February 13, 2012 | 8:41 pm

Guest Post by Rabbi Seth Winberg Defending Rabbi Dov Linzer’s New York Times Op Ed

Posted by Rabbi Seth Winberg

Follow JewishJournal.com on

Note from Asher Lopatin: Some of the arguments in this article parallel my own arguments challenging Rabbi Shaul Magid’s ideas regarding specific laws in the Jewish tradition.

Guest post from Seth Winberg who received rabbinic ordination at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, and an M.A. from Yeshiva University. Rabbi Winberg is currently Assistant Director at the University of Michigan Hillel.
-
Poor Rabbi Dov Linzer. I am honored to have been a student of his remarkable erudition and emotional sensitivity. Reacting to unconscionable behavior in the name of Torah by some Jews in Israel, Rabbi Linzer’s op-ed, “Lechery, Immodesty, and the Talmud”, appeared in the New York Times late last month. A full analysis of talmudic sources appeared on his blog a month before the op-ed. The upshot of Rabbi Linzer’s argument is that the Talmud “places the responsibility for controlling men’s licentious thoughts about women squarely on the men.”
Professor Shaul Magid quickly responded in an open letter to Rabbi Linzer: “To instantiate your reading of the Talmud would require you to act decisively to abolish all the legal mandates that objectify women’s bodies and put the onus on the men to take full control of their libido and desire.” Rabbi Linzer did not go far enough for Professor Magid in promoting liberal values.

Rabbi Avi Shafran, Director of Public Affairs for Agudath Israel of America, also attacked Rabbi Linzer. According to Rabbi Shafran, Rabbi Linzer exploited the violent behavior directed at women and children in Israel to further his ideological agenda. Rabbi Shafran implies that Rabbi Linzer’s reading of talmudic texts is wrong. But Rabbi Shafran offers no evidence for this claim. Perhaps Rabbi Shafran will soon share his reading of the talmudic sources.

Until then, Rabbi Shafran provides no substantive objections to Rabbi Linzer’s reading of sources. Instead he resorts to name calling. Rabbi Linzer’s ideology, says Rabbi Shafran, is “redolent of the Conservative movement’s early days.” (Professor Magid, the rabbi of a Conservative synagogue, would surely disagree with Rabbi Shafran for two reasons: (1) for Professor Magid, Rabbi Linzer is too Orthodox to be Conservative and (2) because for Professor Magid “Conservative” is not an insult.)

Professor Magid’s open letter to Rabbi Linzer at least provides substantive arguments for us to consider. Unfortunately, the letter contains inaccuracies about halakhah. Let me provide two examples. First, Professor Magid claims that “traditional Jewish law” does not allow women to say kaddish in the presence of men. What “traditional” source says women cannot say kaddish with men? The first halakhic source I know of which condemns women saying kaddish is from the 1600s long after the Babylonian Talmud (see Havot Yair, 222). That source does not mention modesty as a concern. And as Rabbi J. Simcha Cohen has pointed out, Havot Yair’s objection was a minority view at the time in Amsterdam, and he agreed in principle that women could say kaddish in the presence of men.

One need only point to a responsum of the late Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, of blessed memory, to show women may say kaddish in the presence of men (see Iggerot Moshe, Orah hayyim, vol. 8, #12).

The most troubling inaccuracy in Professor Magid’s open letter is about mehitzah, the partition which separates men and women during public prayer. He asserts that the purpose of a mehitzah is to prevent men from seeing women. The more commonly accepted purpose of a mehitzah is to prevent intermingling of men and women in the context of public prayer (see Iggerot Moshe, Orah hayyim, v. 1 #39 and #41, and Seridei Esh, v. 1, #8, p. 19 which reports Hasidic opposition to Rav Moshe’s view). Contrary to what Professor Magid says, the mehitzah is not put up to prevent sight-lines. Professor Magid’s vague language also suggests that the mehitzah is of talmudic origin. In fact, there is no discussion of mehitzah in pre-modern halakhic literature, let alone talmudic literature. (See Rabbi Dr. Alan J. Yuter’s “Mehizah, Midrash, and Modernity: A Study in Religious Rhetoric” in Judaism 28 (1979): 147-159.)

