way such that nobody in their right mind would ever get the impression that we are helping him because we share his dark ideals.

They tried, but Pollard wouldn't allow anybody to say think that Jews are not a danger to society. Another excerpt:

"Not a few in the Jewish community have been harassed by Pollard supporters for straying from the Pollard camp's line. For example, in 1993, David Luchins, a senior advisor to Sen. Daniel Moynihan', became embroiled in a tactical dispute over Pollard's seeking a parole, and also a letter of remorse obtained by Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik of Chicago ... The letter was a Congressional initiative to secure presidential commutation. But after Pollard signed, he reportedly expressed regret over a portion of the letter that apologized for violating Jewish law-- to the utter dismay of those who had organized the letter. Luchins' life was threatened by Pollard supporters, who circulated a flyer one press report dubbed a Salman Rushdie-style religious decree calling for Luchins' murder. A source close to Sen. Moynihan says federal marshals were summoned to protect Luchins.

If he wants help, that's one thing. But so long as he insists on claiming that the reason we should help him is because his acts represents what Jews ought to do, we stay far away and say "No. Jews are not like that!"

As Black notes:

Jewish officers throughout the American intelligence community were equally incensed that the Pollards might make all American Jews seem disloyal. "There are more than a few Jews loyally and quite properly serving their country in intelligence," explained one highly placed Jewish intelligence analyst. "None of us wants to be looked at cross-eyed when we walk into a room, people wondering if we are the next Pollard. He had no right."

Indeed. And that's coming from people who don't even know a thing about what Chazal tell us are the catastrophic consequences to our safety of Hisgarus B'Umos, rachmana litzlan.

Oh, one more thing. Even though Pollard's supporters make believe that what he did to this country was not a whole lot ("Spying for an ally" and all that), here's the info (from Black):

No one has ever been able to identify reliably exactly what secrets Pollard sold to Israel. Jewish leaders who have been briefed by trustworthy sources have constantly been told the same refrain: "If you only knew how severe the damage was." Despite reams of guesswork and Washington's porous nature, the details are still undisclosed.

But those details are clearly enumerated in a 46-page sworn declaration to the sentencing judge by then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, most of which has been classified top secret. The secret affidavit includes a classified analysis of 20 illegally disclosed documents.

"The judge requested -- the court asked -- for a confidential, highly-classified summary to report the damage done," Weinberger told me in an interview. Although the declaration was signed by Weinberger and submitted as the Secretary's personal affidavit, the damning document was in fact assembled piecemeal by an inter-agency group of intelligence officials independently assessing Pollard's damage to their own operations. A redacted copy of that sworn 46-page declaration, obtained by this reporter, together with information and analysis reported by several of the actual contributors, indicates that Pollard indeed compromised the most sensitive aspect of American intelligence, providing Israel with the highest level of secret information. "More than 1,000 unredacted messages and cables," of which a significant number were not just top-secret but "codeword sensitive," were delivered to Pollard's Israeli handlers, according to the Weinberger Declaration.

Washington feared that Israel could have traded the secret materials with other intelligence services. The information could have even ended up in Moscow, perhaps as a bargaining chip at a time when Israel was trying to free Soviet Jews. Numerous intelligence reports about Soviet missile systems, delivered by Pollard, exposed the way America analyzed Soviet weapons. He transmitted regional surveillance data from the VQ-2 reconnaissance squadron in Spain, thereby enabling Israel to virtually track America's own intelligence capability in the Mediterranean and even over Israel itself. This was crucial in Israel's 1985 bombing of the P.L.O. headquarters in Tunis, which depended upon Israeli F-15s evading both American and Arab listening posts over North Africa.

But all of this was dwarfed, according to a principal author of the Weinberger Declaration, by photocopying for Israel the massive 10-volume RASIN Manual. An acronym for Radio and Signal Intelligence [RASIN], the precious manual is known as "the Bible," according to the intelligence officer. The RASIN Manual details America's global listening profile, frequency-by-frequency, source-by-source, geographic slice by geographic slice. RASIN was, in effect, a complete roadmap to American signal intelligence. Informed sources say Pollard's RASIN Manual disclosure was the crux of a secret exchange in Judge Robinson's courtroom just moments before the outraged judge finally pronounced a life sentence. Some estimate the loss of the RASIN manual cost America billions of dollars and many years in completely restructuring America's worldwide eavesdropping operation. Though Pollard has sought to downplay the consequences to the U.S. of his actions, his crime was lasting and devastating to the U.S. intelligence community.

The whole idea of a Jew betraying our country for a foreign power that refers to itself arrogantly as "The Jewish State", which the USA is concerned will sell the information to its deadly enemies in order to free soviet Jews is something we should scream against with all our might, and shout out form the rooftops that this man and his wife are disloyal traitors to Judaism just as much as they are disloyal traitors to their country.

I cannot, in all my life, recall any event outside of this one where Jews were portrayed by Jews as a proud to be a danger to society, a security risk in its midst.

Feh.

I never stated what I think his "kavonos" were; merely what his mission was, namely, to betray the United States of America for the sake of Israel. That's what he was found guilty of. That includes breaching national security of this country and its population, including the millions of Jews living here.

If Pollard believes that he can decided "mi yichyeh umi yomus" - that putting some people in mortal danger in order to save other people - is a good thing, then that's his business, but it does not make him any less of a danger, and it does not make what he did any more right.

---

The ani maamins only have value in saying them if you understand what they mean (as opposed to other parts of davening, where saying the words themselves have value - with the ani maamins, the value is in the belief, not saying the words)

---

The Baal Shem Tov and stories such as him interacting with Moshiach can be trusted - our Mesorah of skeptical and stiff-necked tzadikim says so. Such a story is pretty much the same as a story in the Gemora with Rav Yehoshua ben Levi who had a similar conversation with Eliyahu Hanavi asking him when he will arrive. Great tzadikim - at least in those days when they were so great - could do these things.

---

The entire world is affected by our actions. The fulfillment of the Torah is the energy that runs the world. A corruption in our actions send ripples across the entire universe – remember that even the animals became corrupt because of the sins of Noach’s generation, to the point where they had to all be destroyed.

And remember that Hashem not only judges individuals, but communities as a whole, countries as a whole, and the world as a whole. So if in a certain community, let’s say, there’s someone doing aveiros, he can effect the fate of the entire community.

A person’s behavior can also affect those around him. You are not supposed to cross a bridge together with a sinner because if the bridge collapses due to the sinner’s fate – and it can – you are now in danger.

Doing a sin definitely affects others. We’re all in the same boat. If you drill a hole in your cabin, it’s not only you that will sink.

There's a known principle that our Mitzvos, particularly Torah learning, cause others to become more frum. (A former Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rashab, said that the best way to be Mekarev Rechokim is to sit in the Bais Medrash and learn Torah and do Mitzvos!) Therefore, if someone wants to become an apostate in Paris, this could be prevented, perhaps, with more Torah learning in the world.

Because learning Torah can prevent apostasy does not mean that not wearing proper socks makes someone else do znus.

---

As far as the dates of the rishonim, I've seen that theory about the "kovim,"(see below) and it’s baseless. Useless, too. It helps us in no way at all and only serves to confuse the issue: Can Achronim argue with "kovim"? Don’t "kovim" argue with rishonim regularly?

The kovim theory is based on the speculative idea that it is major tragedies that end tekufos and start new ones, and the inquisition seemed to be a nice place to end the rishonim. Matis Kantor (see "The Jewish Timeline Encyclopedia" by Mattis Kantor, Appendix D). But although clearly defined lines of demarcation between tekufos CAN exist, it doesnt mean that they always have to. It says nowhere that you are either a "rishon" or an "achron". Whereas the Gemora was officially sealed and concluded, as was the Mishna, there was no such official seal and conclusion on the works of the rishonim. It all depends on the greatness of the people on the two sides of the argument --- it’s stupid for us to argue with the Rambam.

Even in the days of the Tamnaim and AMorayim, after the Mishna was closed and sealed, Rav, of the first generation of Bavli Amorayim, is considered a "Tana" by Chazal and can argue with Tanaim. Yet Rav's statements are included in the Gemora, not the Mishna, for the Mishna was sealed.

And so, if you have a blurred edge between the Rishonim and Achronim, so what? Whether an individual is considered a rishon or an achron depends on who he is. It so happens that the later generations get weaker and so nowadays it’s clear where we stand. In fact, even though no new tekufah has been created since the achronim, clearly, nobody today will argue with the shach and taz.

---

Depression is NOT when bad situations make you miserable. That's normal. Depression is when the misery doesn't allow you to enjoy the good situations in your life. Your favorite desert no longer interests you, you no longer enjoy your favorite activities, stuff like that. Depression sucks the enjoyment out of things that you should be enjoying, as opposed to making you suffer from things that it makes sense you should suffer from.

Crying yourself to sleep is painful. But there are things that would make any normal person cry themselves to sleep (One of those things, honestly, is the fact that there are people who are in such pain. that should make every normal Jew cry themselves to sleep at night...) And you should deal with the causes of your pain however you can. But that's different than depression.

Someone's parents once came to me and said they think their daughter is crazy because she tried to slash her wrists. I told them that living in their house she would be crazy if she didn't try to slash her wrists! What she did was harmful, undesirable, and must be prevented. But it is not crazy. In this case, the parents were the crazy ones, not the daughter. The daughter was the one in danger, though.

---

Shrinks

2007-01-03T18:11:00.001-08:00

Never, ever under any circumstances should you go to a non-frum shrink. Without a proper perspective on the value of being frum, without understanding the dynamics of a frum home and a frum person, they make too many mistakes and make things worse.

As far as shrinks in general, you need to have three things in mind:

1) "The Shinever Rav's Rule of Insanity". A lady came to the Shinever Rav ZT"L and complained that her son went crazy.

"He dances with shiksas and eats chazeirim", she said.

"Crazy??" retorted the Rav. "If he would eat shiksas and dance with chazeirim he'd be crazy. He's not crazy, he's just listening to his Yetzer Horah! There's a big difference."

Many people think that if a kid is doing aveiros a shrink will help. He won't. The theory that if he deals with his "issues" he will become frum again doesn't bear out in real life (see my post in the "It's getting worse" topic in this forum). Mental problems are not the same as doing the wrong thing. Shrinks deal with mental issues not moral issue or value issues. First determine which you have.

2) Because the shrinks have no objective criteria for right vs. wrong, but rather deal only with feelings and the decision making process, they often lose focus of the issue. Example: I know someone who sent his son to a shrink because he (the son) had bisexual tendencies. He spent months discussing his feelings about "alternative lifestyles" and his plans and his feelings etc., but bottom line, nothing changed. He got tired of the shrink and left. Afterwards someone explained to him that he simply has a Yetzer Horah for men, Hashem put it there, it's his nisayon, and he shouldn't bother trying to get rid of it, and don't bother even analyzing it because it doesn't matter. What does matter is that he doesn't act on it. Simply don't do anything. Everything else is not a problem. That worked just fine. This was not a shrink issue; it was a simple issue of getting things in perspective, which is the Torah's job.

3) There is a tremendous difference between psychology and reality in terms of how to view the decision-making process of a human being. The shrinks live in a world of causation, which means, everything has a cause. Your decisions are caused by something. Mostly - perhaps completely - heredity and environment. More and more our society is leaning towards the outlook of "this is WHY I did what I did...", and more and more, people, especially kids, are asking "WHY am I doing this? WHAT makes me do this?"

The reason the shrinks believe this is because shrinks deal with the physical part of person, including his physical brain, but they have no dealings or knowledge of the spiritual part of a person, meaning his soul. The spiritual part of a person affects his being greatly, which is another cause of errors made by the psychologists. The reality is that Hashem has endowed humans with something called bechirah, which means Free Will. It is beyond the laws of causation. Meaning, there does not have to be a reason why you chose A over B except for the fact that you were given the miraculous ability to choose between Good and Bad for no reason at all other than it is your own personal private and totally self-created choice.

The idea that a person controls his decisions rather than his decisions are controlled by outside factors is a Torah idea, and the shrinks are unable to consider it, since they have zero knowledge of the existence, never mind the nature, of a soul. So very often (see the above example) a person can will himself out of trouble but the shrinks will miss that option since they are not trained to focus on it. There is great controversy among the shrinks even when it comes to addiction about this. This does not mean to say people do not have temptations, and sometimes even Nisyonos that they cannot overcome; but where this is true, and the role that human free will plays in controlling ones actions is a place where the shrinks are completely in the dark.

Regarding spirituality, there is an additional, fourth factor. Rabbi Chaim Segal ZT"L, the former principal of Chaim Berlin High School in Brooklyn had a general policy (I heard he made exceptions) not to allow shrinks in his school (Orchos Chaim - address to Torah Umesorah). His reason: The Chasam Sofer rules that all secular medical knowledge is only considered "perhaps" true when it comes to Jews, since Jews and non-Jews, it says in Chazal, have different physical natures, and all medical research is done, generally, on non-Jews. And it may or may not apply to Jews. All the more so, argued Rabbi Segal, where a person's spiritual and psychological nature is concerned. The Jew is imbued with a psychological and spiritual nature completely different than that of the non-Jew. Do the psychologists take that into consideration? Do they consider factor such as Zechus Avos, to name just one, in their diagnosis and treatment plan?

A similar sentiment is recorded in the name of Rav Elyshev shlita in the Sefer Yashev Moshe.

A person has a body and a soul. Your mind - your sentience as opposed to the physical meat of your brain - is part of the soul, not the body (Zohar Bereishis 32, and all over the seforim). This is not something that secular shrinks have a handle on. At least, not nearly as much of a handle as they think they do.

Is there a use for shrinks? Of course there is. But it is more narrow and limited than they would have you believe; more than they themselves believe. Perhaps you should see a shrink; perhaps you should not or do not need to. I don't know your particular situation. But please bear in mind that the job of the shrinks is limited in its scope - you would not go to them to pull your tooth or to fix your foot, of course - and you must make sure that before you entrust yourself to a doctor, you are going to the right one. The only problem is, if you go to a foot doctor to pull your tooth, he will tell you that you came to the wrong place. The shrinks themselves are not aware of many limitations of their own skills, so you have to be more careful here.

---

There are a number of frum psychologists, but their expertise is not Halachah and hashkafa. You should not go to psychologists under any circumstances for the sake of obtaining from them Hashkafic guidance. You should only go to an expert in Halachah for Halachah and an expert in Hashkafa for Hashkafa. Just because someone is frum does not mean he is either. And his being a psychologist does not contribute to his expertise in either.

You can go to a psychologist for psychological problems. If you have halachic or hashkafa issues you should, at the same time, see an expert in those fields separately.

---

Accomplishment, talent, and happiness

2007-01-03T18:09:00.000-08:00

Many people have come asking for advice regarding setting priorities in life. "How do I know what's most important" type of thing, etc. Here's my advice:

Make believe that your doctor c"v told you that you have one week to live. What would you want to accomplish that week?

Those are your top priorities in life.

Then make believe that you had one month to live. What you would want to do during that month are your next level priorities.

Then make believe you only had one year to live. Your list of things you want to accomplish during that year are your third level priorities.

The things on this list are the most important things to you. They are the things that will give you the most satisfaction in life. Make sure you don’t put them on the back burner.

One more important note: When making life decisions, teenagers - and adults - often think of "success" in terms of society's standards. In terms of career, they think doctor, lawyer, SVP, etc. This is a mistake. You need to focus not on what is considered "successful" in society, but on what will make you happiest and most productive. For this, you need good measure of independent thinking, which is a part of being mature enough to be ready to make these decisions. Not everyone is cut out to be what society considers "successful". If you try to satisfy secular society's standards, which have to do with how much money you make, or how much power you wield, you will make yourself into a robotic servant to standards arbitrarily set for you by others.

Hashem puts inside each of us a certain innate desire for a certain profession. He does this in order for the world can function properly. We need all kinds of people to make all kinds of contributions to the world. "Even a tanner's work (i.e. someone who processes hides of animals, a smelly, difficult job) is sweet to him. And Hashem did this on order for the world not to be missing any type of work." (Rashi Brachos 43b).

Instead of focusing on what Hashem put inside each of us that will make us happy, we tend to focus on what will make society happy with us. That’s a mistake. Everyone was put on this world to make his own contribution -- in Gashmiyus or Ruchniyus. When we know enough about ourselves to realize what we are good at and what we will be successful at, and when we are mature enough to be able to pursue that path, then we are ready to make career decisions.

---

Is singing or drawing or acting the yardstick of what makes you special in this world? Was the Chofetz Chaim so talented? What make you special in this world are you choices, not if you can play Machaniam the best.

The Baal Shem Tov explained what humility is. Doesn't the humble person know of his great talents?

The answer, he said, is, it's like the guy whose friend grew up to be a king in a far away but magnificent land.

One day the guy finds himself in his friend's kingdom, and decides to visit his old friend, currently the king.

He arrives at the king's palace, a pauper requesting to see the king. Of course, they told him to get lost. But he was persistent, claiming that he was an old friend of the king's. Finally, they brought his request to the king.

When the king heard the name of his old friend, he invited him in, and put him up in the Royal Palace itself. The king wanted to show his friend his entire kingdom, so he gave him royal clothes to wear, and took him in the royal chariot, all over the kingdom. Just him and the king, alone on the royal chariot, with the typical royal entourage preceding them.

The king's friend, the peasant, when dressed in royal clothes looked like a different person. So regal, so kingly. So much so, that onlookers actually mistook him for the king!

"Long live the King" they shouted, as the chariot passed by, pointing at the peasant, ignoring his royal highness himself!

The peasant was totally embarrassed. Imagine: His friend, the king, gives him these royal clothes and rides him around in his royal chariot, and he ends up stealing all the king's attention and praise.

So, too, said the Baal Shem Tov, when a person is talented, or wealthy, or handsome, we tend to praise them and think of them as "special". But the reality is, the credit goes to Hashem. Hashem is the One Who gave the person the talent, like the king giving the clothes. What did the artist do to deserve his talent? Nothing. It’s a gift from Hashem. All talent is - to borrow a phrase - on loan from Hashem. When a talented person is praised as "special" or "talented", if they are humble, they should be embarrassed, because they know Hashem, Who really is the talent behind them, is "standing" right next to them.

The special people are not the artists or the writers or the singers or the actors. They are not those who live off the King's name. The special people in this world are those who make themselves great, by using their choices, their bechirah, which is not Hashem's, but yours.

The Chofetz Chaim was not talented. But he was the greatest of the great. It's only that kind of greatness that counts in this world for anything. Everything else is just Hashem's specialness, not people's.

The Rambam writes that every Jew can be as great a Tzadik as Moshe Rabbeinu. You can, too.

Forget the talents. Focus on what's really special in this world, what really makes people special. Not the illusions. Not the pride that's stolen from Hashem.

In the next world, all the "talented" people will be plain janes. It's only the doers of Mitzvos and the learners of Torah that will be special. It is only they who are special in this world, really. And you are among them. Never forget that.

---

There is no point in trying to find something at which you are better than anyone else. It says this nowhere.

What it does say, is that you should find something – a Mitzvah, a livelihood, a cause - that you ENJOY, and then you know that’s your purpose. If you have a certain Mitzvah, for instance, to which you feel a disproportionately strong attraction, it means that that Mitzvah is from the roots of your Neshomah.

If you find a certain profession that you enjoy, even if it is working in a tannery (which was a smelly, difficult occupation), it is because that occupation was made for you. The world needs tanners, too, so Hashem planted a liking for tannery into certain individuals.

So in Ruchnius and Gashmius, the goal is to listen to what's inside you.

One important caveat, though: In order to “feel” your purpose, you have to be purely objective. You can’t have other people’s opinions and preferences influencing what you feel. You need to find the path that is right for YOU, not the path that will make others think that you are a success. This is not an easy thing, but an important tool in our Avodas Hashem. That is, knowing yourself for what you really are.

---

The problem often is that people do not distinguish between being happy, and having fun. There is a big difference.

When you have fun, the pleasure ends when the fun is over (that's not counting hangovers). If the only pleasure you know how to have is "fun", then whenever you are NOT busy with fun, you will not have any pleasure, except for looking forward to tomorrow's fun or remembering yesterday's.

You always need more.

Going to clubs, hanging out, and partying are "fun". The pleasure ends when the party is over and everyone is going home. Right away it's "When's the next party?".

"Fun" feels good because you're doing something pleasurable NOW. If you want to enjoy your whole life that way, you are going to have to attend many, many parties.

And you have to make sure you don't get bored. Because we have a tendency to build up a resistance to "fun" -- eventually you get bored doing the same thing day in and day out. So you need something different or bigger or better or cooler. But whatever, you always need your "fun".

"Happiness" is different. Happiness is where you do something which, after you do it, the happiness lasts. This way, the pleasure doesn't end, but has an accumulative affect. Whereas more and more fun does not add up but merely repeats, more and more happiness makes a more and more happy person.

Accomplishment, fulfilling goals, finishing something, creating something, all give a feeling of satisfaction that lasts long after you have reached your goal.

"Happiness" may not always be as pleasurable as "fun" while you're doing it, but it will be more pleasurable since you will attain a happiness that lasts.

It's like the difference between pigging out while on a diet, versus sticking to it. Pigging out is more fun, but only while you're pigging. Afterwards the fun is over. Sticking to the diet is not so much fun, but you will be happier with the results.

Being constructive makes a human being happy.

G-d made human beings with an emptiness in them. They are constantly yearning for something. This emptiness is the result of a soul which is not so comfortable in a physical body. Souls like accomplishment. Bodies like fun. Souls are eternal. So they like pleasure that lasts. Bodies are here only for a while. Then they become dirt. They like pleasure NOW -- bodies don't know what "forever" means.

Animals have no souls. That’s why they don’t enjoy accomplishment. Humans have souls, so for them fun is not enough.

The reason people are not happy is because they pursue fun instead of happiness. Maybe they don’t know the difference. Its like we're in this world on a diet, and they think pigging out will make them feel good. It will, for a while. But the soul just gets more and more frustrated. To be happy, meaning to be a happy person, you need to accomplish.

Of course, some fun is ok. It's even, ah, necessary. We sometimes need just a bit of ice cream so we don’t go crazy while dieting. But only a little. Too much fun and we start to lose it.

Teenagers are often more into "fun" than "happiness" because they haven't been around long enough to have been able to accumulate a lot of happiness, so they don't know what it feels like.

Now the question is, what is considered accomplishment? What do I have to do to be happy as opposed to "having fun"?

We will discuss that. But first we need to know what exactly it is that we are looking for. Then we can figure out where to find it.

---

The problem is, often when people accomplish something it gives them a greater need than even before. Like these people who sped their whole lives working for money when they already have more than they can spend all their lives. I have a friend whose father-in-law is one of the wealthiest men around. We're talking in the billions (and no, it's none of the Reichmans). This elderly man wakes up before 6 in the morning to go to work and comes home after 11:00. His son-in-law asked him when he's going to retire, and he said "When I'm bigger than Edgar Bronfman."

So the question is, when is this man going to be happy? And, is there accomplishment that can make us happy without being bigger than Edgar Bronfman?

---

Dreams

2007-01-03T18:06:00.000-08:00

The halachah is nowadays that we do not consider our dreams messages. If you did have a bad dream, that is, a dream that described harm coming to you or someone close to you, you can say hatavas chalom (it's in the siddur). If necessary, you can even fast a taanis chalom.

Dreams are sometimes things our soul picks up while it "travels" upstairs during the night, but usually they are just plain meaningless psycho-biological random activities of the brain. Even when the dreams do come from a real source, they are always mixed in with some nonsense, so there is no way of knowing what is real and what is not. At least not for people like us.

It’s not true what you often hear about signs that your dream is true, such as having it 3 times in a row, etc.

---

There is something called Hatavas Chalom - you can find it in a well-equipped siddur (ArtScroll has it). When you have a bad dream, you say that Tefilah as per the instructions you will find in the Siddur.

PS -- None of this means that the dream necessarily has any shred of truth to it. This tefilah is said because of the bad dream, not because you got a bad "omen".

---

There’s no way to tell if a dream really means something or if it’s becuase of something you ate or thought about etc.

And even when they do mean something they always have mixed in with them some nonsense as well.

We don’t worry about dreams. We do say hatavas chalom when a bad dream happens, but as Yidden we know that whatever is going on in Shamayim is controlled by our Mitzvos and Aveiros, not our dreams.

A fast is also something that can be done about a bad dream. Nowadays we minimize our fasts as much as we can, so we don’t fast unless really necessary. But in any case, a bad dream is certainly not a "good" sign.

---

Copying a CD

2007-01-03T18:03:00.000-08:00

[While this is generally for Hashkafa type questions, this particular question has been asked so many times, and is very relevant, so I thought it should be included. If it isn't appropriate, I ask the Moderators to comment and I’ll remove it -taon]

Whether you are permitted to copy a CD depends: If you would have bought that CD and instead are copying it, then you may not copy it because you are causing the owner of the rights to that CD a loss or potential revenue. However, if you never would have gone out and bought that CD - let's say you wouldn’t want to spend the money - then you may copy it, because doing so does not cause anybody any loss, since whether you copied that CD or not, the owner makes the same amount of money.

And yes, this means that you need to employ intellectual honesty and decide whether your copying the CD will result in a loss of revenue for the owner. You need to be honest as to whether you would have bought this CD, because that's what the Halachah here depends on.

The common claim that the CD is sold "on the condition" that it is not reproduced is not a factor here, because even though it may say so on the CD, it is not true. If the CD were indeed sold on the condition that you may not reproduce it, that means if you violate the condition and in fact reproduce it, that would nullify the sale retroactively, and you would be able to go back to the person who sold you the tape, and demand he take the tape back and return your money. If the vendor would not agree to refund your money and take back his tape, then he really has no intention of making such a "condition".

The same thing applies to software. The fact that when you open the software it makes you check a box that says you agree not to copy it is not binding. Since at the time you bought the disc, you agreed to no such stipulation, therefore you took possession of the disc without agreeing to any such deal. The seller no longer has any rights to make any such deals with you after the sale is final and the disc has already passed into your possession. Compare this to a person who buys a box of cereal for instance, and when he opens the box a seal on the inner wrapping say, "You are not allowed to open this package unless you agree to stand on your head". Of course, once you own the package nobody can force you to do such a thing. Same thing with the software.

As far as Dina D'Malchusa, it is not that simple that copying a CD in a Halachicly permissible manner, that is, for personal, non-commercial use, is prohibited, especially if you are the owner of the CD. Different IP lawyers have given me different opinions, and when I did a Lexis-Nexis search it merely confirmed the lack of clarity, though it does seem that there is something of a discrepancy between the laws "on the books" versus the actual enforcement of the law and common custom. Here's one sample opinion, which you can see on the internet. Follow the link for the full piece

1. “Ripping” songs from CD - I have purchased to copy the songs so that I can play them on my iPod, computer(s), PDAs, and other devices.... I feel reasonably comfortable about ripping a song into iTunes and putting it onto an iPod, but I must admit that my comfort comes from the fact that “ripping” is a feature of the software and that Apple and the recording industry seem to have come to an accommodation on this issue. I’m not sure that I would have the same level of comfort if I only looked at the statutes and case law. When someone starts to have a half dozen or more copies of the same song file on various drives and devices, probably in a variety of file formats, I start to wonder whether you reach a point where it can be argued that having “too many” copies can expose you to liability.
That was from
http://www.corante.com/betweenlawyers/archives/2005/06/06/
ipods_and_timeshifting_fair_use_personal_use_and_the_digital_
copyright_morass.php

Consult your own legal authority on this.

But in any case, following the Dina D'malchusa in this case is a chumra, because of the many Poskim that hold Dina Demalchusa applies only to laws that govern the relationship between you and the government (such as taxes etc), but for regular Bain Adam Lechaveiro laws, such as what is considered stealing, we are not Halachicly bound to what the Dina Demalchusa says.

---

Sefard, Ashkenaz and...other?

2007-01-03T17:56:00.000-08:00

In the '40s in Argentina, the Syrian Chachamim decided to deal with a problem they were having then - the proliferation of fake converts who only wanted to marry Jewish women, a common problem among the non-religious. The only solution they found to this fake-convert-intermarriage problem was to disallow converts to enter into their community (in Argentina or elsewhere), even if the conversion was proper and they are 100% Jewish.

This means, a Syrian rabbi will not perform a marriage that involves a convert, nor will they allow the children of converts in their schools, or in other community institutions.

However, the Syrians still recognize the converts as equal Jews, will of course count them for a Minyan, and will accord them the full respect due to a Torah scholar etc. if warranted. Their intent is not to deny the concept of conversion, nor to deny someone's right to convert, but rather, it was a hard decision that they had to make, that because of the intermarriage problems, not to integrate converts socially into their community.

Therefore, if you are a convert and want to marry a Syrian, although the Syrian rabbi will not perform the ceremony, he will assist you in finding another rabbi - non-Syrian - that will, and offer whatever assistance they can. Their rule was made in self-defense of their specific community, but they happily support and respect converts in general.

---

The 10 tribes did not go away and turn to paganism. They were exiled at the end of Kings II.

Even so, there were always people from the 10 tribes still among mainstream Jewry -- not everyone was exiled.

---

There are numerous reasons why someone might say that the sefardic poskim are more traditional and the ashkenazic ones are more creative, so to speak. First, patterns seems to develop in halachic methodology where ashkenaz minhagim are created not based on tradition but rather the needs of the time or some other reason. You will find the Rama in shulchan aruch all over the place mentioning chumras that comes from custom and not din --- and you will even find him saying: "there are some places that are accustomed to the following [chumrah] ... and so too I am accustomed to do it due to minhag, but it is a chumrah without any reason" (YD 93:1).

You will also find things like sefardic girls not making the brachah she'asani kirtzono because it is nowhere to be found in the gemora or writings of chazal, and first appeared in the days of the geonim.

You will also find that sefardic poskim are very much into collecting opinions from rishonim nad achronim, the more the better, in their responsa, whereas ashkenazi poskim will tend more to learning the sugya and coming out with their own conclusion. (Of course, nobody is going to argue with a Taz, but the issue here is how important is it to find as many opinions as possible, and how much weight does your own opinion hold).

From all of this and much more, including some of the items mentioned by Rachak, it could seem to someone that sefardic Orthodoxy is somehow more traditional and ashkenazic more creative.

But that would be a mistake. Ashkenzaim and sefardim both have their own legitimate mesorahs. The measure of creativity involved in the halachic process is itself a subject of tradition: if you’re going to base your approach on the approach of the earlier sages, perhaps you ought to use them as an example of what you should be doing, rather than merely using what they did. In other words, the early geonim themselves were creative in their halachic process, and now the question becomes does that tradition of creativity end there or does it continue throughout the generations, each generation carefully measuring its own parameters of how far it is allowed to go on its own and how far it must rely on previous generations.

In short, the mesorah of gedolim on both sides is equally legitimate; there is no way to argue in favor of the sefard methodology over the ashkenaz and vice versa.

---

Nusach sefard is really a variation of the Nusach created by the Arizal (what is called Nusach Ari is not from the Ari - it is from the Baal HaTanya). The reason he changed nusach ashkenaz was because the later, weaker generations were no longer able to direct their tefilos upwards on the path that they needed to go (each shevet has its own "pathway" and thus its own "kavanah"), he created sefard as a generic nusach that people from all shevatim can use.

The main difference between nusach sefard and ashkenaz, the Divrei Chaim says, is the reversal of the order of Boruch Sheamar and Hodu - the other changes are of lesser significance.

---

According to Rav Moshe Feinstein ZTL, any way that Jews speak is considered Loshon HaKodesh and it doesn't matter what the accent is.

However, all though all Halchicly valid Minhagim are proper, as is the case in all Minhagim, you should follow your own Minhagim and not someone else's. Meaning, if you are of Ashkenaz descent you should speak Ashkenaz, and not like an Israeli or Sefardi. Unfortunately, the original Zionists, who were non-religious and atheists to boot, decided that Jews should become a plain middle-eastern people with a middle eastern language, and so they changed their own accents from Hungarian and German to Middle Eastern-Sefardic, which is the way Israelis speak today. They did this in order to break our Eastern European traditions and transform us into a Middle Eastern culture. Following them in this is wrong. If you are of Ashkenaz descent you should speak Ashkenaz and vice versa.

I remember once, in the Shul I am rabbi in, Rabbi Dovid Lifshitz Z"L, who was a Rebbi in YU, davened there, and the Baal Tefilah prayed with a Sefardic accent.

After the Davening, Rabbi Lifshitz came over to me asking me why I allow Ashkenazim to pray in a Sefardic accent (like they do in Israel), since it is against their Minhag. I answered that the Baal Tefilah was a real Sefardi, he just happens to pray in my Shul. He said it bothers him in YU where he sees Ashkenaz boys of European descent speaking with a Sefardi/Israeli accent.

---

IDF does NOT = Zionism

2006-09-29T12:01:00.000-07:00

Being a soldier in the Israeli army does not mean you have any particular Hashkafa. An apikores is someone with a heretical Hashkafa, which one can have whether in the army or not. In fact, Belz, very Torahdik and anti-Zionist in their Hashkofos, (Rav Yisochor Dov ZTL was one of the leading fighters against Zionism and Zionists) is well represented in the Israeli army. While it is true, I imagine, in general that Zionists by virtue of their Hashkafa would serve in the Israeli army, the converse is not true, that all people who serve in the Israeli army are Zionists.

We must pray for Hashem's protection for the Israeli soldiers, together with all acheinu bnei yisroel hanesunim batzarah. And we must do what is in our power to protect them, whether it be donating bullet-proof vests, or praying, or whatever, to protect them. On the contrary, it is a terrible thing the Zionists did by creating a situation where we have to have Jewish Neshomos put in danger to fight wars. When Ben Gurion sr"y asked the Chazon Ish, if you were the Prime Minister of Israel, would you arm our soldiers with guns or Gemorahs, the Chazon Ish answered that if not for the Zionists, we wouldn't need guns.

However, there are Zionists who believe, in their twisted thinking, that it is worth it for Jewish lives to be spilled in order for there to be a State of Israel. This is terrible cruelty. Even if the State of Israel would not be a terrible violation of the ratzon Hashem, even if it would be a positive thing, it would not be worth even one Jewish life. The discounting of Jewish blood by Zionists in this way is unforgivable.

Rabbi Aryeh Ginsberg, a Rabbi in New York, related how he saw Rav Shach go through an operation on his foot without anesthesia, because he did not want to be groggy when he gave shiur afterwards. He endured the entire operation without one hint of the pain he was going through. Such was his control.

Yet, the same Rabbi, a short while later, was present when Rav Shach received news of the fatal crash of an Israeli Army helicopter.

Rav Shach broke down, crying hysterically.

That is how a true Torah Jew views things.

Being in the army is not the same as being in the government. They may be fighting wars that they shouldn’t be fighting, true, but if the Zionists cause a war, then, ex post facto, it doesn't make you a modeh b'avodah zorah if you say to yourself, if I don't fight in this illegal war, more Jews will be killed. The question is not whether being in the army is wrong or right or whether the wars are wrong or right, the question is whether being a soldier makes you an Apikores. It doesn't.

Chukas Akum

2006-09-28T16:31:00.000-07:00

Chukas Akum does not include things like going to the mall or the movies. The reason is, because the mall and movies and the like were instituted and developed by both goyim and Jews, that is, of the not religious variety. Chukas Akum has to be something that the goyim and not Jews institute or do.

That having been said, all that applies to the Torah prohibition of Chukas Akum. However, that does not mean that being a mall rat is a positive spiritual thing. There are other issurim involved with going to movies - such as moshav leitzim - even if it does not fall into the category of chukas akum. And the general lifestyle of a Ben Torah is not the same as a goy - we have other things than they do that concern us, that matter to us, that occupy our time

---

The meaning of Thanksgiving today is not very clear. Here’s the history:

December 1620 – The pilgrims (idol worshipers by the way; Puritans of the English Separatist Church who first ran to Holland from England to escape religious persecution, and then left Holland because it wasn’t a religious enough environment for them) settle at Plymouth Rock. Winter was terribly cold and stormy. Of the 102 pilgrims that arrived, 46 of them died. But the next year’s harvest was good, and so they decided to celebrate their survival. They made a three day party, which was the first Thanksgiving.

It’s not known whether turkey was even part of the celebration at all. Governor William Bradford sent some guys “hunting for fowl”, and they may or may not have returned with a turkey. They definitely had lobster, deer meat, and fruit. It was a one-time thing, this Thanksgiving, which took place in July, never intended to be repeated again.

Every now and then another one-time, local Thanksgiving was declared because of various good fortunes, including a ‘day of prayer” that was successful (sic) at “ending a long drought” in 1623.

The first time all colonists celebrated a Thanksgiving was 1777 when they beat the British in a battle.

In 1789 George Washington declared a national Thanksgiving day, but it met much opposition, first because why should the problems of a few pilgrims merit a national holiday, and two – this one came from Thomas Jefferson – that the government has NO RIGHT TO MAKE RELIGIOUS HOLIDAYS for everyone in the country!

Yes, religious. These were George Washington’s words:

“Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks …

“And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us … to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually … to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations … and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue …and … to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best. “

The first official national Thanksgiving holiday was declared by president Lincoln in 1863. These were his words:

“The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God . . .
“No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility and Union.”

Sounds clearly like a religious holiday to me. Although it’s not part of any particular religion, it is certainly not merely a holiday celebrating the fact that the pilgrims survived and found a turkey to eat or the discovery of America; if it was declared as “a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.”

Therefore, I would say simply that based on this, celebrating Thanksgiving would be prohibited because of Chukas Akum.

Even if one will argue that Thanksgiving has no religious connotations, it would be in the category of “minhag shtus shelhen”, plain silly meaningless customs of the Goyim, which are prohibited by Tosfos in Avodah Zarah 11b.

Now Rav Moshe Feinstein ZT”L has numerous Teshuvos on this. In OH V:20:6 he says that there is no prohibition to make a generic celebration on Thanksgiving (though he says a baal nefesh should be strict and not do it) but to actually make a celebration in honor of Thanksgiving is prohibited, because of Tosfos in Avodah Zarah that I quoted above. Rav Moshe says that even if originally the celebrators of the holiday thanked their Avodah Zarah, that has nothing to do with later celebrations, where this is no longer the case. To eat turkey on thanksgiving would therefore not be prohibited he says, unless you are doing it to celebrate Thanksgiving.

He also comments on the ruling of a certain Rav (I know who it is but if Rav Moshe did not mention his name I will not either) that eating turkey on Thanksgiving is Yehorg V’Al Yaavor, that he “doesn’t know the story [of Thanksgiving]”.

Rav Moshe ends, however by saying that this prohibition is “not clear.”

In a different teshuva (YD 4:11) Rav Moshe writes, “It looks as if (l’chorah), since in the religious books [of the Christians] this holiday is not mentioned, and … since this [holiday] is a day of commemoration for the people of the country who also were joyful because of the country to live here, now or then, we do not find a prohibition to make a feast, nor by eating turkey. Like we find in Kiddushin 66a that King Yanai made a feast when he won …a war, and ate vegetables as a commemoration. . .. But I still say that it is prohibited to establish this day annually for this feast, as Yanai’s celebration was only a one-time thing.”

In the very next teshuva Rav Moshe reconciles the seeming contradictions in his responsa. He describes Thanksgiving: “They didn’t have food for a certain time when they first came to this country, and then they ate turkeys”.

Rav Moshe explains that it makes no sense to establish a national holiday because of the events of certain pilgrims – exactly the objections that were raised against George Washington’s proclamation! – and that therefore Thanksgiving would be considered a “silly custom” and therefore prohibited under Chukas Akum. He says that it is not a religious holiday because, “They do not make this [holiday] because of religious concerns, and not with reasons of their religions, rather, it is a commemoration of something that has nothing to do with their religions, since it wasn’t founded by priests but rather plain people who were not involved with the idolatrous religions. Since they do not do this because of any connection to any religion in the world…”

The problem is, historical research clearly indicates that Thanksgiving was indeed established based on religious beliefs (the distinction Rav Moshe made before about the original celebrators perhaps thanking their idols but not today was regarding the celebrators own individual behavior. But he is clearly assuming that the establishment of the holiday had nothing to do with religion). Was Rav Moshe aware of this? Was Rav Moshe provided with this information by whoever it was that explained to him what Thanksgiving is about?

Who knows, but it doesn’t sound like it. Rav Moshe himself in YD 4:11, when he gives his reasoning why Thanksgiving is not a religious holiday he prefaces his remarks with “l’chorah”, which means “it seems so, but it’s not certain.”

Rav Moshe himself rules that to make an annual celebration is prohibited, and only to eat a one-time meal is permitted.

Bottom line:

(a) To celebrate Thanksgiving as an official, annual celebration is for sure Assur;

(b) to celebrate it at all may be Minhag shtus and also prohibited,

(c) and that's assuming that the whole thing is not a religious holiday, which it seems, is not the case. It was established as a religious holiday with religious meaning.

(d) And even what is permitted, even according to Rav Moshe's information, is only the bare-bones Halachah. A baal nefesh (spiritual person? Something like that) should stay away, he says.

---

Halloween is a totally idolatrous celebration, which originated as a Celtic holiday, Samhain (pronounced many different ways), named after their Avodah Zorah who was "Lord of the Dead and Prince of Darkness". We'll call him "Sammy" for short.

