Category Archives: Philosophy

      My recent piece on “Jewish Accomplishment,” especially the parts detailing our Sages’ knowledge of science even in the ancient world, elicited some derisive comments from Jews who apparently have difficulty with religious authority. It is strange how nominally Orthodox Jews can be contemptuous of Chazal, whose words sustain us and whose ideas guide us until today. To take just one example, who can contemplate a Pesach without the contributions of Chazal ? The whole seder is a tribute to their divinely-inspired wisdom and prescience. Most of the hagada consists of verbatim selections from the Mishna, Gemara and Midrashim, and remain both relevant and inspirational after thousands of years. Can the critics claim similar accomplishments ? Of course not. Can they even aspire to those accomplishments, with their theme sedarim of environmentalist/feminist/unionist/etc. hagadot? To judge their success, talk to me in about a thousand years. (Actually, I would like that – talk to me in a  thousand years.)

     Part of their ridicule was based on certain scientific errors that the Talmudic Sages allegedly made, which to them, completely discounted and trivialized the knowledge of science they did have. But the critics make a conceptual error, likely out of ignorance. We should be rightly proud and astonished at Chazal’s knowledge of science, but that is not to say that scientific knowledge is a legacy of Sinai and part of the Mesorah of Torah. All it means is that intelligent people have an obligation to study the science of the times, and to keep current on the latest developments in all spheres of knowledge. From that perspective, their correct conclusions are astounding, and their “errors” were simply based on the flawed scientific information of the day none of which played a direct role in the realm of psak. (Bear in mind that formulations such as “spontaneous generation” were not only consistent with the science of the times, but with another basic halachic corollary – for purposes of halacha, physical phenomena are as we see them in their natural and unaided state. “The Torah speaks the language of man,” as do human beings generally in colloquial discourse. That is why the halacha, and normal people, refer to “sunrise” and “sunset” even though technically the “sun” is neither rising nor setting. So, too, “spontaneous generation” is perceived by the naked eye, even if it is not actually occurring.)

   Are there individuals who can derive scientific knowledge from the Torah ? I imagine there might have been, and might be, but I do not know any. We have no scientific mesorah, only an obligation to seek wisdom from every source and acknowledge the truth regardless of its spokesmen. Hence, the great Rebbi Yehuda HaNasi had no qualms about conceding that on a certain scientific matter (involving the sun’s rotation) in which the “wise men of Israel” disputed the “wise men of the nations” that “their view is preferable to ours,” i.e., the view of the non-Jewish scholars should prevail (Pesachim 94b). For that comment, Rebbi was not dismissed as Prince of Israel, nor was his official Tanna Society card confiscated. He is merely praised by us as a person of integrity.

    The critics should be gratified by such statements, and intellectual honesty, which was unheard of in the ancient world, through medieval times and even today, especially in “religious” circles. Jews never entertained persecuting a Galileo Galilei figure, whose scientific conclusions aroused the enmity of the 17^th century Catholic establishment. (He recanted. Fortunately, he was pardoned by Pope John Paul II in 1992, and he received a posthumous apology from the Church.) The point is that persecution of scientists was and is unknown in Jewish life, except, I suppose, when scientists exceed their areas of expertise and begin pontificating on matters of morality and mesorah.

     The Torah was not given to us as a book of science, history, archeology or any secular realm but rather as divine wisdom that governs how man should live and pursue spiritual and intellectual perfection.

     How is it that some Jews cannot take pride in the mindboggling scholarship of our spiritual shepherds, then and now ? For example, one should marvel at the fact that the length of the solar year (according to Rav Ada bar Ahava) is 365 days, 5 hours, 55 minutes and 25-25/47^th seconds, while the US Naval Observatory calculates it as exactly the same, except for 25.439 seconds. It doesn’t matter whether it was Rav Ada’s calculation or derived from the science of the day; it is clear from the dispute in the Gemara that he did not simply parrot an opinion but did his own independent research – as Chazal did regarding the conduction of electricity through metal, or (what became known as) Halley’s Comet, or that Chazal perceived the earth as “a ball” (Bamidbar Rabba 13:14) and verified it experientially. (Many such fascinating tidbits about the wisdom of the Sages in all areas of life are found in “A Book of Jewish Curiosities” published in 1955 by my wife’s grandfather, David M. Hausdorff a”h.)