Professor Magid may consider these the quibbles of an Orthodox rabbi. (I do not.)

A final broader comment about Professor Magid’s open letter. Rabbi Linzer demonstrates a pattern of attitudes (not laws) regarding modesty in the Talmud (not post-talmudic halakhic literature). Professor Magid responds with examples of rabbinic law (overwhelmingly post-talmudic) that he does not like for ideological reasons. Surely Professor Magid realizes that an Orthodox rosh yeshiva is not going to abrogate normative halakhah on the basis of a pattern of attitudes regarding modesty.

Rabbi Linzer is trying to have a real conversation about important values. If Rabbi Shafran and Professor Magid take Torah and ideology seriously, perhaps in the future they will engage in relationship building with their liberal Orthodox colleagues and leave polemics for other situations.
The larger challenge in this discussion is the extent to which the entire conversation is dominated by men. (I am guilty as charged.) I am pleased to see Rabba Sara Hurwitz adding her perspective. I pray that other women—students and graduates of Yeshivat Maharat, the Drisha Scholars Circle, GPATS, and similar programs—will add their voices too.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

Share this post: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati YahooMyWeb

February 7, 2012 | 11:46 am

Desexualizing Public Space

Posted by Rabbi Zev Farber

Introduction
The story is told (b. Taanit 24a) that Rabbi Yossi son of Rabbi Avin left his teacher, R. Yossi of Yoqrat, in order to study with Rav Ashi. As leaving one teacher for another was an unusual thing to do, Rav Ashi asked him why he did so. Rabbi Yossi son of Rabbi Avin responded: “A man who has no compassion even for his own son and daughter – how could he have any for me?” The Talmud explains:

[Rabbi Yossi of Yoqrat] had a beautiful daughter. One day, he saw a certain man making a hole in a palm-leaf fence and peeping at her. He said to him: “What are you doing?” He responded: “Master, if I have not merited marrying her, will I not at least merit looking at her?” [Rabbi Yossi of Yoqrat] said to her: “My daughter, you are disturbing [God’s] creations, return to your dust, and let men not stumble on your account.”

The story of Rabbi Yossi of Yoqrat and his daughter is particularly chilling. A normal father would have been angry at the man for peeping at his daughter; instead Rabbi Yossi of Yoqrat blames the innocent girl for being attractive. Although the Talmud uses the story of Rabbi Yossi of Yoqrat as an example of cruel and unjust behavior, more than a millennium later this type of thinking has returned to the surface.

Rabbi Dov Linzer and Male Responsibility
It would be redundant for me to excoriate the behavior of the Sikrikim in Beit Shemesh, as many others have already condemned them for spitting on little girls and roughing up opponents. One of the best of such rebukes was by my own teacher, Rabbi Dov Linzer, in a New York Times op-ed, Lechery, Immodesty and the Talmud. However, Rabbi Linzer’s response diverges from many other condemnations of the Sikrikim with a radically different focus for Jewish laws regarding tzniut (modesty).

The basic idea behind tzniut – and I use the term to refer to modesty in the sexual arena rather than humility – is to desexualize public space and interactions between men and women. Rabbi Linzer argues that according to his reading of Jewish law, the Talmud “places the responsibility for controlling men’s licentious thoughts about women squarely on the men.”

Professor Shaul Magid’s Critique
Although the article was well-received by many, a number of critiques have been launched and I would like to focus on Professor Shaul Magid’s critique in Religion Dispatches. Although he applauds Rabbi Linzer’s “anti-misogynist” attitude, Professor Magid suggests that Rabbi Linzer’s position “is actually in conflict with key authoritative texts of the traditions,” and supports this claim with a number of examples. 