Sammy supposedly took the "sun god" prisoner each year during the winter. On the day before the new year, which for the Celts was November 1st, Sammy called together all the dead people for a convention. I am not kidding. The dead people would take different forms, the real evil ones taking the form of a cat.

Of course, this was all very scary to the Celts, so they had their galachim, called "druids" offer sacrifices and stuff that day.

They made a holiday out of this to honor both the sun god and Sammy, which lasted three days, where people would parade down the street in animal skins and other costumes.

But it's not finished yet.

The Romans also had a holiday which, after many centuries ended up being mixed in with Sammy day. it's called Pomona Day, named after their avodah zarah god of fruits.

But we're still not finished.

About 1,200 years ago the Roman Catholic Idol Worshipers declared November 1st a holiday, All Hallows Day, in honor of their saints. Later they added another day to this, Nov. 2, called "All Souls Day", in honor of dead people. The Christian idol worshipers dressed up as saints, angels and devils. They made these holidays in order to counteract Sammy's Day ("chukas pagans" is against Christianity). But instead of counteracting it, people simply celebrated both the Christian and Celtic holidays at once.

The Halloween that exists today has a mixture of the customs of Sammy's Day, Pomona Day, All Saints Day, and All Souls Day.

That's what you're celebrating on Halloween.

You should not give candy to trick-or-treaters, but to avoid any ill-feelings, just don't answer the door, as opposed to telling the kid at your door "no."
That's part of celebrating and recognizing the holiday, which is not permitted.

---

December 25th was originally a pagan holiday associated with Saturnalia, the Winter Solstice. The early Christians had this marketing technique where they would try to pass off Yoshka as the fulfillment of the various legends in different pagan mythologies, thus getting those pagans to accept Yoshka. To this end, they kind of "rescheduled" Yoshka's birthday December 25th to coincide with this holiday, which predated Yoshka by many hundreds of years.

Celebrating yoshka's birth is worse than merely counting from his death - when you count it's just a point of reference, but when you celebrate you're saying that you think it's worthy of being a holiday.

---

If saying "Christmas" is wrong, then saying "Xmas" is not any different. The X in Xmas is the Greek letter X, called "chi", which is the first letter in the Greek word Christos, meaning Christ, or "Messiah." The reason illiterate people used to use "X" in place of their signature on a contract is because they were calling upon Yoshkah to witness their good faith.

The reason we are allowed to say it is because Christ doesn’t mean our savior but rather "anointed" (moshiach in english). Kings were anointed, even among the goyim, and it doesn’t imply any religious connection to him.

However, in Europe many Jews were accustomed to referring to the holiday as "kratz mich", which means "scratch me" in Yiddish.

---

I was there when a certain Rav asked Rav Schwab ZT”L why we allow Chanukah presents if it’s really not a Jewish custom, but rather a copy of the gentile custom of giving presents on Xmas. He said basically that Chanukah presents are treif (Incidentally, Chanukah “gelt” – cash, not presents – is a 100% Kosher minhag), but since the custom is so prevalent, if you as a parent will be the only one not to give your child a present on Chanukah, he will feel deprived and it can cause more trouble than it is worth. Therefore, since it is not Halachicly prohibited, but merely “not Jewish”, don’t fight it.

(It should be noted that in the case of the theaters, which is halachicly prohibited, we are not actually committing the sin; we are merely not objecting to it. In the case of the Chanukah presents, we would be committing the sin if it were prohibited. Therefore, to allow Chanukah presents, it is necessary to be Halachicly permitted).

---

The truth is, even though counting the goyish year isn't as bad as celebrating it, the Chasam Sofer and Mahram Shik rule that it is prohibited to count according to the goyish year. We should follow their opinion. That is why many pious Jews will not write the goyish year out, but instead will only abbreviate it - as in '03.

The goyish months are not prohibited because (I heard this svara from Rav Hillel David and it's an excellent explanation) the goyish months aren't really months --- a month represents the cycle of something, like the cycle of the moon. As opposed to the goyish month, which represent nothing --- every 30-31 days, what happened? Absolutely nothing. They aren't "months" - they are random segments of days that people decided to clump together and call a "month". Fine, but that's not a Goyish version of a Jewish month, for a Jewish month means counting a time period against a cyclic event. So there is no reason not to use the goyish "months" - they're not "competition" for ours.

My son came up with a similar explanation as to why we are allowed to use the goyish days of the week - sunday, monday etc. That is because the goyish day is also a random chunk of time - it goes from midnight to midnight. Who decided that a "day" ends there? Who decided that a day is 24 hours? Maybe a day is 48 hours? Maybe it goes from 7:30 to 7:30? A Jewish "day" means one segment of night followed by a segment of day, or vice versa (goyim count night first), and if the goyim would make goyish names for days as such, maybe we would prohibit it, but the goyish "day" is a totally different concept and isn’t really a "day" in the real sense of the word. Rather, it is a random chunk of time and therefore not competition with our days.

---

The names of the months did come from Bavel, not from Persian gods. It is a Yerushalmi, which is where the Ramban got it from.

The Persian god thing refers specifically to the month Tamuz, "Tamuz" being the name of an avodah zorah. The name of the month did not come from non-Jewish sources, but rather that particular month is subject to the tumah related to the avodah zorah worship of the false god tamuz, which we have to transform during that month. But the names of the months, including Tamuz, are of Jewish origin, as Chazal say.

---

Neither "rattails" or stylish haircuts are chukas hagoyim. The reason is, these styles were originated by Jews (non religious) as well as by Goyim, and chukas akum is something originated by goyim and copied by Jews.

But it is definitely frowned upon to copy the behavior of the goyim and non-religious Jews even though there is no violation of chukas akum for it.

Religious type styles would still fall under chukas akum, such as the Krishna side-pony tail, and such. Otherwise, you would have to see whether the design started with Jews and Goyim together or just Goyim.

---

Any clothing of the Goyim that has an element of Pritzus - even a small element - is prohibited under Chukas Akum.

There are those who say that even if the clothing of the Goyim are as Tzniusdik as Jewish clothing, we still have to wear some article of clothing that shows that we are Jews.

There are others who say that even if there is no element of Pritzus, as long as we got the idea to wear it from the Goyim, it is prohibited. It would be permitted if we decided on our own to wear it, independent of the fact that the Goyim do.

If the Jews in a certain place unfortunately ended up wearing clothing of the non-Jews, there are those who hold that although it came about in a prohibited fashion, now that the Jews are wearing that clothing it becomes permitted to someone who moves into that place to wear that clothing, since now it is the clothing of the Jews.

Wearing a Yarlmuka, for instance, even though it may have originated as a Chumrah, nowadays, since it distinguishes Jews from Goyim, there are those who say it becomes prohibited Min haTorah not to wear it.

---

Peroxiding your hair is certainly frowned upon from a Torah perspective, but is not Halachicly prohibited. The reason it would not fall into the category of Chukas Akum is that, being neither a religious nor promiscuous practice of the Goyim, the only category of chukas akum it could fall under is “minhag shtus shel’hem” – senseless behaviors of the goyim. But that wouldn’t be the case here, since it was not exclusively Goyim that developed the practice of peroxiding hair, but the entire general population, including its non-religious, assimilated Jews (proportionate to their population). Since this is not an exclusively non-Jewish minhag shtus, but one that is jointly Goyish and non-religious-Jewish, we cannot prohibit it as Chukas Akum.

However, it is certainly frowned upon and discouraged from a Torah perspective, to imitate the senseless behavior of the combination Goyim and non-religious Jews, even if not a violation of Chukas Akum.

---

It doesn't say all red clothing is chukas akum. It gives an example of Jews changing from white shoelaces - which was customary for Jews to wear - to red ones, which was customary for non-Jews.

---

Swearing/cursing

2006-09-26T12:31:00.000-07:00

You can't say Oh Jesus.
Baal P'eor is not a problem because that Avodah Zarah has been Botul.
"Jeez" is not Halachicly prohibited since its not his full name, but it is certainly repulsive to use it.
"Gee whiz", by the way, also refers to Yoshkah. The "Gee" is really "Jee", the first syllable in his name.
L'havdil, "Oh G-d" may not be said according to many Poskim for a different reason - it is taking Hashem's name in vain.

---

The GRA there says in the name of the Mordechai that you can say the name of an Avodah Zarah if it's not a "deified" name or context thereof. The problem is when a person says "Oh Jesus", that's clearly a deification. It’s like l'havdil when someone says "Oh G-d" or omg. The only reason his name is brought up in this context is because they believe he is some kind of deity otherwise the expression makes no sense. It's like a calling out to the deity.
Also, the name Christ means Messiah, so even in a simple non-deified context it would be forbidden to say.

---

"Darn" is an offshoot of "damn", which means to put a curse on something. "darn it" means "curse this stupid thing". You're not cursing "darn", rather, "darn" means to curse. "Oh Jesus" would not mean "curse Jesus".
But in plain conversation, to say Jesus without Christ is permitted. We call him Yoshka because it is a Mitzvah to make fun of Avoda Zara.

---

When you think of what those "swear" words really mean, it should repulse anyone. The difference between you and those it doesn't repulse is that the others just mindlessly spout it out without any thinking about what it means. You, being a person who uses their head and not just their mouth when they talk, are repulsed because of the meaning behind the words.

---

Terror and response (post 9/11)

2006-09-22T14:40:00.000-07:00

WHAT WE SHOULD THINK IN RESPONSE TO THE TERROR
PART I

It’s true – and this everyone knows already – that when suffering befalls us, we are obligated to take stock in our actions and do teshuva, because, as Chazal say, “There is no suffering without sin, and no pain without transgression”. The Rambam writes that it is cruelty (achzorius) to allow suffering to happen without attributing it to our sins. It’s like when a father slaps a kid in the face, and the kid says, “I trust my father that her must have had a reason to slap me, but I am not capable of figuring out why”. The purpose of the slap is to teach a lesson, and if the kid refuses to learn, then I guess another punishment is necessary, r”l.

OUR RESPONSE: IMPROVEMENT VS. CHANGE

So the first, most basic response is Teshuva, but it has to be accompanied by ruthless objectivity. Meaning, I am certain that everyone will say in response to this, “We have to speak less loshon horah, respect each other more, do more chesed and learn more Torah”. People love to look at themselves and say, “We can improve”. But they do not like to say, “We have to CHANGE”. There is a big difference. Improvement means you have a certain value that you are striving toward, but you have to strive harder, more, better. Of course, regardless of how hard you strive there is always room for improvement. People are willing to commit to improve, but of course since there’s always room for improvement and always will be, the determination of whether they actually did as much as they could do to improve is impossible to make.

Then there is “change”. As opposed to improvement, where you have to try harder to do what you already are doing, or at least want to do, change, in this context, means to wake up and to realize that there are many aveiros that people are not trying to work on at all, but merely live our life accepting them as part of our lifestyle. People don’t want to think about these aveiros because responding to them means not only some vague commitment to “try harder” but to measurably and visibly make changes in your lifestyle.

That is why if someone says, “Jews are being killed in Israel. It’s because we talk loshon horah, we don’t respect each other enough, and don’t pray with enough kavanah”, people will accept that. But if someone says, “Jews are being killed in Israel. It’s because married women do not cover their hair, because people go mixed swimming, because boys and girls mix in ways they should not, because people read and watch and log on to places they should not”, people will get mad and offended. Why would we accept only certain aveiros as capable of causing death and not others? Is it because we are reluctant to admit that our very lifestyle needs to be changed? Or that we only want to accept responsibility for something that we can always say, “We’re trying”, or “There’s ALWAYS room for improvement?”

Whatever. Our first response to tragedy is to ruthlessly audit our actions and admit to ourselves that our sins – not only loshon horah and disrespect for each other – is causing Jews to die all over the world. When Achan sinned by talking from the spoils of Yericho, Jews were killed, and that was one person, one sin. Everyone knows what their own sins are, and Hashem is showing us the possible consequences of them. And better he should show us in Olam hazeh…. At least now we are getting a warning. Sins are the most destructive thing in the universe.

THE CHURBAN OF OUR SINS

The World Trade Centers were probably the most monumental structures in the whole world. I’ve been in many countries, and I have never seen anything like them in terms of overwhelming hugeness. Watching them being blown away shakes us up, and we are shocked at the sight of something so big being obliterated like that.

The reality is, though, that destruction is nothing compared to what our sins do in Shamayim. This world is nothing. It’s a puny, little speck compared to the universe at large. And the universe itself is less than a puny speck compared to the Olamos HaElyonim, the majestic upper worlds that are closer to Hashem. This entire universe is a little joke compared to the universe upstairs.

And the damage that a few planes can do down here is nothing compared to the utter destruction what sins can do up there. Up there is a world that lasts forever, is built of the goodness of our Mitzvos, and is beautiful and majestic beyond our comprehension.

When we do a sin, it is like atom bombing the most majestic city in the world. All the suffering, the screaming, the destruction, the horror and the ugliness, happens in Shamayim. It’s hard to envision what such a thing looks like, but the destruction of something so big and majestic that horrified and shocked so, is a small minuscule Moshol of what we do to Hashem’s world, to our own eternal Gan Eden world, and to this small world too, when we sin.

After 120 years, we will live forever and ever, for millions and millions of years until eternity, in a world that we make. Our Mitzvos build towers. Our aveiros tear them down. The horror and the shock of seeing the WTC torn down is nothing compared to our shock and horror of seeing the towers built by our Mitzvos torn down by our own actions. We are all going to have to relive the experience of the world trade center destruction in the next world. It will be not the death of others, but our own death over and over being experienced then, the pain and anguish will not be watched but intimately felt.

It won't be some business offices that will be destroyed but our own homes, built by the sweat of our brows. That we will see crashing down around us, where we will be trapped between vaporizing heat waves and jumping to a crashing death. Our deaths, our homes, our horror, and our tragedy – it will all be so personal and up close. Taking place in the deepest part of our souls. We will see it happen, experience it, feel it in the most painful way. And we will think about those beautiful towers and the city that we built with our mitzvos and get sickened by what was and what could have been if not for the destruction taking place before our eyes. And we will wonder at the evil of the terrorists and what kind of animal would destroy such an infinitely beautiful city created out of the stuff of Mitzvos, and torture such beautiful peaceful souls created in the Image of G-d. We will watch, helplessly as the most beautiful and majestic structures go down in smoke and ashes, destroyed by suicide hijackers. We will watch and not be able to stop them, and we will wonder how Hashem could allow such beauty to be destroyed – beauty that was created by a Jewish soul – a chelek elokah mima’al – a part of Hashem Himself. Infinite beauty and majesty. How could Hashem allow it? We will scream out at the injustice and the evil of the perpetrators, the death and destruction they are causing. The sorrow, the horror. The lives snuffed out at their hands, and we will demand justice. We will scream to Hashem to reveal the identities of the cowardly pilots and bring the criminals to justice. And we will demand to know, how such pain and horror could exist in the Olam HaEmes.

And Hashem will then answer us. And all the horror and pain that we saw until then will pale in comparison to the horror and pain and shock that we will realize that we didn’t grow much from when we lived in the Olam HaSheker, that just like we had eyes but refused to see Hashem’s justice in this world, we still are blind in the next world, too blind and deaf and dumb to understand the justice and ways of Hashem, because at that moment, when we scream in pain and horror at the destruction of the infinite beauty created by our mitzvos, Hashem will allow us to see the entire picture. And when see that whole picture, we will then know the horror and pain of Gehennom itself, worse then experiencing our own deaths thousands and thousands of times over, and being helpless to stop it.

Because we will then see that the pilots, the terrorists, the masterminds behind this destruction…

… is us.

We did the aveiros, we knew what they would do, we were warned, and we destroyed our own world. And one avairah is like dropping ten thousand suicide planes on G-d’s world. On our world, that we created with our mitzvos.

But it will be too late, then.

“Today is the time to do them [the Mitzvos], tomorrow is the time to reap their reward.”

We have a choice. Let’s make it before it’s too late.

Let’s learn from the terrible destruction that we just saw.

Rosh HaShanah is coming. Let’s do teshuva.

PART II - HASHGOCHA

Ari Schonbrun is one of the heads of Tomchei Shabbos in the Five Towns area of New York. I know him personally. His office was on the 101st floor in World Trade Center
#1. He told Arutz-7 how his life was saved by "miracle after miracle
after miracle:"
"I was on the 78th floor, about to enter an elevator for the 101st floor (I happened to have stayed home an extra ten minutes in order to help my son with some schoolwork...), when I heard a tremendous explosion. All the electricity went out. I entered an office where I saw some light, and someone was on the radio, I tried to get her to get some help, but she couldn't do it because there were too many people. Then I told the floor's fire warden that we have to get out… he said OK, we can go down the emergency steps, but we couldn't find them, there was only smoke all around. I kept walking and I found a man saying, "Here, here," so about 15 people went down the steps there. A co-worker of mine named Virginia was hurt, and she kept saying, "Don't leave me, don't leave me." I went with her and we started going down. My cell phone was dead, but after we went about three floors, all of a sudden the phone started ringing. It was my wife, and I told her, "Joyce, I'm OK, I'm OK," over and over. Then someone asked me if he could use the phone and I said sure, and again - the phone was totally dead. I felt that it was just a miracle that my
wife got through. "Virginia kept saying, 'Don't leave me,' and I said to everyone,
'Make way, there is someone wounded here,' and they let us through. At one point she said she couldn't go any further, and I said, " Virginia, you just have to!" We finally got down to the bottom, and the police directed us where to go outside, and I looked around and finally found someone to help [Virginia] - only then did I look around outside and see the second building on fire. I couldn't understand, and I said, "I know that there was some bomb in the first building, but why is there a fire
in the second building?" - because the whole time until then I didn't hear or know anything else... So then they told me that two planes had crashed, one into each building. We had had absolutely no idea. At that point Virginia still didn't let me go, she said I have to go with her even to the hospital. I said I don't know if they'll let me, etc. But she said I had to, and they let me in the ambulance, and we were apparently the first ambulance that left from there… When we got there, I found out that the second building fell. And I know that if I hadn't gone with Virginia, I would have stayed there walking around, and who knows what would have happened to me. I'm telling you, it was just miracle after miracle after miracle that saved my life… Just like in the story of Purim…"

---

The Gemora says "ain misah blochet v'ain yesurim blo avon" - there is no death without sin and no suffering without trangression. The Rambam writes that it is a Torah obligation to attribute all death and suffering in our community to our sins, and that someone who doesn’t do that is guilty of gross insensitivity (achzorius). The Torah, which was written by G-d, tells us that such deaths are attributable to sins, and that it is our obligation to look at it like that.

---

As far as the "hints" to the terror attacks in many places, I can find you tons. And I can interpret those hints to mean many other things as well. It's easy to find hints, but what’s the point? We know the Torah written by Hashem knows everything. SO what’s the difference if we see it or not? The only value it has is, it can convince people that the Torah is "for real." But there are so many real proofs to the Torah that relying on these things only weakens us, since you can find such "hints" anywhere, depending on how you interpret them. Such hints are found everywhere, regarding everything.

---

Several years ago every Rabbi in this country had his shabbos shuva drasha made for him. September 11th happened so close to Rosh Hashanah that everyone just had to talk about it. And rightfully so.

They said that we should take it as a message from Hashem to do Teshuva; that we should wake up and realize that we, too, in America, are vulnerable to terrorism and all sorts of atrocities, and that we have been complacent for so long, confident in the ability of our the two oceans to protect us from what happens all the time in Eretz Yisroel, and now we see it is not so. We are in danger here, too.

And they were right, of course. We are indeed in danger here. And so many of us reacted appropriately. We made assemblies, gathered together to say Tehillim, to daven, to do Teshuva. We davened like most of us have never davened before, because we were so scared of what was going to happen in the future. (My son’s Rosh Yeshiva predicted right after September 11th that in three weeks Jews would not be able to walk the streets anymore, because they would be blamed for what happened.)

And now, years later, we look back and realize that NOTHING HAPPENED. Not a single person in this country was killed or even hurt by any terrorist in the past two years. Not a single incident, anywhere in this country, from coast to coast. There were attempts – the guy with the shoe on the airplane, and others. They caught on the average maybe one terrorist or suspected terrorist daily since 9-11-01.

But nothing happened. All our predictions were wrong – we were safe, Boruch Hashem, and may the Chasdei Hashem continue.

But the question is: Have we maintained that level of Teshuva and focus on our Ruchnius that we had those years ago when we were scared? Have we davened for the past two years a single tefilah as intense as we davened on September 12th, 2001? Have we been as careful in our observance of Mitzvos and Torah learning as we were then? Or have we slackened off, because Hashem blessed us with safety, back to business as usual?

If we have not davened or learned during the past years of peace and safety as well as we did on September 12th, what message are we sending to Hashem?. Do twenty five hundred people have to be killed in order for us to return to Him? If so, then we have put ourselves in terrible danger. If we are only that frum when Hashem sends tragedies into our lives, but when Hashem shows us open blessing and protection we are complacent, what does Hashem have to do in order to get us to return to Him? What are we telling Hashem that He has to do in order to get us to return to Him?

There is no question, no doubt, that the only reason nothing happened here in the past two years is Chasdei Hashem. It is so easy for terrorists to accomplish their horrific missions. Have you ever walked into Penn Station or Grand Central Station in New York City? You’ll see National Guardsmen and police galore, but we all know that there is nothing to stop a suicide bomber rachmana litzlan from just walking in. No metal detectors, no security, nothing.

What would it take for someone to drive a car loaded with explosives into the front of a Yeshiva or Shul? Rachmana Litzlan! It is so easy, we are so vulnerable, so weak, so available to any evil doer that wants to make us victims.

The evil ones threatened. They promised. They assured us that more attacks will come. And they could have come so easily.

But nothing happened. Nothing. Not a single incident in the years since. If this is not open Hashgachah and Blessing from Hashem what is? Yet does it motivate us to return to Him the way we did back then? Do we only return to G-d when thousands of people are killed?

THAT – and only that: the message that we send to Hashem, “See? If you have thousands of people killed we will get better, but if you openly protect us against all odds, we are complacent” – is what puts us in danger.

The Medrash says that it is not the suffering that causes us to daven, but rather the need to daven that causes the suffering. Chazal give a moshol: The king was traveling down the road with his entourage when he heard the screams of a woman in distress. The King sent his soldiers to check it out, and they found a band of robbers attacking the young lady. They killed the robbers and brought the women to the King. She thanked him profusely, and they all went on their way.

The King, however, decided he likes the woman and wants to marry her. So he sent her messages and roses, and invitations to come to the castle but she did not respond. She had no interest in talking to the King. There was nothing the King could do to get an audience with this women.

So what he did was, he sent a band of robbers to attack her while he was nearby, and he waited for her to scream “King! Help me! I’m being attacked! Please!” and then he sent his soldiers to save her, again. It was only then that she was willing to come talk to the King. When she needed his help. So the King had no choice but to make her need his help.

So, too, the Medrash says, Hashem wants our Tefilos. He makes life good for us, he begs us, kivyachol, to come talk to Him. He wants us to return to Him but we refuse. So Hashem has no choice but to send attackers after us.

Then we pray. Then we do Teshuva. Then we talk to the King.

It’s the need to generate Tefilah that creates the Tzoros, not vice versa.

My wonderful friends– the King has been continuously sending us roses for the past many years! And He made it quite obvious that our good fortune here came only from Him. In 2001, if you had to predict what this country would look like today, what would you have said? What were we all saying? Yet Hashem showed us that for whatever reason – maybe its because no country in the history of the world was ever so good to Jews and Judaism as the United States of America; no country in history! – or maybe for another reason, but one way of the other, Hashem has shown us His grace, His Influence, His shefah and His blessing in abundance, far beyond what we had a right to expect! Far beyond what any of us expected.

The King has been sending us roses, because He loves us and wants to make us His queen. For the past years the roses have been coming, daily. The most valuable gifts – gifts that we begged for – peace and safety – have been delivered to us daily by His Majesty. Hand delivered. In person..

The Chasam Sofer was once gozer taanis because of a certain Gezeirah that happened to his community in his days. But before the Taanis was supposed to have taken place, the Gezeirah was nullified. The Chasam Sofer said that they still have to fast on the designated day, because we dare not return to Hashem only when impending doom hangs over us.

Everyone wants to know what we can do to help our brothers in Eretz Yisroel. What we can do is show Hashem that we do not need suffering to make us return to Him. Not our suffering, and not the suffering of our brothers abroad.

Please, everyone. Starting tonight, for the next 10 days [Aseres Yimei Teshuvah] is a time that the King Himself created to return to Him. It’s easier now than it is throughout the year to do Teshuva. The King is now not only sending us roses, but is standing right next to us with His arms open for us to throw ourselves into. What happens next – to us and to the rest of Klall Yisroel – is up to us.

My wishes and prayers for a Kesiva Vachasimah Tovah to all of the frumteens community – the most awesome people in the world – and all of Klall Yisroel, for a Kesiva Vachasimah Tovah – the greatest year ever, and may we all be zocheh to break our anonymity on this site when we all meet to witness the Salvation and Simcha of all Yisroel, Amen.

Giving and Getting Forgiveness II

2006-09-22T09:09:00.000-07:00

If you've done Teshuva on an aveirah, then you indeed do not need to cry about it anymore. If you did not, then its effect is still there, it is still a negative mark on your Olam Habah, and there is what to cry about.

---

You did good. Don’t let the Satan trick you into thinking you didn't. You did what Tzadikim invariably do - fall - and you did what Tzadikim hopefully do - get back up.

That’s ALL that counts.

As far as "he" is concerned - you don't have to respect him, and you don't have to forgive him - not now for sure -- when and if he comes begging you for forgiveness, we'll deal with it then.

I know, however, that deep down you "want to want to" forgive him. That’s fine. But right now you can't, and aren't expected to. First forgive yourself - then you'll have a totally different perspective. If at that point, you find it within yourself to forgive him, that’s one thing. But don’t beat yourself up over the fact that you cant, now. Don't worry so much about him - that's his job. Take care of yourself first. You deserve it.

---

Teshuva helps 100% if you simply regret and resolve. However, there is a higher level, called "Teshuva Gemura" where you end up in the same position as you were before and you resist. If you do that you have attained a very high level of Teshuva. But even if you never end up in that position, you still have accomplished teshuva. Source: Rambam Hilchos Teshuva 2:1

---

Guilt means nothing. Technically, if you really regretted what you did and resolved never to do it again - and only YOU, in your heart of hearts know if that is true - then your Teshuva is guaranteed to be accepted.

This is assuming of course, you fulfilled any possible Halachic conditions, such as returning any stolen items you may have in your possession, etc.

But I once heard from my father-in-law ZT"L a very cute thought on this. He said that when you get a suit back from the cleaners, at the beginning you are very careful not to get it dirty - since it "just came from the cleaners." After a while, you're not so extra careful anymore with it.

So, too, with your Neshomah. When you do Teshuva, it's like you send your Neshoma to the cleaners. If afterwards, you are extra careful not to do anything wrong, it means that your Neshoma is freshly cleaned. But if even after you get your neshoma back form the cleaners you are not so careful to make sure it doesn't get soiled again, it means the cleaners didn't do a good job to begin with...

---

1. The point of fasting is twofold: (a) It is used when we are involved with doing intense Teshuva. Since our minds are intensely focused on spiritual matters, there is no "time or energy" for food. Rav Yisroel Salanter ZT"L put it this way: On Tisha Bav (when our minds are focused on the terrible destruction for our Bais HaMikdash), who can eat? And on Yom Kippur (when we are granted one day to enter in front of Hashem and beseech Him for life), who cares about eating??"
Fasting itself, without doing Teshuva, misses the whole point. (b) It's like a sacrifice of our own bodies to Hashem. When by not eating, our body feeds on itself for energy, during our Teshuva process, it is similar to offering a Korbon.

2. It is not recommended nowadays to fast more than required, since the hunger tends to weaken and distract us, rather than inspire and motivate us.

3. Teshuva goes with prayer - Teshuva and prayer (and Tzedakah) are things we do when Klall Yisroel is in danger. We recognize the threat to our lives as a message from Hashem to straighten out, and so we do it (hence the fasting), and we beg Hashem to withdraw the decree (hence the prayer).

4. Yom Kippur's fast is very different than the rest. This fast is exclusive in that it is an explicit decree in the Torah: "And you shall afflict yourselves", which Hashem told Moshe means fasting. There is a subtle but tremendous conceptual difference between the fast on Yom Kippur vs. other fasts. On Yom Kippur, the point of the fast is not to refrain from eating per se, but to afflict ourselves - here, the pain is precisely the point. Fasting on Yom Kippur is but one of 5 ways we afflict ourselves on that day, (no wearing leather, no anointing, and no bathing are the others), all mandated in the Torah. If you eat on Yom Kippur it has the same severity as violating Shabbos. It is a capital crime.

I actually fast very badly. But Hashem knows this, too. And Hashem knows also that we are fulfilling the Mitzvah of Chazal to fast and making ourselves suffer in order to show how pained we are at the tragedy that caused the fast. That itself is a tremendous zechus, and since Hashem doesn’t expect of us more than we can do, He will judge our davening on a taanis based on the extra effort we put in because of the Taanis.

---

The fast is supposed to be an inevitable by-product of our mind-set for the day. Teshuva, not fasting is the main purpose of the day. Fasting is just part of that.

That’s why the Mishna Brura says that if a person fasts on a fast day without doing Teshuva, he missed the point of the fast.

Fasting also is a Kaparah, atonement, like a korban: the flesh that we “burn up” on a Taanis is like the meat of a Korbon. It’s kind of like sacrificing just a little part of yourself.

One important note, though: the fact that the Mishna Brurah says that fasting without Teshuva misses the point, does not mean that if you are not going to do Teshuva, you may as well eat. You can’t do that, because there is still a prohibition of eating. On a fast, you have 3 options:

1) Fast and do Teshuva -- the right option.
2) Fast without doing Teshuva – you miss the point.
3) Do not fast or do Teshuva – you miss the point AND get an aveirah for eating.

---

If you were sincere in your commitment never to do it again, and you regretted that you did it in the first place, that constitutes Teshuva, and you are forgiven, even if you later found yourself doing the Aveirah again.

The trap you need to avoid, however, is what is called "echteh v'ashuv", which means, you say "I will do this sin and later I will do Teshuva and get forgiven". That's a problem, since it becomes your ability to do Teshuva that's giving you the courage to sin. That makes it much harder for you to do Teshuva when the time comes.

Nobody is beyond forgiveness. The poskim say that someone who believes he is beyond forgiveness makes a Brachah L'Vatalaha each day when he says "chanun hamarbeh l'sloach". Hashem is waiting for you with His arms open.

---

1) Teshuva M’Yirah turns your aveiros into Shogeeim.
Question: Why shogegim?
My answer: Because someone who does Teshuva M’yirah doesn’t really regret that he did an aveirah, he regrets that he incurred a punishment. His ‘yirah’ is fear of getting punished but the aveirah in and of itself is not his issue. Therefore, Hashem removes the punishment , but leaves him with the aveirah. An aveirah that comes without a punishment, that’s the status of a shogeg.

2) Teshuva Gemmurah
The Rambam writes that a complete Teshuva (i.e. a higher level of Teshuva) takes place only when a person relives the previous situation in which he sinned finds himself alone with the same woman he sinned with, in the same place, with the same desire and refrains. Question: How exactly does this experience enhance a person’s Teshuva? After one regrets his deed and commits not to repeat it, what precisely does this experience add to the Teshuva process?
My answer: The point of this experience is not to test him with the same level of Nisayon, but rather to show him that the first time he did the aveirah he no excuse. Sometimes a person does regret the sin he did, but still harbors doubts in his mind as to his ability to have been able to refrain. He may say
I really regret what I did, but you know, it was really hard not to.
To totally rid himself of this attitude, he goes through the exact same experience again, and refrains. If there is any way to distinguish or differentiate between the circumstances he is in now and the time he did the aveirah, then it does not fulfill the criteria of oso isha osos perek oso medinah etc; - he relives the past experience and sees that he refrained this time, which means that the first time he did it, he indeed could have resisted as well. This intensifies, or completes, in the language of the Rambam his regret of his past deed.

3) On Rosh Hashanah, Tzadikim are inscribed for life; Reshaim for death; Beinonim are deferred until Yom Kipur. If they do Teshuva, they get life, if not, then death.
Rav Yisroel Salanter asks: In the days between RH and Yom Kippur, the Benoni could have done so many more Mitzvos than aveiros, thus tipping the scales and changing his status from a Beinoni to a Tzadik by the time Yom Kippur arrives. Yet form the Gemora is seems that no matter how many more Mitzvos you do and how big a Tzadik you become, if you do not do Teshuva, you get death. Why? (Rav Yisroel Salanter answers that the aveirah of not doing Teshuva is so severe that it outweighs all the Mitzvos a person can possibly do).
My answer: The judgment on Rosh Hashanah is based on what you did the past year. That decides whether you live or die. Any subsequent Mitzvos and aveiros you do, even if they are done during aseres yemei teshuva, go on the scale of next year’s judgment. Once the year is up, so is your chance to change. The only thing that can save you after Rosh Hashanah is something that goes back in time and retroactively erases the past aveiros that you did during the prior year. That is Teshuva. Everything else you do goes on next year’s reckoning.

4) Hachzireinu B’teshuva Sheleimah Lifonecha
Question: Of all the 613 Mitzvos, why is it that the only specific Mitzvah that we pray to Hashem to give us is Teshuva. We do pray in general to serve Hashem, but here we have a specific action, Teshuva, singled out as a special prayer. Why is Teshuva unique in that it deserves a special prayer outside of the general prayers that we say to serve Hashem?
Another question: in this prayer, we do not ask for just Teshuva. We ask for teshuva sheleimah. What is incomplete teshuva that we need to specify that we want teshuva sheleimah?
My answer (which starts with one more question): The Rambam writes that in order to have Teshuva Gemurah you have to be in the exact same position you were in the first time, with the exact same woman the sin was done with,. However, the Rambam also wrotes in the next Halachah that a Baal Teshuva is supposed to stay far, far away from the thing he sinned with. So if the Baal Teshuva is supposed to stay far away from that woman, and women in general, how in the world is he ever going to get to do Teshuva Gemurah?
The answer is, it is clear from here that Teshuva Gemurah , although great merit, is only obtainable as a gift form G-d, and is not something we are allowed to pursue on our own. On the contrary, our responsibility is to run away from the circumstances that caused us to sin. If, despite his efforts, he finds himself in the unwelcome circumstances of being tempted again, then, he resists and he gets Teshuva Gemurah.

Support for this: As part of the circumstance needed for Teshuva Gemurah, the Rambam includes the person being in Yichud with the same woman. Certainly the Rambam is not suggesting that a person purposely put himself in Yichud with the woman, for that would be assur. Rather, the Rambam is describing a situation that happened not by your design by accident. So it is no big chidush that just as you are supposed to avoid Yishud with the woman yet it is a requirement for Teshuva Gemurah, so too you are supposed to avoid all contact her altogether, and yet that contact can still be a requirement for Teshuva Gemurah.

What comes out is, Teshuva Gemurah is unique among Mitzvos in that even though it is a great merit, we are not allowed to pursue it. In fact, we are obligated to run away from it, even if we know we can resist the temptation. Only Hashem can grant it to us in His benevolence, despite our best efforts.

Therefore, we pray to Hashem, Hachazireinu beteshuva sheleimah lifonechah. Hashem, please give me the great merit of Teshuva Gemurah, because I am not allowed to pursue it on my own. This one merit, I cannot try to obtain. Only You can give it to me.

That’s why we pray for not plain Teshuva, but Teshuva sheleimah, and only for Teshuva Sheleimah. Because everything else we can pursue on our own. This can only come from Hashem.

---

In the tochachah we know that the reason for all the horrible curses is "tachas asher loavadita hashem elokecha beimcha uvetov levava marov kol". All the meforshim ask why is it that just because there was no simcha in your avodas Hashem do you deserve such terrible punishment?

I'd like to add another question, regarding the meaning of the phrase "merov kol". If rov kol over here has a similar meaning to "simcha", that is, you should have served Hashem with simcha and with Rov Kol, the posuk should not have said "me"rov kol, but rather "be"rov kol, like it does by simcha.

As background to understand the answer, please see:

http://www.frumteens.com/topic.php?topic_id=3809 (The Frumteens Rosh Hashana message)

Now, the answer is that, whenever we have tzoros r"l, we respond by doing Teshuva. We have gatherings, we say Tehillim, we are gozer taanis, we become better.

But although all that is the proper response to tzoros, such a response should not be limited to when bad things happen. Better to do teshuva when good things happen, because good things happen to us, out of gratitude for good things that happen to us.

We should make a Teshuva rally whenever time goes by and no terrorist c"v drives a car bomb into a Yeshiva, or blows himself up in Penn Station or LAX or crashes a plane Hashem yishmeeirnu. The only reason those things don’t happen is because of chasdei Hashem. We should get together and make teshuva rallies and become better out of love for all that Hashem gives us, and each morning when we wake up and we're still alive and we have our eyes and ears and arms and legs, we should do teshuva out of happiness. And when we say Birchas HaShachar in the morning and we thank Hashem for all those things we woke up with we should become more frum, and resolve to be better people from now on, out of happiness and gratitude.

Hashem sends us roses every day. We should run into His arms thanking Him.

But if we don't, if the only time we become better and more frum and change our ways is when bad things r"l happen, then what are we tell gin Hashem? What are we pushing Hashem to do? Our purpose in this world - our only purpose - is to grow and become more frum and better people. And if we only do that when r"l tragedies occur, then what do we expect Hashem to send us?????

"Tachas" (especially when followed by the word "asher") in Hebrew means "because", as in "tachas asher kinah l'elokav", but it also means "instead of", as in "ayin tachas ayin.".

Tachas[/] asher lo avadita Hashem besimcha - Hashem is saying, "Once upon a time you were besimcha. You could have served me out of simcha. You had everything. I sent you roses. You had "rov kol." You could have served Me out of happiness because of all the good you had --- "besimcha [b]merov kol -- with joy, because of all the good you had. The rov kol should have geenrated the simcha and you could have returned to me and became better because of it.

"But you didn’t. You didn’t become better. You didn’t improve out of joy merov kol.

"But don’t worry - you’ll become more frum - you will make asifos and gatherings and say tehillim and Teshuva rallies and fasts and people will do teshuva, and you will fulfill the purpose of your life.

"Just wait until the bad things happen. Then you’ll do Teshuva. You didn’t want to do teshuva when the good things happened? Just wait until the Tochachah happens - then you'll suddenly do Teshuva.

"One way or another, your job in this world is to become better. You could have become better out of joy, but you didn’t. Now, Tachas asher lo avadita ..besimcha merov kol, because you didn’t serve Hashem out of the joy that you had because you had so much --- rov kol -- you will now become better out of tzoros. You had the simcha. teh simcha brought on by rov kol. You were besimcha. But did you do teshuva because of it? Did you serve me because of it? No?

"The, tashas asher lo avadita Hashem besimcha merov kol -- you will now serve Hashem the hard way."

May we all be zocheh to return to Hashem through joy of Rov Kol. May we all recognize that the Rov Kol that we experience each day comes only from Hashem, and that the simcha that we experience because of it, is a gift from G-d.

---

Giving and Getting Forgiveness I

2006-09-22T07:53:00.000-07:00

The forgiveness is supposed to be asked before Yom Kippur, not Rosh Hashanah.

If it is not sincere, you accomplish nothing.
If the forgiveness was granted on the grounds that the victim thought you were sincere and you weren't then the forgiveness is not valid - like any decision made under false pretenses.

It doesn't say that you have to ask mechilah per se - it says that you have to be mefayes - pacify - your victim, and get his mechilah. If he feels better and is pacified because he thinks that you really want mechilah but you don’t, then you accomplished nothing except lying to him.

---

The obligation of asking mechila hincludes piyus -- pacifying the victim, making them feel better, which, in this case, means you. And a condition of expecting mechilah is to undo or pay for whatever damage was done, to the extent possible. Also, if by not being mochel he will be encouraged or more likely to do it again, whereas not getting mechilah would be a deterrent, you don’t have any obligation to be mochel.

All that having been said, even if all those circumstances are fulfilled, it is not obligatory to forgive, but strongly recommended.

---

It's not fair to ask a 15 year old to articulate her pain and try to convince a difficult adult that he is wrong. You write it first in your words. Don't try to be fancy or convincing. Just write how you feel, and what you think is wrong here. Then change it around and use the right words so adults can understand.

---

If parents need mechilah they must get it like everyone else. But based on the rules of Kibud Av and what they are entitled to do, there are much less actions on their part that would demand they get mechilah than there are on the part of a child. The same action may be wrong for a child but not wrong for a parent.

---

Teachers and principals have the same status as regular people regarding Mechilah - if they do an injustice to someone, including a student, they have to ask Mechilah, like everyone else. It is also true that the same rules that apply to being wronged by your friends apply to being wronged by your teachers or principals as well - meaning, we should try to forgive them as we would and for the same reasons we would anyone else.

Even if someone did you wrong, and even if you did not forgive them, you still have to have gratitude for what they did for you. But you do not have to invite to your wedding anybody that you don't want to. Especially if their presence will aggravate you.

---

If someone hurts you, you do not have to forgive them until they come to you and pacify you. If they owe you money they have to repay it or else they cannot get forgiveness. They should undo the damage that they did if that is possible.
If they still continue to hurt you then you do not have to forgive them, since by forgiving them they will just feel less guilty to hurt you again.