    It might be that the resentment of the critics stems from their discontent with some of the Sages’ moral mandates, especially when they conflict with the modern agendas over which so many obsess and through which they sit in judgment of the qualifications of the Talmudic masters and their descendants. Or, it could simply be a testament to the dearth of Torah knowledge among some Jews, who have never learned with a Torah master and so cannot distinguish between mesorah, halacha, homiletics and general knowledge.

    And that is a crying shame. Ignorance of our heritage is the bane of Jewish existence, but does not stop Jews from weighing in on many subjects beyond their current capacities. In a world in which Koreans have fallen in love with Talmud study (www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/143192) as the fount of all Jewish wisdom, should Jews willfully deprive themselves of their own heritage ?

     The secret of Jewish life is summed up by two words from the hagada of the Sages:  Tzei u’lmad – “Go forth and learn!” Then we will all take pride in our origins and heritage, in our commitment to wisdom and intellectual honesty, and in the special blessings that G-d bestowed upon His people on Pesach, this holiday of our founding.

Our local “Jewish” weekly newspaper has gotten itself into a pickle of its own making. Several weeks ago, it decided to publish in its wedding section a notice (with picture) of two beaming Jewish males who are “marrying” each other in a ceremony next month. This provoked a storm of criticism from the Orthodox and traditional communities, and – to their credit – the editors of the “Jewish Standard” retracted, sort-of apologized, committed never to do it again, and all in the name of Jewish unity.

     The storm subsided, and the tsunami was unleashed – a deluge (think Noach’s flood) of disparagement and condemnation by the non-Orthodox, leftist, and secular wings of the Jewish world, along with the homosexual lobby that went so far as to link the retraction to the unfortunate suicide last week of an outed Rutgers student as another example of “intolerance.” Since the legitimization of homosexuality and same-sex marriage is one of the most pervasive causes reported today (under the guise of civil rights), journalists have been swooping down all week from across the world on our fair township. I have been called by six reporters – print and electronic media – to comment, which I have not, until now. What to make of this spectacle ?

     The “Standard” is a typical “secular” Jewish weekly. Its style and substance is non-Orthodox (occasionally anti-), and its politics are decidedly left-wing – pro-Democrat, pro-Oslo, pro-abortion, etc. – and the Torah’s views on any issue are assumed to correspond to those of the New York Times’ editorial page. Most people receive the paper because they donate to the local Federation, which deducts a portion of their contribution and forwards it to the paper (and some shuls and temples apparently do the same). In return, the Standard disseminates information about Federation campaigns, fund-raisers and other events.

      I have not read the paper in over a decade, having tired of the simplistic liberalism that informed every commentary, embarrassed by the anti-Torah screeds that were presented as legitimate, Jewish points of view, uncomfortable by the reporting of matters so indecent that I would not have wanted my young children to see it, and not least of all, disgusted by the constant mischaracterization of my views and opinions when I was interviewed.  For a decade, I have adhered to an unwavering policy of not returning their phone calls, and not responding beyond “no comment” when they accidentally caught me. In a word, boycott, and I have publicly urged my congregants to do the same. Some listen, some don’t, and that’s life. Somehow, I don’t lack for information on community events by not reading that paper, and, for years, when people have complained to me about this or that offensive item, I have smiled and explained patiently that “I don’t read that paper, nor should you. And if you did not read it, you would not be so agitated now.”

      That is how I reacted when the publication of the “wedding” announcement was brought to my attention by several distressed congregants. I simply did not know – or frankly, care – whether the Standard printed such announcements, and was even a little surprised that they had not done so in the past. I was even more pleasantly surprised when they retracted after the initial onslaught, for they have not always shown the greatest deference to Orthodox sensibilities in the past.

     There is logic, not to mention good taste, in their retraction. The Standard, I am told, does not print intermarriage announcements, and therefore can simply enunciate a policy that it does not celebrate any union that violates the Torah – a clear and consistent course of action.

      The second (nuclear)explosion now has the Standard scrambling for an effective and cogent response, assuming they don’t retract their retraction. It is an unenviable position: on the one hand, a second retraction will likely lead to mass cancellations among the Orthodox population that still reads it, as it should, and that decline in circulation will certainly affect their advertising rates. On the other hand, their base has always been the non-Orthodox community whose commitment to Torah and Jewish causes is waning from generation to generation, and who now perceive the right of homosexuals to equal treatment across the board as a sacrament.