Magid challenges Linzer: “To instantiate your reading of the Talmud would require you to act decisively to abolish all the legal mandates that objectify women’s bodies and put the onus on the men to take full control of their libido and desire.” In my opinion, Professor Magid pushes his case too far.

A Reframing of the Conversation
Rabbi Linzer’s op-ed paints with a broad brush and was surely not meant as a full articulation of Jewish law. To clarify matters somewhat, I would like to offer my own reframing of Rabbi Linzer’s position. [To see Rabbi Linzer’s own articulation of his position in different words, see his blog post on tzniut. See also R. Aryeh Klapper’s excellent article on tzniut in Text and Texture for a distinct but related take.] Jewish law wishes interactions between men and women in the public sphere (i.e. non-marital interactions) to be de-sexualized. If men feel aroused as a part of their normal interactions with women it is the responsibility of the men to control this. The Talmud is aware that it is difficult to predict what may stimulate a man’s sexual thoughts. This fact motivates statements like that of Rav Sheshet (b. Berakhot 24a), for example, that staring at a woman’s little finger can be like staring at her fully unclothed. As Rabbi Linzer aptly points out, this is not a requirement for women to wear gloves, but a requirement for men to note when their minds are wandering in the wrong direction and fix it. 

However, the above paradigm applies to ordinary interactions, i.e. interactions that are not meant to be sexual. I do not think that Rabbi Linzer’s claim that women are not responsible for men’s lewd thoughts applies to situations where women may actually be sexualizing the atmosphere on their own. Men also have a right to ask for desexualized public space. Even secular law is aware of this fact, which is why there are statutes against public indecency. The question becomes: What kind of behavior sexualizes the atmosphere? It is with regard to this question that, I feel, Professor Magid and Rabbi Linzer are speaking at cross purposes.

Tzniut as Sociologically Determined
By its very nature, what sexualizes a given environment is sociologically determined. Although there is no discussion in the Talmud about “laws of tzniut,” the Talmud does list certain behaviors as “provocative” in the context of divorce and fault.  A terrific example is found in the Tosefta (t. Ketubot 7:6).

If [a woman’s husband] makes a vow that she must allow any man to taste her cooking, or that she must fill up and then pour out garbage, or that she should tell random men intimate details about her life with him – she may leave and [her husband] must make the ketubah payment, since he has not behaved with her in accordance with the law of Moses and Israel (dat Moshe ve-Yisrael). 

Similarly if [a man’s wife] goes out with her hair exposed, she goes out with her clothing in tatters, she behaves arrogantly with her slaves, maidservants or the neighborhood women, she goes out to weave in the public marketplace, she washes or is washed in the bathhouse in the company of random men – [if he decides to divorce her] she leaves without her ketubah payment, since she has not behaved with him in accordance with the law of Moses and Israel (dat Moshe ve-Yisrael).

The text deals with one type of fault that violates a marriage: humiliating one’s partner through his or her behavior. The list of a wife’s inappropriate behavior is clearly not meant to be exhaustive or objectively determined. I believe this applies to other iterations of this list as well.  In Talmudic times, a woman going out with her hair exposed or tattered clothing would have been sexualizing the environment around her with her public display, which is why a husband can call such behavior “fault.”

Halakha may be timeless but society changes; what may have been considered sexualizing behavior in one society may be considered harmless in a different society. Thus, a modest woman living in Saudi Arabia may not feel comfortable wearing a polo shirt in public, whereas a modest woman living in a Western society would. Furthermore, if a man from this same Western society were to complain that he finds women in polo-shirts erotic, we would have every right to tell him that this is his problem; it is he who is sexualizing the environment. 