Or if you will be damaged by forgiving them, the same thing applies. In such cases, even great Tzadikim did not forgive (see Shulchan Aruch Hilchos Yom Kippur - L'Fayes Chaveiro). If people will only be hurt by your forgiving it defeats the purpose. If someone wants forgiveness then you should forgive them, but if they did damage, you have a right as a human being to get the damage undone.

The Sefer Hachinuch, on the Mitzvah of Onaas Devarim, writes that even though there were Tzadikim who were "unhurtable" emotionally - you can say anything to them and they would ignore it - this is not what we expect of all people. People are not "stones that cannot be moved". We are allowed to be hurt when people hurt us. Forgiveness is usually the best way to go -- but in a case where we're talking about someone who just CAN'T bring themselves to forgives someone who ruined their life, or continues to hurt them in whatever way, they have a right to know that they need not feel guilty about their inability to forgive, because the Halachah is on their side.

---

Forgiveness doesn't mean defense. In other words, if we could defend the other person's actions then they would not need forgiveness. She did something wrong, she didn't mean harm. She shouldn't have done it. Forgiveness means to cut them loose even though they did wrong.

The idea is that we also do wrong and we would like Hashem to release us as well. And he treats us the way we treat others.

Listen, people mess up. All of us do -- teenagers, adults, everyone. Believe me. That's not an excuse, just a fact. You girls really need each other now. Holding this anger in your heart is easier but it’s not the best thing for you. I know you WANT to forgive her, you just can’t feel it in your heart. Well, you have the ability to just ignore your heart and do what’s best for you and your friend. You gain nothing by harboring this festering feeling of frustration and fury. Don’t think that your instincts here are telling you what’s good for you. It’s like a mosquito bite – the more you scratch the worse it gets. If you can’t feel OK about what she did to you in your heart, don’t try to force yourself, you can’t force your heart to feel what you want, but you can ignore it and DO what you want. You don’t have to let this anger control you.

---

First, you don't HAVE TO forgive him, at least not until he somehow appeases you. He is not forgiven until he undoes the damage he did to you, or at least tries hard. Until then, you are under no obligation.

If the reason you want to forgive him is because you want to lose the anger inside you but you can't bring yourself to just excuse what he did, you should know that you can still leave him unforgiven even if you lose your anger. There is no Halachah that says if you are no longer angry at someone that means you forgave them.

So let's start with getting rid of the anger even without forgiveness.

The best way to do that is to bear in mind that this guy has problems. Big problems. And even though at the beginning you thought he was sincere, he never was. He probably couldn't be even if he wanted to. He's probably so damaged by whatever it is that caused his problems (I would guess his family life is a mess) that he doesn't have the foggiest notion of what a real relationship is. The relationships that he is used to are probably so messed up that he doesn't even know where to start.

You shouldn't be angry at him because you should pity him. Being stuck in the emotional prison camp that he is stuck in is more painful and more punishment than anything you could imagine. He's a lonely guy, with no real relationships to nurture him. He's gotta be hurting inside, bad. And the anger and rage he caused you to harbor is nothing compared to the anger and rage that he carries around with himself 24/7.

The violence he committed on you was NOT directed at you, but rather at himself and the world. You just happened to be in the line of fire. Anyone in the place you were at that time would have received the exact same treatment. It has nothing to do with YOU. It has only to do with HIM.

He should elicit more pity than anger.

None of this, however, is an excuse. What he did was bad. Plain and simple, regardless of the reasons. You do not have to excuse him for it. When the time comes that he begs for forgiveness and pacifies you (though I can't off hand imagine how), then you can forgive him if you want.

In the meantime, forget the forgiveness. Just get rid of the anger. What happened is his problem, not yours. You learned a big lesson about life, guys, and that just because it feels, smells and looks like a relationship does not mean it really is.

Don't want to kill him, because just being him is a bad enough punishment as it is.

---

There are two issues here: (a) The hate you are harboring toward your assailant, and (b) the distrust that his betrayal has generated in you. I can imagine what kind of crime we’re talking about. The distrust will last for a while. Time will help a lot. These wounds do close. (If the crime was overly traumatic though, and left deep scars perhaps you would want to seek the help of a professional to speak this over with.) However, you can help accelerate the process.

It’s very simple. Just like someone who was in a bad car accident may be afraid to get behind the wheel again, you were in a bad ‘trust accident” and are afraid to trust again.

And just like you would advise someone who got into a car accident to get back behind the wheel and start driving again whether they feel comfortable or not, because the more they allow their fear to control them the more the fear will grow, so too the solution for you is to get back behind the wheel and trust people again even if you are not comfortable doing so. It IS possible. Here’s how:

There are 2 types of trust: (a) “Action Trust”, that is, the willingness to take a risk, and (b) “Emotional Trust”, or, feeling safe despite the risk.

When you fly a plane, you are taking a risk. Your getting on that plane is an act of trust in the machinery, the crew, and the pilots. You may be petrified, but you did a trusting action by getting on the plane. If you have emotional trust as well, you will feel safe on the plane, not petrified.

The more you are willing to risk, the more you trust. Without risk, there is no trust. If you hire a babysitter you trust them. The more steps you take to reduce the risk – hidden video cameras, calling in every 10 minutes, etc. – the less you trust.

Trust IS risk. The amount of trust you have is directly proportionate to the amount of risk you are willing to take.

You have lost your ability to trust other people, meaning, you are not willing to risk getting hurt by people. You want to make sure that in your dealings with other people, there is no risk involved.

You are unable, now, to muster Emotional trust, since it is difficult to rule over your emotions. But you CAN do “Action trust”, meaning, force yourself to risk getting hurt by other people even if you don’t feel safe doing so. You will not feel the emotions of trust but you will be performing the action of trust. Of course, the risks have to be calculated and reasonable. The measure of risk you should take should not exceed that which you used to take before your “accident”. But it should be as close as you are willing to go.

At the beginning you will feel frightened, but as time goes on and your feelings learn that taking such risks does not bring pain, they – your feelings – will be more and more inclined not to fight you when you take such risks. Emotions are very efficient in this manner. They will eventually learn that there is no reason for them to sound the fire alarm every time you trust someone. This may take time, and it may go slowly, but it will happen.

Remember, if you make sure that there is no risk involved, you have not performed an act of trust. Only when there is risk can your action be considered a Trust action.

And do this – get back behind the wheel – as soon and as much as you can. If you want, you can have a friend at your side to give you chizuk when your fear surfaces. It’s OK to be afraid, but don’t let the fact that you’re afraid deter you from acting.

That’s first. Second, you should think a lot about how what happened to you is not the rule but the exception. There are, of course, unwise behaviors a person can do that will increase the chances of becoming a victim – you don’t walk out at night in a bad neighborhood alone with a money-stuffed wallet poking out of your back pocket for instance – but otherwise, the fact that you were on the wrong side of the statistics once does not increase the chances of it happening again. In other words, if you flip a coin three times and three out of three came down heads, the chances of it coming down tails on the fourth flip is still 50/50. Coins have no memory, and neither do crime statistics. Barring any lack of reasonable caution on your part, the fact that this happened to you once does not increase the chances that it will happen again. The more you turn this over in your mind the easier it will be for your emotions to accept it.

It is likely your emotions will force you to be more cautious about people for a while, and that’s fine. Don’t force the issue more than you can handle. Remember that time is your best ally here.

And when you return to your old self, it will be easier for you to forgive.

---

You don't have to forgive him if he owes you something. You do not have to forgo that. Even if he does Teshuva it does not help him until he pays you. You’ll worry more about this on Erev Yom Kippur. Right now, try to get your money.

---

When you forgive someone, it's over. But you do not have to "forget" what he did to you. You are allowed to be careful that it shouldn't happen again. For instance, if someone mugs you in the street and you forgive him, that doesn't mean that you are not allowed to avoid being caught with him again at night in a dark alley.

However, there are times that you do not have to forgive someone, even if he asks to be forgiven. They are:

(a) If the person owes you money for damage or a debt and has not paid back or rectified the damage,

(b) If by forgiving him you will somehow suffer or be harmed,

(c) If he (the person who wronged you) will somehow suffer or be harmed if you forgive him.

And example is a case where if you forgive him you know he will repeat his sin, relying on your granting forgiveness in the future. You are not obligated to forgive even the first time in such a case.

---

According to Rav Yisroel Salanter, you aren't even allowed to ask Mechilah for loshon horah because you're hurting the person by letting him know that you did it. There's a machlokes about this, but in your case where you have to call a bunch of guys or whatever and enter into this conversation with them, oh do you forgive me, I'm so sorry, yes of course I forgive you, blah blah, the answer is, NO, you should not ask. Just leave it and hope the guy says Tefilah Zakah.

---

It will help you if you bear in mind the comment of the Chovos Halevovos and the Sefer HaChinuch. Namely, that whatever someone does to you, it means there was a decree from Hashem that that should happen to you. This person could not have damaged you had Hashem not decreed that it happen.

This does NOT - I repeat: This does NOT - absolve him from any guilt whatsoever, since Hashem would not have used this guy as His "shliach" unless that person willingly wanted to harm you. And that willingness is the sin. But what happened to you would have happened whether or not that person was around. It just would have come through a different source.

---

Sometimes, we want something from Hashem, and maybe we don’t always deserve that he should say yes. You know what He does in such a case? The Medrash says “Hashem Tzilchah”, “Hashem is your shadow”, meaning, Hashem will act toward you by imitating your own behavior. It’s so hard for us to really deserve what we ask from Hashem – who knows if we deserve what he gives us already? But there’s another way.

We want Hashem to give us things even though we don’t deserve them. So He looks at us and sees if we give people things even though they don’t deserve them. If we insist on taking what we deserve and giving others what they deserve, then Hashem says “No problem. You, too, will get what you deserve”.

But if the master of the world can look down and say, “You know, she doesn’t deserve what she wants. But you know, too, that she forgave her teacher even though she didn’t deserve it. She gave someone something even though she didn’t have to. Even though it wasn’t fair to her. She gave this person her life back, kept her away from being punished. So you know what I am going to do? I am going to give her what she wants and I am not going to care whether she deserves it.”

So it’s your decision. It’s your choice. But you know, your teacher, she has her problems. You can gain so much by just letting this go. You can get on Hashem’s good side. It’s like instead of working for your pay, you have connections with the Boss. And when you have connections, you get what you want even if you didn’t earn it. And this teacher, no matter what she did, or what she is, she is still Hashem’s daughter. When you go out of your way, do something that’s unfair to yourself, for the Boss’ daughter, you get repaid in a very special way.

And in this case, you become a very special person for doing that.

Drop the baggage. Forget it. It’s over. You can get your revenge and give this woman what maybe she deserves, or you can forget it, and let Hashem see that you sometimes give people more than they deserve. Hashem loves those kinds of people. And He gives them special privileges, more than they deserve.
It's your decision. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can keep her on the hook, or you can let her off. You know what both choices mean. So what's it going to be?

---

Asking Questions

2006-09-19T16:18:00.000-07:00

You will not die and go to Gehenom for asking questions. If your questions are because you want to know the answers then it is a Mitzvah to ask them, as it says in Pirkei Avos - Lo HaBayshan Lomed - if you don’t ask questions you won't learn.

---

The following is a copy of a response I sent by email to someone who "works with girls" and wanted to know why we have questions and answers in "public" - since lots of times if a girl wasn't bothered by a question, she will ask it to get attention, then she will internalize it slowly and then go off the derech because of the questions." Therefore, she contends, we should not show questions, or else people will go off the derech.

Something like that.

Here's my answer:

For hundreds of years our Gedolei Yisroel have been teaching and writing - for the public - the answers to such questions about Yiddishkeit. It was always considered a good thing, not a bad one.

The reason is, questions are not bad, they are good. Lo habayshon lomed. And since there are solid and easy answers to all these questions, asking them just strengthens one's emunah, which is a good thing.

The public should have access to answers, since the public has questions. That’s why we make the material public. And it also shows the public that there are indeed answers to questions, so that even if they come up with a Q that they have not heard an answer for yet, they will still feel confident that just like the other thousand questions have easy answers, this one must also have one.

It is good for people to know that there ARE NO "problems" with Yiddishkeit. And that is what this site shows.

The real problem is when people - teachers, mentors, etc - deal with kids who have questions to which they themselves do not know the answers. That is a problem. Because how can you convince someone else to be frum if you yourself don’t know what you should be?

The questions we are talking about are not rocket science. There is not a teenager in the world that is not capable of thinking, how do I know that I am being taught the truth? They all know that there are other religions out there, and others who hold form no religion. Any intelligent person wants to know, if they are dedicating their life to a certain way, which at least they should have a reason to believe they are doing the right thing.

Whatever the answer is - be it inspiration from the great example of holy people, to the intellectual approach of proofs to the torah - there needs to be an answer. If not, the kid will likely go off, and if she does not go off, then she is being frum without any real motive, just because "it’s the thing to do" or because her friends or family are or because its convenient. That kind of frumkeit is not the kind that stands hard tests when and if they arise, and it has no emunah, and certainly cannot have bitachon or any other kind of relationship with Hashem.

Think: If a girl is NOT bothered by these questions, why isn't she? Is it because she is not capable of thinking of the questions? Nope, she surely is.

Or is it because she doesn’t really care if there is an answer or not - she doesn’t care if Judaism is true - she's just frum because why not? So what’s the difference? Or at the very least, she will make believe she thinks it’s true because it makes life easier.

That, unfortunately, is the reality. The only other reason people aren’t bothered by the questions is because they have reasons not to be. That is the only acceptable solution.

But since many people who "deal with kids" do not know the answers themselves - and the kids know that their teachers do not have answers - the teachers are scared lest a question come up, and since they do not know the answer, they will have to either tell the kid not to ask, or avoid the question or give a bad answer, which will send the false message that there are no answers.

Since the kids know that their teachers have no answers, therefore their questions are a threat - to the teacher and to the student. When a kid "asks a question to get attention" it is the same as saying to a teacher: I am cutting myself; I am hanging out with the wrong crowd; I am doing something dangerous. Stuff like that are attention-getters.

Questions are only attention-getters because they make teachers nervous. If teachers would have the answers to these basic questions, which teachers should have - then there is no danger of a kid asking. Even if they are asking to get attention, when they see there are easy simple answers, they will have to find another way to shake up their teachers.

Questions are only "danger" because the teachers have no answers.

"Internalizing" questions is only bad if they internalize them without the answers. If they have answers to their questions it's better than not having a question. There’s nothing wrong with having a question; it’s not having an answer that’s the problem.

So the problem that you are witnessing "working with girls" is not that girls ask questions. It's that nobody has answers for them - that makes asking a question a threat, and attention-getter, and a crisis.

It's like trying to recruit people for the army but when someone raises their hand and says "Why should I go to the army?" "How much is the pay?" "Why shouldn’t I go to the navy instead?" the recruiter hasn’t a clue. ("Yes, but come to the army shabbaton and see how beautiful it is". Desperation at work.)

Then he blames those who provide such information because by doing so, G-d forbid somebody may think of asking why they should join.

---

Rav Chaim Brisker ZTL used to say "vus felt in hasbara felt in havanah", meaning, if you can't explain it then you don't really understand it.

If you don't have questions because you learned the answers that’s wonderful, but if you cant answer someone else when they ask the same question, that's not so good. You need to audit your inventory of answers to determine if you really have answers, or just don’t bother to think about the questions.

Again: We are not talking here about major philosophical issues that perhaps it's better not to know the question if you never had it (although there are answers to all of those as well - it's just that why bother with the answer if you don't have the question to begin with, especially if the answer is more difficult to understand than the question. In such a case, if the question doesn't bother you, then leave it.); we're talking about questions that everyone is aware of already. Such as "How do I know what I am being taught is the truth?"

---

"Questioning" means two things:

(a) doubting, as in "I question you right to say that", and

(b) seeking information, as in "Can you please answer my question?"

The first type of questioning, which is really objecting, is wrong. The second type, where we know there are answers and we merely are seeking to know what they are, is a positive thing. Lo Habayshan Lomed.

---

You're not going to hell for asking these questions. You're going to heaven. “Lo habayshan lomed”, it says in Pirkei Avos, “Someone who is ashamed / embarrassed / feels guilty and does not ask questions, does not learn.”

How can you learn if you do not ask questions?

You know, sometimes in class maybe you’ll raise your hand and ask a question, and the teacher will say “The Ramban asks that”, and you’ll be very proud of yourself. Well someone asks your questions, too. Quote:

“I have a yearning and desire to settle some issues … of the fundamentals of our religion … I believe, but … there are things that I believe but do not understand or grasp … the existence of G-d, His not being human, [the authority of] prophecy, that He gave the Torah … all these things I understand … However, the way Hashem runs the world (Hashgachah), His method of reward and punishment … I believe in for sure because I am obligated to do so, but I want an explanation of them that will put me at rest.”

Do you recognize these thoughts? They are yours, almost verbatim. But the quote is not from you. These are the words of the Neshomah, as expressed by the Ramchal at the beginning of his sefer Daas Tevonus, which is written almost entirely to answer the particular questions that you have asked. Your questions are questions of the Neshomah. The Noshmah as perceived by the Ramchal. And your neshomah, too. You’re in good company.

The Neshomah continues:

“[What bothers me is] great events that I see in the world that suggest the exact opposite of Hashem controlling them. And even more so, the purpose of these events, I cannot fathom the point of it all. What did G-d want with all His creations? Why does He control them? What’s the point (end result) of all this?”

The Ramchal writes that we are obligated to “chase after the knowledge of these things” – not just “know them”, but pursue the knowledge of them -- from the Torah command (Devarim 4:39) “And you should settle it on your heart, that Hashem is G-d”.

By asking these questions you fulfill that command.

You also fulfill the Mitzvah of learning Torah. And the Rambam writes that of all the topics he learns (and he learned them all) he prefers to learn about the fundamentals of our religion more than any other topic.

You also fulfill the instruction in Pirkei Avos “Da mah shetashiv l’apikores” – know what to answer the Apikores.

So you won’t go to hell for asking these questions. You’re going to heaven.

And so are we, anybody who reads the answers because you asked the questions. We are going to heaven, too, because of you and your questions.

---

You have to understand that, unfortunately, teaching hashkafa in this sense, that is, proofs to the torah and understanding of G-d etc., to frum people was until recently not normative practice, particularly in girls schools. It was thought to be important to Baalei Teshuva becoming frum, but not for Frum Frum Birth's. This was a terrible error - and it was NOT made by the great Tzadikim, but by the hamon am - the masses - themselves.
Rabbi Avigdor Miller ZTL was the first person to spread such teachings among frum people, and his books had an awesome impact on both the non-religious, and the very religious alike. Rav Avrohom Chaim Levine, Rosh Yeshiva of Telz in Chicago, said at an Agudah convention that he came from a royally rabbinic family, had the best Torah education, but yet the books of Rav Miller ZTL influenced him so so much when he was younger.
Now listen: I once asked Rav Miller ZTL why he doesn’t put out any books in Hebrew. His answer was, because he "doesn’t want the letzonei hador to get a hold of them and mock them."
In other words, the Hebrew-speaking American crowd, namely, the Yeshiva-BY crowd, would not accept it. This was a terrible, terrible, error on their part.
At Rav Miller's levaya, the Novominsker Rebbe was one of the speakers. He knew Rav Miller because he (the Novomonsker( was a student in Chaim Berlin when Rav Miller was Mashgiach there. At the levaya he said "who would have known that Rabbi Miller's books would be so popular, spread so far and wide..."
The Novominsker Rebbe meant it only as a praise for Rabbi Miller, but it is also an indictment of the hamon am - the public - in those days, because - Hello! - the value of such teachings even to the biggest Bnei Torah, should be obvious.
Yet to many it wasn’t. It was (a) considered "below" the needs of Bnei Torah to deal with "proofs" to the Torah and things like that - only non-religious people "needed it", and (b) there was some kind of paranoia which, try as I might, I still can't make sense of, that by teaching people answers to questions about Yidishkeit, somehow they will have within them questions awakened that they never would have previously thought of, and, even though the answers are there in front of them, they will get messed up because of the questions.
This is sad. I have been accosted by several people (all women mechanchos) claiming that this website is bad for people, and in fact we should not teach people this material about Judaism because of the looming spiritual dangers of educating and strengthening Emunah.
I was speaking in Yerushalayim once, and said that we have to teach our children about Hashem, the Torah, the basic hashkofos that we are discussing here.
After the speech, a menaheles in some school came over to me and said, in a very cynical tone of voice, "Reb Yisroel Salanter said that if you learn Chumash and Rashi it makes you more frum, are you saying that doesn't apply nowadays?"
In other words, their curriculum of Chumash and Rashi - Sefer Vayikra to be specific, where they learn about being makrev korbonos - is sufficient to address the hashkafic issues in question.
I answered her. "What Rav Yisroel Salanter meant was that by learning Hilchos Esrog before Pesach, you will keep Pesach better. But can you compare someone who prepares for Pesach by learning Hilchos Esrog to someone who prepares for Pesach by learning Hilchos Pesach?"
There are issues that anybody with the intelligence of a child can think of. Were not talking about major philosophical dilemmas - and there is TORAH out there that addresses them. If you’re in business you need to learn Choshen Mishpat, even though Chumash and Rashi makes you more religious; if you're getting married you learn Even Haezer, even though Chumash/Rashi makes you a better husband.
And when you are in the field - as we all are - of Emunah, then you learn about Emunah!
I wonder if such people would, instead of Kallah classes, teach soon-to-be brides Chumash and Rashi and then say that according to Rav Yisroel Salanter you don't need more!
The Roshei Yeshiva back Rabbi Mechanic's project - Rav Matisyahu Solomon was the first to write him a hashkama. Many others followed. Rabbi Levine - the one I mentioned above - writes that he himself sat in one of Rabbi Mechanic’s sessions and it was marvelous, and he highly recommends it.
If Roshei Yeshiva recommend it - and I know of not a single Torah authority that disagrees - and if such Torahs are good enough to make a lasting impact on a future Rosh Yeshiva, then it is certainly good enough for Beis Yaakov girls.
In any case, you should please please educate yourself if you can't get it from others. Sadly, even today, there are precious little sources of this material. The fact that schools all over America need a Rabbi Mechanic, or the fact that thousands of teenagers every single day need to go to Frumteens for their daily dose of Chizuk and Emunah, is sad.
But at least we have what we have.

---

It’s OK to argue, as long as you also argue with yourself. In other words, treat your opinion the same way as you do that of others, and "beat it up" until the truth comes out.

The Gemora tells us that Rav Yehuda could come up with 150 arguments to make a bug Kosher.

The point is, that even though he could submit these arguments in a way that nobody could answer, he never, ever did such a thing, because even though nobody could find fault in his arguments, he could, since he was such a powerful debater.

Argue with yourself before you express an opinion. Use that talent of yours to find the truth.

When I was a kid, my little sister asked me how come I always win the arguments we have?

I said, it’s because I always argue for the right side. ;-)

Of course, nobody is always right, but at least you can try to not argue unless you’re arguing for the right side. You’ll be surprised how many more arguments you’ll win that way.

It’s not the victory that means anything, it’s the fact that you’ll know the truth.

---

In Torah advises us not to come to "conclusions" without obtaining a complete picture, without being sure of the conclusion. "If the issue is as clear to you as the fact that you cannot marry your sister, then say it; if not, then do not say it," Chazal tell us.

Now if we're talking about who’s going to win the Super Bowl, it doesn’t matter much, but if we're talking Torah, such as the position of the Rambam on such a fundamental issue, we are not supposed to have "opinions" until we know. Or better said, if you don't know then, even if you have an opinion based on likelihoods, you don’t say "MY opinion is such and such", you say, rather "I don’t know." You opinion, which really isn’t even an "opinion" but rather a first impression, doesn’t matter. What you "know" does matter.

Now of course anybody can be wrong, and of course nobody is perfect, and so Hashem only expects of us to know something to the best of our ability. And that’s both a "chumrah" so to speak, and a "Kulah".

It's a kulah because Hashem doesn’t expect us to know anything better than your ability to know it; but its also a chumrah because you are not entitled to an opinion until you indeed know something to the best of your ability.

Until that point, until you "know" something, you are supposed to take the position, "I don’t know."

"Teach your lips to say 'I don’t know'", Chazal tell us.

This is something that modern society does not believe in. Today, everyone is "entitled to an opinion." No, they are not. They are only entitled to an opinion if it is indeed an opinion, and not speculation, an impression, or wishful thinking. If it is, then you do not have an opinion. Instead, you "do not know".

The Piasetzna Rebbe ZTL in Chovas HaTalmidim explains that "today" (i.e. his days - pre-war Europe) kids are going off the derech because they are being taught, even when small, to express their opinions on matters for which they have not yet entitled to have an opinion.

In other words, when the Global teacher in a 5th grade class asks her 10 year old students who they would vote for President, she is damaging the children, because she is teaching them to make decisions such as who to vote for even though they really have no clue who is the better candidate.

Ten year olds should be taught to say "I do not know who to vote for. I am not well-versed in politics or the issues at hand, and so it would be wrong for me to express an opinion on something that I know nothing about."

Or, in 10-year old language, simply "I dunno."

Kids today (even a couple of generations ago) are taught how to express opinions rather than how to form opinions, and therein lies a terrible tragedy, because they are expressing opinions that are not ill-formed.

This is why we have so many crazies out there with so many crazy opinions. People are taught by societal norms that they may have an opinion even if they have no clue.

But the truth is, it is infinitely worse to be clueless than opinionless, and even much worse than that, if the clueless are not opinionless.

It’s like someone saying, for instance, that the Satmar Rebbe ZTL had modern feminist hashkafas because He encouraged his wife to make havdalah for herself at times and his wife spoke at his levaya. Now both of those things are true, but clearly, anybody who knows anything about what the Satmar Rebbe preached and wrote and held would never come to such an absurd conclusion. What he would do is, he would say, "I don’t understand what’s going on here."

And what would I say to someone who, knowing only the above facts, tells me that they believe it is more likely that Satmar really are feminists because in the 20th century there was a feminist movement in Orthodox Jewry, and its not likely that by coincidence, the feminist tendencies were historically precisely during the same time period as the Satmar Rebbe.

And so when somebody tells me that the Rambam held that secular studies have inherent value, or that they think the Rambam may have held that, or that they are considering the possibility that the Rambam may have thought that on Purim once, I would tell them "Hello. Read what the Rambam writes. Read his Hashkofos, his halachic rulings. Read the Torah and the Halachah and the words of Chazal about secular studies. And if you still have a question about the Rambam’s behavior, obviously, beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is attributable to specific circumstances, not to a global hashkafa."

I know that the biographies on the Rambam, especially those written by people who are not total Bnei Torah emphasize his secular studies without putting it in context. They do this because the more the Rambam is "unique" the more interesting the Rambam is, and the more interesting the article or book is. And the more of an excuse we have to learn secular studies.

Even if a historian does not lie, he can still write what he wants to give someone a totally wrong idea. If you want to know what the Rambam held, read his seforim. Read the Torah - for the Rambam was a Torah Jew. If the Torah had a certain value, you can be sure the Rambam had it too.

---

We say Al hanisim on Chanukah and on Purim. Yet even though the two tefilos covey the same idea, the Bnei Yisaschar points out that there are some differences in the way they are worded:

1) On Chanukah, we refer to Matisyahu as “Matisyahu ben Yochanan Kohen Gadol”, whereas on Purim we refer to Mordechai simply as “Mordechai”. No “ben yair ben shimi etc.” Why do we mention Matisyahu’s father and not Mordechai’s?

2) On Chanukah, we mention that the Yavanim waged war “al amcha yisroel”. On Purim, we do not mention al amcha yisroel. Instead we simply say that Haman wanted to destroy es kol hayehudim.

3) We’ll add to the Bnei Yissachar’s observations a very strange thing that the Meforshim point out about Chanukah: It is almost nowhere to be found in all of the Mishna. There is one mention of a Menorah that accidentally causes fire damage, but as a Yom Tov,Chanukah is utterly omitted from the entire body of the Mishna. That needs an explanation.

The history books, Josephus, and Megilas Chashmonayim tell us that the beginning of the shmad against the Jews was not perpetrated by the Syrian-Greeks. It began by Jews, the Tzedukim. They were the ones who started to try to make the Jews forget the Torah and violate the laws of G-d’s will. They were in fact the ones who recruited the Syrian-Greeks into the fray. But the war began not between Jew and gentile, but between Jew and Jew, between the Jews and the Tzedukim.

The Tzedukim believed only in Torah shebiksav, not Torah shebal peh. The difference, of course, between Torah shebiksav and Torah shebal peh, is that Torah shebiksav only gives us bottom-line instructions. There are not hava aminas in Torah shebiksav, no mina hani milis, no lama li kra svara hu, no reconciliation of contradictions, no machlokesim, no shakleh vetaryeh, no questions; just instructions.

I am now going to borrow a vort from Rav Leib Chasman ZTL in his Ohr Yahel. He says that when Yaakov was fighting with the malach, the sar shel esav, and asked the evil malach its name, the malach answered, “Why are you asking my name?” “lomoh ze tishal leshmi?” Why was the malach so reluctant to tell his name?

Rav Leib Chasman answers that the Malach did in fact tell his name. His name was lamah ze tishal leshmi! His name was Why are you asking such questions? (see the Ohr Yahel who uses this for his approach. We are going to borrow it for ours.)

We should also ask why on the other hand did Yaakov care so much to know the Malach’s name? The answer is because Yaakov wanted to know what ‘Yisroel’ means. He knew that he was granted that new, glorious name Yisroel because he defeated this malach. So he wanted to know what was the essence of the name, since the essence of a malach is its name, and he wanted to know the essence of the malach was that you have to defeat in order to be called Yisroel. What power is it that you have to defeat in order to be called Yisroel? What hurdle does one have to overcome in order to merit the great name Yisroel?

Who are you, Malach, that by beating you, one is called Yisroel?

And the malach answered, The obstacle that you have to defeat in order to be called Yisroel is lamah ze tishal. The Satan that says why are you asking questions is what has to be defeated in order to be called Yisroel.

Jews ask questions. We proactively seek the truth. We love questions, because aim habayshan lomed, without questions you cannot learn anything. We are not scared of questions the way other religions are. We do not blindly accept what we are told, by society, by the newspapers, by anyone! In schools of other religions, when a student stumps his Galach with a question, he is reprimanded for asking. In Yeshiva, when a student stumps his Rebbi with a hard kashya, he is a hero! Questions bring out the truth, and when the truth is brought out we rejoice.

The Tzedukim did not believe in a Torah that asks question and raises difficulties. The held that Torah is simply blind instruction without understanding.

The Tzedukim believed that there is no such thing as understanding the whys and wherefores of Torah. The believed that questions should no be asked. They did not believe in the Zurich iyun’s of Reb Akiva Eiger; of the chidushim of the Ketzos, of the milchamtah shel Torah that constitutes the Bris between Klall Yisroel and Hashem - the Torah She BalPeh.. Their Hashkafah did violence to the very name Yisroel, which we merited because we do REFUSE to say lamah ze tishal.

There is a machlokes about this, but there are those who say that the Yohanan Kohen Gadol who was the father of Matisyahu was the infamous Yochanan Kohen Gadol who became a Tzaduki. His son, Matisyahu, was the leading fighter against his father’s Hashkafos. Imagine, then, had Matisyahu accepted his father’s teachings on blind faith without asking Kushyos -- we never would have had a Chanukah miracle! But Matisahu did not blindly accept his father’s teachings.. He asked: If there is no such thing as Torah shebal peh, then how in the world does Pesach fall out in chodesh ha’aviv, the spring month, when every year the lunar calendar loses 11 days against the seasonal solar calendar, and so before you turn around Pesach comes out in the middle of the winter!

He asked, if all we have is Torah shebiksav, please tell me, father, how do we fulfill “vhayu letotafos bain aynechah”? What are “totafos”, what does the word mean?

How do we fulfill velakachtem lachem pri etz hadar? What is a Pri Etz Hadar? A cherry? A kiwi?

Please tell me, father, why does the Torah tell us to celebrate a holiday on the first day of the 7th month, a day of blowing is what it tells us to make. WHAT IN THE WORLD IS A DAY OF BLOWING? WHAT DOES THIS HOLIDAY CELEBRATE??

No. Matisyahu proactively sought the truth and found it. He did not blindly accept his fathers heretical Hashkofos. He defeated his father’s attitude of Lamah zeh tishal!

The reason we refer to Matisyahu not merely as Matisyahu but Matisyahu ben Yochanan is because the fact that he was the son of Yochanan is part of the Chanukah story; part of the victory of Yisroel over the heresy of Lamah ze tishal. It is part and parcel of the Chanukah victory.

And that is why on Chanukah we refer to the shmad as an attack al amcha Yisroel . It was an attack waged specifically against those who were worthy of that great and glorious title, Yisroel, those who refuse to say lamah zeh tishal!

Chanukah is introduced by Chazal in a very unusual manner. Chazal don’t say “On the night of the 25th we light candles”, the way it does for Pesach, or even, “Chanukah is the Yom Tov that celebrates etc.” Instead, Chazal ask, Mai Chanukah? What is Chanukah? And in response to this rhetorical question the Gemora explains the holiday. Chanukah is introduced not like the other holidays are introduced by way of instruction, but rather with a question. Because the very essence of Chanukah is asking the question. Mai Chanukah - the question of a wise man is half the answer. Chanukah is indeed the celebration of the downfall of lamah zeh tishal.

The reason Chanukah is not in Mishnayos is because Mishnayos, though part of Torah shebal peh, is the instructive part of Torah shebal peh. The structure of Chazal’s teachings in the Oral Torah is to first give us the laws in the Mishap then to analyze them, in the Gemora. Chazal saw fit to leave Chanukah to the part of Torah she balpeh that asks and answers; that analyses; that reconciles contradictions and contains hava aminas and maskonos. Because that is what Chanukah is all about.

When you light the Menorah on Chanukah, you should know that the Ohr that emanates form the Menorah represents the enlightenment that you all gain by asking questions. And by getting answers to those questions. Lo habayshan lomed. If you want to be zocheh to the glorious title of Yisroel, you must ask and seek and find Torah.

Through our asking and answering and studying and learning and seeking may we all be zocheh together to the glorious and magnificent title of Amchah Yisroel!

---

Internet

2006-09-18T17:21:00.000-07:00

The Internet is dangerous. You're a click or two away from the Yetzer Horah's strongest weapons against your soul.

It would be better for all our souls if the Internet would be gone.

However, in the meantime, it is not gone. And therefore, although I would not encourage anyone to buy Internet service just to get to Frumteens (or other good sites), nor would I discourage anyone from getting rid of the Internet because they will not have access to good sites; I will encourage those who are on the Internet and will be there to use it in as positive a way that they can.

---

If we would see that the temptation of McDonalds has brought religious Jews to spiritual destruction, destroyed frum families, broken up marriages, became addicting, then indeed we would be obliged to avoid walking past a McDonalds.

The Gemora says that if a person needs to get from place A to place B, and one way will lead him past a group of women working at the riverbank, and the other will not take him past the women, if he takes the first path he is a Rasha. Even if he doesn't look.

These Rabbis are not saying the Internet is "assur" the same way, let's say, pork is assur, they are saying that since it has proven to be a terrible influence on people - and there is no denying that it has - then you should not bring it into your home. That is altogether reasonable.

Of course, it therefore depends on whether the person "has two paths", meaning, why he needs the Internet, and what access he has.
Obviously, I have the Internet, but only I use it - my children only have an email account, no other access - and besides my being Moderator and my Kiruv work, I also have a means of livelihood on the side for which I need to use the net.

To be sure, there are Kosher things on the net, even good things. If I didn't believe that I wouldn't be here now. Nevertheless, if someone were to ask me, I would say for sure it's better to keep the Internet out of his home, because the good that you can gain by it does not justify the damage that it can do.

Someone could buy Playboy for the non-pornographic articles it has, but if the Rabbis would say not to do it, nobody would argue their point.

We're talking about a normal, regular person who unawares, despite himself, ends up stuck in a sewer he never ever would consciously go near.

Or just look at the AOL chatrooms - even the Jewish ones, never mind the other ones, which, by merely a couple of clicks of the mouse, curious 12 year olds (and 15 year olds, and 40 years olds) can access the worst perversions in the world. And we are all human beings, if you get my drift.

Online causes so many problems, not only for teenagers but adults too, and nobody denies this. Marriage counselors would be the first to confirm this. So will psychologists.

So if it causes so many serious, serious, problems, what's so hard to understand?

But in the meantime, there are tons and tons of Jews on the Internet. And as long as that is true, we definitely should try to make sure that the good on the net, if it doesn't outweigh the bad, at least puts in its best effort.

---

Using the Internet (in this manner) accomplishes a great deal of Mitzvos in terms of Harbotzas Torah, Kiruv Rechokim, and simple Gemilas Chesed and Chizuk that people get from it, which could not be done without it. So that makes it worth it, hopefully. TV doesn't accomplish anything in terms of mitzvos.

---

If you don't need the Internet for your livelihood, or whatever good you can accomplish on the Internet you can get elsewhere, then, it is definitely dangerous and the risk of the bad is not worth it.

But television is not needed in that kind of way. Even if there are some good things on it, its not worth the risk (and there are more commercials than spammers last I checked, by the way), especially since you can find good things elsewhere besides TV. You won’t lose much by giving up your TV. But work such as what we are doing here cannot be done at all without the Internet.

Nevertheless, if someone "peeks" in the wrong places, he should cancel his account. I have no use for a TV in my house c"v, but I do have use for the Internet account. And no, I do not find it hard to control at all. My browser puts me straight into frumteens.com.

That having been said, I repeat that the Internet is very dangerous, and unless you need it, you should not have it at all. If you do need it, you must be very careful with it.

---

If having the Internet is justified for me to make some money, all the more so to do some Mitzvos with.

The point of the prohibition is that the Internet is dangerous. That's obviously true. But if you need it for a legitimate utilitarian purpose, nobody is telling you that you can’t take the risk. It’s like climbing a steep ladder. It’s dangerous, but if that’s your job, you do it.

This is my job. If I choose not to make money from it, that doesn't make it any less important.

---

Be strong. There is only one bottom line way to beat the Internet Nisayon, and that is simple self discipline. You did it one, you can do it again. Do not let the Yetzer Horah tire you out.

You can also make "siyagim" to help yourself out:

Put the computer in a public place.

Let other people use the computer, too (they may be able to see your log-in records, and the fear of discovery may keep you in check).

Make a limit to the amount of time you will allow yourself to spend on the computer. And if possible, make sure there is someone waiting for the computer after you, so you will really be off when your time expires.

---

Everyone has their own personal sheailah here, and it’s very simple: Do I need the Internet? Do I need to take the risks involved? There has to be a very good reason for having it, and even those who prohibited it say that for business it is OK. I would surely say that the majority of people do not need it, even if it does some good for them. You should ask yourself the following question:

Are the dangers of me NOT having the Internet worse than having it?

For someone who needs it to make a living, the answer is unfortunately yes - he can’t not make a living. And there are those who literally would be off the derech without it. Everyone has a personal sheailah about this, and the assessment needs to be made on an individual basis.

---

The issue is, the internet isn't assur to begin with that we need to make it muttar. And to begrudge someone his parnasa because of something that’s risky but not assur, is itself assur.

---

Jewish Music II

2006-09-17T17:30:00.000-07:00

If someone thinks Jewish music is stupid, and Rap is not, he is out of touch with his soul, and perhaps a lot more than that. I think that instead of focusing on the beauty of Shlock Rock, focus instead on the beauty of Judaism in general, get him more in touch with the beauty of Torah and appreciation of the music will come in its wake.

---

"Multicultural Jewish Music" is an oxymoron.

Jewish music is not "cultural", but an expression of the soul. If you mix that with expressions of other, non-Jewish souls, that is not eclectic, but mixed up, since the two entities - the Jewish soul and the non-Jewish soul - are at odds rather than complement each other.

In fact, Jews are not a "culture" in the sense that other nations are. Rav Saidah Gaon said we are a nation only because of the Torah, not because of any culture. We say that gefilte fish is "Jewish" food, for instance, but it is only a colloquialism. The adjective "Jewish" has nothing to do with gefilte fish, since the adjective "Torah-dik" does not fit with gefilte fish.

But "Jewish music" is real. It means music that is an expression of the Jewish soul. If it is today merely an expression of Jewish culture, than it is not more Jewish than gefilte fish. That's exactly my point. It could really be Jewish; rather than merely colloquially Jewish.

But we're not only mixing other cultures into our music; we're also mixing in a commercial effect. "What makes a song qualified to go on a record?" I asked one of the popular Jewish composers who shall remain nameless here.

"If it can sell" was the answer.

---

I know it's hard to stop listening to non-jewish music. Try this, sometimes it has worked:

Listen only to ONE CD of non-Jewish music. Pick any one you want, and when you listen, listen only to that one. Over and over.

In about 2 months you should be sick of the CD. Now is the time to put in the effort to stop.

The way the radio stations get you to listen to their music is they sneak in some new songs among the old, known ones, so that you slowly get used to the new ones and before you know it they're also old. Well, hopefully, the radio will not be as appealing to you at this time since they will have songs playing that you are unfamiliar with, since you haven't been listening for 2 months.