      And they are in a tizzy for a number of reasons. Aside from the blather about freedom of the press, freedom of speech and the like (which liberals have taken to applying with great selectivity these days) their discontent is grounded in several contentions: firstly, that the Standard has never hesitated to advertise anti-Torah messages, from non-kosher restaurants to programs that desecrate Shabbat and other holy Jewish institutions; secondly, their newfound piety is just pandering to the Orthodox at the expense of the unity and happiness of the broader Jewish community; and finally, and quite naturally, the issue for some always boils down to the question: why are the Orthodox trying to squelch the true and genuine love of two men for each other ? Can’t they just live and let live ? Who could be against love ?

      Well, that is not quite the issue, and the analogy to intermarriage is compelling. The latter also involves forbidden love that is repugnant to the Torah, and should not be legitimated in Jewish life notwithstanding its prevalence. One who aspires to Jewish standards (pardon the pun) should naturally embrace the Torah’s standards of right and wrong, of the permissible and the forbidden. As such, although the Standard’s acceptance of advertising of a variety of sins is lamentable, that – a $$$ issue, after all – is not at all similar to the celebration of a marriage that is antithetical to Torah and the death knell of Jewish continuity. Nor is that “pandering” to the Orthodox; it is merely the recognition that, like it or not, the Orthodox bear the burdens (and privileges) of the preservation of Torah and Jewish life. We are carrying the water (good pun – “there is no water like Torah” [Bava Kamma 17a]) for the rest of Klal Yisrael. Without exaggeration: but for Orthodox Jewry, Torah and the Jewish people would be lost within a generation – and that is why we should be “pandered to” in this matter, in kashrut, in conversion, in areas of marriage and divorce, and on any question of elementary morality and Torah tradition.

      The anguished left claims that the Standard is not representative of the Jewish community because homosexuals are also part of the community and have a right to be treated as such. But not everything that a Jew does is necessarily “Jewish.” We have our share (hopefully, small) of misfits, murderers, thieves, perverts, gangsters and miscreants of all sorts – but nothing they do in the satisfaction of their desires is “Jewish” such that it deserves recognition and acclaim by the Jewish community. Newspapers often detail the sins and failings of man – but they need not celebrate them. These types of announcements are celebrations of sin, and so have no place in any organ that carries “Jewish” on its masthead, or seeks to uphold a “Standard” of any level.

     The “Standard” now runs the risk of alienating at least one major demographic group in Jewish life. They could have dodged this bullet entirely by consulting a friendly Orthodox Rabbi, who could have advised them of the likely reaction in our community. They could have rejected the announcement, but for the allure of appearing trendy and progressive and hip to the contemporary immoral norms. They could maintain the high road of tradition, or they can cave before the fusillade of leftist anger and recriminations and proclaim to all the vacuousness of the “Torah” professed in the non-Orthodox world.

     In a sense, they are hoist on their own petard, with the conceptual flaw that is the undercurrent of every movement outside the Torah framework: in any cultural conflict, whose will prevails – G-d’s or man’s ? Which should take precedence in American Jewish life – the norms of the Torah or the US Constitution ? Whose word is more relevant in modern Jewish life – Rabbi Akiva’s or Thomas Jefferson’s? The Standard has customarily chosen man, the Constitution, and Jefferson – and now is entrapped in the consequences of those choices that afforded its readership the expectation of continued, slavish adherence to modernity at the expense of tradition.

     They need a Houdini-like escape from the ideological shackles in which they are chained, and I await with fascination their response to the outcry on the left. They have a great opportunity to send a message that the Torah is the heritage of all Jews – whether embraced fully or not, and whatever the personal level of observance, and thereby sanctify G-d’s name. I hope they seize that opportunity and remind the world that the Jewish people, after all, do have standards that are eternal and enduring.

UPDATE: I have been informed that just a few hours after this was published, the “Standard” retracted their retraction and apologized for their apology, without committing to any future policy.