Even better, if you can do this right before sefirah, so that when you get sick of your CD you won't be listening to any music at all for another few weeks.

Using this method, you can break away a little, and then put in all your strength to break away all the way.

Hatzlachah.

---

I was once at a wedding where the 9 piece band, which included 2 drummers (one had like bongos and assorted percussion thingies), a "mixer", and 2 singers, played Jewish music exclusively. It was as loud and as lively as a yeshivishe chasana gets (oif simchas was not played). It was really inspiring. So although what they are playing certainly is not what the seforim have in mind when they refer to "Jewish music," it nonetheless works, apparently.

One more note: Rav Aharon Schechter, who I mentioned previously expressed surprised to me long ago - about 25 years it must be - about the incongruity of the words "v'kairavtau malkeinu" with its melody, was there last night as well. His dancing and general participation was a big part of simchas choson.

---

I don't see what is traditional or Jewish about taking a Carlebach tune and superimposing Grateful Dead arrangements into it. Carlebach songs are clearly Jewish, in the sense that they facilitate the penetration of the words that they are being sung into the psyche of the listener or singer. I don't know if his songs actually enhanced understanding of the words the way real Jewish music used to, but nowadays, it is perhaps the best we can do.

But to take those tunes and superimpose on them Grateful Dead type arrangements, which is basically all Reva L'Sheva does to them, I don't understand why that is considered a positive thing. If it helps attract people to Judaism, ok, I can hear that, but that doesn't mean that they did not make the song much less Jewish in the process.

In other words, they are not bringing the non-Jewish-acting Jews up to the level of Jewish music, but rather bringing the music down to the level of the non-Jewish-acting Jews.

Which may be fine, but the subject of discussion here is not the kiruv potential of certain music, but its Jewishness.

It is therefore not surprising that the same frum teenagers who, when listening to certain Carlebach songs feel comfortable sitting solemnly but happily thinking about the message of the words, will, when hearing the same song played by Reva L'Sheva, start "rocking" like simple club hoppers with a beer in one hand and cigarette in the other.

At a certain wedding, Kalba Savua was playing Carlebach with a reggae twist. A man with a grey beard approached the band and asked them to stop. This happens sometimes, at frum weddings when the band gets a bit out of control, that the Rabbi will politely rein them in.

But this wasn't the choson's Rosh Yeshiva that made the band stop.

It was Shlomo Carlebach.

"Chevra," he said to them, "Can you please play it the right way?"

Carlebach considered the rocked up versions of his songs to be not his songs at all. "It's nice and sweet and cute," he once said to his "chevra" on the West Side when they played for him a metallic version of one of his songs, "but it's not my song."

Those who were the biggest mavenim on what being Jewish and close to G-d means, enjoyed Shlomo Carlebach's songs. Rav Aharon Kotler ZT"L was particularly fond of "lulai soraschah". Yet I have no doubt that Rav Aharon would not find the same place in his heart for the rocked up version of the same song. It's just not within the realm of human imagination to conjure a picture of Rav Aharon listening to that stuff.

Rav Shlomo Alkabetz ZT"L (the author of "lecha dodi") writes that the reason music affects a person so deeply is because music is the language that the soul was used to before it came down to this world. The angels are constantly singing to G-d, and that was what the soul was accustomed to hear when it was in heaven. (Manos Halevi, Esther).

So here's the question: What do you think the melodies sung in heaven by the angels sound like? With no cultural influences, no commercial agendas, no Yetzer Horah, and no deadheads that need kiruv, do you think their music sounds more like lulei soraschah by Carelbach, or the metalized "mah tovu" by Reva L'Sheva?

---

Producing art is not the job of Jews in this world. We have an infinitely more important job, and there is no need nor should there be a desire on our part to compete with the art of the goyim. Let them be busy writing music, be it classical or "oi" - it will keep them out of trouble - but for us, we have better things to do.

Nigunim however, certainly do have a place in our religion, but it is not an "art". Rather, it is to help inspire us to Torah and Mitzvos and awaken religious feelings in the Jewish soul.

To that end, Modzitz, not Mozart, works.

As an aside, praising Goyim even for something that is correct, especially contrasting them with Yidden, is prohibited by Torah law under "lo siachanem". The Chinuch writes that the "reason" is because we do not want to encourage Jewish people to mistakenly believe, by seeing enthusiastic praise for accomplishments or relative little worth, that we value for us, what the Goyim are supposed to be doing on this world.

---

Not everything a Jew sings is Jewish music – plenty of rock singers are Jewish (you can find a whole gallery of Jewish so-called celebrities bedecking Manhattan’s Jerusalem II pizza store on Broadway – a public display of Jewish shame – or check out Scott Benarde's book, "Stars of David: Rock and Roll's Jewish Stories”. Nebach.)

Regarding those Jewish/Goyish boy bands, they do indeed churn out a muddled concoction of Goyish Jewishness, and worse yet, Jewish Goyishness, to an extent and with an intensity that pushes the envelope far beyond anything that the confused and the confusing have yet produced.

Take, for example, the Chanukah “party” that Blue Fringe-Moshav Band-Soul Farm played recently in BB King, a Times Square blues club. (Soul Farm got top billing)

The promotional material announces: “Hanukah Party featuring Soul Farm Moshav Band Blue Fringe”, with a picture of the Soul Farm trio, with an illustration of Maha Kali, the six-armed Hindu Goddess of death and destruction, sitting on a Psilocybin mushroom (aka “shroom”), but instead of her usual attire of severed arms of her victims, and a belt of severed heads, on the Soul Farm insignia she is wearing cut off shorts and a cut off tank top with “Soul Farm” inscribed across her chest. In each of her six arms she is holding various religious and cult symbols, including the Muslim crescent-moon.

Besides for a few non-Jews who happened to be there, eating supper for the usual menu of non-Kosher food and/or drinks, the place was packed with Jewish teenagers, mostly girls. The mixed-seating, mixed-standing, mixed-crowding, mixed-bumping crowd ranged from very Modern Orthodox to BY girls, and the same for the boys. There were non-religious youths there too. But, especially in the case of the girls, who don’t wear yarlmukas, it was often hard to tell the difference.

The bar served drinks all night long, and minors were continuously asking their “legal” friends – in fact, they were asking anybody in the vicinity – to buy them drinks. Kids not yet able to get a driver’s permit (even in Ohio) were walking around sipping Pina Coladas and Jack Daniels.

In this atmosphere Blue Fringe played “Ani Maamin”. I am not kidding. But don’t worry – their performance wasn’t too Jewish – they also played a song by Radiohead. And then there was their “new” song, not yet released. Here’s a sample of the lyrics:

Your desire is for me,
Come on lover,
Let us lie among the trees

The song is called “Shir HaShirim".

One of the Blue Fringe boys introduced the band and welcomed the crowd, and at the same time expressed his pride and delight at being able to play in BB King. He was present when the club opened up, he said, when BB King himself played there, and he has been to the club many times since, and he never imagined that he himself would actually be playing on the stage of that prestigious club. He was quite proud.

But at least Blue Fringe wore Yarlmukas; Moshav band and SoulFarm did not (although the leader of the Moshav band wore his hat on stage most – but not all – of the time). Don’t worry though – in case anyone forgot that this was a Chanukah party, the Moshav band leader actually lit the Chanukah menorah right there in BB King. With a brachah. In case anyone forgot that it was a Chanukah party.

In the back, 14 and 15 year old kids were making l’chayim.

The Moshav guy mentioned about how the miracle of Chanukah actually took place in Modiin (where the Moshav is located). I think this was before he lit the Menorah. No mention of Torah or of Mitzvos, occurred during the entire evening. “Light” was mentioned, though, as was “love”, many times – in fact, Moshav did a song translating the first several pesukim in Bereishis that speak about light, and they did a song about “the motherland”, which I assume referred to Eretz Yisroel. The most Jewish sounding song of the evening was – sigh – “L-rd get me high.”

There wasn’t any real club dancing on the dance floor – it was mostly jumping up and down and screaming, but her and there a boy or girl got up to dance on someone’s shoulders. Oh, and there was some body surfing, too.

Was this a Jewish concert? I certainly hope not. And I wonder whether the Chinese folk enjoying the music as much as their clam chowder though it was Jewish or not. But the problems with such a farce are obvious. If someone wants to do the club scene, let him go a few blocks east to Latin Quarter and do it; but let’s not fool ourselves – Chanukah celebrates the victory of light over darkness, or holiness over the profane. But even, chas v’sholom, had we not have merited a ness and darkness would have won out over light, at least we would still have known that darkness and light are opponents. The worst is when Light accepts Darkness as a friend. Hatzileini nah miyad achi miyad Esav – the Satan acts some times as our enemy, and sometimes it acts as our brother. Darkness is most dangerous when it becomes a brother to the Light. It used to be, Darkness would say “Let’s destroy the light.” Nowadays, Darkness got smarter. It says “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.”

---

Some of the music - like that "shir hashirim" song - is certainly nivul peh and assur, never mind a bizayon to Hashem and His Torah. I can't say it's assur to listen to their kosher songs, but assur isn't the point. The point is it's all goyish music disguised as Jewish, and any time you blur the edge between jewish and goyish culture or customs or music or whatever, you are endangering your spiritual sensitivity to right and wrong.

---

There is an idea prevalent in chasidishe seforim that discusses using gashmiyus or even badness and making into goodness or ruchnius. The simplest form of this is lets say you make a bracha on an apple - that apple now becomes an instrument of avodas Hashem, through your spiritual ability to make a bracha. A goy’s bracha for instance, is not halachicly a brachah so it would not have the same effect.

Chasidim were interested in harnessing the power inherent in music - even if it was created through a bad soul - and using it for avodas Hashem. The way this worked was, let's say a rasha would compose a song. This would work kind of like taking an atom bomb made by evil people and using it for good. So a tzadik would take a song, which let's say was composed by a rasha, and redirect the passion and emotion in the nigun to use for something positive. This would work because the passion and intensity of the tzadik was so overwhelming on the side of good that it would carry the emotion in the song along with it, like flotsam in a tidal wave. If, however, your neshoma is not overwhelmingly directed to Hashem, the contrary is likely to happen - instead of you sanctifying the song, the emotion in the song can effect your soul in a negative way.

This all sounds quite mystical, and for the most part it is. The idea that a song carries the energy signature of its composer is in the holy seforim. But you can see, just a bit, how this works on a very simple level, by observing how two people can sing the exact same nigun, about the exact same subject, and even use the same words, but their "intent" makes it's mark, such that when the first person sings it, the melody itself evokes certain feelings, and when the second person sings it, it invokes almost opposite emotions.

This is why when an old Jew with a gray beard sings a song, the nigun flows well with the message of a good, hard working man trying to help his family - not that that nigun was made by any tzadik of course - but the same nigun used by someone like, l'moshol, Gwen Stefani, bespeaks hedonism, and a completely different set of feelings. The melody itself changes its message with the singer.

---

The seforim tell us that music is a soul-to-soul communication. It evokes emotions, thoughts, and moods. In shamayim, the angels compose music. The GRA writes that if someone really would be able to control musical compositions, they could resurrect the dead. Music is not just a form of art. It comes from deep in the soul. And it goes deep into the soul.

The soul of the composer leaves its stamp on his music, and it impacts, ever so subtly, on the soul of the listener.

Jewish words can still be goyish music, if the soul of the musician, or his intent, is polluted.

Nowadays we don’t bother checking the souls of the composers, but we are still concerned with the effect that the music has on us. And it does have an effect.

Music that brings a person higher - awakens the Jewishness within him, or even adds some Jewishness to it - is Jewish music. Music that awakens a desire to shake ones hips or perform jiggles or gyrations that have no Jewish value, is anti-Jewish.

The reason it is so hard to define what music is Jewish is because it is equally hard to define what "feelings" are Jewish. Music evokes feelings. If the feeling is Jewish, so is the music.

But one thing we do know. "Jewish" means the Torah. Music that brings us closer to the Torah and performance of Mitzvos, is Jewish. That which does not, is not.

Even if a song is "soulful" it can still be anti-Jewish. Spirituality is good when directed in the proper way; it is bad when directed in the wrong way. In and of itself, it is neither.

Sometimes "spirituality" is used by the Yetzer Horah to convince someone he does not NEED religion - he's "spiritual" enough without it (we've all heard this somewhere or another). And since the Yetzer Horah can use it, the Yetzer Horah may also therefore produce it in order to further his own goals.

Neither spirituality nor soulfulness, nor peacefulness are "Jewish" per se. Only 613 things and our attachment thereto are worthy of the adjective "Jewish."

Music that achieves that connection is "Jewish" (or rather, "helps Jewishness"). Music that does not, is not.

I’m not saying the music has to have a certain sound to be considered Jewish; on the contrary, I mean that it is not the sound but rather the feeling it evokes in the person.

And therefore, just as it's often hard to recognize feelings of Jewishness among the many other imposter feelings, it’s equally hard to recognize Jewish music among the imposters as well.

Part of the feeling evoked in the listener depends on the very soul of the composer (not the singer), whose soul left its stamp on the tune.

That's why the Mishna Brura says you should not sing even a little baby to sleep with a non-Jewish tune, because it may have an adverse effect on the baby's Neshomah.

It is true that often these composers fit words to music that doesn't fit, and that's a problem, but not the only one. I know many of these composers and musicians. And it is clear from them - and from their music - that they are simply trying to make a buck. Some of these people make a real good living off Jewish music, and so the more that sells, regardless of how "Jewish" it is, the better it is for them. Composition of Jewish music is largely consumer-driven and that’s a big problem.

Music doesn’t even have to have words in order to be considered Jewish or non-Jewish. The Mishna Brura's example of non-Jewish music is where the listener is a baby who can't even understand the words.

---

It's true that the Seforim indicate that music even without words has an effect on you on some level. And the souls of the authors of classical music are just as goyish as that of the Back Street Boys.

However. This reminds me of my father-in-law ZT"L's moshol he used to use in his drashos:
The shrink wants to see if the patient is crazy, so he shows him a drawing of a guy.

The guy in the picture has one arm, no nose, three fingers on his other hand, and no toes at all.

"What's missing?" the shrink asks.

"His tie", the patient answers.

That told the shrink the patient was crazy.

Even though the guy in the picture WAS missing a tie.

Same thing with us.

It's true that on some level music that expresses the insides of the goyishe neshomo effects us. But you have to take a look at yourself and see if in your present state of living, if not listening to classical music is like putting a tie on someone in pajamas. I mean, I would imagine that if you read newspapers or magazines, or browse on AOL or the web, that you're getting more goyishe influence than you do from Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. Not that two wrongs make a right, but you have to take Yiddishkeit step by step, and you can't take on something that you're not ready for yet. And if you do read magazines and read newspapers and chat on AOL for example, to look at yourself and say "I have to cut out classical music" is kind of looking at that picture and saying "He needs a tie!"

So I don't want to discourage you from trying to rise in your level, I just want you to understand that we need to climb a ladder rung by rung. And if you try to reach for a rung too high for where you are now, you can fall off altogether, or miss your chance to rise that one rung higher, or perhaps even worse, convince yourself that you're on the top. Know what I mean?

The main problem with Goyishe music is the words. They're total sewage for the soul. That those lyrics affect your soul you don't need the Mishna Brura to quote any Baalei Mussar for -- it's obvious to anyone with a brain. And if all the music you listen to avoids that soul polluting factor, you've accomplished a lot.

Even among the songs themselves there's such a difference in level of shmutz. If you listen to Lil' Kim, for instance, and your friend listens to Abba Teens, you can't say you're both listening to "Goyish music" equally.

So listen, it's true that all Goyish music effects you. but so does everything else you see and hear. And you have to take things step by step. So assess what rung in the ladder you are on, and climb appropriately. Don't worry about the classical music. Worry about the magazines and the radio and the news and the papers and the gossip and the small talk in school and the advertisements and all the soul pollution that accosts you each and every day of your life. If, in the fight to avoid real dirt, classical music gives you a bit of relaxation to gather some more strength for the real battles, then throw your hands up to the sky and thank Hashem Who helped you save your arms and legs and fingers and toes . . . even if you don't yet have a tie.

---

Jewish Music I

2006-09-17T17:04:00.000-07:00

The Gemora in Gittin says you cannot go to sleep or wake up to music, and the Halachah is so. However, what we do nowadays by using a CD player for an alarm clock or a way to put us to sleep by distracting our minds off tomorrow's global final, is not the type of going to sleep or waking up to music that the Gemora is talking about. So if your music has any therapeutic (for lack of a better term) or utility (such as an alarm clock) value to you, you can do it.

However, that being said, there are still opinions that would disagree with the above, and prohibit going to sleep and waking up to music in any case.

---

Because of the Churban Bayis, Chazal decreed that not to play or listen to music, and even not to just plain sing even without any music for non-Torah purposes, rather, we are only allowed to sing Zemiros or psukim, or praises to Hashem, or songs at a Seudas Mitzvah (Shulchan Aruch OH 560, Magen Avraham, and various poskim).

Nevertheless, the prevailing custom nowadays is that if the music is not live, we listen. The reasons:

1) Teshuvos Maharshag II:125 writes that someone who is sad may listen to music on a phonograph to cheer him up.

2) Teshuvos Chelkas Yaakov I:62 writes that the decree of Chazal did not include phonographs since they did not exist at the time the decree was made. And even though many instruments did not exist then, only a phonograph is sufficiently different than the ancient instruments by virtue of the fact that nobody actually plays it live, that we can say it was not what Chazal had in mind when they prohibited music.

---

Any music that does not discuss Hashem, such as the Chicken Dance, except at a Chasanah or other Torah celebration, is considered regarding this halachah as non-Jewish music. However, it is a million times better than the "real" non-Jewish music, since the lyrics are not lewd, and you are not involved in the general pop music culture, in which, even if you only want to listen to the "clean" songs, you will be tempted not to.

So whatever you listen to in the Jewish music world, if you are coming from the secular music world, you are B"H traveling in the right direction and have accomplished much. Hashem will reward you for staying away from Eminem.

---

Piano is the same as any other live music. Again, there are heterim, but some people don’t want to rely on them. If someone is past the level where he would be doing worse than listening to music, then according to the Chasam Sofer he should not listen. If he wants to, he would have to find another heter.

Torah cannot be used as entertainment. the source for this is the Sefer Chasidim, where he describes someone who thought he had a good idea, that is, he made a game similar to "geography" but with pesukim. Someone said a posuk, and the next guy had to find a posuk that started with the last letter of that one etc. The Sefer Chasidim says this is a bad thing, since Torah is not made for entertainment, even if by playing this game they will be prevented from doing worse.

Which is the same as singing Torah, pesukim or Chazal. But the heter for that is, we are supposed to get inspired by hearing the Nigunim, which is not entertainment but growth. If it’s just plain entertainment, then it is wrong.

---

If you're a girl, you can listen to the female singer Kineret. I don't know what goes on at any individual concerts, but that has nothing to do with her. In fact, some of her songs (no, I've never listened, obviously) are good Mussar. We often talk about our belief in Hashem, but Kineret's CD is one of the only places in the world where you'll hear about that G-d "believes in me." A very, very important idea.

All these singers - especially those who sing for women - have great potential to inspire the masses to frumkeit. If the message has real content - like the above - and not just a bunch of "yeah yeah we love Judaism let's do chesed" words, then its all the more worthwhile to listen.

---

Music is a very sublime form of expression, and a person's music is a kind of product of his soul. Therefore, even music without words can have an effect on you.

The Mishna Brurah 560 (Shaar HaTziyun, laws of Tisha bav) brings in the name of the Shelah that a woman should not sing a baby to sleep with a non-jewish melody, because it can have an affect on the baby's neshoma.

This is true even though the baby cannot understand one word, even if the mother is singing with the words.

Now even if we're going to say that this lady is not only humming the child to sleep but singing the words as well (which doesn't really seem to be the case), but here we're talking about a little child who doesn't understand any of the words. So if only the words are the problem, how could words you don't understand have a bad influence? It's just gibberish!

And if someone's going to say - which doesn't really make any sense - the somehow, words do have an effect even if the baby doesn't understand them, they will then have a problem with the Gemora in Chagiga 3a which asks why do we bring babies to Hakhel (the reading of the Torah) if they don't understand what it means. If words have an effect without knowing the meaning, then we would have a simple answer to the Gemora's question -- we bring the babies for the good effect the words have on them.

And when you say "I hardly pay attention to the words," that, too, won't matter. The words are still there, you’re still listening. They still get into your head, and stay there. It is known that even while sleeping, people can listen to instructive tapes and it will make an impression on their minds. To wit: Lack of attention does not negate the effect of the words.

---

Okay, here's the bottom line:

1) If the words are Divrei Cheshek (lewd), it is Asur.

2) If there are no such prohibited lyrics, or no lyrics at all, it is a Dvar Mussar - advisable for your soul - not to listen.

3) Also, it could be prohibited because of Aveilus for the Bais HaMikdash. This prohibition, however, we have traditionally not enforced much because it is better that people should listen to Goyishe melodies than engage in worse activities, which would probably happen if we didn't let them even do this.

Songs by religious Jewish composers but not praising Hashem would have the same Halachic issues as #3 above.

There is no difference between boys and girls regarding this.

---

Listening to non-Jewish music is not Halachicly prohibited, at least not the tune. That is simply unhealthy for your soul, as the Mishna Brura quotes in the name of the Shelah. However, the words of the song may qualify as "divrei cheishek", having sexual connotations, and therefore are prohibited as per Shulchan Aruch OH 307:16.

---

Israeli secular music is the same as any other secular music; even worse, in a way. The Rambam writes that inappropriate songs in Hebrew are worse than those in Arabic because the Hebrew ones pollute Lashon Hakodesh besides their disgusting content.

Even though Ivrit is not loshon hakodesh, we discussed in the Yiddish/Hebrew forum that Ivrit still has elements of Loshon Hakodesh - certain words, and the letters themselves - that certainly are holy and should be protected.

The fact that there are Jews who would listen to Oprah Haza but not Christina Aguilera is a result of the Zionist anti-Torah attitude that blurs the vast difference between Israel/Hebrew with Jewish.

Songs that aren't inappropriate but simply mundane and bereft of any holy content are definitely unfitting for Hebrew, which is a holy language - or rather, the elements of Hebrew that are found in Ivrit. However, it's not much worse than talking mundane, non-holy things in Ivrit, which people do every day. There are those who will not talk Ivrit at all because of this, and there are those who will only speak it when necessary. These are a small minority of G-d fearing Jews, though their point is well taken.

The formula here is simple: Israeli songs are no different than American songs; Ofrah Haza, Zohar Argov, or Rami and Rita - take your pick - are no different than Ricky Martin, Jennifer Lopez and 50 Cent (well, maybe 50 Cent, but maybe not...) Make believe these were those and you'll be fine.

The real problem with Israeli music is when people feel more "Jewish" by listening to it over American music. If you relate to the trash , or even the mundane, put out by the Israeli low lives as more "ours" than the trash put out by the hip hop artists in America, then you have a Jewish Identity problem.

The problem is when Israeli music - secular Israeli music - is sold in Jewish music stores and Judaica stores. It is no more Judaica than the KTU Miracle on 34th Street.

If there is any reason to stay away from Israeli music I would say, more than anything else, it is this: to avoid the idea that Israeli music is somehow more "our music" than any other secular compositions in any other language.

---

Unfortunately, not all the music cataloged as "definitely Jewish", is. MBD's entire song "Yidden, Yidden," for example, is, from beginning to end, a German 80's song called "Dschingis Khan". And it's not the only "definitely Jewish" tune that was lifted from the goyim.

Even among the "oldies", the New York School of Jewish Song's "Btzais Yisroel mimitzrayim" is actually, note for note, a Greek syrtaki (type of dance).

Even Shlomo Carlebach was influenced by the French folk singer George Moustaki (they even look a bit alike). And compare the Irish folk song, "What should we do with the drunken sailor?" and Shlomo's "Odchah Hashem b'chol levav", then tell me what "definitely Jewish" means.

And it is no secret, nor need it be, that many Chassidic niggunim were actually non-Jewish melodies that were "sanctified" and used at the tisch.

On the other hand, the way we perceive Jewish music, there are very few Jewish melodies that sound nearly as heavenly Jewish as Kitaro's "Silk Road" (particularly the "Enchanted Evening" version) and you would be hard pressed to find a more appropriate sounding "chupah march" than "Milky Way," by the same artist.

Yanni and John Tesh are sold today in Jewish music stores and their music is sometimes accepted as more Jewish than those of many Jewish composers.

When MBD came out with "Let My People Go", a number of Roshei Yeshivos declared it to be plain goyish music composed by a Jewish artist.

It's hard to define Jewish music today, since our music has for so so long been so so mixed up blended and influenced by and with any and all types of music that exist, and the only one criterion that determines what music is sold as "Jewish" is if the "Jewish market" is willing to buy it.

And marketing is a very messed up way to a spiritual concept, such as "Jewish music".

Music has tremendous power over us. It has the power to make us happy, sad, angry, optimistic, or hopeless. It can get a lazy guy moving, make our hearts beat faster, and make us shed tears. The Vilna Gaon writes that if someone could theoretically harness the power in music they would be able to actually “revive the dead” with it.

Music sits in your head even when you don’t know it’s there – how often do you find yourself absent-mindedly humming a tune without even deciding which tune to hum? Or to hum it at all? That doesn’t happen with non-musical information. You don’t absent-mindedly recite the Gettysburg Address. Tosfos in Megilla says that if you learn with a melody you will remember what you learn better.

Music comes from a person’s soul, says the Kuzari. The tune can have an effect even on the soul of a little baby that hears it, says the Shelah. So music is really a form of communication, soul-to-soul, that comes from somewhere deeper than the place where we make conscious decisions, and penetrates to there as well.

So I guess that Jewish Music would be music that comes from a Jewish place within a person’s soul, or at the very least, music that contains a Jewish feeling, meaning, a feeling that the Torah would encourage or at least approve of.

Now even Jews, because of the impact that their deeds and thoughts have on their souls, may have non-Jewish influences within their own souls that can be expressed in their music. And so, too, a non-Jewish melody can be “repossessed” by the Jewish soul, using the melody as a medium for the expression of exclusively Jewish sentiment.

Recognizing music as possessing Jewish sentiments is a matter of sensitivity. To be sure, to a certain extent, we do possess the sensitivity to recognize some musical sensations as thoroughly non-Jewish (such as the veneration for death in many metal tunes). But for the most part, as we can see from the above examples, we no longer possess the sensitivity to recognize music that’s coming from a Jewish place within someone, from music that is coming from elsewhere. And it’s no wonder. Since we have mixed and matched both our music and our souls with foreign influences for so long, it becomes almost impossible to sense the Jewishness and non-Jewishness in our music altogether. We have for the longest time commercialized the creation of song, cranking out melodies while being concerned more on the sale than the soul, that it’s unclear to me that today’s music is an expression of anything except market trends.

Music, really, is a lost art. Lost because we are not sensitive enough to recognize the message of Jewishness – and to discern an undesirable message of non-Jewishness – but also because there is very little left in our big business music industry that actually has a message anyway.

What we have are nice, catchy tunes, melodies to dance to, and songs to sing. But all that isn’t “music” in the religious sense. There may be an exception or two, but in general, we’re talking about a business rather than a religious experience. Or at the very best, something somewhere in between.

Our music today is a lot like us: mixed up and confused.

---

The phrase "Jewish" when referring to music is not quantifiable, like when you're referring to someone with Jewish mother. Calling music "marginally Jewish" or "Jewish" or "reconstituted Jewish" is just words. If the music has words that are only Torah-oriented, and the melody is not obscene or even disrespectful to the words, then nobody will have a problem with you listening to it.

The issue of whether its origins are purely Jewish or not does not touch upon the permissibility of your listening to it.

It's a pity, though. Because if our music wouldn't be mixed up the way it is, if it would be purely an expression of the Jewish Neshoma yearning for Hashem, it would do a lot more for us than it does now.

But that's not to say that what it does now is always bad. It's not. Not at all.

So enjoy your music.

---

Listening to what we call Jewish music is definitely better than listening to non-Jewish music, and sometimes it's even inspirational. But two things:

First, it does matter that our music is mixed up, and it's not like the chassidic melodies. There, the Rebbes made sure that the music provided the right message, Today, that's not always the case. As an example, take the old Yerachmiel Begun's "elokai ad shelo notzarti aini kedai." The jumpy tune that it is sung to is completely at odds with the solemn message of the words. The tune is supposed to be a tool to better impact the words on your soul. But in this case, it messes up the message and gives the wrong meaning to the words. Now in all fairness to my friend Yerachmiel Begun, I heard from him many years ago that this was the fault of the person who did the arrangements.

But that’s part of the problem today, and that’s a big difference between our music and the Chassidic nigunim. Our songs, even after they are composed, go through many steps to make them marketable. All of this affects the message.

I remember, many years ago when I was a teenager, I was at a wedding in Brooklyn, where, during one of the dances, the choson’s Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Aharon Schechter approached me – I was standing watching the band – and, visibly disturbed, he asked me, “What IS this song they are playing?” (emphasis his)

I thought for a moment. It was the high part to the oldie (it was new, then) “ki kail po’el yeshuos otoh”, it starts “V’kayravtanu makkeinu”.

“Vkayravtanu,” I told the Rosh Yeshiva.

“THIS is V’kayratanu???” He said, really puzzled, and somewhat upset.

“THIS? THIS? Is ve – kay – rav – tanu ??? V’kayravtanu???” he said, again.

He felt that the song, which by today’s standards would be considered almost chassidish, was too jumpy for the serious thought of asking Hashem to “bring us close, our King, to your Great Name.”

I learned something from that. To me, maybe, that song was inspiring. It certainly didn’t seem incongruous. But to someone who was more in tune with the words than I was, the song made no sense.

But I am sure, that, despite his objections to the tune, he was happy that they weren’t playing the Beach Boys.

So all I am saying is that what we call “Jewish music” is relative. If it inspires you, fine. But we just need to know that on a higher level of spiritual sensitivity, we would need to be inspired by other means.

---

It's not true that all real Jewish music is sad, not at all. There is nobody as happy as a real Jew, and nobody's music would express happiness like real Jewish music. Some words are happy and loud, some are serious, some are solemn, but none are sad, because Jews aren't supposed to be sad. There's a big difference.

It's a wonderful thing that this music that is sold in Jewish stores is better than the junk in Coconut, but that doesn't make it Jewish. Listen, Christianity, the Rambam said, was a step up for the goyim because it took them away from atheism; and Islam is a step up from Christianity. But would you have any objection to saying that these religions are not really what the Torah is happy with? Even though they are improvements for some people, who would not otherwise improve. So too, the "Chicken Dance", on Neginah's Dance album, is better than Gangsta Rap, but that still doesn't make it Jewish. And Shlock Rock may be better than Lil' Kim, but that doesn't make it an expression of the Jewish soul.

One more thing: It's vital, whenever you do listen to this "Well at least it's not Jeannie in a Bottle", you MUST not think that it is what Jewish music is supposed to be. Don't allow the Satan to tell Hashem, "Well at least the people who listen to Christina Aguilera KNOW that it's not Jewish music. These people are taking Your (Hashem's) expressive soul music and saying that Shlock Rock is it!"

Don't go there. Listen to what you must, but don't fool yourself into thinking it is more holy than it really is.

---

Chasidish, Livish, UO, and me?

2006-09-16T19:33:00.000-07:00

Many people have "pop", folklore version of Chasidus -- kind of analogous to the idea that Judaism is all about bagels and lox and maybe saying kaddish and marrying your daughter off to a doctor. There's the folklore version of Judaism, and the folklore version of Chasidus. In short:

1) Chasidus is not a "movement" - the phrase "chasidic movement" was not made by the Baal Shem Tov but by observers - not very scholarly ones at that - who interpreted it to be so. And, I suspect, that even they did not mean the phrase literally, or in the sense that your protagonist means it. In reality, Chasidus is (are) teachings. Simple as that. It is no more a "movement" that the "Brisker movement" of Rav Chaim, or the "Kabbalah movement" of the Arizal, or, of course, the "Mussar movement" of Rav Yisroel Salanter. Any of these can be called a "movement" if you like, but of course all it means is "teachings".

As far as its "newness" in concerned, there is little "new" about the teachings of chasidus, in the same sense that there is little new about mussar, which, like chasidus, is based on chazal and rishonim. Chasidus also adds a large chunk of kabalah-based teaching as well.

The "newness" of chasidus is that it emphasizes teachings of Torah -- established, already known parts -- because the generation needed emphasis on those aspects of Avodas Hashem.

This itself is nothing new. The idea that different teachings apply to different people based on their needs is itself an ancient Torah principle. Check out the Gemora at the beginning of Kiddushin where the Gemora asks a contradiction: One place it says its better for a person to get married early and learn Torah afterwards; another place it says the opposite -- better to first learn then get married.

The Gemora answers "Ha lan veha lehu" -- each one was true for the group of people to whom it was said. In other words, something was taught by Chazal generically, without any conditions or specifications, just the opposite can be true for another group of people with different needs.

Sometimes, a Rebbi will emphasize simcha a lot with his talmidim because they may need it; other times, or in other places, humility will be the teaching; still others will work to instill a sense of pride and Gadlus HaAdam in their students. Whatever is needed.

Chasidus - meaning, the Chasidishe Rebbe - will teach his group of Talmidim what is needed according to the "roots of their souls", and according to the needs - both in terms of personal growth and the individual's "mission in this world" (which he himself may not even know) of their students, and their generations. It is the Rebbi's job to know this.

The Satmar Rebbe ZTL once said that all the approaches of all the Talmidei HaBaal Shem Tov can be found in the Chovos Halevovos!

The question is merely, if you had a Rebbi who could peer into the depths of your soul and teach you specifically the approach that you need to grow, as well as to fulfill your particular existential mission here on this world, and to "fix" whatever it is that you are here to fix, he would be your "Rebbe" and you would be his "Chosid".

The Kabbalists -- way before the Chasidim -- also taught that Hashem Himself sometimes helps this process by revealing to the leaders of certain generations, certain teachings that were not previously available even to perhaps greater leaders in greater generations, because those teachings are revealed only when they are needed by the specific generation.

This, they have said, is why the Zohar and Kabbalah was made available when it was, and not before. The Rambam (at least for most of his life) and Rav Saadiah Gaon did not have the Kabbalah, because they did not need it for their Avodah.

The Ramchal writes this in response to the claims that were leveled against him that he must be a faker because the supernatural revelations that he had were not had even by the Arizal himself. The Ramchal answers (in his letters, Ramchal Ubnei Doro) that although he does not compare in the slightest to the Arizal, since his (the Ramchal's) generation was in need of those revelations, someone is chosen, in this case the Ramchal, to be the recipient of those revelations, to be used for the needs of the generation.

And so, when you see such an idea in Chasidishe Seforim regarding Chasidus, it is neither new no Chasidic in origin.

---

Often, many Chassidishe kehillos have clear cut rules about things like tznius and chukas akum that honestly reflect the ratzon Hashem without compromises, a lot more than what is practiced in the non-chassidsh places. This includes the separation of boys and girls, dress codes for girls that satisfy a much larger section of Halachic authorities, tznius issues such as not allowing girls to speak in public for men (like by High School graduations) which is Halachicly questionable at best, beards and payos are mandatory which is demanded by many halachic authorities, the insistence on not going to college, and numerous gedorim and siyagim, such as their mode of dress for men and their speaking yiddish.

Of course this is a generalization, and does not reflect on the frumkeit level of any particular individual. Also, regarding things like learning in Kollel, or even the prohibition of chodosh in some circles, one can argue in the other direction. But on a communal level, it is definitely often the case that there is reason for people to think that chasdim are simply more haclachicly and religiously stringent.

The separation of men and women is mandated in the Halachah. The Bach (as per sefer chasidim without attribution) writes that if there is mixed seating at a wedding, one may not say "shehasimcha b'meono", since it is not a simcha, but a tragedy.

Separate catering halls are not mandated by anybody.

In ancient times, in the days of Moshe Rabbeinu too, men and women celebrated separately. By Moshe you see this at Krias Yam Suf, where Miriam had a separate group for Shira than did Moshe, and in Tehillim, "Bachurim v'gam besulos", an extra word stuck in there which means that boys and girls do not praise Hashem together (as do the other entities mentioned), rather concomitant but separate.

Also, it is normative halachic practice for siyagim and gedorim to be added as time goes by, since the generations get worse and worse. That includes rabbinically enacted gezeiros, self-imposed restrictions (such as many minhagim as cheromim), and certain halachic practices (such as the preference of Chalitzah over Yibum, where Yibum used to be preferable, due to the later generations' tendency to perform Yibum with ulterior motives).

The behavior of Chasidim, like their non-Chasidic counterparts, are rooted in the instructions of their Gedolim in their communities. Under the supervision of these Gedlim, there can be no enactments that are inappropriately machmir, or maikel.

---

The Bnei Yissaschar writes that before Moshiach comes, Hashem will give us great Tzadikim, but the leaders chosen by the masses will not be those Tzadikim.

"...This refers to the fake Rebbes, [someone] who makes himself like a Tzadik, is meyached yichudim, wears the Talis of a Rebbe, and with all the clothing of a Rav and a Rebbe, but in reality he is the work of the S"M, in order to mislead the masses . . . G-d should save us from them and from the likes of them" (Munkatcher Rebbe ZTL, Divrei Torah #82).

The Kotzker Rebbe ZTL said (Emes VEmunah) that before Moshiach comes, there will be "white jupitzes" (Bekisches, i.e. Rebbes) who are apikorsim."

The Satmar Rebbe ZTL (Vayoel Moshe, end of ch. 2) writes that the Derech of the Baal Shem Tov is already totally forgotten from our generation.

I am not talking about nay individuals, but simply stated, the above and other Chasidishe Tzadikim have told us not to be surprised when, in these generations, there are Rebbes who are not what we would expect them to be. It says nowhere that just because someone's father or uncle was niftar and left him a Kehilla of Chasidim, that that makes him a Tzadik.

In fact, if this wouldn’t be happening we would have a big "kasha" on Chasidus, because this was predicted and expected, as per above.

But don't worry - or maybe this is reason to worry more - it's not only by the Chasidim. The world is problematic today in all segments of Orthodoxy.

There are still Tzadikim, and there are Bainonim, and there are others. Just because someone has a big straimel doesn’t make him a Tzadik and just because someone has no big Yeshiva doesn’t mean he’s not a Godol Hador - e.g. the Chazon Ish, the Stepiler, the Vilna Gaon, just to name a few.

So the fact that people in high "positions" aren't what you expect them to be doesn't conflict with Chasidus - or the rest of Torah - in fact, Chasidishe tzadikim have said this themselves. But it does NOT leave us leaderless, for there are real Gedolim and Tzadikim out there. You just have to judge them by real Torah standards - Torah knowledge and righteousness - and not by a popularity contest.

---

There was, in the olden days, opposition to Chasidim from the GRA and his Talmidim on several grounds:

First, the Kabbalistic concept of "tzimtzum" was, they claimed, misrepresented by Chasidim (this concept explains how a materialistic world can exists if G-d encompasses the whole universe. If G-d is not material, and He is all over, then how can a gashmiyus universe exist?)

2) The Chasidim changed established Minhagim (such as the nusach of tefilah), and they were accused of violating certain halachos (such as the time of davening).

3) There were Chasidim who did weird things - like bizarre gyrations and movements during davening, and things like that. Also their seeming frivolous attitude would violate "Ashrei Adam mefachad tamid" - Fortunate is he who is always scared (of doing an aveirah), and their emphasis on happiness unrelated to happiness from a mitzvah would fly in the face of the general attitude of awe and seriousness that a Yorei Shamayim should have.

4) Their seeming minimizing of the important of learning Torah, in favor of other Mitzvos, and sometimes even "Chasidishe tishin".

The Chasidim countered the above claims either by defending their position based on torah (such as their understanding of Tzimtzum, which is explicit in the Ramak), or that the GRA was misinformed about their philosophy or behavior. But in any case, it was a machlokes between two great Torah schools.

Today, however, these issues are really non-issues. There was a good moshol given by the Kamarna Rebbe ZTL, about today’s Chasidim and Misnagdim:

There was once a rich man who married off his daughter, and was willing - as was the custom in those days - to support the new couple by having them move in to his house.

He told him that he would give him his own wing in his mansion, but on one condition - that he (the son in law) only eat fleishigs. The son-in-law agreed.

Some time later, the rich man married off his next daughter, and made the new son-in-law the same deal, but this time, he was only allowed to eat milchigs. Agreed.

So he had his fleishig son-in-law on one side of the house, and his milchig one on the other side, supporting them both.

Until one day, when the wealthy man unfortunately lost all his money. Now he could no longer support his sons-in-law the way he used to. So he went to the fleishig son-in-law and said "Sorry, fleishiger son-in-law. Until now, you’ve been eating steak and lamb chop. I can’t afford that anymore. Now you will have to subsist on potatoes".

Then he went to the milchig son-in-law and said "Until now you were eating ice cream and tiramisu. Now you will have to eat only potatoes."

And so it was.

One day shortly thereafter, the two sons in law went to their father in law and said when one of us was eating fleishig and the other milchigs, it made sense that we had to have separate rooms. But now that all of us are eating potatoes, we can just live together in one apartment.