     Ines Sainz recently received her 16 minutes of fame (one more minute than customary, for reasons that will become clear), leading to potential disciplinary action against the New York Jets. She is the Mexican TV sports reporter whose wardrobe ranges from 1/3-naked to 2/3-naked, and whose scantily-clad presence while “working” a football practice drew excessive attention from some of the distinguished athletes in her vicinity – including hoots, hollers, catcalls and perhaps a dinner invitation or two.

      Throughout, although several footballs were thrown in her direction, Ines was untouched by human hands, and that is one obvious red-line. No person has the right to lay a hand on another without permission, and that type of abuse should not be tolerated by society or its laws. Nevertheless, there has been talk of a sexual harassment lawsuit being filed because she was subject to verbal taunts, notwithstanding that she was able to procure and conduct the interviews she sought. This is where the matter gets a little cloudy.

     It is perplexing when women who dress in order to attract the attention of others protest when they attract that very attention. A person who flaunts his/her body in the workplace – or in public – is asking to be judged by that body and its attributes. It seems unseemly to complain when that judgment is rendered, especially if the judgment is favorable though proffered crudely. The reactions speak to the low moral level of the observers, to be sure, but also to the shallowness of the party who is looking to be noticed and might even be irritated if not noticed. In a word, both sides are at fault, and the incident itself testifies to the further decline of the standards of decency that used to obtain in society. There was a time when lingerie was limited to the bedroom and was inappropriate in the boardroom. Those days are gone, and apparently anyone who points it out becomes labeled as a chauvinistic suppressor of women, or a primitive voyeur with the table manners of a caveman. Actually, all it means is that a person has eyes and values – eyes that increasingly have to remain shut and values that have to be unabashedly reinforced.

     It poses a special problem in the Rabbinate. Rarely does a week pass in the spring and summer that I am not approached by people lamenting the declining standards of dress of some women in shul or walking the streets of our fair neighborhood. Lest you think that these men should mind their own business, I hasten to add that four out of five complainants are women, not men, protesting the visual affront of women (in number, actually very few) coming to shul wearing mini-skirts, micro-sleeves and low-cut blouses. Interestingly, some of these women are themselves stylish but modest dressers, and not all cover their hair outside of shul – but they have a healthy intuitive sense, that used to be prevalent in the Jewish world, that in a shul we strive for our optimum religious behavior, and that even dignified practices that they haven’t adopted yet in the street should certainly be embraced in shul. For example, there are women of a certain age who might wear pants in public – but they would never enter a shul wearing pants, even on a weekday to drop off a flyer. For most of the younger generation, that sort of discretion seems to have been lost, another victim of feminism that has empowered women, among other types of empowerment, to dress however-they-please even at the cost of their good sense or halachic propriety.

     Cynics might think that the complaining women are “jealous,” but nothing could be further from the truth. They are merely troubled by what they rightly see as a problem in our world, and are especially troubled by parents who allow their teenage daughters to leave the sartorial demands of their weekday yeshivot on the dressing room floor and dress on Shabbat in what used to be considered beachwear. And since I have been told – because I never would have guessed – that women dress primarily for other women, not men, many women feel that their spiritual experience is shul is cheapened by the fashion show sashaying about and the chatter it invariably provokes.

     Invariably, these complainants wish me to address these matters publicly, from the pulpit, excoriating the offenders so they will be shamed into adding more material to their clothing. I have noticed that Rabbis have generally shied away from doing just that, excepting those who will offer learned discourses on the appropriate length of sleeves, skirts and necklines, usually to the already modestly-dressed. The area is a tough nut to crack, because some women will complain that the Rabbi shouldn’t be looking (true, but irrelevant; he may not even see it), or that there are more important issues in the world to discuss (always true… especially when you touch a sensitive chord with someone; that is when “preaching” steps over the line into “meddling”!), or that it is just another indication of the insensitive rabbinate’s contempt for women, yada, yada, yada. I have on several occasions authorized women to speak to the offenders, and even to address the issue publicly; all, to date, have declined to take me up on the offer.

     On the other hand, not to address the issue is a Rabbinic copout, despite the discomfort it causes on all sides. It is a valid point, and it is one of the ModOs failings that tzniut is often not even construed as a religious concern – which is precisely how the general society sees it. There was a recent buzz when a graduate of Maimonides appeared on a reality-TV show featuring models, and this particular young woman – a self-described “modern Orthodox, Sabbath-observant Jew” – ditched her commitment to Sabbath-observance for the duration as soon as she learned it would impair her chances of winning the prize modeling job. The broader question is: how does a yeshiva graduate see her future as a fashion model in the secular world ? The very job requires a person to showcase her body as the means by which she will earn her living, or acclaim. To be a fashion model is as suitable to a Torah Jew as is being a hunter, and about as common.