The nimshal is, there used to be chasidim, and misnagdim. Fleishigs and michigs. And there were two separate camps, that would not mix. But today, we have all gone bankrupt - our madreigah has dropped so that the chasidim are not chasidim and the misnagdim are not misnagdim. Never mind tzimtzum, never mind supremacy of learning as opposed to other types of avodah - halvai we should all keep the basic Torah and mitzvos.

Today, we are all eating potatoes.

And so there is no longer much difference between the chasidim and the misnagdim, both are living on a bare and basics level, and so there is really no reason to have separate camps anymore. Today, we're all eating potatoes anyway, so why have separate kitchens?

---

"Frum" is just a word, which means "religious." It has no measurable meaning in itself - it's just a word and you can use it any way you want.

When I got to shamayim after 120 years Hashem will ask me if I fulfilled the Torah; he is not going to ask me if I was "frum". So if Hashem doesn't care about what it mean why would I?

There is no threshold of "frum" or "religious", because since the definitions of those words make no difference, whether you are "religious" or not becomes an issue of semantics - how you define the word.

What does matter is that you set as your ideal the lifestyles of the great Tzadikim, our role models. Of course, you are not yet able to be on that level, and of course the Tzadikim themselves often had to work very hard for many years to reach their level. Very hard. And many years. But they always had their eyes on the prize, on their goal, on Perfection.

As Rav Yisroel Salanter once said - where you are does not matter as much as in what direction you are going. Striving for greatness the way and working toward that goal the way people work toward any glorious goal is what we are supposed to focus on.

So the question "at what point in my observance do I become religious" is not really a question - it is a question of semantics. We are also not supposed to stop at any given point. If G-d has given us an additional day of life, it is for us to use it to grow.

---

The black hat is a purely cultural thing. In Europe yeshiva guys all wore hats (grey, usually, not black), and the style, I guess, just continued. Could mean absolutely nothing at all, could mean a statement, depends on the whole picture. No way to judge just by the hat.

It's not nearly frowned upon if you don't wear one as much as you may think. Especially if for business dress or the like. But since in "dress mode" such as Shabbos or formal weekday wear what people wear on their heads - black hat, knitted yarlmuka, colored giant Tzefas-type Yarlmuka etc. - happened to have become very statistically equatable with the different segments of Judaism, it will naturally raise an eyebrow if it's incongruous with the segment that observers would expect you to identify with.

It's like let's say you're having lunch in a wall street eatery where everyone is wearing horn-rimmed glasses, suits, yellow ties, and reading the wall street journal, and in walks a guy with pink hair, 6 piercings, leather pants and a copy of "High Times". Of course, this person may well be the most savvy broker in the group, but people are going to ask themselves what's up with him. True that, even though there is nothing intrinsically investment-oriented with gray suits or thin ties. It's just a cultural thing.

In Yeshiva, if a bochur suddenly stops wearing his hat, more than the removal of the hat itself, the question would be why did he do it. Is he trying to make a statement, or what? Since the fact is that teenagers (and adults) generally do dress according to the style that the group they identify with does (regardless of personal taste), if a person who identifies with the Yeshiva world dressed differently it will raise questions.

So it's not a chumra thing, it's a style thing. But instead of the style of Calvin Klein, it's the style of the Yeshiva world. Intrinsically, it has zero significance (except during davening, where there is Halachic discussion about wearing a hat over your Yarlmuka). It is purely social, and nonconformity here has the same connotations as nonconformity with the dress norms of any social group.

---

There is a chumrah of covering your entire head with a bigger yarlmuka than just one that we wear. Gedolim wear hats or big, whole-head Yarlmukas for that reason.

It is a cultural thing, not a Halachic thing; it tells the world what group you identify with and how you want to be recognized, but the fact that it is a black hat (of a certain style, technically called a fedora) is pure coincidence. In Europe, in the main yeshivos, the head covering of choice was a GRAY hat (today it would be considered very unyeshivish); in certain Sefardishe circles, gedolim would wear turban type hats; Rav Moshe Feinstein used to sometimes wear a straw (dark) hat.

When I was a teenager, back hats had small, narrow brims and large, wide bands. Today if you wore such a hat they'd laugh you out of the Bais Hamedrash. Some guys used to wear feathers in their hats, or - this was once very popular - imitation pearls. No more. It's a style, this hat thing. The style of Bnei Torah, true, but a style.

I'm not saying not to wear the hat. I'm saying that whatever you do, you should know why you are doing it -- is it a mitzvah, a chumrah, a minhag, a siyag, an aveirah, a davar reshus (neutral), a cultural thing, etc. The black hat is not INTRINSICALLY meaningful; it has become a cultural style of the Yeshiva world.

The concept of following the Rabbonim means either to follow their directions, or to figure out why they do what they do and then take it form there. Sometimes you should do as they do; sometimes you should NOT - some things are appropriate only for people of a certain stature - and sometimes it's in between.

If you don't know WHY the person you are following does what he does, you are likely not following correctly. Example: The Kedushas Yom Tov always used to specifically eat egg kichels for Kiddush Shabbos morning. Some Chassidim thought there was some significance to that and followed suit. When they asked the Kedushas Yom Tov his reason, he explained that he was Makpid on making an Al haMichyah only if he ate a Kazayis of flour; and since egg kichels do not have much flour in them, he is always safe.

So if a Chosid did not have the Rebbe's chumrah and made an al hamichyah on his kichels, or if he ate so many kichels that he had a kazayis of flour, he may have thought that he was following his rebbe by eating the kichels, but actually he accomplished nothing.

---

Modern Orthodoxy VII

2006-08-31T18:35:00.000-07:00

We don’t NEED secular literature to teach us our relationship with Hashem. In real life, these secular writers cannot come up with anything regarding our relationship with G-d that we do not already know from the Torah. And even more importantly, how in the world do you know that what you are learning from the secular places is correct? Maybe it is giving you a false idea of your relationship with G-d?

A moshol would be if someone is offering you $100 bills on one side and on the other side someone is offering you pennies - who in their right mind would take the pennies? You may as well get the hundreds! Never mind that the pennies may also be counterfeit! Or booby trapped!

That's why, if someone needs a rest from learning or just a vacation for his brain, then innocuous secular literature - if it is innocuous - is OK. But if you are learning it for its value, then you are slapping the Torah in the face - because you are turning down the Torah's offer, which is much, much better.

---

If Rav Soloveitchik though that he was being moser nefesh for a certain segment of Jewry that would not be able to reach proper Torah Judaism, then he would not have criticized those Bnei Torah who do NOT go to college, which he did. In fact, I know of a then-young Rabbi who, after impressing Rav Soloveichik in learning, was asked "did you go to college?" And when the Rabbi said "no", Rav Soloveichik told him "that's a pity." If you are bringing people up to a higher level, that is one thing; but then you will not try to bring those on the higher level down to a lower one. Unless you think that the lower one is higher.

Rav Soloveichik did not believe that he was merely helping a segment of Orthodox Jewry -- he held that "the future of Torah in America" depends on following his approach. He held that the "separatist" Orthodox will die out and only YU and MO will survive. He held America was too strong for the real, pure Orthodoxy. He therefore tried to proactively change the picture of a Ben Torah into a YU guy. Those who insisted on continuing the "old style" Orthodoxy would, he said, be come nothing but tourist attractions and die out eventually, and those Gedolim who refuse to admit this "lack the courage" to admit their mistake, which is/was quite obvious to him.

Although he did expect to be ostracized he expected the ostracizers to whither away and he and his would be leading Orthodox Jewry.

His problem was that he misread the world. Rav Shach writes that he was influenced by his secular studies which corrupted his hashkofos, and that’s what derailed his vision. But whatever the reason, he made a terrible error in judgment regarding the future of Orthodox Jewry in America, and whether that error was a plain mistake or the result of tainted hashkofos, he was considered a danger because he was misleading people. Not only were his teachings bringing some people up, but they were bringing others down to the level that he held was the maximum that could be reached in America.

Why he thought that The Light of Torah could not shine here is a good question -- and as I said, Rav Shach says it was because his hashkofos were tainted by his value for secular studies. And not only in regard to this particular issue - Rav Shach says this regarding Rav Soloveichik's general outlook on Jewish matters. In context, he was referring to the first of the "Five Addresses" where Rav Soloveichik attributes certain vision flaws to the shevtei kah, which of course, serve for Rav Soloveichik as a moshol to the vision flaws of the gedolim on him.

The assimilation of secular values (not so only the studies but the values) is bad enough, but to make that assimilation into the l'chatchilah Torah lifestyle is much worse. That is why Rav Aharon Kotler said that he (Rav Soloveichik) "destroyed an entire generation" -- and that’s not the harshest thing he said about him.

He was considered a great gaon in Torah learning - but in hashkafa he was considered totally off. There were plenty of people in Jewish history - bigger geonim than Rav Soloveichik - from biblical times down - who were Torah scholars but hashkaficly tainted. It’s not such a big chidush.

---

There is no such thing as an official "Modern Orthodox" hashkafa. Modern Orthodoxy was not created in the same way that lets say chasidus or the musar movement was, where leaders got together and said "this is what we want to do." Rather, it was created from the bottom-up, by default - certain people were not meeting a certain standard, and that lower standard became communal and institutionalized and so you have modern orthodoxy. Nobody has a right to say "this is what MO believes", since everybody has equal right to call themselves MO.

Why did Modern Orthodoxy choose to follow certain specific positions? What do they have in common? You are not really explaining what drives MO, but only what you believe is the result of what drives them. WHY did they decide that the above things are important?

The answer, no matter how you cut it, is that besides Torah, MO is driven by a desire to be like the goyim. The only question is how far that goes. But that is the problem. Any factor that drives our religious beliefs besides religion is a falsification of Torah. The equation is that simple.

They will not tell you in the MO schools about the vast difference in outlook, lifestyle, and core beliefs of the MO, simply because they don’t know enough about traditional orthodoxy to understand how they are different. There are 2 main differences between traditional orthodoxy and modern orthodoxy (and this applies to all strains of MO):

1) MO includes in its religious drivers the need or desire to be like the gentiles - ergo: the State of Israel, secular education, secular culture, etc

2) The wrongheaded idea that our job in this world is to "follow Halachah" as opposed to following "the Torah". In Mo circles you will constantly hear the idea of living "within the framework of halachah" and that besides the do's and don’ts of the law, our outlook, lifestyle, and perspectives are up to us. This is plain heresy, and originates in the heretical teachings of Moses Mendelssohn.

---

To make compromises in our religion because people will not accept the real thing is the same as what the Conservatives and Reformers have done. It's only a question of how far you want to go. This is why Rav Aharon Kotler ZTL, in Mishnas Rabi Aharon (Vol 3 - Hesped on Brisker Rav) states that the essence of Modern Orthodoxy is the same as the Reform and Conservative. That is, change Judaism into something that more people will be willing to accept.

While it is true that on an individual, private, level, we are allowed to even proactively cause someone to sin if by doing so we will have prevented him form committing a greater sin, nevertheless, we may never, ever institutionalize those sins, making a b'dieved inot a l'chatchilah, making the exception into the rule. Doing so in Kefirah. By institutionalizing their compromises and making them into an official "version of Orthodoxy" which they believe, or came to believe, is just as authentic, or even more authentic, than Torah Orthodoxy, constitutes changing Judaism, and is prohibited regardless of what some people will do if you don’t provide them a new version of Judaism.

HAFTR is currently taking big a hit from schools like SKA (boys and girls versions) which compete on an educational level, but are not coed. HAFTR is losing many students to them. While there are, I am certain, people whose credo is "either coed or nothing", there are also those who would choose the more frum schools, if only those were available.

People laughed at Rav Aharon Kotler when he said that American students would be willing to go to Yeshiva full time with no college. Now look at who's laughing at whom.

It is neither our job, nor within our ability, to assess what is "better for Klall Yisroel" according to our finite vision. It is our job to follow the Torah. And the Torah says it is not permitted to institutionalize changes or compromises into our idea of Judaism, even if there are those who will not accept real Judaism.

---

The root problem with Modern Orthodoxy, the issue from which stems all other issues, is that they incorporate secular, non-Jewish, values into their religious practice. What the secular world values, they believe is valuable. What the secular world thinks is normal, civilized, sophisticated, good, and proper, they do too, and they incorporate those values and attitudes, which are often corrupt and against the Torah, into their religious practice.

And so, because in the secular world, a "people" is bizarre when you’re talking about a people with no country and no common language - imagine the Italians without Italy or Italian - therefore, Zionism, which, to their standards "normalizes" the Jewish nation (that was actually the word the Zionists used) becomes almost a requirement of Modern Orthodoxy; because secular studies, college education, mixing of boys and girls and a general a collegiate, yuppie lifestyle, is considered "normal" in the secular world, it become part and parcel of the MO lifestyle.

And ironically, where college and mixing of the sexes is concerned, the MO community become tremendous meikilim way beyond what the halachah allows. In these areas, they will struggle to find heterim, whether they exist or not; on the other hand, regarding making aliyah, they will become fanatical machmirim, and despite the myriad leniencies and historical precedent of Jews willingly living outside of Eretz yisroel, they will often run around saying that you have to make aliyah, and not to do so is in violation of the Torah.

When secular values demand they be fanatical machmirim, they become fanatical machmirim; when secular values demand they become unreasonable mekilim, they become unreasonable mekilim.

In order to avoid coming in conflict with the Chazals that explain the terrible crime of making a State in Eretz Yisroel before moshiach comes, they will dismiss them as "agadita" - not binding, and non-cognitive. It doesn’t matter what they say. Only halachic Gemoras count. (The truth is, they are wrong on both counts - Agadita is not non-cognitive - they definitely reveal the will of Hashem, and according to most opinions, they are also halachicly binding unless overwritten by a different halachic Gemora. But these Chazals that prohibit making a Jewish State in EY are quoted l'halachah by the Rishonim and Achronim in countless places).

Yet they will make "ahavas eretz yisroel" a mainstay of their lifestyle, their studies, and their duties, even though there is no halachah anywhere that says one has to have ahavas eretz yisroel. The entire obligation is completely Agadic in nature. The Rambam, the Shulchan Aruch, and the poskim codify no such obligation.

So when their secular values demand they become Agadists, they do so - to the point where Agadita becomes one of the most important elements of their philosophy, if not the most important; and when their secular values demand that they disregard open statements of Chazal, they dismiss them, saying Agadita is not binding.

And so, when their secular values demand that women be "treated equally", and that education be "available to all", and that women's "intellects should be respected", they misconstrue all of those cliches into the act of ignoring open halachos and instituting a clear aveirah into the list of what they consider noble: teaching girls Gemora.

That is why all their "heterim" are not based on shas and roshonim, but rather on the secular idea that "today's women are different - we are no longer in the shtetle (someone actually sent me that in a post); today's women think; todays women are sophisticated and deserve and need a full Jewish education - and even though they have not yet finished all the halachos and hashkofos that they are utterly OBLIGATED to learn, what they mean by "full Jewish education" is really "opportunity equal to that of males".

Feh.

And then they want to know what people have against Modern Orthodoxy. Well, here's an example, they violated an open halachah and made their aveirah into something noble, because their modernity demands that they do it. Unless they come up with some kind of real heter - something more halachicly valid than some Virginia Slims advertisement showing how much more sophisticated and intellectual their women are than our holy ancestors - what in the world do they want from those who consider them off the path of Torah?

---

No Rabbis started Modern Orthodoxy. Modern Orthodoxy did not start like Chasidus by the Baal Shem Tov or the Mussar movement by Rav Yisroel Salanter. It was started by people who simply wanted to accept the values of modern society, including but not limited to secular education, nationalism (Zionism), mixing of the sexes and etc. They will tell you that Rav SR Hirsh was in favor of secular studies, but when you tell them Rav Hirsh was vehemently anti-Zionist they’ll say yeah we follow Rav Kook for that; then you’ll tell them Rav Kook had standards of Tznius that rival today’s most strict Chasidic communities and they’ll try to find other "shitos" (Not that Rav Hirsh's version of secular studies has anything to do with that of MO anyway).

---

The Modern Orthodox world keeps saying that a reason kids are going off
is because they're not "cut out" to be so frum, and the Conservatives
have used the fact that frum kids go off as a "proof" that one of the
reason they go off is that they are not cut out to be Orthodox, and I have seen secular social workers who say that a reason is, not everyone is cut out to be religious altogether. A Lakewood kid who goes off has the exact same chance of coming back, and is equally manageable, as a kid from Scarsdale or Teaneck. And
the Lakewood kids who "go off" do not go any further off than anyone else. Like all, some go further than others.

---

Nobody said that going to work is "wrong". It's just not as high as learning Torah all day. The Rambam says this, when he declares that nowadays anyone can step up to be like the Tribe of Levi in the olden days and be privileged to learn Torah all day.

It's like this:

I show you a pile of gold coins. I tell you that you have 1 hour to collect as much as you can. I tell you that the minimum you must collect is $500 worth or else you will burn in Gehinnom. Whatever you collect you can keep.
Is it "wrong" to collect only your $500 and then sleep the rest of the hour?
That's not the point, is it? So too, we have one lifetime. We have one pile of coins. Torah learning is the most valuable of them all - Talmud Torah k'neged Kulam.
The Yerushalmi Peah says that one word of Torah imparts more Kedusha than a lifetime of doing other Mitzvos! We have a choice. We can spend all our time collecting the coins, or we can bother with other pursuits as well.

Of course, in that hour, you may have to eat, maybe even do other
things. But you will want to spend as much time as you can collecting your gold.
Someone who doesn't either has no choice in the matter (maybe they do have to eat) or doesn't appreciate the gold. That moshol, by the way, comes from the Choid Yaavetz in Avos to explain why "If two people are sitting around and no words of Torah are exchanged between them, theirs is a meeting of scoffers" (moshav letzim). He says that these guys have a chance to collect gold and don't. That means they don't value the gold. You're right. Some people do have to make a living. Some have to spend time in the hospital, because they are sick. Some have to be involved
with other necessary pursuits. All these are considered "ones" - not responsible for the "crime" of not collecting the coins. But that's not the point. You want to make sure that as much time in your life is spent gathering your gold, and whatever you have to do otherwise should be minimized as much as possible.

Torah Umadah is not a real philosophy - it is a phrase coined and used by some Modern Orthodox Jews in recent years, most notably Norman Lamm. It means "Torah and Science". And it means, in a nutshell, that secular studies have intrinsic value, not merely practical use. It's nothing new - it just rakes up old Modern Orthodox
position, overlooks the fact that they were rejected, and garnishes it
up as something new. Every now and then Modern Orthodoxy throws in a new adjective to describe itself. I suppose they think it will reignite some kind of interest in their ideas. It's like a product that’s not selling well - you change the name and the packaging hoping people won't notice. It's pretty much all a marketing tool mostly by Norman Lamm, who conjures up these terms. For a number of years, they called themselves "Centrists", and their movement "Centrism." But it's all the same.

---

The best way to distinguish between legit and illegit positions is if you are qualified to do so yourself. "Lo am haaretz chasid", an ignorant man cannot be pious, and the simplest reason is, he will not know who to follow.

But there are solutions even for the non-advanced in Torah. The formula is, See the attitude of the opposing Gedolim to the view in question. Sometimes a godol will say "I don't agree with this position." He may even say "I think this is absurd." But he will not discredit the person saying it. On the other hand, when he says "The person who said this is not a legitimate Godol", or even "Whoever says this is a fool"
then you have a right to believe it.

Example: Zionism. The opponents to it did not merely say it is absurd or wrong, but rather that it was based on wishful thinking and dishonest misrepresentation of Torah. Reb Elchonon said regarding those who believe that the work of the heretical Zionists (i.e. the State of Israel) is a great merit, (Kovetz Maamarim I:p.161), "Anyone who believes that a great merit can come from the worst sinners is either an idiot (tipish) or a mocker of the words of Chazal." This is but one example of the nullification that the Gedolim had for Zionism. Not merely that it is wrong, but rather that its motivation is wrong. There is a big difference.

You also want to see what views are "traditional". Meaning, new ideologies are always suspect. Our religion does not develop new ideologies. If the Gedolim of the previous generation did not hold of a certain ideology then it is not legitimate. Rashi says that if you are in doubt about what is legitimate, just follow the policies of the
old generation of Gedolim and then you are safe. It is also true that dishonesty often accompanies illegitimate ideologies, since there is insufficient facts upon which to build their ideologies. For instance, when the Lubavitchers claim that Rav
Aharon Kotler ZTL starved Lubavitcher students to death or that Rav Shach ZTL is against Chasidim (not just Lubavitch), or that he disrespected the Rambam in an alleged interview in Chabad - such things you don't find among legitimate places, no matter how in error they are. Checking out facts often exposes fakers for what they are.
But the first and best criteria for someone who is not a Torah scholar is to see the attitude of the Gedolim toward the ideology. Do they disagree, do they consider it absurd? Baseless? Or do they recognize it as a deviant movement with no right to exist? Using that, you will usually filter the real from the fake.

I specifically did Not say "see what the Gedolim say" because then your point would be telling - who then are the Gedolim? Rather, I said see if there are those who you yourself recognize as Gedolim who delegitimize the position in question.

So in respect to, let's say, Zionism, who is not going to concede that Ran Chaim Brisker, The Rogachover, the Chofetz Chain, the Chazon Ish, the Brisker Rav, Rav Aharon Kotler, and the Satmar Rebbe ZTL were not real "gedolim". And if they delegitimized the "other side" then you know its not a legitimate side. Even the Zionists are not going to try to say that roster of Torah giants are not Torah authorities.

Modern Orthodoxy was also rejected as simply a deviant movement by the Gedoim - who are recognized as such even by the Modern Orthodox.

So you have one side saying that the other is illegitimate, and those allegedly illegitimate ones saying "Yes but eilu v'eilu divrei elokim chaim". That you cannot do, since part of the divrei elokim chaim of your opponents is that your position doesn't constite divrei elokim chaim at all.

In Lubavitch, they deal with this by making up slanderous stories about their opponents, in order to eliminate this problem. So they indeed will tell you Rav Shach and Rav Aharon Kotler ZTL, for instance, were not real "Gedolim". Afra l'pumam. By that itself you know that they are not legitimate.

---

Those Rabbonim who were against Bais Yaakovs still are -- and those who weren't still aren't. Nobody "changed" their opinion.

Perhaps more important, though, is that whereas the Bais Yaakov movement as a movement was never a Halachic issue (although the details of the curriculum were, and still are), Zionims was branded Apikorsus and Avodah Zorah. So whereas what can be a good strategy today may a bad one tomorrow or vice versa, such as certain mussar schools of thought, etc.

But what is Apikorsus and Avodah Zorah doesn't change.

The Zionists, religious and otherwise, sometimes try to position the issue of Zionism as if it is an "is this good for Klall Yisroel" kind of thing. By doing so, they are trying to ignore the much more important issue - the fact that their ideology and their State itself is assur according to the Torah as a serious sin and rebellion against Hashem.

---

If you are in doubt as to who to follow, you should follow who is bigger; if you do not know that, then you should follow those who follow the derech of their Rebbeim; and that you can know, because in this particular instance, even the religious Zionists admit that they have broken away from their tradition and the teachings of their Rebbeim - Rav JB Soloveichik used to speak often how his grandfather, Rav Chaim ZTL, who by the way, in basically every other aspect of Judaism except for Zionism and secularism is the model for Rav JB Soloveichik's life, was so vehemently opposed to Zionism, religious or otherwise, but he decided to pursue it anyway.

So when you are not able to see on your own the Halachic emptiness of the Zionist position and their inability to satisfactorily respond to the Halachic problems that Zionism faces, you know, at least, that Zionism is a revolution against our predecessors. And that itself is enough for you to know to stay away.

---

What's "extreme"? What's "middle of the road"? (Yeshiva guys say they're middle of the road, between moderists and chassidim; modern orthodoxy used to call themselves "centrists"; "Midstream" magazine is not religious at all; and the list goes on...)

And what's "culture"? It can mean anything from Tchaikovsky to Temptation Island.

Regarding Rav Gifter ZTL, I knew him, and I get the feeling his idea of "middle of the road" is not the same as you are describing. He on numerous occasions berated secular "culture", and I once heard him talk about how even the word "Orthodox" is not legitimate - it has no meaning in Judaism, and therefore just because a person is "Orthodox" does not mean he follows the Torah.

He preferred the total Torah life over all. I once heard him heap unending praises on a former Talmid of his who gave up a career and a living to "live in a ramshackle hut" (that’s a quote) in Israel and become a talmid of Rav Elyashev shlita.

---

Nobody is allowed to have any standards of right and wrong, are they? If they do, then those who do the wrong have a right to accuse those with the standards of hate?

What hate? Huh? I see disapproval and criticism, but hate? I don’t see any of that?

It's a game people play and a defense mechanism they use to protect themselves from and criticism, and to take license to do whatever they want, that as soon as someone says "Hello, I hold what you’re doing is wrong" they scream "HATE HATE HATE".

Sorry, but that doesn't work here.

And please let me ask you: I am accusing people of violating the Torah, and so are you - yet you feel you have a right to do so, but if I do, I am guilty of "hate"? Can you please explain that? Please tell me the logic of criticizing other Jews under the grounds that they are not allowed to criticize another Jew?

---

I am not at all attacking Rabbi Soloveichik or Rabbi Lamm by quoting them here. On the contrary, I am using the quotes as proof that one DOES say what one thinks even if it means rejecting the ideas of other Jews, Orthodox or otherwise.

---

Nobody here has mentioned a necessity of being “Yeshivish” or Chareidi. Considering the widespread ban on the Internet in numerous Chareidi circles, such a claim would be absurd. If, our objective analysis of Judaism results in the confirmation of practices and/or attitudes not shared by all Jews – Orthodox, Conservative, reform, Jesus, or whatever – well, the fact that not everyone likes what you discover is not a reason to avoid living according to your discovery.

Does taking money from someone automatically means you approve of their lifestyle? Does YU not take money from non-Jews? Reform Jews? Conservative Jews? And if they do, does that mean they approve of their lifestyle? Their Hashkofos? Does that mean that the Rebbeim in YU are not allowed to say Christianity is wrong or Reform Jewry is wrong because Christians or Reform Jews give money to YU?

---

Every time you put yourself in a Nisayon, you can either fall or come out stronger. The Halacha is that we do not take the risk, even if we think it is worth it. Many people cross the street on red lights, and survive. Maybe they even learn to be more alert when crossing. But it's bad advice to tell people to do that.

Putting yourself in a bad environment is not permitted, even if in the end it will make you stronger. This is because (a) you have no way of knowing what will happen in the end, (b) your career there isn't over. So far you say you’ve done well, but you don’t know what nisyonos you will have tomorrow. Chazal say "Do not believe in yourself until the day you die." Hopefully you will live a long life, but as long as you have life, you should not put it in danger. Even if until now you survived. (c) There may be residue weaknesses that you picked up without even noticing. Part of the danger of being in a place like Stern is that you become desensitized to things that should disturb you. Even if you don’t join your friends in their activities, the fact that you are exposed to them is itself a weakness. (d) You have no idea whether the teachings you are absorbing are legitimate or not. There are things presented as Judaism in that place that are not Judaism at all. Unless you are a Talmid Chacham, it is likely you will not know which is which.

---

Everyone has their own nisyonos, and everyone is a Baal Bechirah. You are only responsible to do what you can, but no more than that. You can control your own frumkeit but you cannot control that of others. Your job now is to first and foremost, solidify your own frumkeit, and survive your home. Secondly, to try to change it.

But whereas the first objective (for you to solidify yourself) is within your control, the second is not. You can put in the effort, but it is up to them.

That having been said, I suggest you speak to the "talmidei chachamim" in your school for some advice on how to deal with your family, and perhaps even intervention. Sounds to me like they’re on the same page as you. If that’s so, then maybe let them try to be mekarev your family to a more authentic version of Yiddishket.

And as far as what you can do yourself, perhaps give your family some of those books to read - the ones that helped you so much. You know by now which book I would recommend - Rabbi Miller's 3 Hashkafa books. Be careful though - the last one (Awake My Glory) has very sharp things to say about "Modern Orthodoxy", and your family is likely not on the level yet to digest that. So for the nonce, stick with Rejoice O Youth and Sing You Righteous. These books are designed not only to make people frum, but to make them yorei shamayim.

Also, be patient. Often families such as yours, when they see one of its members such as you grow to be happy, healthy, and spiritually rich, they come around. No guarantees - remember - it's up to them, not you - but it does happen.

So finally, be mispalel to Hashem for them. Have them in mind when you say "hachzireinu beseshuva sheleimah lefonechah".

---

Modern Orthodoxy VI

2006-08-31T13:51:00.000-07:00

The fact that there were Rabbonim who went to University proves nothing, especially in a case such as Rav Hutner's, where despite his going to University, he discouraged it among his students, and he himself radically changed since those younger years of his.

If there is any narrow mindedness here, it is the totally baseless notion that runaways and teenagers leaving the Derech can be reduced by allowing modernity. The fact is, there is no correlation between the level of frumkeit and chances of going off the derech. In communities such as Meah Shearim, Williansburgh, and Bnei Brak, there are no more instances of problem kids than in Flatbush or Teaneck. On the contrary - the Modern Orthodox schools are much more plagued with drugs and promiscuity problems because of their allowances.

---

There is no "mesorah" that advises secular learning in the way MO does. A Mesorah cannot start 100 or 150 years ago in regard to an issue that is 500 years old. In Germany, the hotbed of Haskalah, and only when Germany became the hotbed of Haskalah, did the Rabbonim there endorse college. The reason was either a response to Haskalah or the result of being influenced by it - depends who you ask. But it is no coincidence that only during the time and place where Haskalah was decimating our ranks did this "Mesorah" appear.

There is no problem with such a response. If secular studies is permitted for parnasah, it is also permitted for spiritual survival as well. If people in Germany needed rabbis - wanted rabbis, at least, who were well versed in Shiller, then it is not surprising that it was encouraged in order to deal with the time and place they were living, then.

This does not mean "horaas shah". Many agree that a certian amount of secular knowledge is beneficial - even today Yeshiva students go to high school mostly, and basically all of them understand English and basic math etc., which was NOT the case in Germany - where many did not even know German.

The question is, how much secular knowledge is necessary and desirable for a Ben Torah? The answer is, it depends on the time and place and people. Whatever is necessary for the betterment of Torah is the answer. In Germany, much more was necessary to maintain Torah than is today in America. Rav SR Hirsch and the others in Germany did not universally encourage an unlimited amount of secular knowledge - if so, what's going be with Torah? The quantification of this depends on the need.

In short, secular knowledge is looked upon by all of them as a "tool" not an end in itself. Modern Orthodoxy looks at secular knowledge as part of an integration into secular society, part of a lifestyle more than a tool.

Example: Law. Law has zero value as a "science". It is merely the ground rules laid down by our government and states that allow you to win cases or to live without trouble from the government. It is not philosophy and is not an "objective science". Rather, it is the rules of the game - like baseball for instance. People make a living paying ball and others make a living being a lawyer. Neither are philosophical or scientific objectively, and neither are "sciences".

Yet someone who has a law degree is considered in MO world to have accomplished something in "secular knowledge" field. Rav Hirsch would not have considered that an accomplishment. It is not philosophy or science. It is merely a game. Yet to MO, it is still "secular knowledge".

MO looks at "all knowledge" as "coming from G-d", - a quote from Norman Lamm, which is true, but not relevant to whether we should pursue it. Ice cream also comes from G-d but someone who spends his life pursuing it is a fool. MO holds that knowledge - whatever knowledge is valued by secular society is also valued by us. Makes no sense, but that’s what it is. Ask a MO why law is more valuable than the knowledge of Britney Spears trivia - after all - doesn’t all knowledge come from G-d? And making a living is not the criteria, so what is?

Secular society's values are the criteria, which are valued by MO but NOT AT ALL by Rav Hirsch.

---

Rav Hutner was very much against college. His Yeshiva regularly discourages it, as did he. Always. Part of the job of a Rebbi in Chaim Berlin in the HS is to convince the students not to go to college.

However, 50 years ago, he wanted to make a college for those who anyway would have gone to college, to be mekarev them so they can be encouraged to learn more. Not to encourage college c"v for anyone. Rav Aharon Kotler ZTL told him it was a bad idea, for various reasons, and Rav Hutner acquiesced to Rav Aharon's superior authority. Rav Aharon did not foil Rav Hutner's plans, Rav Hutner himself foiled them after Rav Aharon explained to him why it was wrong.

Rav Hutner changed a lot in the last 40 years of his life. The 1939 Chaim Berlin yearbook features him almost beardless, with a nice 3 pierce suit, looking more like a professor than Rosh Yeshiva, with the title "Rabbi Isaac Hutner, Dean."

The 1976 yearbook has him in a Shtraimel (spudik), bekeshe (with velvel cuffs), long white beard, payos flowing behind his ears down almost to his shoulders. He changed a lot.

As far as his daughter, yeah, we know about her Maharitz Chiyus paper. I've seen it. But in context, today she runs a seminary for girls where college is not only discouraged, but a girl who went to college is not even likely to ever get admitted to begin with. A girl from there who married a college guy is considered second rate. In fact, it is probably the most anti-college of all the girls seminaries. Whatever her reasons were, her policy, today, is different. You will have to ask her why she went. Who knows - maybe she went for parnassa reasons, which is permitted.

But college the way MO looks at it was never endorsed by anyone.

---

Norman Lamm refused to abolish those gay clubs even though he could have. The only thing he had to lose by doing so was money. It would break no law, nor would it endanger the school’s accreditation. He misrepresented the nature of the clubs as well as the laws "protecting" (sic) them. Please see http://familydefensecouncil.com/fdcx95critique.htm {Entire website gone -taon}.
where the issue is explained at length.

But none of this is the main point. The main point is that if these were anti-semitic Nazi clubs under YU auspices, believe me they would have been abolished. At the very least, the outcry from the supporters and the institution itself would have been deafening. Unfortunately, Dr. Lamm does not understand that homosexuality to Hashem is as offensive as an abomination the same way that Nazism is. They are both enemies of G-d and hated by Him. Nobody with proper Torah Hashkofos would allow such anti-Torah elements in their school - or anywhere they were able to prevent it. Even for money. Sorry.

---

Part of the problem with MO is that it was not created in the same way Torah movements such as Chasidus or TIDE were. There were no rabbis - great or otherwise - who articulated a philosophy that they referred to as MO. MO began as a behavior of people without any reasoning, and ex post facto became a philosophy. For example, secular studies in RIETS developed when some students went on strike because their friends were expelled from school for attending secular studies. The rabbonim in charge of RIETS then were against secular studies, but the board of directors and financial backers made a business decision to incorporate it into the curriculum. Later more influences came upon the scene, none of which were Torah perspectives but rather business or secular ones. Furthermore, even the ex post facto definition of MO is a hodgepodge of opinions of many different people, none of whom have more of a copyright on the term than others. I have no interest, nor is there a need, to deal with every individual opinion on the street in this matter. And almost none of the opinions address the pertinent issue anyway: What's the point of Modern Orthodoxy?
But some do. Those are the opinions that I am using here. Rav Soloveichik articulated a reasoning, namely, survival. Obviously, he was dead wrong.

His reasoning was based on his vision of the future, his own opinion of what will be, and what needs to be done. He was so confident in his perception that he accused the vast majority of Gedolei Yisroel of "lacking the courage" to admit he was right. He stated clearly that only his derech will be successful and the others will fail.

In the end of his life, I heard from someone close to him, that he was extremely distraught and depressed over the fact that he and his derech was not accepted in the Torah world, whereas those who were supposed to become "tourist attractions" were. In particular, he was complaining a about the fact that Rav Shlomo Heiman ZTL's seforim are learned in every Yeshiva in the country, while he is totally ignored by the bulk of Torah students.

Rav Hirsch did not encourage non-Jewish culture, in fact his policy of austritt was designed specifically to separate culture from education. He also did not send his students to outside colleges, he made his own. And why in the world would anyone consider it a positive thing to spend years learning secular law - and if so for law, why not for MTV trivia? If all knowledge comes from G-d (quote from Norman Lamm) and therefore is worth pursuing then all knowledge that comes from G-d is worth pursuing - why limit your knowledge to what the colleges teach?

Rav Hirsch was talking about Germany during Haskalah. He was right, then. He and his small Kehilla (about 300 members) saved German Jewry. Rav Soloveichik was talking about New York in the 60's. There was no comparison. Even the Minchas Elozor (in his Divrei Torah) concedes that for the Jews of Germany, who "have been so poisoned by secularism and haskalah", have also been immunized to any ill effects of the secular studies encouraged by Rav Hirsch's teachings. Rav Hirsch did not recommend secularizing a Torah world, but rather stabilizing an already lethally secularized Jewish community. He also never, ever attacked or personally denounced the Torah Only camp. Rav Soloveichik demanded secularizing the Yeshiva world - or else they will all disappear, as is "obvious" (sic) to anyone who can see the future - and denigrated those who did not agree with him.
Rav Soloveichik stated clearly, that "for the first time in history" we need his approach. He knew it was not the same as Rav Hirsch's. Or anybody else’s. He never, even mentions Rav Hirsch in this context, and is forever explaining how he is alone and original in this idea. An integration into Goyish culture was not endorsed by anyone in the past. And certainly nobody ever endorsed moving further into secularism than the community already was.
Here's the difference, in the bottom line: Rav Aharon Kotler said about Rav Soloveitchik, "He destroyed an entire generation." Whereas the Chasam Sofer's Talmidim, who was in their days the foremost "separatists" in the world, said about Rav Hirsch that "he saved an entire generation".

The difference is, Rav Soloveichik denigrated the "seperationists", and Rav Hirsch was denigrated by other Orthodox communities for being a seperationist! (Yes, that is the word they used to describe Rav Hirsch, the same word Rav Soloveichik uses to describe his opponents).

Yes, it is true that "A person's opinions do not automatically become correct because they were hired for a job in a certain neighborhood", but here we are talking about being hired by Rav Hirsch's congregation (nowadays) to be the foremost authority on Torah and Hashkafa for them, including TIDE.

Re the descendants of Rav Breuer etc: A person's job doesn't make him right, but neither does a person's yichus.

Rav Schwab was a world class Talmid Chacham, who knew Rav Hirsch's writing almost by heart (I can testify to that) and who also spent a large chunk of his life discussing Rav Hirsch's shitos with Gedolim from all other spectrums, such as Rav Elchonon, Rav Bloch, the Gerrer Rebbe and others (by the way, I heard from Rav Schwab that the Gerrer Rebbe suggested not printing Rav Elchonon's teshuva because of Kovod for Rav Hirsch! - even though he agreed with R. Elchonon l'halachah, the way some things were said he thought it better not made public).

He was also a very, very, big Ish Emes.

Another thing about him. He once told me of a story where he once mentioned something anti-Zionist one Chanukah in his congregation. He told me of the harassment that he got apparently from among his own congregation because if it - not a lot, I don't want to exaggerate - but more than a Rav should. Now it is clear that Rav Hirsch was staunchly anti-Zionist, yet today not everyone in Khal Adas Yeshurun is. Who knows how those members of his Kehilla would interpret Rav Hirsch? I see some disloyalty to Rav Hirsch in Washington Heights, but not from Rav Schwab.

I did not hear about Rav Soloveichik from Rav Gorelick. I never spoke to Rav Meiselman, but I did once speak to his father about Rav Soloveichik, many many years ago, in Buzzard's Bay, MA (long story).

Regarding who is "insular" - sigh - this is one of the problems of MO. They tend to frame these kind of issues in sociological terms, which have nothing to do with anything. The point is, none of the Baalei Tosfos, or any other Rishonim on record permit learning secular studies regularly for non-parnassa or utilitarian purposes.

"Insular" is not the issue. And the statement itself is subjective and open ended. Satmar encourages their students to go out into the world and work for a living after marriage, and Chaim Berlin encourages them to learn in Kollel. So does that mean that Chaim Berlin is insular and Satmar is not? The reality is, "insular" is not a value or a criterion, or a standard used in considering any course of action. Only the Torah is.

---

Rav Moshe is not more lenient in the last volume of Igros Moshe (even though the last volume is not 100% reliable). He says the reason people don’t object more to college is that it wont help, and also people go for parnassa reasons, and some people anyway wont do anything better with their time. The next paragraph where he discusses going to college where there are no girls is referring, as he says to someone who goes for the "right reasons", meaning, for Parnassa.

---

Secular knowledge is only worth pursuing if it has some kind of practical value. Lamm said that "all knowledge is from G-d" and therefore even without any utilitarian purpose, knowledge in and of itself, all knowledge, is worth pursuing.

I said this makes no sense, one of the reasons being, much knowledge that is taught in universities is artificial, man-made opinions about things rather than objective science, such as law. And MTV.

So you tell me that law is different than MTV since it has a practical value.

Fine. Bit the issue is, is secular knowledge worth pursuing NOT because of its practical value, but by virtue of the fact that it is "knowledge"? Which is a question that Lamm would answer "yes", an answer which your post, which says that law does have a practical utilitarian value, does not support.

If Norman Lamm has a definition for knowledge different than the dictionary, and different than "information", please let him tell it to us. What does he consider knowledge? Only what the secular universities teach? That’s precisely the point. If "all" knowledge is form G-d, then, well, they all equally come from G-d. If not "all", then what? The Torah says only secular knowledge with practical value, that can be used as a tool is worth pursuing. That’s not the MO view according to Lamm.

So again I ask, if knowledge is worth pursuing even with no practical value, does this mean "all" knowledge? If not, then what? Which knowledge does not "come from G-d"?

Incidentally, I disagree with the value aspect of law as well. Of course we need to know how to deal with our legal issues. That's why we hire lawyers - which can be non-Jews. We don't need to be lawyers.

---

What Rabbi Lamm meant was, any knowledge the secular world considers "valuable" they consider "valuable" too. That is the problem. Ancient Greek is a lot less useful than ghetto slang.

Doesn't all "information" come from G-d the same way as "knowledge" does? According to Dr. Lamm's logic, there should be no difference. And if he means to say that they only teach things with a practical value, that contradicts his whole thesis, which states that the difference between the MO and the traditional Orthodox is that MO believes in learning secular studies for no practical reason, except its intrinsic value (this was also one of the main points of his "goodbye" speech).

The problem is, WHAT intrinsic value? Where did it get this value? And how did he decide what is considered valuable and not? The whole thing is just a type of assimilation into non-Jewish culture and an acceptance of their lifestyle and values, and making them into c"v something Jewish. From a Jewish perspective - and a logical one - the whole thing is meaningless.

---

Just because Hashem made something does not make it a Mitzvah to pursue - G-d make poison too, right? Nor does it mean it is not a waste of time to pursue it.

So the whole idea is not logical to begin with. His cause does not lead to his conclusion.

Halachicly - learning Torah is a Mitzvah. Pursuing other studies is Bitul Torah and/or a Bizayon HaTorah, as the Halachah clearly states, quoted numerous places on the boards. Where necessary for utilitarian purposes, such pursuits are permitted. But only as necessary tools for living, the same as, say, a pot or pan, or bathroom. But they are not more intrinsically valuable than any other of G-d's creations, such as pots, or pans, or bathrooms.

---

Modern Orthodoxy has no definition. It’s just a term and a copyright on it has never been acquired. It's not a Torah term but a social one and anyone who wants to use it can.

The problem is, the Rabbonim who refer to themselves as MO have set themselves up for this. It is no insult to Rav Elyashev that Yitz Greenberg of CLAL, or Steven Greenberg, the openly gay "rabbi", call themselves "Orthodox". Rav Elyashev's status is not defined by self-defined labels, but by their greatness in Torah and MItzvos, which put them in a totally separate category than the Greenbergs and others like them, even though they both call themselves Orthodox. It’s like calling yourself homo sapien. I’m not insulted as a human being if Jeffrey Dahmer calls himself that. It’s just a label. My status is defined by my actions, which show that I have nothing in common with him.

If a Modern Orthodox rabbi is insulted by the fact that Edah for instance call themselves MO, then he has to rethink what defines his status. It’s not the label. It’s his actions.

That’s the problem with the whole concept of Modern Orthodoxy. It really doesn't mean anything, and can be used to define anything from going to college to being Zionist to mixed swimming to openly gay rabbis. There is no need for a new label "Modern Orthodox". Just as Chasidim, Misnagdim, Yekkes, and Sefardim do not consider themselves a different branch of Orthodoxy because of their different shitos or hashkofos, there was never any reason for the MO to do so either. The fact that they did separate themselves from traditional Orthodoxy is what causes this.

Nobody can define unanimously what Modern Orthodoxy is. All we know is what it isn't. It is not traditional Orthodoxy, otherwise you would not need a new name.

Therefore, since the only objective definition MO has is that is it not traditional Orthodoxy, anybody that does not practice traditional Orthodoxy can equally define themselves as MO without any objective opposition.

---

The problem with Modern Orthodoxy, is not that its people have problems - we all have problems and are struggling, as you say - but rather that it takes those problems and makes them "OK". They made those aveiros into part of Judaism, rather than something to fight against.

You are right that reaching our goals does not happen overnight. But Modern Orthodoxy, rather than saying "we are having trouble reaching the goals" simply changed the goals.

Nobody claims that speaking loshon horah is legitimate - MO claims that their coed schools are.

The aveirah of Modern Orthodoxy is that they do NOT look at themselves the way you describe - as people who are trying as hard as they can NOT to mix boys and girls; NOT to violate negiya; etc - rather, they look at themselves as an alternative form of Orthodoxy.

Modern Orthodoxy does not mean "people who cannot do better". It means people who believe their behavior is OK. It is that belief, that the violations of halachah and hashkafa that MO has is OK, that is the reason MO is opposed.

They are not violating the Torah like the speakers of Loshon Horah - they are changing it.

It's like if someone would open up a new branch of Orthodoxy - "Gossip Orthodoxy" - where people officially allow loshon horah, schools and shuls are set up where loshon horah is considered "cool" and nisyonos for loshon horah are inevitable. It becomes a culture where, if someone does NOT want to speak loshon horah, they cannot, and are even looked upon as strange by their peers.

They produce their own schools, their own rabbis, their own shuls - "Gossip Orthodoxy."

And when someone says they have a problem with this, they answer "Well, people try as hard as they can to do as much as they can. If that means that they are gossip orthodox, so be it."

"Hello," you would tell them. "But you're not trying!!! You're accepting your problems without resistance, institutionalizing them, glorifying them even!"

Now substitute "loshon horah" with "shomer negiyah", and "gossip" with "Modern" and see what I mean.

And also, we DO know for sure what Hashem wants. Such statements are found only in MO schools where they use it as an excuse, as if to say, "Nobody can say we are wrong because nobody knows what's wrong."

Uhuh. So just ask your MO rabbis about the Neturei Karta - Orthodox Jews - who burn Israeli flags and demonstrate with Palestinians, if they, too, are not wrong? And try writing a Letter to the Editor in response to the endless articles by MO rabbis about how evil these Orthodox Jews are, and say, "If someone keeps Shabbos and kosher, and davens with as much Kavanah as they can muster, but supports Palestinians and wants to abolish the State of Israel and burns Israeli flags (just an example) does that make them a "distasteful" Neturei Karta Jew?? Come one people, can we grow up here?"

And then say "We don't know for sure what Hashem wants".

What do you think the answer would be?

Some things, we know what Hashem wants. We know He does not want boys and girls to mix; we know He detests violations of Negiyah. We know lots of what Hashem wants. And we know it for sure.

Regarding your question of the keeping loshon horah etc - the answer is, if the person thinks that it's OK to speak loshon horah, or it’s not so bad to touch boys, then they are the worst. Violating the Torah is not as bad as changing it.

This loshon horah question, commonly asked, is not a defense for Modern Orthodoxy. With that logic, I can eat pork and say "well isn't it better to keep shabbos daven with kavanah not speak loshon horah and eat pork, better than someone who speaks loshon horah?"

You can end up permitting every Lo Ta'aseh in the Torah with that logic.

And it's not logical. The reason why MO is criticized is NOT because they are struggling humans who sin, but because they have set up a system where certain sins are no longer an issue, due to "Modern society". THAT is the one, big sin of Modern Orthodoxy, and that, yes, is much worse than loshon horah. Loshon Horah is a violation of the Torah - this, on the other hand, is a changing of the Torah. If a person wants to corrupt himself by speaking loshon horah or sinning, that’s one thing - but at least leave the Torah intact. One you change the Torah, your aveirah is no longer neguyah - it is now kefirah.

The word "chet" by the way, means to "miss". When you say you did a "chet" you mean you missed the goal. Rashi in chumash says this, when Yaakov tells lavan that not a single animal under his care was ever "missing" ("chet").

---

The fact that G-d is universal does not mean His "truth" can be found everywhere - in nature, and certain secular places, yes, and others, no.

But the problem with secular studies is, no matter what value they have, including the "Little Prince", they are not as valuable as Torah studies, and whatever your secular stories do in terms of helping your relationship with G-d, Torah sources do infinitely better, and without the invariable sediment of uselessness at best, and likely counter productive lessons you will find in the secular literature. That being the case, this is the question you have to present to your teacher:

If I have a choice between learning Torah literature and secular literature at any given moment, what is there in secular literature that would make me choose to learn it over the Torah literature?

To say that the secular literature helps you find G-d is now a slap in the face to the Torah literature, which helps you find G-d even better. If I offer you a job that pays $50 an hour and instead you take one that pays $1 an hour, there is obviously something very undesirable about the first job.

And so by choosing to "find G-d" in secular places when you could find Him much better ion Torah places, or whatever reason you are choosing to pursue chol instead of Kodesh, you are demonstrating that there is some superiority in that chol, and that is the Bizayon HaTorah that is the problem here.

Unless, of course, a person pursues secular studies as let's say a vacation or relaxation technique, or he needs to knows something secular for some specific purpose. That’s OK. And that’s why the Halachah is, that to read secular studies now and then is OK, but to pursue it as a course of study is prohibited.

As far as Aristotle, yes, the Rambam did say that much of what he said was correct, but first, as the Chosid Yaavetz points out, just because the Rambam was able to know what to accept and what to reject from Aristotle doe not mean that you know as well, and therefore were you to pursue Aristotles' works, you would inevitably be accepting heresy; and two, the Rambam considered Aristotle NOT typical of secular people - he said that he was on the level of understanding almost as high as a Navi! By saying that, he is making Aristotle the exception, and not the rule regarding secular studies. There are those who say that Aristotle even got his knowledge from Torah sources that got mixed into Greek knowledge.

And even the Rambam's pursuit of Aristotle was controversial. Others said he was wrong; the GRA wrote that even the great Rambam was influenced negatively in his Hashkofos by his pursuit of Aristotle.

But either way, (a) Antoine de Saint-Exupéry is not Aristotle, and (b) you are not the Rambam. It’s no comparison.

For us, the Halachah is clearly stated in Shulchan Aruch: Secular studies (not for parnassa) are permitted only to glance at now and then, but not to learn as a course or regularly.

---

Modern Orthodoxy V

2006-08-31T13:42:00.000-07:00

Differences between Chareidim and Mizrachi in Israel are many, including Zionsim, secular studies, and mingling of the sexes, although technically, Rav Kook was very upset with Mizrachi for that.

In fact, the accepted prohibition against even ballplaying in Chareidi communities is a self-imposed line of demarcation, almost a protest, against the mizarchi valuing of sporting events and general attribution of holiness to the secular advancement of Israel.

---

Across the board, traditional Orthodoxy has requested, importuned, begged, and pleaded with Modern Orthodoxy to change and join us. And to a great extent, MO has moved to the right, Boruch Hashem. And our hand is still outstretched. Any assistance that can be offered, is available. No Modern Orthodox Jew need think that if he wants to become traditionally Orthodox he shall not be accepted. We recognize MO as out brothers in Mitzvos, who have been straying in certain ways, but nevertheless are our brothers. Although Rav Aharon Kotler ZTL compared them to Reform, he did not mean that they are considered Mechalelei Shabbos or eaters of Nevelah. He meant only that the justification for the modernizations that MO instituted and those that Reform instituted were based on the same mistaken pretense -- that Judaism needs the changes. He did not say that the level of changes are anything comparable.

Here is an example of a plea to Modern Orthodoxy form Rav Shimon Schwab ZT"L, Rav of the Torah Im Derech Eretz Congregation Adas Jeshurun in Washington Heights:

"And now we address ourselves to our chaveirim bedeah, our achim bemitzvos of the Orthodox Rabbinate of America. Ad masai? How long do you want to remain a branch, withotu becoming part of the tree? . . . We say to our achim b'mitzvos, "have Rachmonus with yourselves, and lemaan Hashem, part company with those who have given obscene semichah to gay and lesbian clergymen" . . . Have rachmonus with yourselves, and break off your professional relationship with those who, for instance, consider Yishu HaNotzri merely a failed moshiach . . .We implore you . . . to part company with those gravediggers of Torah. I know it is a painful subject but it is unavoidable . . . We call on you to join us, the true Modern Orthodoxy [Rav Schwab is referring to previous statements of his that MO is today outdated and "anything but modern"], which is a generation of sincere mevakshei Hashem".

(Selected Essays, pp. 90-91)

This does not sound like rejection, but a plea for MO to join us, hand in hand. The mistakes of MO are not the issue. That is for Hashem to judge and deal with, however He sees fit. Punishment for misdeeds is not our business. Unity is. And MO has been - and still is! - implored, "lmaan hashem" to join us in the traditional Orthodoxy ways. The issue is not the past. It is the present and the future.

---

What does “fully engaged” mean? If I am a chassidishe computer programmer and surf the web, drive a new car and vote in all elections, am I not fully engaged in society? If not, please tell me what I need to do, to be fully engaged.

Do you “fully” engage society or just the “positive” things it offers? Everyone agrees – it is a Halachah in Shulchan Aruch – that we may accept the positive behaviors of the Goyim. I am sitting here on the Internet. Am I not “engaging to positive things” that secular society has to offer?

---

The idea that only when something conflicts with Halachah do we reject it is wrong and against the Torah. Please see the "Hashkafa vs. Halachah" boards -- even without violating Halachah, we reject any idea that collides with the Torah's hashkofos.

---

Between our body and soul, our soul is more important. Someone who would make us non-religious is worse than someone who would kill us physically. Jews have died all throughout history rather than give up Torah. The Halachah is clear: Godol Hamachtio yoser min hahorgo: Worse is he who causes someone to sin, than who causes someone to die.

The Halachah is that just like to prevent someone from dying you may violate Shabbos, so too, you may violate Shabbos to prevent someone form becoming non-religious.

To a Torah-thinking Jew, it is unthinkable to look at a reform rabbi preaching his religion as anything else than a spiritual mass murderer. And joining with him is as repulsive, even more so, than joining with a physical murderer. So if you believe your cause if important enough to join with a spiritual mass murderer, you surely would have no qualms with joining with a physical murderer.

But the Hashkafically assimilated would mistakenly look at a Reform rabbi as a "peer", albeit a wrongheaded one, as opposed to an enemy. Therein lies the Hashkafic tragedy. The masses of reform Jewry who have been mislead may be innocent victims of the spiritual atrocities of their leaders; but the rabbis themselves are guilty of mass murder - worse! - and are no less dangerous to us than any mass murderers of our physical beings.

---

Norman Lamm didn't start the gay clubs, he defended their right to exist and refused to abolish them. No big difference. Here, too, the Hashkafically assimilated, Western-thought-meets-halachick-Judaism mindset shows itself. To the Ben Torah, gay clubs are just as repulsive as Nazi clubs. Had YU been supporting Nazi clubs, the response would have been different. It is a sense of values, such as valuing the spiritual over the physical, understanding that what damages the soul is as bad - worse! - than that which damages the body, that killers of religion do us greater harm than killers of our body, that separate the "integrated but halachicly loyal" Jew from the ben Torah.

---

The issue here is not Yissachar/Zevulun. Zevulun went to work in order to support Yissachar, not in order to "fully engage" or integrate into modern society. He further did not accept any Hashkofos of secular society. And he did not consider his activities outside of the Bais Medrash valuable in and of themselves, but merely a means to enable Yissachar to learn Torah.

---

Chasidism follows the Torah and Modern Orthodoxy violates it. MO does not really have a philosophy, and whatever policies it follows are not based on the Torah but social factors. So how can Chasidus have any effect on that?

Chasidim had a very defined philosophy from the outset. It was, in fact, much more defined than it is now. And no, unless you were a great Gaon and Tzadik like every one of the Talmidei HaBaal Shem Tov without exception, you would not have been able to be anything close to a Rebbe.

---

College? Why? Why spend years that could be used for accumulating holiness through Shas and Poskim and instead spending them in a college environment learning liberal arts? What kind of sense is that? Here's the answer:

MO has never officially been defined, but based on the teachings of its foremost spokesman, Rabbi Joseph B Soloveichik (quoted and discussed above extensively), it is more, and less, based on the idea that; in America, due to great technological advances and sophisticated culture, Torah will only be able to survive if we integrate into the country's higher educational AND cultural environments. It was much less of a philosophy than it was a concessionary survival or Kiruv tactic. The "shine" (that's a quote) of scientific discovery will tear Klall Yisroel away from Torah, which will no longer survive, unless we produce "a new type of Talmid Chacham" etc. etc. etc.

Clearly the whole idea was mistaken, to say the least.

TIDE is not an integration into any foreign culture nor an entry in any sort of way, into the outside community. The idea there is for Jews to be literate and learned enough to present a positive impression and an effective message to the "outside world", plus, the ability to withstand the powerful anti-Torah impressions and messages of the outside world.

TIDE does not espouse sending Jewish children to outside Universities. Rav Hirsch made his own schools - he did not send his students outside of the community. TIDE also includes what Rav Hirsch called "austritt", meaning that secular knowledge is only acceptable after it is separated from and discards secular culture, values, and environment. Modern Orthodoxy has omitted this fundamental condition.

The differences between MO and TIDE are explained at length by Rav Shimon Schwab, the Rav of the TIDE community in Frankfurt, and later in Washington Heights, in his "Selected Essays".

In addition, assuming there is a communal need for secular knowledge, that still does not quantify how much time and effort should be spent pursuing it. TIDE appreciates the value of secular studies to the extent that it supports Torah goals, such as described above. The amount of time and effort put into such studies would therefore vary from time to time and place to place depending on the specific need.

Nowadays, almost all Yeshiva students have a high school education, know how to read and write English as good as their non-Jewish counterparts, and are more involved in American culture than we would always like. They do just fine in Kiruv, and there is no looking down on even the most Chareidi Yeshiva students in our society by the non-Jews because of their lack of higher education.

In other words, the goals of TIDE are fulfilled very well today even without college. Remember, in the sayd of Rav Hirsch, the average Torah student didn't even know how to speak German.

Re the Halachah:

The Rama (YD 246:4) rules that a person may only learn secular subjects "incidentally" but not as an educational pursuit.

Rav Elchonon Wasserman (Koevetz Shiruim 2:47) and Rav Boruch Ber Lebowitz (Birkas Shmuel Kiddushin) both have responsa on this topic (both responsa were, incidentally, written for Rav Schwab!). They both conclude that for non-Parnasa or similar reasons, it is prohibited to pursue a secular education, as per the Rama above. The reason may be because of Bitul Torah, or perhaps Kovod HaTorah. Rav Moshe Feinstein ZTL also prohibits college in a famous speech delivered to his students translated and titles "Counsel of the Wicked", as well as in writing.

---

If the issue is simply whether college is permitted, that would not qualify as description of your Orthodoxy but rather as a simple Halachic opinion within the normal, traditional Orthodoxy. Those who hold that wearing a plastic covering on top of their hat on Shabbos outside an Eruv don’t rename themselves "Plastic Hat Orthodoxy".

There is more to Mo than merely a Halachic dispute. Here's a quote from the boards:

"Since I am MO, I send my daughters to college and I am a big believer in a college education for both boys and girls, not simply for career purposes, but in order that they enjoy a broader, more meaningful, more intellectual and more worldly lives. A person who goes to college is more interesting to talk to and with whom one can have a stimulating conversation. I am sorry to say that most young women who I meet, who did not go to college, are pretty dumb."

This is the problem. To say "I am very tolerant of college because people need a parnasa and also not everyone is cut out to learn all day" is one thing. But to apply a value to college, to say that it provides a superiority over those who learn all day - and women who are busy with avodas Hashem all day - is kefirah.

Even if your perception would be correct (they are not), that most young women who don’t go to college are dumb, that college broadens your, and makes you more interesting, they will only be smarter and more interesting in this temporary, transient, illusory worlds. In the next world, none of this counts. They will be exposed as abandoning Eternal Life in favor of "worldliness" and "being interesting" for a few moments on Olam Hazeh. When the maggots will be eating our bodies, there will not be not much difference between the PhD's and the HS dropouts. They will all be equally interesting and worldly.

But their souls will be very different.

The idea of choosing Olam hazeh over Olam Habah would be bad advice in itself - and it is prohibited Min HaTorah to give someone bad advice - but to institutionalize this indiscretion and make it your official mode of Orthodoxy takes the problem into a totally different realm. When a person does a sin, they are violating the Torah, but you are disagreeing with it. If someone violates the Torah, he is a sinner, but if someone disagrees with the Torah he is revolting against it. And making your revolt against the Torah into an official mode of Orthodoxy seeks to twist the Torah itself ("Orthodoxy") into something it never was meant to be.

---

Kefirah, apikursus, meenus - the words are interchangeable - is anything you believe that is against the Daas Torah.

Every moment of learning Torah is infinitely valuable. Chazal say one word of Torah learning imbues the learner with more holiness than a lifetime of doing Mitzvos. So if someone learns, but the other guy learns more, the other guy is superior. Even if there is no halachic obligation to learn 20 hours a day, someone who does is superior to someon who only learns 19 hours a day, spiritually, all else being equal. And even if all else is not so equal, since an hour a day of learning constitutes a massive amount of holiness.

Of course we all "batel". Nobody is perfect. But when we batel, we know we are following our Yetzer Horah, we know it is due to our human weakness and our bechirah that we choose to chill on the internet rather than attain holiness. Nobody's perfect.

But we know what perfection is.

Modern Orthodoxy changed that. Everyone is imperfect, everyone, nebach, runs away from holiness. Everyone except Tzadikim. But Modern Orthodoxy runs away from holiness as a matter of principle. While those who batel on the internet violate the Torah, they still agree with it, that it would be a lot better if they would be learning. Modern Orthodoxy disagreed with the Torah's values, or, more properly, twisted the Torah's values, to make batalah and running away from holiness part of Orthodoxy as opposed to a violation of it.

To sin is to be imperfect. but to institutionalize imperfection and make it into the first choice is kefirah, since you are disagreeing with the Torah's values.

To say that since college provides you with certain personality enhancements, therefore you SHOULD go to college, as opposed to going for the personality enhancements provided by Torah - that is, infinite holiness - is not merely choosing Olam Hazeh over Olam Habah but saying that one SHOULD choose Olam Hazeh over Olam Habah.

Which is what separates Modern Orthodoxy from the Torah.

Yes, you can get Olam Habah even if you go to college, but not nearly as much as if you spent those years learning, all else being equal. Therefore by going to college you are forgoing all that Olam Habah for Olam Hazeh.

But if you go and say that it is the RIGHT thing to do, to forgo Olam Habah for the Olam Hazeh of college, it is plain kefirah against the Torah.

---

1) All Chazals, such as Im ain kemach ain Torah, just means that if you have no food, you cannot learn. Other Chazals say that if you have no food and you try to learn anyway, you will end up having to steal to eat, and what good is that. None of this has anything to do with Kollel, and surely not with college. If you are supported by your parents, in laws, Yeshiva, or wife, you are not in a situation where you have to steal, and you have fulfilled the Chazal.

And none of this has to do with college. Plenty of people get jobs without college, many communities live like that, and they do just fine. It does not say "im ain 'Lexus' ain Torah". The idea that if you don’t go to college you will not have Kemach is obviously a lie.

2) All Chazals that encourage people to work are also fulfilled by our Kollel people, and only exclude someone who has no means of support. If I become a baseball player and I have people pay to watch me play ball, that’s OK, but if I become a scholar and have people pay me to learn - that's not???

If I got a job in a think-tank thinking of stuff all day, that's wonderful - but if I get a job in Kollel thinking of Chidushei Torah that’s not????

BH today we have people who specifically want to support Kollelim, similar to Yissachar-Zevulun. If I were hired by these people to dance for them, I would be considered having a job. So why is it worse if they hire more to learn and provide them with Olam Habah instead of entertainment?

The exhortations in Chazal against being unemployed refer to those who have nobody who wants to pay them for anything, and are forced to take money form what was designated for the poor, which they do not have to be if they would get a job. But Kollel is not Tzedakah for Aniyim. there is a big difference. Kollel support is support in return for learning. Tzedakah is support in return for nothing. As long as I am earning your support - regardless of whether it is through defending you in court or learning Choshen Mishpat - I am employed.

3) There is an obligation on every Jew to become as great in Torah as he is able. There is also an obligation to not steal, or not to put yourself in a situation where you will have to steal. Or to make sure the Torah scholars live respectfully and not as beggars. The ideal sitch is to have both.

But the standard of livelihood required is bare minimum. "Kach hi darkah shel torah - pas b'melach tochal etc." -- Bread salt and water - if you have that, you have parnasah. The Rambam writes that a typical Baal Habayis works 3 hours a day and learns 8.

This is what a "working person" is. Three hours a day. 8 hours learning.

What in the world does that have to do with today's working man's lifestyle where he works 8 hours a day and almost never even learns 3? It proves nothing that Chazal endorsed working, since working in those days meant learning 8 hours a day.

4) The Rambam praises those who learn all day and don’t have jobs, as the elite "Shevet Levi" of our days. Clearly, even if working is endorsed, it is inferior to those who learn. To reconcile the Rambam with your Chazals, you can choose any of the commentaries available, some of which explain it similar to above.

5) If learning in Kollel is against the Chazals about Melachah and Derech Eretz, then so is being a Rebbi or a Rav. See the Rama YD 246:6. He brings your Chazals and says that therefore nobody can be a paid Rebbi or a Rav either, since he relies on the congregation. But then he brings dissenting opinions, and rules that the custom is that Torah scholars do benefit from their learning, by support from the community.

Then he brings other opinions that the community should support its Torah scholars even to the point of affluence.

The Rama then says it is a Midas Chasidus - praiseworthy - for someone who can become a Gadol B'Torah and make an independent living, but continues that not everyone is capable of this. It is clear that he is saying that if you have a choice between becoming a Godol B'Torah or making a living, becoming a Godol B'Torah comes first.

The Shach on the spot points out that the Halacha always follows the Minhag and the Minhag is like those opinions that one may depend on the community to support him in order to learn. He says that this is because of the Halachah of Ais La'Asos, meaning, even if it is theoretically prohibited to rely on the community, but because nowadays we cannot do both, become great in Torah and make independent livings, the right thing to do is to learn Torah and be supported.

He continues by saying that if someone spreads Torah and spends all his time learning and teaching, even if he has a skill with which to make a living, it would be wrong of him not to allow the community to support him, since this way he would be able to spend his time learning and teaching, rather than working.

See, it's very nice to make an independent living, but it is more important to become a Godol B'Torah. If you cant have both, then Torah is the right choice. Whatever advantages there is in making money, they do not come close to those of becoming a great Torah scholar.

---

The difference between Modern Orthodoxy and normal inadequacies is that MO has incorporated their inadequacies into Orthodoxy - they officially allow, encourage, and even support things that are wrong. They changed the definition of wrong and right.

No such thing happens in what you call the Yeshiva world. Midos are valued, taught, even if not always adhered to (although they are adhered to in the Yeshiva world no less than in the MO world). No rabbi would rule that someone wearing a knitted Yarlmuka cannot be counted for a Minyan, it is pure lunacy, and not a single rabbi anywhere form right to left would disagree.

Re platonic relationships: Study after study shows that the presence of a woman in the cashier's position causes men to smile more and to forgo their few cents change much more often. This applies to Goyim, who, I hope, are not less involved in opposite sex relationships than the Modern Orthodox. Your lack of sensitivity to the biological-psychological processes happening inside you is not proof that they do not exist. A woman sitting on a car in an ad is guaranteed to enhance the response to that ad, even though the readers still believe it is the car they are attracted to, not the girl.

Rav Moshe's teshuva is clear. He did not make anything up, but rather quoted form Chazal and Rishonim that boys and girls simply may not be friends. Period. The fact that all Teshuvos are not taken as a "final Psak" does not mean they should be ignored - it means that they apply to the circumstances that they were written in, and that if those circumstances change in a way that would change the Halachah the Teshuva was never meant differently. You are not showing why Rav Moshe's Teshuva does not apply to you, you are only claiming it does not. There is no Halahcic logic to say such a thing, and therefore the Teshuva applies.

---

We do not use ais laasos nowadays on our own. The Seridei Aish in his famous Teshuva about the Yeshurun Kiruv organization makes this clear. Nobody disagrees (the Chofetz Chim's permitting women to learn Torah - not Gemora - was not permitting any prohibition. Any use of Ais Laasos in that context is meant figuratively). And incidently, A"L cannot permit secularization or culture or mingling with Goyim or boys and girls - it narrowly only effects laws of Torah learning.

MO rabbis - including Rabbi Soloveichik - have explained their positions, and it has nothing to do with ais laasos, although they do say that MO is necessary for the survival of Klall Yisroel, it is simply a compromise for what they saw as survival.

And Rav Aharon Kotler ZTL asks what is the difference between MO and Conservativism in this sense. He says that MO and Conservative do indeed share the same core point: Compromise for the sake of what they perceive to be survival.

And puh-lease. If girls don't learn Gemora they will all intermarry? Gimme a break. No such thing has happened.

The MO predicted the demise of everyone except themselves. This is clear in the Five Addresses of Rabbi Soloveichik. Others espoused that too. It was common MO rhetoric in the 60's.

In the 80's however, we had the same MO rabbis denouncing what they referred to as "Ultra Orthodox Triumphalism". Something didn’t work out the way they thought it would.

I once asked Rabbi Yeruchem Gorelick ZTL what induced him to go work in YU. He said (in Yiddish), "JB convinced me that the future of Torah in America depends on YU."

Then he slapped his head, as if to say "What was I thinking?"

Many people thought that. They were wrong.

---

Modern Orthodoxy IV

2006-08-31T13:18:00.000-07:00

The issue is: Nothing in this world has intrinsic value except Torah. Nothing. Any value anything else has in the world is only insofar as it is useful to our Torah accomplishments. That include sticks, stones, and secular knowledge. The idea that secular world's values have some intrinsic value beyond their utility function to assist us in Torah, is a modern one with no basis.

The right way to look at the secular world is that it is, at best, valueless intrinsically; the wrong way is that it has value intrinsically.

Therefore, the only conceivable reason to integrate into the outside world is only to the extent and degree that it has some Torah value. But to do so because of some value it has in and of itself, is plain kefirah.

This includes secular knowledge, studies, money, power, and anything the whole wide world has to offer. There is no intrinsic value.

Therefore, any encouragement of acquiring secular knowledge or pursuing secular values beyond what you need to perform Mitzvos or learn Torah better, is against the Torah.

This does not mean nothing in the world makes us feel good, but nothing in the world is valuable. There is a big difference.

---

Attitude toward secular world was mentioned without reference to Rabbi Soloveichik. So what's the point that he believed one way or the other? It does not bear on our discussion.

What does "a positive attitude toward worldly wisdom" mean? That is so ambiguous. What is positive about worldly wisdom? And is it ALL worldly wisdom?

What does "Believed in studying all wisdom...(and in) being a highly educated person" mean?

Why? Is it a Mitzvah? How highly educated must a person be? How many years of possible Torah learning, how many Mesechtos should a person give up to learn .... what? Anthropology? Or are we talking about only certain subjects?

What happened to the gold coins that we have only a few hours to collect? Why should we spend our time on stuff that will not merit for us Olam Habbah? Why are we allowed to? And even if we are allowed to, why should we bother, when we can spend out time earning Olam Habah?

---

Can you tell me, for instance, what Mesechta you're learning and how secular studies helps to understand it?

Number two, this does not justify hours and hours spent in college, post graduate classes, liberal arts, and many other chunks of time spent in secular classrooms. it's quite obvious that before a modern orthodox college student chooses his courses they are not limited only to those which will help him in his learning. Please come up with something realistic.

And third, that's not the reason for modern orthodoxy anyway -- Rabbi Soloveitchik stated clearly that it is "better for the soul" to learn all day, but in America the only way Torah can survive is through integration into secular society.

----

The problem is, Modern Orthodoxy is not a Kiruv organization. If instead of creating a new type of Orthodoxy, the proponents of MO would have said, “You know, perhaps it’s a good Kiruv idea to create an organization to be Mekarev those Jews who unfortunately integrate themselves into secular society, and instead of the normal demands we make on our youth to be full-fledged Bnei Torah, we will make allowances for these youths and work with them on their terms as much as possible”, the issue could be discussed.

But instead, they created a new version of Orthodoxy. Just imagine, if the Yeshurun people decided to mainstream their Kiruv organization, and create “Yeshurun Orthodoxy.” (“Torah V’Taaruvos” it could be called). All the time and place-specific heterim that were given for Yeshurun in France would now become the default mode of Orthodox living. Not only those who are in danger of assimilating, but all Orthodox youth will now be able to go on field trips with girls, and all the compromises that were made for the unfortunate Jewish youths in France becomes part of typical Orthodox living.

“Rav Weinberg permitted yeshurun, so we have gedolim who agree with us, too,” they would say. “There are some Jews that will surely be attracted to Judaism now that we have girls and boys mixing. Bravo for Yeshurun Orthodoxy.”

“Hey!” people will tell them. “Slow down. Rav Weinberg said it’s OK for a Kiruv organization to do this, which is an emergency situation. He didn’t say that’s what Orthodoxy is supposed to be!”

An extremely important distinction needs to be made between an emergency situation for individuals versus mainstream expectations of normative orthodoxy. Although we make allowances in order to be mekarev people who need it, and sometimes, in the case of an individual ready to do an aveirah, we would even HELP HIM SIN, in order to prevent him from doing a greater sin on his own (for instance, if someone is going to eat a treif hamburger, we are permitted and even encouraged to give him a better-tasting hamburger of, say, chicken and cheese – prohibited only m’drabonon – to prevent him from doing the worse sin).

However. However, when we make an exception it must remain the exception and never become the rule. We never, ever are allowed to permit the emergency tactics to become mainstream. This is because although people are imperfect, religion is perfect. And once you have allowed the exception to become the rule, you have made religion imperfect. This principle is found in a number of places.

The most classic place to look is Akeidas Yitzchok, Vayiera. He had a situation where there was an epidemic of adulterous relationships in his community. A solution was proposed where, for the sake of obvious “kiruv” reasons, they would allow concubines in the community, which is much less of a sin than married women.

“What would you rather have,” people said, “Mamzerim? Married women having affairs? Or concubines?”

“Not everyone is on the level to be monogamous! We have to deal with those people or we will lose them”, they could say.

The Akeidas Yitzchok said it is better to have the Mamzerim and married affairs than to allow the concubines. Because Kiruv practices such as this is justified ONLY on an individual level, NOT on a mainstream one. You can make such permits for an individual, or perhaps for a group of individuals, but you cannot make such official permits for the public.

I always suspected that the Akeidas Yitzchok’s reasoning was based on the Yam Shel Shlomo in Bava Kamma which states that you may not misrepresent the Torah’s policies even under penalty of death. I figured that that would explain why don’t have the same flexibility when dealing at large that we do when dealing with individuals for Kiruv purposes. Because by creating new public permits you are misrepresenting the Torah, since you are taking an exception and making it look as if it is the rule. I once asked Rav Chaim Kanievsky shlit”a if my interpretation is true, and he concurred.

The reason Modern Orthodoxy was accepted by those who accepted it, was not because they believed it is superior or even equal to traditional Orthodoxy, but because they believed then that Modern Orthodoxy was the only type of Orthodoxy that could survive in America. Quote:

“There is secular culture, great and powerful technology creating wonders and changing the foundations of our life . . .this secular culture entails destructive elements, many negative and perverse aspects; it may be a blessing and a curse simultaneously, and thus AS LONG AS ONE CAN LIVE WITHOUT IT SO MUCH THE BETTER FOR THE SPIRIT – [but] finally we will have to relate to it. The confrontation will . . . take place . . .in a new and alien land where the tempo of life is greatly accelerated and fundamental changes occur daily. G-d’s decree: “your seed will be strangers in a land not their own” will be fulfilled sooner or later. In a “land not their own”, I fear, we will not be able to maintain a separation between us and the surroundings. . . . Our intellectual forces will completely assimilate. On the other hand, if we think for the future, we can plan for . . . a new economic and social order.” (Rabbi JB Soloveichik, Five Addresses, p.28).

Clearly, Modern Orthodoxy itself believes (or believed once upon a time) that they are compromising. The problem is that these compromises, instead of an individualized emergency treatment plan, like Yeshurun, was introduced as a new public version of Orthodoxy. As a “Bais Shamai” to Ultra Orthodoxy’s “Bais Hillel”. That cannot be allowed.

Of course, that is one reason why, as Rabbi Soloveichik admits, he stood basically alone against the Torah world in this idea. He compares this to Yoseph HaTzadik who stood alone against his brothers. “However”, he adds, “to our great sorrow, while the tribes of G-d thousands of years ago finally admitted Joseph’s righteousness, and begged his forgiveness . . . today a segment among our brethren still LACK THE CAPACITY TO SEE REALITY AS IT IS AND THE COURAGE TO ADMIT THEIR ERROR.” (ibid p.33)

The “reality” that the Torah leaders “lack[ed] the capacity to see” (sic) of course, is the fact that America is different than perhaps all the other lands we were ever in. That here, Torah, the way it has always been practiced, will not survive. This was the second reason that Modern Orthodoxy was rejected. It was based on the notion that “America is different.” That the Torah that survived 2,000 years of Golus could not survive America without these compromises. Quote:

“Providence demands of us now, PERHAPS FOR THE FIRST TIME IN JEWISH HISTORY, to meet the outside world . . . “ (ibid p.154).

The Torah leaders (i.e. the “brothers” of Joseph) refused to believe that the glitter of America can outshine the Ohr HaTorah. True, RIETS failed in its attempts to retain a Torah-only curriculum, but that doesn’t mean others will not succeed. Yet it is that assumption – that nobody will or can succeed – that MO was based on.

So never mind whether it COULD HAVE BEEN possible, theoretically, that an “emergency integration into America culture” was necessary. The fact is that the traditional mode of Orthodoxy did survive, and is flourishing today. So then why today do we need to implement the compromises of MO?

Even if one were to claim that MO is necessary to attract certain weaker elements of American Jewry who are not yet ready for traditional Orthodoxy – ala Yeshurun – that would not justify a new mode of Orthodoxy, but a Kiruv organization. This is why it is so hard to define MO. To be sure, it was once definable, and quantifiable: an integration into American culture and society because and to the extent that is necessary for us to survive in America. But now that survival is no longer the issue, where does that leave MO?

Like soldiers still fighting a war that is long over, some redefine their movement, saying that the b’dieveved is a l’chatchilah – that accepting American culture, values and lifestyle “within the framework of Halachah” (sic) is what Moshe Rabbeinu would have really wanted – or at least, what he MAY have wanted, possibly. Yet this is silly, seeing as MO clearly involves a lowering of standards from that of traditional Orthodoxy – as Rabbi Soloveichik himself has stated. And the fact that such an attitude is able to evolve was precisely the reason that emergency measures are unacceptable in an Orthodoxy-at-large framework. The standards of what the Torah wants from us has, in MO circles, changed. It used to be, everyone wanted to be Bnei Torah, in the traditional Orthodox mode. Today, there are those who believe the Torah gives equal merit to the standards of MO. It’s the “Torah V’Taaruvos – Yeshurun Orthodoxy” syndrome.

And if someone would come from “Yeshurun Orthodoxy” with the claim that, “What do you want from us? So we mingle boys and girls. You’re not perfect either. You speak loshon horah, you have illegal basement apartments, and who are you anyway to judge anyone else?” Of course we would tell them, “Yes, but we are no weaving our imperfections into a form of Orthodoxy.”

---

1) The quote on p.28 of Five Addresses is referring to secular culture, and Zionism both, but that paragraph specifically to secular culture, not only in context but explicitly. It begins: "there is secular culture, great and powerful technology creating wonders and changing our lives..."

Also, a bit later: "But Joseph stood fast; he was not at all secure regarding the political and economic status-quo ... "

I am fully aware that there are major disagreements among Rabbi Soloveichik's students as to what he stood for, in many different areas. Be that as it may, these are his own words, not opinions or impressions of students.

Nobody disagrees that it is an advantage to know everything about everything. The issue is that there is a bigger advantage to knowing Torah than there is anthropology, for instance, and most of everything as well. And therefore we have to prioritize our life and learn Torah.

It is a mistake to think that traditional Orthodoxy is "afraid" of knowledge. Although this is the MO party-line, and is taught in many MO schools, it is simply a misrepresentation of the facts. The issue isn't that anyone is scared. The issue is we have only a certain amount of time on this world and learning Torah is the biggest Mitzvah there is, more valuable than physics, the "advantages" of knowing about quantum non-locality notwithstanding. And there is always the fact that the Halachah prefers those who do nothing but learn all day, which sets a goal for all those who are capable of doing it.

2) Rabbi Soloveichik did stand alone in this. None of those others have anything to do with the idea that secular culture will be too powerful to overcome and that therefore everyone must integrate into secular culture to preserve Torah. That was a new idea, unique to MO.
Rav Weinberg was creating a Kiruv organization, not a new mode of Orthodoxy. He limited his heter for those who needed it, and stated clearly that it is a compromise, suitable only in emergency situations. Please show me where you derived Modern Orthodox philosophy in any of the writings of those you mentioned. He states clearly that his Teshuva does not reflect on Orthodoxy in general but rather on specific individuals. Modern Orthodoxy took similar ideas and made them into a mode of Orthodoxy. Therein lies the objections.

Furthermore, Rav Weinberg writes clearly that others will legitimately disagree with his position, and therefore, if someone prohibits his heter even in an individual situation, they should not be criticized. Modern Orthodoxy, on the other hand, has declared their way to be the only possible way to survive in America, and attributed the resistance of the majority to their “lack of courage to admit their mistake.”

What Rav Weinberg was doing – dealing with an individual case – and what MO did – refurbished Orthodoxy at large, are two totally different things. One is acceptable the other is not.