     So, what is there to say, beyond the technicalities of inches here and there ? In truth, while the inches matter, tzniut is more about presentation and attitude that about lengths and widths. A tight-fitting outfit that looks like it has been painted on (from the Ines Sainz collection, perhaps ?) is as immodest as anything that is too short, even though the requisite parts of the body are dutifully covered. The Jewish laws of modesty focus on one critical point: we demean ourselves when we seek to be perceived and judged primarily as bodies.

    Every human being, male and female, was created b’tzelem elokim, in the image of G-d, and we degrade ourselves by seeking acclamation not for those attributes or activities that foster that divine image but for the accident of our physical shell. Nothing can be more humiliating than to be judged primarily on our looks rather than on our spiritual or intellectual achievements. Clearly, the soul endures, whereas the body erodes over time, even while we are alive. We should seek to be defined by what pleasures the soul and not the body – and that is the essence of tzniut.

    Any person who calls attention to himself/herself because of some physical characteristic engages in an act of self-debasement, and is looking to be treated as an object, not a person. There was a time when women recognized that to be demure was not only classy but alluring. That was a gift of Torah society that had pervaded the general culture. It is when Jews again take the lead, and discard the world view of Ines Sainz and her loutish hecklers, that we will be recognized and lauded as a kingdom of priests and a holy nation and lead the world back to its moral equilibrium.

     Sensitivity is unarguably a fundamental Jewish trait. It is not merely an aspiration but a definition: “Whoever is compassionate towards others, it is obvious that he is a descendant of Avraham; whoever is not compassionate towards others, it is obvious that he is not a descendant of Avraham” (Talmud Masechet Betza 32b). Thus, the recent Statement of Principles on relating to homosexuals is clearly intended in that vein. However, the Statement itself, and some reaction to my own published thoughts on the subject, reminded me that while sensitivity is a cardinal Jewish value, it is one of many values that mold the Jewish personality.

    Much has been made – and rightfully so – about the personal abuse heaped on homosexual oriented youth and adults. It should be rightfully condemned and eradicated as much as is humanly possible. “As much as is humanly possible” is a necessary qualifier, because, although we may strive for perfection, we rarely attain it, and the existence of human imperfections should not surprise or be unduly lamented. “Bullying” is, of course, wrong, as is mockery, verbal abuse, put downs, etc., and the victims are right to complain and be aggrieved. But perspective is helpful; homosexuals are not the only victims of such unfair treatment. As I recall from my own school days – before the invasion of the therapists, psychologists, and do-gooders, and when insults that went too far were settled – literally – in the school yard that itself bred a certain toughness and realism about life and the world – numerous groups (likely everyone, at one time or another) were tormented.

     Here’s a brief list from my own experience of groups who were harassed: children of low intelligence or high intelligence, children who were not athletic, children who were too athletic (derided as “jocks”), boys who acted like sissies and girls who acted like tomboys, children who were obese or rail thin, people who suffered from a physical disability or were developmentally disabled, people who had a prominent physical characteristic (too short, too tall, big nose, no chin, one eyebrow, bearded at age nine, slack jaw), girls who were unattractive or too attractive (and therefore assumed to be dim-witted), immigrants, poor children, the poorly dressed and the too-spiffily dressed (the dandy), the fatherless and the motherless, the kid who brought his lunch from home in a metal box, the teacher’s pet, fans of non-local sports teams, and many others. [Yes, I attended one, tough school. If that weren’t enough, non-Jews would assault us on the way home.]

      Many people in every strata of society still suffer from this sorry expression of a blatant lack of midot tovot (virtuous traits) on the part of insensitive people. Thus, the Torah mandates sensitive treatment for the poor, the widow and the orphan, to which we can properly add the divorcee, the single, the childless, the infertile, the unemployed, etc.  Add to this list, today, the officially protected groups in our world, based on innate characteristics like race or skin color, ethnic background, religion and creed, and women, and now a class defined by private behavior that also seeks these protections, those attracted to same-sex relationships. We can literally walk on eggshells among our fellow humans, and it is undoubtedly prudent not to say anything that might offend a card-carrying member of one of the protected classes; that is to say, it is best to say nothing at all, ever.