3) The phrase “beyond the pale” was not used by me, nor do I have any idea what it means. This, too, has been used by MO as a defense mechanism. “If you say we are wrong that means you are saying we are ‘beyond the pale’”. Well, no, nobody ever said that, whatever it means.

There were objections to Rav Weinberg’s heter, as he said there would be, and they were legitimate, as he said they were. But whatever wrong they felt Rav Weinberg was doing, nobody accused him of changing Orthodoxy. People can make wrong, even dangerous Halachic rulings to individuals – and Rav Weinberg was thought by some to have done that. But his version of Orthodoxy was the same as that of his opponents. It was his Halachic ruling regarding how far we may go for individuals that was debated. Not his interpretation of what best-case scenario Orthodoxy means. MO, on the other hand, changed the definition of Orthodoxy as a whole. That is unacceptable.

There is no reason to believe that Rav Weinberg would do anything but fight tooth and nail, side by side with his opponents then, against any extensions to Orthodoxy at-large of the compromises that he permitted for individuals.

4) The reason why it would be a mistake to view MO as merely responding to the times as opposed to making compromises, is because when a response involves lowering standards it becomes, by definition, a compromise.

The difference between traditional Orthodoxy and MO in regard to meeting the times is NOT a difference of quantity. It is the difference between keeping exceptional cases as exceptions versus making them into the rule. It also involves accepting the Torah's values - which puts learning first and foremost - and prioritizing your life based on those values.

---

So what's the difference between MO and Torah Im Derech Eretz?
Well, for that question we will let the answer come from Rav Shimon Schwab ZT"L, the Rav of Rav Hirsch's congregation in Washington Heights, one of the last students of Rav Breuer, Rav Hirsh's son-in-law, and formerly Rabbi in Frankfurt.

Quote:

“However, in addition to the legitimate shitos we have discussed, there is yet another, more modern version in vogue called “Torah Umaada”. Apparently this is identical with Torah Im Derech Eretz, especially since both claim a belief in the priority of Torah over maada. Both seems exactly alike, but like two left gloves which cannot be worn together, they don’t fit! . . .

“Rav Hirsch ZTL has inscribed two emblems on his banner. One is Torah in derech eretz and the other is the so-called “Austritt”, which means severance, or total and non-recognition of any type of institutionalized heresy, “minus” or apikursus. This is also a resolution not to contribute, participate in, or support any cause which accords validity to the disbelief in Hashem or to the denial of the authenticity of Torah shebiksav or Torah shebaal peh. In other words, “Austritt” states that the Torah is our sovereign ruler, and it makes us independent of all those who deny its Divine origin…

“To summarize, Torah im derech eretz without Austritt is considered treif l’chol hadeios! Even if you call it Torah Umaada.

(Selected Essays pp.160-162)

“Let me single out two examples where silence is not permitted . . .

“The first item is Modern Orthodoxy . . .most of it has become stale, stagnant, and fossilized, and we could not call it modern anymore.

“In the meantime, the contemporary generation has advanced and risen to higher standards, Boruch Hashem. We are witnessing the rise of a new type of American Orthodoxy. This is the Yeshiva and Bais Yaakov generation . . . This is the new generation of bnei Torah and baalei batim who do not intend to stand still and remain satisfied with a tiny yarlmuka or a teaspoonful of Jewish knowledge…They are marching on! And so we are zocheh, Baruch Hashem, to prestigious yeshivos gedolos in America and American-born Roshei Yeshiva , rabbanim, and poskim.

“Today, our youth in America is the real Modern Orthodox, if you must use this expression, and they are marching forward. Whether they belong to chassidishe, yeshivishe, or Torah im derech eretz variety, they are marching forward, step by step, to a more wakeful form of avodas Hashem. . . Their greatest pride and joy and nachas consists of children who are talmidei chachamim, bnei torah and bnos Torah.”

(ibid p.89)

“Shameful are the ways of the glorified am haaretz who . . . condones the aberrations which Hirsch condemned, such as religious nationalism, Orthodox-Reform collaboration and neutral Judaism. Foolish are those who sympathize with the “Department Store Academy”, where Brisk and Slobodka are offered on the first floor and Graetz and Dubnow on the second. When such a person takes Rav Hirsch’s name in vain, wielding Torah im derech eretz like a weapon against recognized Torah schools, he becomes somewhat ridiculous!

“What a travesty! Rav Hirsch, who was the warrior without compromise against those who hated the Torah, has to let his memory be invoked today against those who love the Torah. . .

(ibid p. 151)

---

I know that this ("Western culture but loyalty to Halachah"), too, is the party line of MO and is taught in many MO schools. But here, too, is an other fallacy, baseless and against the Torah, as was discussed.

---

The Gra, as quoted by his Talmid R. Yisrael of Shklov in the Hakdoma to Pas Hashulchan writes that to the degree one is lacking in secular knowledge he will lack in Torah knowledge.
Modern Orthodoxy does not advocate liberal arts and post graduate studies solely because it may help the students in their learning. The GRA was first of all referring to objective wisdom, such as math, as opposed to Law School, for instance, where you basically learn non-Torah legal opinions in order to become a lawyer and use those opinions, and if you are lucky, do not violate any Halachos doing so.

Don’t forget, this is the same GRA who declared in his commentary on Laws of Avodah Zarah that even the Rambam has had certain of his Torah positions corrupted due to the influence of his secular studies in philosophy.

Before a Modern orthodox Jew chooses his curriculum he doesn’t consider only the question of "What will help me understand Mesechta Zevochim better"?

Second, although the GRA believed that a lack of knowledge of math and objective science will allow a gap in your Torah understanding, he also believed, certainly, that a lack of knowledge of all the Torah will create an even greater gap. It is true: The GRA used science and math to understand Torah. But that was on a level way beyond the basics, and even the advanced levels.

So if we're talking about a 17 year old HS graduate, or a 70 year old Torah scholar today, the question is, what will best serve his needs of knowing Torah: To like, finish Shas perhaps, and Shulchan Aruch in depth, Tanach, Medrash, Sifrei Mussar, or...

...should he learn liberal arts and science in college?

Please. If you are the GRA, then such a statement is relevant. But if you still don't know Shas and Shulchan Aruch cold, then you have higher priorities than anthropology to spend your time on.

And the problem with Modern orthodoxy is not merely the value it puts college as opposed to learning Torah, but the entire lifestyle, the "integration" into secular "culture". The assimilated values of American society, the desire for "maximum integration into secular society", "within the framework of Halachah".

It's the value on "maximum integration" that's a problem. The ultra-orthodox goal is different. It is "maximum growth in Torah". There is a big difference. And although not everyone can reach the "maximum growth in Torah", nevertheless, to teach anything less as an ideal is unacceptable.

The reason MO leaders started this movement was because they figured that anyway nobody will be interested or successful learning all day so if we're going to unfortunately integrate anyway, we may as well "prepare for it" by creating a system of Torah education for the integrators.

That could have been a decent Kiruv organization. but the mistake was that the integrators will be "everybody", and therefore we ALL MUST join in this lowering of standards in order to survive in America.

Of course, this was all a mistake. Yeshivas are B"H flourishing. And MO is enveloped in an identity crisis and struggling for its own survival.

----

MO's integration into American culture and lifestyle does not limit itself to what you need for learning. Nor does it limit itself to only academics.

The idea that Modern Orthodoxy has anything to do with statements such as that of the GRA or others explaining that certain secular knowledge helps us in our learning is simply false. Nobody is questioning the necessity to learn the arithmetic necessary to learn Eruvin (or buy a calculator), or the measure of cow biology to learn chulin. Or to consult a doctor when ruling medical questions, or a judge when ruling on dina d'malchusa, or an engineer when ruling on electrical questions for Shabbos . . . And of course the GRA is not a chidush that if we would know all of this on our own it would help us. But no aspiring Talmid Chaham in his right mind would spend his life - that's what it would take - collecting PhD's in all the fields of peripherally helpful professional knowledge, though it theoretically would be helpful if somehow he would know everything about everything in the world.

But none of this has anything to do with Modern Orthodoxy.

Nowhere in the prolific explanations of Rabbi Soloveichik about why he believed we must integrate into American society is there any hint of any such GRA-like reasoning. Such reasoning applied in this context would be absurd, as I explained. Rather, economic and cultural integration is described clearly as the only way to survive the great and powerful secular forces of America, despite it being intrinsically not the best for the soul. In America, either we integrate into society and become Modern Orthodox, or we die a spiritual death. For Rav Soloveichik, there was no third choice.

Obviously, this whole notion was wrongheaded, so much so that today, Ultra-Orthodoxy is criticized more for its "spirit of triumphalism" instead of its supposed inability to survive.

Nor was the modern Orthodox idea that we MUST ALL integrate or be crushed by the glitter of America shared by any philosophy in Orthodox Jewish history. Not Rav Hirsch, not Rav Weinberg, nobody. The idea that circumstances in America demand that only through economic and cultural integration - through Modern Orthodoxy - will we survive a technologically advanced society was a completely new concept. “Providence demands of us now, perhaps for the first time in Jewish history, to meet the outside world . . . “ (Five Addresses, p.154).

---

The reality is that the entire philosophy was based on the idea that only modern orthodoxy would survive, while traditional Orthodoxy would shrivel and die. It would have, had he been right.

Clearly, that has not happened. If anything, as time goes by, the shoe is more and more on the other foot.

So the basis for the whole idea was a bad mistake.

And the idea that Rav Aharon Kotler and others disagreed with him because of character flaws ("lack of courage") rather than their honest opinion is ridiculous and bizarre.

And the reason they did not want to join the mass integration into Western culture has nothing to do with fearing it. It's like saying I would prefer eating steak and wine over crumbs in the garbage because I am afraid of eating out of a garbage can.

It can get you sick, sometimes, true, but why in the world would someone want to eat from the trash in the first place?

So, too, why in the world would anyone who has an opportunity to spend his life learning Hashem's Torah want to feed his soul with the junk food of Corporate Law?

I mean, if a guy has to make a living, that's one thing. But as a "value"? Puh-lease.

---

Modern Orthodoxy III

2006-08-31T12:58:00.000-07:00

The rabbonim in Israel felt that in order to combat the Zionist / Secularist influence, a strong line of demarcation needs to be made between “us and them” and therefore no secular studies – or secular activities, such as soccer – be allowed. Call it a “hora’as shaah” if you like. Or better, "hora'a's makom." For instance, Rav Shach shlita permitted a school in Israel that has secular studies on the HS level for American immigrant families only. The resistance to secularism in Israel is a declaration that Eretz Yisroel’s social milieu demands unique and unorthodox methods to combat it; it is not a interpretation of Orthodox principle in general.

If no one claims it is a Mitzvah to get an advanced degree, then fine – HOW MUCH secular studies IS a Mitzvah (or: how much is “important”) according to MO? And when you say everyone does what is “best” for him, you are not answering the question, because what is “best” for me depends on what my goals are. The higher a goal I can reach the “better” it is for me. But the question is, what is the higher goal? How do we define our goals? If I can learn all day or become a professor, how am I supposed to know what’s best for me? Without MO, it’s obvious. Becoming a professor is not the first choice. We know the criteria there. What is the criteria according to MO?

And if obtaining an advanced degree is not a Mitzvah, why are the MO rabbis encouraging it instead of encouraging more learning, which is a Mitzvah? If people who only have HS education are “also 100% correct’ then why would rabbis recommend forgoing Torah learning for more advanced degrees if I am already 100% correct?

---

We don’t want labels. But the Modern Orthodox do label themselves, and we are just asking those who DO label themselves MO what exactly they mean by it. Please refer to the next post, a copy of an article by the President of the OU called “Defining MO”. It really means nothing. We don’t need labels. But there are those, many many of them, leaders as well, who look at MO as a movement, and a philosophy. We are asking them to define that philosophy. l’shitasam. It’s a valid question.

---

Defining Modern Orthodoxy
June 2, 1999
By Mandell I. Ganchrow, M.D., President of the Orthodox Union
Appeared in June 4, 1999 Edition of the Jewish Week
The question of who or what is a modern Orthodox Jew is a new one.
All of my life I believed that I was a typical "modern Orthodox Jew." As a Yeshiva College graduate, physician, combat surgeon in Vietnam, chief of surgery in a Catholic hospital, I am fiercely committed to integrating my Torah values with my secular pursuits. When I met President Reagan and each subsequent president at the White House, I proudly wore a knitted kippah.
My children and their spouses, who are all college graduates, have careers that plant them firmly in the secular worlds of medicine, law, speech pathology, accounting and social work.
As President of the Orthodox Union, the largest mainstream Orthodox synagogue body, I am proud to represent an organization whose lay leadership is comprised of physicians, lawyers, accountants and business people all of whom are committed and deeply passionate Jews. The Union's leaders are productive and outstanding members of the secular world who love the theater, movies and sporting events, but who have an even higher love for prayer and the study of Torah, and who believe firmly in the centrality of Medinat Yisrael to their lives.
But these days, the modern Orthodoxy of my peers and myself is under suspicion. In screaming headlines and news articles, we are told that a new modern Orthodoxy is setting out to provide "closer ties between Orthodoxy and the outside world" and to encourage its adherents to have "the courage to be modern and Orthodox". When I wore a kippah to my medical office or made rounds with a five o'clock shadow while wearing sneakers on Tisha B'Av, wasn't I exhibiting that courage? Isn't that courage already exhibited by the thousands of religiously committed professionals who align themselves with the Orthodox Union? I have always been proud of being a "centrist" Jew; but of late, I find myself being stripped of my identity.
What I fail to understand is the need for yet another break away group within Orthodoxy. This new group claims that modern Orthodox institutions such as the Orthodox Union, the RCA and Yeshiva University have shifted too far to the right and lack the will to develop a modern Orthodox agenda for the next generation. But precisely how are the established modern Orthodox organizations not meeting their obligations? Dedicated to addressing the needs of our broad-based constituency, the Union spearheaded a veritable revolution in outreach with our remarkably successful NCSY movement with 40,000 teenagers throughout the United States and Canada as well our ongoing educational programs such as the Pardes Project, which boasts nearly 15,000 participants worldwide. The Union is represented at the table of every possible organization that deals with Jewish life, including the Memorial Foundation, Soviet Jewry, AIPAC, NJRAC, Presidents Conference, World Jewish Conference and the Jewish Agency.
We frequently work together with non-Jewish groups and individuals to forge coalitions on behalf of civil rights, religious tolerance, democracy, school vouchers, support for the rule of law. The resolutions that are passed at out bi-annual convention do not omit a single social or political issue from gas mileage standards to Alaskan oil drillings. We have invested heavily in modern telecommunications to help meet the needs of all Jews via the internet, CD ROM, a video department and Torah tapes.
I believe all Orthodox Jews understand that certain laws can never be changed. Those who refuse to acknowledge halachic realities and boundaries have the option to join another stream. However, women's concerns are at the forefront of the Union's agenda and, to that end, we are responding by providing women with unprecedented opportunities for high-level learning and ongoing seminars. At our recent convention, and in our critically acclaimed publication, Jewish Action, we continue to highlight issues facing contemporary Jewish women and we are prepared to confront these issues honestly, but always within a framework of halacha.
We provide comprehensive programming and try to address the needs of all our constituents.
Moreover, the Union is a democratically run organization. Our leadership openly discusses and analyzes issues pertaining to Jewish life.
The implications of starting a new movement are far greater than shades of differences on a few specific issues. To become successful, any new movement would have to create a youth division, solicit synagogue membership and maintain ongoing programs and activities. It has taken the Union 100 years to build an organization that reaches 40,000 young boys and girls through NCSY, close to 1,000 developmentally disabled in Yachad and deaf in Our Way, a political internship program in Washington, D.C., numerous publications and other programs and initiatives in addition to being the pre-eminent kashrut certification agency.
Those who seek to start their own movement must realize that even if it is not their intention, they will weaken the Orthodox community by splintering us even more through internecine fighting, thereby diminishing many of the gains we have achieved in the past century. That is a great burden to bear.
A few cliches, a bi-annual conference and full-page ads in newspapers do not a movement make. There are legitimate issues within our camp that require our attention and discussion and we are thankful when individuals force us, when necessary, to face them squarely and intellectually. But starting a new organization is not the answer. We cannot survive such fragmentation. The forum in which to discuss the issues is the mainstream one. I hold out my hand to those who wish to strengthen our movement.

---

We have received dozens of posts from various people on this topic. Since they all basically make the same points, I shall summarize them, for the sake of brevity:

1) The Rambam was Modern Orthodox because he was a physician

2) People go off the derech because they cannot learn 24 hours a day and therefore MO is saving these people

3) Many great sages had secular knowledge.

That’s about it.

So please, let’s clarify some things:

1) Secular knowledge is not the issue. Who is against it? The issue is not if secular knowledge has value – obviously some does (math for example) and some doesn’t (Hollywood scandal trivia, for example), and there is much in-between. Nobody questions this. With very few exceptions, every Yeshiva in America today incorporates secular studies, at least through the HS level. Clearly they are not all considered MO. The question therefore is, How much of my life need I devote to secular studies in order to be considered MO? Or, if I want to be MO, how do I do it? The point of the question is not to denigrate anyone – it is a valid, legitimate question – rather, it is to define what MO is.

That is why the Rambam is irrelevant. Please check out Hilchos Talmud Torah, where multiple opinions are quoted in the RAMA regarding the permissibility of spending time making a living vs. learning all day. See the SHACH ad loc, who discusses the Rambam, and you will see that the Rambam proves only that if you can become both a Torah scholar of the Rambam’s stature, AND a doctor, you can then spend time pursuing “other” studies. But this does not address the issue of ME, TODAY.

2) Nobody is questioning the fact that there are people who would be willing to be MO or not religious at all. So what? The issue is, what is MO and is it the preferable mode of Judaism? The fact that it is, to some, the only version, or the maximum, that they are willing to accept does not address the issue at hand. Unless of course, you will say it doesn’t matter if MO is really the Will of G-d or not, because today, only a partial will of G-d is the best we can do.

3) Please see #1.

---

The point of my pointing out the Rabbonim that would not walk into YU was because someone had said that YU is accepted by those rabbis. My point was, it is not.

The issue is not secular knowledge. It is not the Rambam.

The fact that the rabbis who allow women to be taught Gemora are "aware" of the Shulchan Aruch does not answer the question: Why do they allow it if the Halachah prohibits it?

If the Halachah allows women to learn medicine but not Gemora then why is it ridiculous to allow them to go be doctors but not learn Gemora?

If on the other hand, the Halachah also prohibits learning medicine, then why is it indeed allowed?

You see, this logic does NOT change the Halachah. And neither does Rabbi Shachter's generality, which is of course true, but what does it have to do with what we are discussing?

I am very happy, that we are beginning to see the differences between MO and non-MO Judaism. The different attitudes towards HOW we approach Halachah are beginning to emerge. Your statement about why we allow girls to learn gemora is very enlightening. it underscores the differences between the "Orthodoxies".

Now we are getting somewhere.

---

Modern Orthodox follow the GRA and non-Modern Orthodox follow the Chassidic rebbe-Chasid tradition? Meaning, that non-Orthodox do not "think", but act like robots.

If non-MO just follow their Rebbeim and don't think, do their rebbeim think? If not, who are they following? Who is the ultimate leader? And if the Rebbeim do think, does that make them Modern Orthodox?

And can you tell me an area where you think that "thinking" would change the perspective of non-Modern orthodox Jewry, please. Do "thinking" and "not thinking" lead to the same conclusions? If so, there is no purpose in thinking. If not, please show me where you believe non-MO have adopted a policy that is due to their "not thinking", and please show how "thinking" would have led to a different policy.

---

MIXED SWIMMING vs. CHEATING ON TAXES:

The problem we are discussing with the mixed swimming is not the sin itself but rather the institutionalizing of it, using it to represent your mode of Orthodoxy, as in “Modern Orthodox Type Bungalow Colony”, which they explained to mean that that have mixed swimming. It matters not what the rabbonim permit, it matters that those people are creating for themselves a group of official Revolutionaries against G-d. It would be comparable to a Shul called “Cong. Anshei Embezzlers”. That’s the difference. And the institutionalization of sins is found only among the Modern Orthodox, not all, not the Rabbonim, but the misrepresentation of Torah itself is something that, where it does appear, should not be tolerated by anyone.

KOLLEL:

It was never for “the best” learners but rather for anyone who WANTED the honor of learning in Kollel, as the Rambam describes those who WANT to join Shevet Levi. He does not condition their membership in the Kollel community as having to be the best, but rather having the desire. The idea that only the “best’ should learn in Kollel is a baseless falsehood and it is against the Halachah as expressed by the Rambam which states that anyone who so chooses may learn in Kollel. See also YD Laws of Talmud Torah 246:21 and Shach ad loc.

MODERN ORTHODXY:

If there is no universal goal for secular knowledge then there is no Modern Orthodox philosophy, movement, or policy, because then every Chassidishe kid who learns a bit of math or English can say MO philosophy because he is learning the amount of secular studies that is “right for him”. You have reduced MO from a movement and a philosophy to nothingness. According to you, is everyone who learns English Modern orthodox? Anyone who learn secular studies in elementary school? High school? If not, then there must be a required measure of secular studies. If so, then just about everyone in the world is Modern Orthodox.

The point is to demonstrate the confusion and lack of definition among those who would refer to themselves as Modern Orthodox. You are a member of a movement of a philosophy, believe in it, espouse it, and you have no idea what it is.

CHIDUSHEI TORAH NOWADAYS:

I have no idea where this idea came that there are no Chidushei Torah being generated in the Yeshivish world? Huh?

It is correct that there are no new religions being produced, and no new “versions” of religion being produced in the Torah world, which is as it should be.

AGUNOS:

The reason those solutions have been dismissed as invalid is because they are. The fact that women “flock” to them makes them popular and enticing, but it does not speak at all of their validity. But please note the position here. It is useful. It are saying that it is a positive thing when “solutions” are found that are popular, and it is a negative thing to dismiss popular solutions as invalid. Please think about what this is saying.

LABELING:

I didn’t label anyone Modern Orthodox – the Modern Orthodox did! Clearly they consider themselves a “category”. Look at the article posted by Dr. Ganchrow. But MO leaders, lay and rabbinic both, do understand MO to be in its own “category’ or Orthodoxy. On the contrary, I am questioning why that is so.

As far as judge, jury and executioner, first, I have not executed anyone. And why do you have more of a right to judge my words by saying I have no right to say them? So it’s fine to judge, as long as you are not the one being judged.

And would you agree that you cannot declare Conservative Judaism inauthentic? Reform? Jews for Jesus? Neo-Nazism? Please tell me how you decided where and who we have a right to judge and where and whom we cannot

---

The MO rabbi who said women were at Har Sinai and therefore we can teach them gemora is declaring against the opinion in the Gemora that says you may not teach them Torah (didn't the Gemora know, too, that women were at Har Sinai?) and against the Halachah in Rambam and Shulchan Aruch that rules you may not.

So this Rabbi in his reasoning is declaring that his reasoning is better than Chazal and the halachah, and that puts him in a category no different from the Conservative or reform that believe their reasoning can over ride Chazal and Halachah as well.

The idea that if women can study computer science they can study Gemora as well, also declares against the Halachah and the Chazal that says you may not teach women Gemora, even though there is no prohibition of teaching them computer science. The assumption that the prohibition is based on "mental acumen" is baseless, and the result of non-Jewish feminist perceptions projected on Chazal.

If MO is eating cholov Yisroel, then I guess Rav Soloveichik was not Modern Orthodox since he ate Cholov Yisroel only.

Regarding coed institutions and "talking" to someone of the opposite gender, if you mean friendships again you violate the Halachah of lo sikravu l'galos ervah. If the woman of the opposite gender is married, even plain friendly talk without a friendship-relationship violates Chazal's dictum "al tarbeh suchah im haishah".

If this is correct, what it means is that MO is the right to create your own religion against Chazal and Halachah and call it Orthodoxy.

As far as the Gemora about "teaching your daughter Torah", there is also an opinion (Which isn't followed and now that it was decided, is apikores to believe) in the Gemora that Moshiach no longer exists (Rabbi Hillel). Not every opinion recorded in the Gemora is Halachah. The Halachah, as recorded in Rambam, Shulchan Aruch and everywhere else, states that you may not teach your daughter Gemora.

It is enlightening, indeed, as to what Mo is.

---

Even for a Mitzvah we do not stop learning unless (a) there is no other person to do the Mitzvah and (b) the Mitzvah is obligatory, such as Krias Shema. For other pursuits, even those of value, we would not close our Seforim.

Even within the realm of Torah learning, we have priorities. Most of our day is spent learning Gemora over Tanach and Midrash. Halachah L'maaseh gets priority over all other topics. the Halachah is, is someone has only a few hours a day to learn, he must learn Halachah.

Why is being well-rounded more important than being more learned? You can't do everything, you know.

And who's to say that the Yeshiva guys who don't go to college are not well rounded enough? I know you can't quantify this but that means you have a problem, because yes, our lives do count, and if someone is considering going to college or learning he does need to know which is the better choice.

My point is that nobody, nowadays, is "behind walls", and that therefore the only difference between MO and ultra in the secular knowledge department is quantitative. But if you can't quantify a quantitative difference, you are left with nothing.

---

The problem is, the name Modern Orthodoxy was created by those who consider themselves Modern Orthodox, as a movement, with specific goals, philosophies, and mind-sets. If they can't define it, then what's its purpose?

---

There is a right and wrong way to view it according to the Torah. Depending on your particular wrong view, viewing secular society the wrong way can be kefirah.

---

The Seridei Aish never allowed mixed schools.

And certainly not "for the times."

You can find it in Seridei Aish, II:8.

He was talking about a certain youth organization, Yeshurun it was called, that had coed Shabbos groups and field trips and the like.

He said that first, normative halachah and practice frown upon such things, and therefore Klall Yisroel has never condoned such practices. And they generally should not.

An exception, however, may be made in France - and ONLY in France, he says - because of the great assimilation rate and defection rate there among the youth, where emergency methods are needed, as there is no other choice. He says that - again, ONLY in France, this is true - because otherwise the Torah would be forgotten. (He compares it to "ais la'asos", though only as an analogy, since, as he writes, only Chazal can actually invoke the heter of ais la'asos.)

However, he adds, he will only allow it, even in France, and even under these circumstances, if standards of Tznius are instituted and enforced, provided:

1) The boys and girls cannot sit together on the same benches,

2) The boys and girls may not sleep in the same building ever,

3) The boys and girls may not attend mixed classes

4) The Counselors are all Yarei Shamayim who will be personally responsible to enforce these standards, and make sure the boys and girls do not inappropriately mix.

He also emphasizes that this is certainly not the preferred way of doing things, and that many poskim would disapprove.

He certainly did not allow this among mainstream Orthodox youth, and he did not allow it anywhere except France, and even there, he said it is not what we should strive for. If we could change it, we certainly would.

Unfortunately, this Teshuva of the Seridei Aish is taught in many places as a justification for the idea that today, Orthodox co-ed schools are a "legitimate Orthodox alternative" for Orthodox youth". Ouch!

Of course, this is a complete forgery and lie. Hotza'as shem rah against the Seridei Aish.

That's surprise number one.

Now if you continue telling me more about other "Gedolim", you will have more surprises.

And remember, we are talking about their attitude toward the "secular world" here. I said there is a right way and a wrong way to view it.

---

Titles like Modern Orthodoxy can be used as a way to be not as frum as you can, but "alleviate your guilt", or, just a little variation, convince yourself that you are as frum as those who do try harder.

This is, more than anything else, the difference between the imperfections of someone who is simply not trying hard enough, versus the imperfection of someone who is not trying hard enough and creates a label, meaning a movement of Orthodoxy, that stands for not trying harder.

The Chazon Ish said it succinctly. He refused to grant audience to those of the Mizrachi movement. When asked why the Mizrachi are different than anyone else, since all are imperfect, some more, some less, he replied, "Yes, these are bainonim (imperfect, or: average people) and those are bainonim. But these (the Mizrachi) are bainonim b'shitah!" (as a policy).

Meaning, that if you are imperfect, that is altogether human, but if you make a policy out of being imperfect, that is altogether unacceptable.

We need to strive for the highest level we can. If we do not, perhaps we are lazy, or weak, or whatever.

But now, it is attributed not to laziness or weakness or whatever, but rather to your "version of Orthodoxy."

To be weak is one thing, but to make it your policy is another.

Call it "Institutionalized Imperfection". Once you do this, you have put your weakness into a whole different category.

The policy of imperfection is a much graver sin than the imperfection itself, since it changes the goals and views of the Torah as to what we need to strive for, and what we are expected to try to do.

So we should drop the labels, because that would lessen the sins greatly.

But don't forget, it is the Modern Orthodox who label themselves. They consider themselves a movement. "Ultra" Orthodoxy is not a movement, neither is "chareidi". They have no "origin", no policies (except to keep the Torah), and the entire name is only there to distinguish themselves from the members of various movements.

Modern Orthodoxy created its own label, and since it does make people "feel good about themselves" despite their weaknesses, I do not believe that they will ever relinquish their label.

At best, labels just serve to confuse those who belong to the label-groups as to what exactly it is they stand for (because they must stand for SOMETHING if they have a label, but when they can't define it ...), and at worst, it serves as a party-line for imperfections, which merely intensifies the severity of those imperfections, as per the Chazon Ish.

Therefore, this "awareness" needs to be learned by the label-groups themselves, because they are the ones who have created the labels, whether they stand for anything or not.

It is not so clear to everyone what is a Tzadik and Rasha. There are people who are considered tzadikim and gedolim by some, yet worse than Reshaim by others (i.e. apikorsim).

As far as the "levels", the issue is not the Jew, but Judaism itself. You are correct that these terms do not represent different levels of Jews; but they may represent different versions of Judaism. For instance, you can have a Conservative Jew who does wear Tzitzis, and an Orthodox Jew who does not (he is a sinner); but there is still a clear distinction in the levels of Orthodox Judaism versus Conservative Judaism.

So labels may represent ideologies. If so, it behooves us to know what those ideologies are, and ideologies are not all of the same legitimacy.

---

Modern Orthodoxy II

2006-08-31T12:48:00.000-07:00

[A shortened version of this first part appeared earlier -taon]

Sislovitz, White Russia, 1900. A young masmid (diligent Torah scholar) by the name of Aaron Pines spends his days and night immersed in Torah learning. He is an intellectual prodigy, an anomaly among his peers. He is also an orphan – his mother died when he was an infant, and his father, the Rav of Sislovitz, passed away when he was just 12.

Having no home, Aaron thought to perhaps stay in the dormitory of a yeshiva, but first he had to be admitted - an impossible task for a child of 12. But he had little choice.

So he walked into the great Yeshiva of Slabodka, and, approaching the great Tzadik, The Alter of Slabodka, Aaron lacked the nerve to request admission to the Yeshiva Gedolah at such a young age, so instead he just began speaking to the Alter “in learning.”

After a while, the Alter said to him, “I know who you are and why you are here. You are the son of the Sislovitzer Rav, and you want to come to the Yeshiva.”

“How do you know?” Aaron asked.

“Such a genius like you could only be the son of the Sislovitz Rav, who was a similar genius, and only an orphan would travel alone to Slabodka at age 12. There would be no reason for you to do this other than you need a home here in the Yeshiva.”, answered the Alter.

The Alter admitted Aaron into the Slabodka yeshiva. Aaron’s dorm room was 2 blocks away from the yeshiva, but being so young, he was scared to return to his room at night after his studies. So every night, the Alter of Slabodka would come back to the Yeshiva, to walk little Aaron the 2 blocks to his dormitory.

Aaron’s name quickly spread far and wide as a truly amazing young Talmid Chacham. His brilliance had even impressed the tenacious Rogatchover Gaon ZT”L, a feat that few of even the greatest of the great of the generation could accomplish.

But even in Europe, in the small town of Sislovitz, the winds of modernization blew. His older sister, a brilliant woman in her own right, and secularly educated, tried her best to convince her beloved brother Aaron to abandon the outdated idea of learning Torah all day and to dedicate at least part of his time to the pursuit of secular studies. “The world is changing”, she told him. “The old ghetto life will soon whither and die. You’re so bright, Aaron, you have such potential. I implore you, don’t waste your life with the ‘old’ way. You can really grow up to be something important. You can really make a difference. If you pursue the ‘old way’, you will disappear into obscurity. Nobody will ever hear of you in this world.”

But Aaron was not impressed. He believed that just as Hashem does not change so too the Torah does not change, and the way of the Torah does not change. Cultures and civilizations rise and fall, but the Torah remains constant. Aaron ignored promises of fame and fortune, and stubbornly continued serving Hashem in the holiest way possible: dedicating his life to the splendor of His Torah.

As a young Torah scholar, Aaron’s name spread far and wide, to some, as one of the greatest Torah scholars of his time; and still to others, as one of the greatest wastes of talent of his time. But Aaron knew what he believed in: it was the power of Torah to overcome all.

In those days, all able-bodied young men were forced to serve in the Russian army. No freedom of religion was allowed, and so military service was like unto a death sentence for religious young men. There was, however, a military dispensation if you were an only child with no siblings. So in order to protect himself from the draft, Aaron adopted the family name of an elderly couple in his home town that passed away without any children. This way, he would appear as having no siblings, and be saved from serving in the army.

From that day on, our young Torah scholar was known as Rabbi Aaron Kotler.

Rav Aaron grew to be the greatest Torah gaon of his generation, and the most vehement fighter against modern Orthodoxy on these shores. In Rav Aaron’s own words:

“The Modern Orthodox claim that their path is the true path of Judaism, that it is the path that was followed by our ancestors throughout the generations, but that they only add some modernizations and insignificant changes in order to make the Torah appealing to the masses. But the truth is that this small point is the same as the point of the Reform, and it is at the heart of hearts of the great defection from Torah and religion in past generations. They [Modern Orthodox] change [our] ways and twist [our] concepts.” (Mishnas Rav Aharon III p.216)

Rav Aharon taught that no matter people say or believe, there is no force in the world stronger than Torah. One word of the Torah contains more light and strength than all the galaxies put together. Torah is the force with which the entire cosmos was formed.

Said a leader of Modern Orthodoxy about life in America. “We would be enveloped by a new economic order. . . society would be based on science, where “the sun and the moon and the eleven stars” will radiate scientific learning and technology.”

Light? Sun? Stars?

Every time a little child in 5th grade raises his hand to ask a question on his chumash lesson he ignites the entire universe in a display of flame and fireworks that outshines ten thousand suns!

Every time a Kollel yungerman learns another page of gemora, worlds upon worlds are created, enough power is unleashed into the Shamayim that Hashem Himself, kav’yochel, gets nachas from it, and proudly proclaims to the all His heavenly hosts, “Look! My dear children are abandoning everything else in the world to learn My Torah!” (Zohar Vayera).

You’re worried about the “light” of technology? Then LET THE LIGHT OF TORAH BURN BRIGHTER, ever brighter, and watch as the glitter and glamor of the world disappears like a single candle in a blazing universe.

If the energy of secular America and the energy of Talmidei Chachamim learning Torah do collide, just watch as America gets swept away like dust specs in a hurricane.

If America is a spiritual wasteland incompatible with pure torah, then let Torah shine, and watch as America bows, for the entire universe is subservient to Torah.

Rav Aharon taught that to say Torah stands no chance of survival against of the “powerful forces of America” without “integration into the social and economic culture” is wrong! To think that any forces mustered in this world, in this universe, can “swallow up” the light of Torah scholars is an insult to Torah and the Creator of the world.

No, said Rav Aharon. If it is difficult to be frum in America, the solution is more Torah, not less; what will give us the spiritual strength and the siyata d’shmaya we need is increased dedication to Limud HaTorah, not to secular studies.

So Rav Aharon set up a Yeshiva where there will be no secular studies, where there will be no tests, no “smicha” programs (although if someone wanted smicha he could receive it), no “degrees”, no “certifications”, nothing. Nothing except the learning of Torah for the sake of learning Torah. Not learning Torah as a means to any end, not even to become a “rabbi” or “teacher” (although if one wanted to that would be altogether proper) but rather as the greatest end in the world. That’s what I will do, Rav Aharon said. And let’s see. Let’s see whose light shines brighter.

Torah only. For Torah’s sake. “L’shmah”, it was called.

Here’s what happened:

In April, 1942, Rav Aharon started a yeshiva in a small town called Lakewood, NJ, with 12 students. Not necessarily the best or the brightest, but 12 boys willing to learn Torah l’shmah, 12 little flames lighting up the universe, while others were busy “integrating into America’s socio-economic culture”.

Rav Aharon’s Yeshiva grew, but it was a struggle. Rav Aharon himself went collecting to ease the financial burden of supporting the students. Rav Aharon said it is worth walking up 5 flights of stairs for even one dollar to support the Light of Torah.

When Rav Aharon passed away, 20 years later, in 1962, Bais Medrash Govoha of Lakewood had 150 students. And two more Torah L’shmah Yeshivas were opened by students of Rav Aharon, in Missouri (St. Louis) and Pennsylvania (Philadelphia).

But despite Rav Aharon’s success, people were not deterred from preaching the imminent dousing of the “separatist” flames of Torah in America. Indeed, the words quoted in our “Modern Orthodoxy” boards about the vital necessity of creating a “new type” of Talmid Chachamim and the necessity of integrating into American society were said in the 1960’s, not the 1940’s!

But Gedolim Tzdikim b’misasan yoser mib’chayehen, “Tzadikim are greater in their death than they are in their life.” By 1980, Beth Medrash Govoha was not only a flourishing Torah institution but the largest Yeshiva in the history of America, the largest in the world, with over 1,000 students.

Today, BMG boasts over three thousand full time Torah-only students, the largest Yeshiva Klall Yisroel has seen in thousands of years. Literally thousands of new students apply for admission each year, and the number of students accepted is limited only by the physical constraints of available facilities. Dozens of branches of BMG have opened up all over the USA and the world, as far as Australia.

EPILOGUE

1999, New York

“Of late, there seems to be no end to articles in learned journals and the daily press lamenting the impending demise of Modern Orthodoxy “ – Rabbi Dr. Walter S. Wurzburger Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at Yeshiva University and Rabbi Emeritus of congregation Shaaray Tefila, Lawrence N.Y. He served as president of the Rabbinical Council of America and of the Synagogue Council of America.

"To be a modern Orthodox Jew today is often to feel lonely, to be without a community in which to ask ideological questions," said Rabbi Daniel Lehmann, Headmaster, pluralistic New Jewish High School, Waltham, Mass ordained at Yeshiva University. Quoted in a JTA article titled, “1,500 modern Orthodox converge to define identity”

“Modern Orthodoxy needs a new rabbinical school committed to combining the best in Jewish scholarship with the best in Western cultural studies and progressive thinking, argued Rabbi Daniel Lehmann, headmaster of the New Jewish School of Greater Boston. His alma mater, Yeshiva University, has long been recognized as an institution that synthesizes traditional Jewish values and modern culture. But Lehmann called it "a generation behind intellectually. . . We need to be honest," Lehmann said. "We are the left of Orthodoxy." - “Conference probes challenges of modern Orthodoxy “ By JULIA LIEBLICH ASSOCIATED PRESS, 2/99

EPILOGUE II

"Every single word of newly stated Torah rises straight up to Hashem's Kisei Hakavod. Hashem Himself embraces it, kisses it, crowns it, and holds it dearly. These single words are the material from which the worlds of the future are made". - Rav Chaim Volozhen, Nefesh HaChaim 4:20.

---

Modern Orthodoxy believes in going out into the world and making a living, interacting with society?

So a Satmar Chosid computer programmer is Modern Orthodox?

Is Rabbi Abraham Twersky MD, Modern Orthodox?

---

Please explain how studying anthropology, for instance, makes you a better Jew. And clarify please, if you have 2 Jews, one learns all day and the other learns part of the day and the rest of the day studies anthropology, that, all else being equal, the anthropologist is the better Jew?

---

If it says in the Torah that certain things are good, then even non-Modern-Orthodox Jews agree. If it does not, then how do you determine what is a "good" part of culture and what is not? Perhaps socialism is superior to democracy?

Outside of the Torah, what is your gauge of values?

And if I am in favor of democracy, think Salvador Dali made nice paintings, and of the opinion that Kitaro's "Silk Road" is a nice tune, then I am modern orthodox?

And why are these factors sufficient to create a new "branch" of orthodoxy?

---

"Yeshivish" is meaningless. It's not a movement, not an ideology. It's merely a nickname, or a colloquialism. Not everyone has to belong to a movement. But Modern Orthodoxy considers itself a movement, and therefore it must have a mission, a definition.

MO means you do "Torah v'avodah' because you want to? Why? What's the reason to want to? Wasn't going to work a curse for Adam? And, as I asked before, does this mean that someone who learns half the day and goes to college or works the other half, is superior to someone who learns Torah the whole day? If mada or avodah are pursued because you WANT them, and this becomes part of your philosophy of Orthodoxy, then that should be the preferable situation, right?

Also, does this mean that someone who learns in Kollel cannot be Modern Orthodox?

Regarding the leniencies. There are relatively strict and lenient people within all segments of Orthodoxy. Some married women shave their heads, some wear shaitlach but prohibit human hair, some permit even that. Some people keep a 72 minute Motzoi Shabbos and some are Maikel and keep 45 or 50, even though it is an issue of sofek chilul Shabbos.