      There are many people who fear even addressing these issues – especially the place of the homosexual in Jewish society – for fear of sounding, or being branded, insensitive. Correspondents who castigated me assume that their particular victimization exceeds that of any other victim, a point naturally made by every victimized group in history, including Jews. But there are several brutal facts that need to be considered: first, as noted last week, homosexuals are the only group mentioned above whose defining activity involves a sin, a transgression of the Torah. That cannot be papered over, and the Statement’s dismissal of hirhur (illicit desires, even if not acted upon) as part of this discussion is deceptive, and telling.

       Second, and consequently, it is naïve to think that an open homosexual – like an open adulterer, open Shabbat desecrator, open cheeseburger consumer, or open thief – can ever be accorded a place of honor or even acceptance (“full members”) in the official Jewish community, including shuls and yeshivot. Sensitivity becomes tolerance, then acceptance, then legitimacy – and that obviously requires a revision of the Torah, which cannot happen. The idea that a yeshiva can or should accept the children of homosexuals is as absurd as the notion that it should embrace a family of Jewish polyandrists (Torah prohibition) or Jewish polygamists (Rabbinic prohibition), and would subject that child to unimaginable and undeserved cruelty, our best efforts at sensitivity training notwithstanding.

      That raises the third, and clearly the saddest aspect, of this individual tragedy: children. The Statement presupposes that homosexuals will want children, and want their children raised in the Torah community, notwithstanding their unacceptable lifestyle. But is it fair to bring children into the world – or adopt children – under those circumstances, i.e., fair to the children ? For sure, the childless in our world suffer enormously, as our tradition celebrates children and much of Jewish life is built around the continuity of family. For that reason alone, the Statement’s clear disdain for therapies that might ameliorate this condition is itself problematic. How can there be a “religious right” not to avail oneself of a therapy that might re-channel the person’s desires from the illicit to the licit, and potentially enable him/her to lead a normal and traditional lifestyle ?

     In its casual but sincere call for the acceptance of such children – under the guise of sensitivity to children, which should be beyond question – the Statement fails to consider that not every Jew will merit posterity, either because of nature or choice. “For so says Hashem to the barren ones who observe My Sabbaths and choose what I desire (italics added) and grasp My covenant tightly. In My house and My walls I shall give them a place and a renown (Yad vashem), better than sons and daughters; eternal renown I shall give them, never to be cut down” (Yeshayahu 56:4-5). There are ways to serve G-d and contribute to Jewish life for those who cannot – or will not – have children.

     It is sad, and their struggles – like all of us who struggle with transgressions that sever our connection to G-d, family, loved ones and community – are heartrending, and part of the human condition.  But the Torah cannot be updated to conform to the zeitgeist on grounds of sensitivity, nor can we gerrymander the boundaries of Mitzvot in order to carve out an exemption for one class of sinner or another. We should be kind and decent to all people, including those in the schoolyard of my youth, and sensitive as well to the eternal nature of Torah that has been entrusted to us as the divine light that illuminates our every thought and move and by whose standard (and only that standard) we judge what is right and wrong. Those who choose to follow their desires, and not what G-d desires for them, deserve no special consideration – and certainly not (as mentioned before) when modesty dictates that what is private should remain private.

     “Everyone knows why the bride enters the wedding canopy but whoever sullies his mouth and speaks of it will have even a good decree of 70 years overturned” (Talmud Masechet Shabbat 33a). There was a time when Jews reflected grace and decorum, where to be accused of being prust (unseemly, unbecoming) was a true Jewish insult. Under the guise of sensitivity, we have become as uncouth as others, and worse, tamper with the Torah as if it were our plaything, not our divine heritage. The Statement, like the other excitement of the past ten days, is just another nail in the coffin of Modern Orthodoxy, sacrificed on the altar of trendiness and political correctness. We must be sensitive – but we must also be different and holy, a nation created not to deify the transient values of Western man but the eternal values of G-d. When that happens, we will have something to teach the world, and perhaps even merit full and complete redemption.