Yet these leniencies would not qualify one as Modern Orthodox. So the question is, how much does one have to be lenient in order to enter the realm of "Modern Orthodoxy"?

And since Rabbi J.B. Soloveichik was the preeminent authority for Modern Orthodox Jewry, does that mean he, too was lenient? In what? He was makpid on Cholov Yisroel, for instance. Does this make those who follow Rav Moshe's heter more Modern Orthodox than Rabbi Soloveichik?

---

Torah Im Derech Eretz and Modern Orthodoxy are identical? I agree that Rav Hirsh would incorporate the element of secular studies, but is that all Modern orthodoxy is? What is the correlation between Rav Hirsch and coeducational Yeshivas and camps, teaching Talmud to girls, and other such exclusively Modern Orthodox practices?

If Modern orthodoxy is Rav Hirsch’s teachings, then would you consider the members of Khal Adas Yshurun, Rav Hirsch’s kehilla transplanted to America, all Modern Orthodox?

Would not Rav Hirsch’s own Kehilla of German descended- Jews – then be supporters of Modern Orthodoxy is this were true? But the reality is not so, the following is a quote from Rav Shimon Schwab ZTL, Rav of Khal Adas Yeshurun, Rav Hirsch’s Kehilla in America:

“Sometimes the Modern Orhtodox Halachic foolishness which is flirting with the anti-Torah establishment may border on heresy. This is all part and parcel of the spiritual confusion of the dark ages in which we happen to live” (Rav Shimon Schwab, Mitteilungen, Bulletin of Khal Adas Yeshurun April/May 1989).

This, from the Rav of the Torah Im Derech Eretz people, in the official newsletter of the Kehilla.

You may agree of disagree with Rav Schwab, but clearly supporting Rav Hirsh’s philosophy does not preclude being vehemently against Modern Orthodoxy.

Do you really believe that the Modern Orthodox movement sat down one day and said “We want to be students of Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch”? When did this happen? Who decided this?

Clearly, although it is true that Rav Hirsch had something in common with Modern Orthodoxy – the element of secular education – they are two very different movements.

---

Rav Schwab's article, (which was reprinted in Selected Writings as "He Who Loves Does Not Hate", had nothing to do with joining non-Orthodox groups. He was talking about mainstream Modern Orthodoxy. It was written after an article by Rabbi Hershel Shachter of YU regarding Land for Peace. Rav Schwab was harassed with derogatory leaflets and prank calls after he wrote the article (In Selected Writings, he added a statement at the end of the article telling of the harassment he endured).

I personally asked Rav Schwab if he was referring to Rabbi Shachter in his article, and he said "No. Not him specifically. I meant people like him."

Again, one either agrees or disagrees with Rav Schwab, but let's not misunderstand what we are agreeing or disagreeing with.

The Khal Adas Yeshurun are indeed primarily those whose parents and grandparents were followers of Rav Hirsch in Germany. To so thoroughly discredit their interpretation of Rav Hirsch's weltanshauung is absurd unless you have serious proof that they are so wrongheaded. You have not an iota of that.

---

So basically, MO is simply Zionism combined with the belief that not everyone has to learn in Kollel, and that the secular world has something to offer (that something includes, it seems, secular studies).

Who disagrees with any of this??

Nobody believes that everyone has to always learn in Kollel.

Nobody believes that the secular world has nothing to offer.

So we still have no answer to the question, "How do you know who is MO?"

And if this is all MO is, why are coed Yeshivos found exclusively and without exception, among MO Torah institutions?

And how much "secular studies" is necessary to be MO? College? High school? Post grad? Continuing education?

---

Everyone claims they are following the Torah -- Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Jews for Jesus. Calling it "Daas Torah" and calling yourself "Orthodox" does not prove that you are indeed following the Torah more than anyone else. These are just words, and anyone can use them.

So yes, we need not to fight, but we need to know the truth. What is "Daas Torah" and what is not? Maybe nobody. Maybe everybody. Maybe only one opinion. The people on these boards are asking just that. When you have no answers, it is a healthy thing to seek the truth, whatever it is.

If someone says "I am just a kid I can't back up what I believe" then how do you know what you believe is right? How do you know who to follow? The fact that a movement calls itself "Orthodox" does not mean it is legitimate, and nobody disagrees with that. How, then do you know what qualifies a movement as legitimate?

If every Orthodox movement is legitimate, then you are in for a logical paradox, because there are Orthodox movements that call MO "illegitimate". So is it a legitimate to say that Mo is illegitimate?

The reason for my omitting posts has nothing to do with them being offensive, but rather posts that basically say "Hey! You can't say that something is wrong because you're offending those that do it!" contribute nothing to the discussion topic, which is, is said something right or wrong.

Everyone has an obligation in this world to find the truth. If someone or many someones insist on following a path that is not in accordance with Torah and then call it Torah, and then demand respect for following the Torah, they are causing fights.

And if people cannot even explain WHY they believe they are following the Torah ("Orthodox" labels do not qualify as a reason), they must worry that perhaps they are causing fights in the above manner.

---

Rav Aharon ZTL may have spoken at the RCA for whatever reason, but he was clearly, decidedly, unequivocally, vehemently, against Modern Orthodoxy. Please see Mishnas Rav Aharon (Hesped on Brisker Rav) where he explicitly compares them to the Conservative movement, for both of them make compromises based on what they feel is “needed” for the better of Judaism. He spent his life fighting against the secular education attitude, and commented about a very, very prominent and revered leader and Halachic authority of Modern Orthodoxy (who shall remain unidentified here) that he is responsible for “most of the tumah in America”.

Even his son, Rav Schneur ZTL, who was known for his kindly and humble manner, refused to walk in to the building of Yeshiva University. At the funeral of a close friend of his that was taking place there, he had his driver circle the building until the procession came outside, at which point he joined.

Modern Orthodoxy is far from universally accepted as legitimate. Meaning, it was wrong to create it in the first place.

If you would like to disagree with Rav Aharon ZTL and the rest, that’s one thing. But please do not falsify their views.

The problem is that you speak in terms like what is “with Torah Judaism” or “affiliations” or being “close with”. All this is not the point. Obviously, nobody is saying that it is prohibited to walk into a YI or YU. Rav Schneur ZTL, as the Rosh Yeshiva of the largest Yeshiva in the world, was merely underscoring his opposition to it, as opposed to making a Halachic ruling.

There are levels of unacceptability, and to say that well, MO was not treated like Conservatism is true, but irrelevant. We do not consider Islam idolatry, as we do Christianity. But that does not mean that we accept it. The fact that there are worse movements does not mean that MO is accepted. And the fact that “associations” sometimes exist does not change that, any more than the fact that Rabbi Sherer of the Agudah was “close” with Cardinal O’Conner. (That was merely a demonstration that affiliations and closeness do not imply approval; it was not a comparison to Christianity).

But let’s be fair, here’s a quote:

“The ani maamin . . . rejects a further theory, that separation from the world is the only way to observe Torah. In other words those who uphold this theory of complete isolation admit by their silence the position of the reformers that within the modern cultural, historical constellation the observance of Mitzvoth and the study of Torah are almost impossible”.

- Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveichik, Five Addresses, p.175

There is a great gap between Modern Orthodox and non-Modern Orthodox. A very great gap. Does this mean, according to anyone, that MO is considered idolatry? No. Does it mean that we cannot include them in a Minyan? Of course not! But does it mean they are misguided, that the movement is wrongheaded, and Hashem would have been happier if the movement never would have started to begin with? And that for every Jew who joins it, instead of the traditional Orthodoxy (for lack of a better term), Hashem is unhappy?

Yes, it does. And according to Modern Orthodoxy, as espoused by their leading theologian, the same thing applies to at least some of their opponents’ (I am not sure exactly who fits the above description) philosophy as well.

So you may be right, or you may be wrong. Or you may be a little right and a little wrong. But you should find out, because yes, it DOES matter. A lot.

---

In the interest of fairness, I would like, first, for those who consider themselves modern Orthodox to explain simply what that means.

So far we have many different, even dissenting opinions. And question still remain unanswered. Such as:

Question: How much secular knowledge does one need to fulfill the requirements of MO? Elementary school? Post graduate school?

Do I have to know computers? Programming? How many languages? Where do I begin and where do I stop?

Question: If secular studies make you a better "person" do they make you a better Jew? Doesn't mussar seforim also make you a better person? So why would I choose to study anthropology more than Rav Yisroel Salanter? In my quest to be a better person, am I not abandoning the better path for the less effective?

Question: Even if we concede that there is some value to secular knowledge, what about priorities? Isn't there more value in Torah? There is value in pennies but more value in dollars, so which should I pursue? There is only 120 years in a lifetime, in which I cannot even finish Torah! So why should I spend time that could be providing me with Torah, on anthropology?

Question: Is ALL secular knowledge in this category? Knowledge of sports? The latest developments in the UNIX platform? The different approaches to mass transportation in different cities? The sleeping habits of duck billed platypuses? The latest developments in pornography? What is and what isn’t? If going to college means spending required time on non-productive knowledge as well, is it worth it?

And what does any of this have to do with the coed yeshivos, Zionism, or many other exclusively MO practices?

---

Modern Orthodoxy

2006-08-30T17:00:00.001-07:00

[Note: All instances of emphasis in caps are mine – Moderator]

Modern Orthodoxy was created as a response to a problem.

The problem: The new world. America. Things will be different there. America is not the place for traditional Torah Orthodoxy. In the words of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveichik: “we would be enveloped by a new economic order. The lion’s share of Jewry would be centered in the Western world, and society would be based on science, where “the sun and the moon and the eleven stars” will radiate scientific learning and technology; where every scientific discovery will be publicized in the newspapers as the greatest sensation’ where all professions will be linked to higher education . . .it was [therefore] forbidden to rely on a continuation of the status-quo . . . great changes were about to occur in Jewish life for which we would have to be prepared.” (Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveichik, Five Addresses, p.31)

“There is secular culture, great and powerful technology creating wonders and changing the foundations of our life . . .this secular culture entails destructive elements, many negative and perverse aspects; it may be a blessing and a curse simultaneously, and thus AS LONG AS ONE CAN LIVE WITHOUT IT SO MUCH THE BETTER FOR THE SPIRIT – [but] finally we will have to relate to it. The confrontation will . . . take place . . . in a new and alien land where the tempo of life is greatly accelerated and fundamental changes occur daily. G-d’s decree: your seed will be strangers in a land not their own “ will be fulfilled sooner or later. In a “land not their own”, I fear, we will not be able to maintain a separation between us and the surroundings. If we will not be prepared for new conditions, the environment will swallow us! Our intellectual forces will completely assimilate. On the other hand, if we think for the future, we can plan for . . . a new economic and social order.” (ibid p.28)

“Providence demands of us now, perhaps for the first time in Jewish history, to meet the outside world . . . “ (ibid p.154).

This was not Rav Hirsch’s philosophy, this was not anything suggested before. This was, “for the first time in Jewish history”, a reluctant, kicking and screaming integration into the secular social order because it was the only way its proponents knew how to counter the terrible power of that social order. In the words of Dr. Norman Lamm, President of Yeshiva University:

“The Modern Orthodox Jew in America represents the product resulting from the confrontation between authentic halachic Judaism (sic) and Western thought. He is a novel kind of Jew, a historical experiment in the reaction to the great dialogue. His survival and success may very well have the most fatal consequences for Jewry and Judaism throughout the world.” (Dr. Norman Lamm, Faith and Doubt, p.70).

“Jewry and Judaism throughout the world” depended on the survival of this movement.

What cannot be understated are the words of Rav Soloveichik, “secular culture . . . . AS LONG AS ONE CAN LIVE WITHOUT IT SO MUCH THE BETTER FOR THE SPIRIT”. The traditional Ultra-Orthodoxy (Rav Soloveichik refers to them as “isolationist” (sic) Orthodox, or “extreme” (sic) Orthodox) would theoretically be the best choice. But in America, it can’t survive. Forced by a new “economic and social order” and high-speed advances in technology to abandon our traditional Torah Orthodoxy, which will get “swallowed” and “completely assimilated”, we must “prepare”.

“Preparations” included, among other things, creating a “new type of Talmid Chacham”, who “you will find . . . in the free professions such as medicine, science, law, and also in business” (ibid, p.155), and joining Mizrachi in the building and supporting of the State of Israel, since “we cannot pin much hope on the Diaspora. Assimilation grows daily . . .True, there is a bit of Torah in the Diaspora; however the number of Torah students in proportionately very low, and it is impossible to forecast what will happen in future generations. . . whereas in that very non-observant Israel the future of Torah and traditional Judaism is far more secure.” (ibid p.33)

“We reject the theory of isolation as dangerous for the continued existence of the people. The force of circumstances in recent years that lead to the majority of Jewish people being moved to the west and becoming connected, language-wise, economically, and politically with society in general, has rendered the approach of the isolationists suicidal. In such an approach lurks the danger that we shall dwindle to a small sect with little life expectancy” (ibid p.176)

If these words seem a bit difficult to understand today, you must appreciate them within the context of the prevailing secular social attitude during the time they were said, the early 1960’s. Many people were dazzled by the “new social and economic order” and even frightened about the future of Torah in America. The typical alter litvishe water carrier didn’t seem to fit in to the picture of what they imagined to be the technologically fueled, fast-paced, high-educated America. I once asked a Rebbi in Yeshiva University, a super chareidi of the Brisker school, who did not even speak English fluently, who was vehemently opposed to Modern Orthodoxy, why he left MTJ (a small Yeshiva in the East Side headed by Rav Moshe Feinstein ZT”L) to accept a job in YU.

“[Rabbi Soloveichik] convinced me that the future of Torah in America depends on YU”, he said in Yiddish, shaking his head in disbelief at his own decision. This was in the mid 1980’s.

Indeed, Rabbi Isaac Elchonon Theological Seminary itself was evidence of the irresistibility of the “new American social-economic order”. When REITS was founded, it was not a secular studies Yeshiva.

In 1896, Rabbi Moses Malin founded the Rabbi Isaac Elchonon Theological Seminary on the East Side of Manhattan, named after his beloved Rebbe, Rav Yitzchok Elchonon Spektor of Kovno, who passed away that year. Modeled after the Eastern European Yeshivos, the seminary’s official purpose was to educate and prepare students to become rabbis. There were no secular studies.

The school was designed to pick up where the existing East Side Yeshiva Eitz Chaim , which was founded 10 years earlier, left off. Graduates of Eitz Chaim were able to attend RIETS.

The Agudas Harabbonim, an American rabbinical organization, then endorsed RIETS. The Agudas Harabbonim saw in RIETS a counterforce against the Conservative JTS (Jewish Theological Seminary). In 1906, when RIETS moved into its new building on 156 Henry Street (next door to Eitz Chaim), the Agudas Harabbonim helped create a smicha board in RIETS, publicly denouncing the rabbis who graduated from JTS.

But the new “American social-economic order” struck, as the students demanded secular studies in RIETS. The board of directors was undecided about whether to concede. But pressure mounted, and in 1908 the board expelled 15 students for going to secular schools during time allotted for religious studies. This spurred a student strike. Many students left the school. Resulting financial pressure and bad publicity caused RIETS to compromise their principles and after three weeks, they caved in. They reaccepted the 15 expelled students and instituted a secular curriculum.

As time passed, the secularization of RIETS accelerated, due to various influences. Harry Fischel, a philanthropist, became vice president of RIETS in 1908. He was bent on step up the secularization of the institution. In 1915, with the completion of the new RIETS building, Fischel made a speech stating that his goal is to “unite Orthodox Judaism and Americanism”. The Agudas HaRabbonim were not happy.

Along with the new building in 1915, there came a new president., Dr. Bernard Revel. Revel expanded the secular curriculum at RIETS. Then, together with his Hebrew Philology teacher, Dr. Solomon Hurwitz (editor of The Jewish Forum), he decided to open a Jewish high school – the Talmudic Academy (T.A.).

TA was opened in 1916, under the leadership of Hurwitz. Hurwitz’s desire was to “bridge the gap that exists in the life of the immigrant child between ultra-oriental Judaism and an ultra-occidental Americanism” (Between Tradition and Modernity, Seth Taylor, p.11). Revel claimed he wanted to create a Torah school with American ideals. Ironically, even the non-Jewish faculty members would preach “Judaism and Americanism” in TA.

After Hurwitz’s death, Dr. Shelly Safire, biology teacher in Stuyvesant HS, became principal. Safire further expanded the secular dimension in the school. In 1921, because of the WWI immigration, the school had over 200 students.

That year, the school joined the Mizrachi Teachers Institute. Revel had hoped to attract more orthodox people with this move, since at this point many Orthodox shied away from RIETS, unable to recognize much difference between it and JTS.

In 1923, Revel unveiled a plan to create a four-year yeshiva college (sic). The board approved, and Harry Fischel donated the first $10,000 of the five million dollars needed for the project.

Plans were made for a building. It would be modeled after the architecture during the time of King Solomon. There would be 8 buildings, with twelve pillars representing the 12 tribes. However, other than a small Shul on campus, there was nothing there to make it look distinctly Jewish.

Revel died of a burst blood vessel in 1940, partly attributed to the strain of supporting his institution during the impossibly difficult financial period of the Depression and post-Depression eras.

The Agudas HaRabbonim, who originally approved revel’s appointment, now wanted someone with different ideas. They had opposed Revel’s “Americanization” of the yeshiva. The Board of Directors, however, ignored the directive of the Rabbonim and appointed Dr. Samuel Belkin, who strongly believed in revel’s ideas of Americanization. Revel’s goal was accomplished through Belkin, and Yeshiva University was established.

Rav Soloveichik succeeded his father as Rosh yeshiva in 1942.

---

Apparently, RIETS was unable to withstand the pressures of the “new economic and social order”. Many believed that the fate of RIETS awaited all who stepped foot into the “Golden Medinah”.

Nevertheless, Rav Soloveichik admits that his movement did not impress everybody. He explains why: “This is the reason why certain American personalities . . . claim and even swear that they are in love with the true orthodoxy that arranges melave malke parties and sings Bnei Heichalah soulfully [a Chasidic seudah shelishis custom – Moderator] , but they cannot tolerate modern orthodoxy, as it were (they write “modern” but they mean Yeshivat R. Yitzchak Elchonon, the Rabbinic Federation and the Mizrachi!) . . . For this reason a famous representative of secular Jewry in Israel said in a talk with Dr. Belkin and myself that he respects extreme orthodoxy but not the mizrachi and hapoel mizrachi. THEY ARE ALL AFRAID OF US because we employ a method of conquest, but they have no fear of those who shut themselves behind walls.” (ibid p.155)

And the Torah leaders? He admits that they, too, did not accept the Mizrachi. He compares the rejection of the Mizrachi by Torah leaders to the rejection of Joseph by his brothers. And why don’t his “brothers” see things his way? Simple. “However, to our great sorrow, while the tribes of G-d thousands of years ago finally admitted Joseph’s righteousness, and begged his forgiveness, ‘please forbear the wrong of your brothers and their sin, for they caused you evil (Gen. 50:17), today a segment among our brethren still LACK THE CAPACITY TO SEE REALITY AS IT IS AND THE COURAGE TO ADMIT THEIR ERROR. Even today, after Treblinka and Auschwitz – as assimilation putrefies a great portion of Diaspora Jewry . . . they hold fast stubbornly against their brother “Joseph” (religious Zionists)”. (ibid p.33)

This was the Modern orthodox mind-set in the early 1960's. Ultra-Orthodoxy will be swallowed up by the all-too-powerful American culture, and the "new type of Talmid Chacham", the secularly educated, religious Zionist will "conquer" the new world. ("Conquest" is a word often used in Rav Soloveichik's lectures).

That was then. Before long, the tune began to change. Yeshivos, chareidi-style yeshivos flourished and grew. Kollelim, yes, Kolleleim, where married men with families would “shut themselves behind walls” and spend their entire day immersed in Torah, began to spring up all over the country. Ultra-orthodox Kiruv organizations were succeeding in attracting even the most Americanized youths.

Where we used to see articles announcing the pending death of “ultra orthodoxy”, we saw, in the 1980's, articles by such Modern Orthodox spokesmen as Rabbi Dr. Emanuel Rackman, of Fifth Avenue Synagogue on Manhattan and afterwards Bar Ilan University in Israel, decrying the spirit of “Ultra Orthodox Triumphalism”. When the ArtScroll series of English Torah classics came out, we saw an article, I believe it was in Tradition magazine, complain about how ArtScroll, by using good English and high quality production, gives the false impression that they are really “Modern”, when in reality they are “ultra orthodox” in disguise.

Today, Rabbi Dr. Walter Wertzberger, Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at Yeshiva University, Rabbi Emeritus of congregation Shaaray Tefila, Lawrence N.Y. former president of the Rabbinical Council of America and of the Synagogue Council of America, correctly points out: “Of late, there seems to be no end to articles in learned journals and the daily press lamenting the impending demise of Modern Orthodoxy. .Although I am fully aware that in Jewish religious circles the pendulum has swung to the right, I dismiss the prophets of doom and gloom” (Is Modern Orthodoxy an Endangered Species? By Walter S. Wurzburger, Orthodox Caucus).

Forty years after Rav Soloveichik made those addresses, things were not supposed to end up like this. Ultra-orthodox yeshivas are bursting at the seams, and their neighborhoods are expanding, multiplying, multiplying, and spreading to the most unlikely places. Something changed. Something went wrong.

In this atmosphere of “Ultra orthodox Triumphalism” (sic) we find more articles on the identity crisis taking place within Modern Orthodoxy. Dr. Mendel Ganchrow, President of the orthodox Union, begins a June 4, 1999 article in the Jewish Week called, “Defining Modern Orthodoxy” by saying, “The question of who or what is a modern Orthodox Jew is a new one”.

He is right. But the question is being asked. And not in the Chareidi circles of Bnei Brak, but within the Modern Orthodox camp itself. Continues Dr. Ganchrow:
“These days, the modern Orthodoxy of my peers and myself is under suspicion. In screaming headlines and news articles, we are told that a new modern Orthodoxy is setting out to provide "closer ties between Orthodoxy and the outside world" and to encourage its adherents to have "the courage to be modern and Orthodox". When I wore a kippah to my medical office or made rounds with a five o'clock shadow while wearing sneakers on Tisha B'Av, wasn't I exhibiting that courage? . . . I have always been proud of being a "centrist" Jew; but of late, I find myself being stripped of my identity. “

Dr. Ganchrow is referring to “Edah”. A February 26, 1999 JTA article by Debra Nussbaum is titled: “1,500 modern Orthodox converge to define identity”.
“1,500 modern Orthodox Jews who gathered here over the Presidents Day weekend for a conference whose goal was to re-articulate just what it means to be a modern Orthodox Jew today.

“The conference, which was organized by the nascent group Edah and drew twice as many people as expected, came at a time when many of modern Orthodoxy's adherents are struggling to define their movement's philosophy. . . .

“To be a modern Orthodox Jew today is often to feel lonely, to be without a community in which to ask ideological questions," said Rabbi Daniel Lehmann, who was ordained at Yeshiva University and is now headmaster of the pluralistic New Jewish High School, in Waltham, Mass. . . .

“Dassi Rutman, one of about 200 university students who attended the conference, said she came from Ontario, Canada, hoping that she would "feel more secure with my identity."

"I'm modern Orthodox, but I feel the pressures from people around me, friends who are moving to the right," said Rutman, who studies biology at York University . . .

Dassi Rutman, one of about 200 university students who attended the conference, said she came from Ontario, Canada, hoping that she would "feel more secure with my identity."

"I'm modern Orthodox, but I feel the pressures from people around me, friends who are moving to the right," said Rutman, who studies biology at York University . . .

“In his keynote address kicking off the conference, Berman, Edah's director, said that modern Orthodoxy is a religious path defined by "maximum integration with society," with adherents who "simultaneously affirm a passionate total commitment to halachah," Jewish law. “

Who would have though that in 1999 America, which was going to “swallow up” Ultra orthodoxy, that a modern Orthodox Biology student in NYU would feel “pressures” to become more Ultra orthodox?

Truly, something extraordinary happened.

Or did it? There were those who were not at all surprised.

---

Lubavitch XII

2006-08-30T13:38:00.000-07:00

Part of the problem with Lubavitch is that they have no idea what is Chasidus, and what is plain Judaism. To say "Chasidus teaches" that every Jew has a chelek elokah mima'al is like saying "Chasidus teaches that G-d created the world in 7 days, the last of which was Shabbos."

Uh, no. This is not Chasidus, this is plain Judaism. The statement is in the Zohar, and quoted in all Misnagdishe writings, as well as Chasidic. If we don’t know what Chasidus is, it is not likely we will be able to understand its intricacies.

(And by the way, when the Tanya quotes a source for this from the Zohar, commenting on the posuk "And G-d blew into his nostrils a breath of life", that "He Who blows, blows from Himself", it is still a mystery to this day where in the Zohar it says this. It is nowhere in the Zohar to be found. The statement is in the Sefer HaPliah, but not in the Zohar. Another Chasidishe Sefer wants to interpret a different Zohar to arrive at the same conclusion, but as a quote, it is nowhere to be found. One of the big mysteries of the Tanya is where he got this Zohar from. Of course, the Baal HaTanya surely had something in mind when he wrote this, but what it is, is a big mystery.)

The difference between what these teachings say versus what the Lubavitcher Rebbe says is as follows:

If Reuven donates his kidney to Shimon, Shimon has a piece of Reuven in him, but he does not become Reuven. He is still Shimon with a piece of Reuven inside.

So too whatever piece of Hashem we have in us - on whatever level - it does not change us into Hashem. We are still us. Just with a part of Hashem inside.

But in order for the Lubavitcher Rebbe's point to be valid, this would not be enough. For even if you have the highest level of soul in you, part of Hashem Himself, since you are still you and not Hashem, bringing requests to you as a Rebbe would still constitute a memutza (go between), which the Lubavitcher Rebbe wants to be untrue.

So he has to make the Rebbe not just a Rebbe with a part of Hashem inside him, but he has to transform the identity of the Rebbe from rebbe to G-d Himself. That is the only way he will not be a go-between. That is clear from his "sources" (sic) where he would like Tzadikim to be called "G-d" or Moshe Rabbeinu referring to himself as G-d. The Tzadik is NOT merely identified as a Tzadik with G-d inside, but he is identified as G-d Himself, merely clothed in the body of a Tzadik. There is a big, big difference.

This is why, as is recorded in David Berger's book, a Chabad Mashpia in a certain school in Crown Heights had a poster of the Rebbe hung on the Mizrach wall of the classroom, towards which the students pray. When asked about the clear violation of Halachah involved - it is prohibited to pray toward a picture - the Mashpia answered that that Halachah only applies to regular humans. But the Rebbe is actually G-d in a body, so it is really G-d they are praying towards, not a human.

You should also be aware that there are Lubavitchers who understand the Rebbe's statement of Atzmus Umahus in a body completely different than you do - even though you are mistaken as well. They take it to refer to the Lubavitcher Rebbe only and nobody else in history - not Moshe, not David Hamelech - nobody. The following is a quote from a booklet authored by a Rabbi Zushe Rivkin "In honor of the Rebbe shlita - Melech HaMoshiach":

"This is what Moshiach is, as the Rebbe shlita said at the beginning of his reign, 'that a Rebbe is G-d clothed in a physical body" [atzmus ain sof hislavesh b'guf gashmi!!!] This concept appeared in our generation only, since that is Moshiach...for all the Tzadikim beginning from Adam HaRishon reached high levels of connections with Hashem, but in Moshiach will be completed the purpose of the world, namely, 'G-d wanted to find a place to live in the lower realm', and therefore only in him [Moshiach] does He [G-d] clothe His self and His essence, just as a person lives with his whole essence and self in a house, so too the created existance is a home for the Real Existance [i.e. G-d], and this concept happens in actuality with regard to Moshiach. This is what is meant by the phrase "A Rebbe is the self of the Ain Sof clothed in a physical body."

Feh.

---

I read Rabbi Berger's book. He does blame the Rebbe for the Meshichists but very apologetically. He refers to the Rebbe's statements, which clearly indicate that he is Moshiach, as hard to believe and disturbing, but he stops short of calling the Rebbe a Meshichist, for whatever reason.

Rabbi Berger seems to be an expert in Jewish-Chritian theological relationships, contrasts and interaction, and is tackling the Meshichist problem from the vantage point of its similarity to Christianity. His book does not seem to intend on explaining where Lubavitch veered away from Chasidus or how Chabad can be vulnerable to such blasphemous beliefs.

Regarding what I said previously about the shechita of someone who believes that the Lubavitcher Rebbe is "G-d in a body" being invalid, I saw that in David Berger's book he quotes Rav Elyashev shlita as saying the same thing. That is, the shechitah of someone who believes the Lubavitcher Rebbe is "G-d in a body" is invalid because the shochet is an idol-worshiper.

Rabbi Berger's book is very informative, but what I don’t understand is why he is surprised. It is not a chidush that people are not going to be interested in a protracted battle with Chabad. This is because of their vast influence, their tendency to harass and take revenge on anyone who comes out against them, and because there's no end to such a war.

What Chabad does when confronted with Torah evidence against them, is to flood the arena with quote after quote and source after source and then saying "See? The other side doesn't know what they are talking about!"

After a bit of analysis, however, it becomes clear that their sources and quotes, though related to the topic at hand, do not defend them at all, and do not even address the specific charge leveled against them.

So now you must take up the tedious task of explaining each source, showing how Chabad took them out of context.

But for each clarification you have, they just flood the arena with more irrelevant information, geometrically multiplying the complexity of the whole issue to the point where the average observer just looks at it as a never-ending, 2-sides-to-the-story disagreement, and faults those who attack Chabad for not recognizing that there is another side to the story.

The reality, however, is that their "sources" are nothing but a colossal collection of distortions and misapplied information, as people who know how to learn can tell.

Their tactic is to throw a lot information at you making it seem as if there are answers.

So imagine if the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah would come out against Lubavitch. The next day there would be a tedious and invovled answer, replete with bales of quotes from Chasidishe and Kabbalistic works, 'showing' how the Rabbonim are "misnagdim" and they don't understand "Chasidus". Any further involvement from the Moetzes would be met with more quotes. And although none of the dozens quotes or the sources will justify their actions, the sheer quantity of information and the accompanying rhetoric will make it look like there are, at least, two sides to the story.

It would only make things worse. It would look like a dispute rather than an expose, and Chabad would say they sufficiently answered everything anyway, and the average baal HaBayis would not know the difference.

This is why the Satmar Rebbe ZTL would not involve himself in a protracted battle with these people. "P'giasam raah", he held - any encounter with them is not good. "What should I do - get into a fight with an idiot (shotah)?" the Satmar Rav said when asked if he is going to come out against the Lubavitcher Rebbe on a specific issue. His disagreements with Rav Aharon Kotler ZTL or Rav Moshe Feinstein ZTL he considered an issue of differences of Torah opinion, and so he had no problem battling hand-to-hand with them, as is the way of Torah disputes. But his problems with the Lubavitcher Rebbe he considered an issue of simply a lack of common sense on the part of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, so he didn't bother.

Then there is the case of harassment. Rabbi Gurwitz in England wrote a Sefer long ago on the laws of Kings in the Rambam, where Moshiach is discussed. Of course, in the course of his writing he explained why the Lubavitch explanation of the Rambam is untenable.

He never heard the end of it. Threatening and harassing phone calls, furniture deliveries made to his home, and various other kinds of harassment were heaped upon him by the Chabad chasidim.

And that’s just one story out of many. Nobody wants to get involved with this kind of Mafia.

And the Modern Orthodox, whose ambivalence greatly surprises Rabbi Berger, are surely not going to take up this battle. Accusing other Orthodox Jews of heresy, idolatry, and other assorted crimes of such nature is not their forte. They have for generations denigrated those who leveled accusations of heresy and idolatry against them, claiming that their being "Orthodox" (whatever that means) makes such claims intolerant and even fanatical.

And now we expect them to call this wonderfully tolerant, outreach-oriented, group of Orthodox Jews who accept them (as opposed to the Traditional Orthodox), whose Rebbe studied in the Sorbonne and is well versed even in secular subjects, and is the epitome of what a Rebbe should be according to their philosophy, idol worshipers?

Nope. It's not happening.

Not to mention the financial and political pressure that Chabad wields especially in the circles that the Modern Orthodox travel, and depend on for funding.

I also feel that Rabbi Berger overstates the significance that this debacle has on Judaism, and world Jewry in general. He talks in terms of Judaism being changed before our eyes. They are not taken seriously enough in the Torah world to have an impact on Judaism.

The key phrase here is "the Torah world." Judaism has already been ravaged by the Conservatives, Reform, Zionists, and various other groups. The Messianism of Lubavitch will certainly harm many Jews, but it will not change authentic Judaism. It will merely remove Chabad from the roster of its practitioners. And anyway, they had one foot out the door already.

---

How many Lubavitcher teens have said that if they wanted to stop putting on Tefillin their parents would "be nice", but if they wanted to go learn in Ponivezh Yeshivah, they'd be kicked out of their homes.

Just like, if I were to deny Hashem's Kingship over the world, c"v, those Lubavitchers would consider me a "pintele yid" who really wants to do Mitzvos and deserves Kiruv, but if I deny the Lubavitcher Rebbe's Kinship, they have me in mind during V'Lamashinim.

---

Don't bother Lubavitch about their mass-minyanim. There are real,
serious problems in Chabad. This is like when a shrink wants to see if
a kid is crazy so he shows him a piturec of a guy with one hand, 2 toes,
no nose and one ear, and then asks "OK, what's missing in the picture?"
"A tie", he says.
Even though the tie may be missing, but if that’s what you focus on,
then there's something wrong. This minyan business is not the issue.
The issues are the changing and twisting of the hashkofos of chabad
chasidus into something it never was nor was ever intended to be;
their idolatrous perception of what their rebbe is; the self-isolation
of their group as they elevate themselves, in their own minds, to the
main element of Klall Yisroel (as their Rebbe said, when Moshiach
comes, only Chabad chasidim will be sitting in the front - everyone
else will be in the back), which includes the absurd notion that Tanya
is the meat and potatoes of the Torah curriculum ("All their problems
stem from the fact that they believe they are Klall Yisroel, and
everyone else are branches - Rav Hutner ZTL); the distorted and
corrupt Torahs that their Rebbe told them (Moshiach will build the
Bais Hamikdash in 770 after which it will be transported to Eretz
Yisroel; Chabad chasidim - and only chabad chasidim - do not have to
sleep in a sukka on sukkos; a Rebbe is the self and essence of G-d in a
body, ad nauseum); the Meshichism, which was started and maintained by
the Rebbe himself; the refusal of the Rebbe to obey his superiors and
stop his deviant ways; the distortion of the Derech HaBaal Shem Tov
into some weird personality cult which, with the replacement of the
Hashem with the Rebbe as prime; and many many more aspects of deviant
Torah hashkofo, much of which has been quoted and documented and
discussed in the many pages above. Please refer.
The problem is not so much they currently have no leader, but rather
the nature of the leader and leadership that they have had for the
past 50 years. His leadership included either explicitly deviant
distortions of true Torah and Chasidus or sufficiently ambiguous and
discombobulated teachings such that the average and even above average
Chabad chosid will honestly understand them to mean the wildest and most absurd things. It has become a cartoon of Judaism and Chasidus, a development that
was predicted by our Gedolei Yisroel over a half a century ago. The
Brisker Rav ZTL, after reading the last Rebbe's first sicha (1951 I believe) insightfully commented, "This meshugenah is trying to convince himself that he is Moshiach". When the Satmar Rav ZTL heard (in 1959 I believe) that the Lubavitcher
Rebbe was teaching Tanya over the radio, to Jews who don't even know
who the name of the 3 Avos, he accordingly had extremely negative
things to say about him, and when then asked if he is going to come
out against the Lubavitcher Rebbe for doing this his answer was, "What
should I do -- pick fight with an idiot (shotah)? (This appears in the
Satmar Rav's writings too). The Lubavitcher Rebbe said that the main
reason for his Kiruv movement is that it "brings Moshiach", as per
Moshiach's statement to the Besh"t that he (moshiach) will come when
the Besht's Torahs will de spread; therefore, we have to spread
chasidus (i.e. of course, Tanya and CHabad) everywhere) - Kuntres
Vhachai Yiten el Libo, stement of Lubab Rebbe to Divever Rebbe). In
Divrei Yoel (Tzav) he points of that this of course was told to the
Baal Shem Tov, and applied to him and his generation, "as opposed to
the opinion of idiots (shotim) who say that this can be fulfilled in our generation."
The problem is not their mass-minyanim.
The problem was not a lack of leadership; it was the nature thereof.

---

That Kol Koreh does not say that those people do not believe the Rebbe
is moshiach - they say not to publicize that he is. Big difference. In
Chabad nobody is impressed -- they underatand the kol koreh as
designed to squelch the ridicule and laughter that is directed at Chabad these days from every frum place on earth. .

In fact, Lubabs say that several rabbis on that Kol Koreh stated clearly that it was meant merely to deflect the jokes people were making about chabad - it was meant only for us "outsiders" (Boruch Hashem we are outsiders) but not for them.

---

There are actually some, such as Stoliner Chasidim, and others, who do not say Machnisei Rachamim because it is using a sort of intermediary. But most people do say it, and the reason is because Malachim are not intermediaries. And intermediary is someone (or something) that acts on behalf of you and gives your Tefilos to Hashem. Malachim are not baalei bechirah - they have no free will, and so they cannot do
anything at all unless Hashem Himself already told them to do so. You can't ask a malach to intercede for you with Hashem. A Malach is only a "shliach" of Hashem - it has no will of its own.
So when we say machnisei rachamim, that the malachim should "place"
the tefilos in front of Hashem, it is merely a poetic way of saying that Hashem should send His Malachim to accept our Tefilos. No other possible way for Malachim to bring our Tefilos to Hashem exists, except and unless Hashem told them to. They are, after all, only Hashem's "robots."

And therefore, since in order for the maalch to bring our tefilos to Hashem, Hashem has to first tell the malach to do it (the maalch cannot do it on his own) by praying that the malachim do that, we are in reality praying that Hashem should TELL the malach to do that, which means Hashem should accept our Tefilos himself. For if Hashem does tell the malach to bring Him the tefilah - Hashem has already
decided to accept it. The initiative to accept the tefilah, and to
have the malach bring it, comes only from Hashem. The malach has no initiative on his own. As opposed to an intermediary, who is a messenger of us, not Hashem,
and acts on his initiative - or ours - to bring our tefilos to Him.
The diference is, the malach is Hashem's shliach to bring Him our
Tefilos, whereas an intermediary is our shliach to bring our Tefilos to Hashem.

That having been said, please note that the Lubavitcher Rebbe did NOT say that we can use an intermediary; he said that we can NOT have an intermediary. He said a Rebbe is NOT an intermediary at all. Rather, he is G-d's essence and elf, placed in a body. Therefore, a Rebbe does not count as an intermediary.

---

This is taught in Lubab schools as the first line of defense against Torah Jews: "If you didn't learn the Rebbe's sichos then you have no right to talk." First of all, yes, I did. In fact, the more I familiarize myself with the sichos, the more I see that the Lubavitcher Rebbe was off the derech.

When I was a kid, I used to read "Talks and Tales" and "A Thought for the Week" regularly. I had nothing against the Lubavitcher Rebbe or his Chasidim. When I was a kid I even got a Lubavitcher Rebbe dollar once, given to me by a Lubavitcher friend of mine (PS - I have since spent that dollar).

But then, as I grew older and began seeing the teachings that the Lubavitcher Rebbe has been feeding his chasidim, I understood what so many Gedolim had against him. His terribly twisted teachings started it. Then his dishonesty (either to himself or to others, I am not sure, nor does it matter), and his bain odom l'chaviero problems, such as his declaration that the reason Satmar does not want Lubavitch missionaries in Williamsburg teaching children behind their parent's back in clandestine meetings where they would tell kids to lie to their parents about the existence of those meetings, and that they now have an opportunity to learn the Torah of Moshiach in the form of the Lubavitcher Rebbe's sichos", is because "they (Satmar) is against the teachings of the Alter Rebbe", or that Rav Shach's tefillin are not kosher - both plain lies, and whether he convinced himself that these crazy things were true or he knew they weren't true and merely tried to convince others doesn’t matter.

In fact, more than once have I met people, some talmdei chachamim - and some even Rebbes! - who, upon discussing Lubavitch suggest that the charges against them aren't as serious as some make them out to be, my response is always to quote things that the Lubavitcher Rebbe said in his sichos, showing that the charges are, if anything, understated, and invariably the other party is shocked by what he sees that the Lubavitcher Rebbe has said, and never again wonders why the Tzadikei Hador refer to the Lubavitcher Rebbe as either a "meshugineh" (The Brisker Rav) or a "shoteh" (the Satmar Rav) or disseminating "stupidity and ignorance" (Rav Shach), never mind the avodah zorah of rebbe worship.

In fact, the biggest weapon that Bnei Torah have against the Lubavitcher Rebbe is to show people his sichos. Someone sent me an email saying that he was involved in some Lubavitch discussion on some other website, and they allowed almost anything to be said, but when he posted a collection of the lubavitcher rebbe’s own statements, they deleted it behind his back because it was too nasty to keep online.

---