Context Specific Modesty
In fact, modesty can be context specific within the same society. A woman who wears an ordinary bathing suit to the beach is not sexualizing her environment; this is how women on the beach dress. However, if this same woman were to wear the same bathing suit to the office or the supermarket she would absolutely be sexualizing the environment. What constitutes innocuous behavior versus erotic behavior is extremely context specific and the question is where to place the bar.

Speaking for myself, it seems to me that telling modern religious girls and women that they may not wear regular T-shirts or regular-fit shorts because their knees and elbows sexualize the environment is misguided.  In fact, I believe making such rules accomplishes the opposite; the rule actually sexualizes the woman more. By telling young teenage girls that they are being provocative even when they aren’t trying to be, we may unwittingly make them feel sexualized even during their normal interactions with men – exactly the opposite of what halakha is trying to accomplish.

A Conflict in Values
The challenge for modern religious men and women is that we live in a culture where a “modest amount” of sexualizing of the environment is not considered problematic. Although most of us live in societies where public nudity or sexual expression is prohibited, Western society does condone a certain amount of conscious public sexual display, especially in dress.

Consequently, not all clothing worn in our society is, in fact, appropriate for religious women. Plunging necklines, skin-tight outfits or dresses with thigh-high slits are designed to sexualize the environment to some degree. This may be considered appropriate in secular society but not for modest Jewish women. Although it goes unmentioned in his op-ed, I trust Rabbi Linzer would agree with this point, which is why I believe Professor Magid’s challenge goes too far. Of course halakha still has what to say about women’s, as well as men’s, public comportment.

The Need for Tolerance
Undoubtedly, we live in complex societies wherein people of different religious beliefs and values must get along. Even if halakha forbids certain types of dress, the religious man has no right to attempt to force this “dress code” on anyone else, and certainly not to use violence and other scare tactics. Just as the Talmud rejected R. Yossi of Yoqrat’s warped perception, we reject our own modern manifestations of it. This is self-evident and axiomatic. It has been agreed upon by the vast majority of religious Jews who have commented on the recent abhorrent behavior in Beit Shemesh, and need not be belabored here.

Conclusion
The important contribution of Rabbi Linzer’s piece – and my own – is to encourage our community to consider how the burden of desexualizing the environment has fallen completely upon the shoulders of women over the years. This burden has contributed to the disempowerment of women in the religious Jewish world and, ironically, has sexualized them even more. When women are held liable for every male sexual fantasy, they inevitably become nothing more than sex objects. This is the ultimate violation of tzniut and is not the fault of Talmudic law, but of the skewed perception of it in our times.

Rabbi Zev Farber, Atlanta

0 Comments — Leave your comment

June 24, 2011 | 12:35 pm

Are We There Yet…? Rabbi Barry Gelman

Posted by Rabbi Barry Gelman

Are We There Yet…?- Rabbi Barry Gelman
June 24, 2011
Are We There Yet….?

Is our Judaism something that causes us to aspire to certain goals or does it cause stagnation and the belief that one has arrived at their final destination.

Yehsayahu Leibowitz points out that it is not a coincidence that the word “holy” appears at the end of last week’s Torah reading, Parshat Sh’lach and at the beginning of this week’s Torah reading, Parshat Korach. For him, the two uses of the word is meant to focus us in on the different ways it is used.

At the end of Parshat Sh’lach, the Torah states: “So that you remember and perform all My commandments, and become holy to your God.” Leibowitz stresses that this verse represents an aspirational approach to holiness in that the purpose of the Mitzvot is to help a person achieve holiness.

Korach, on the other hand hands declares: “…the entire assembly – all of them – are holy.” What Korach is saying is that holiness is a given and exists simply by virtue of the fact that one is a Jew.

On one level, Korach’s claim of innate holiness is empowering as it bespeaks a special status and perhaps a desire to live up to that rank.

Leibowitz, on the other hand, warns that such an approach cheapens holiness, as it need not be earned. It also leads to laziness and conceit as one may then claim that there is no work to be done on character and /or relationship development.

Living life as if one has already reached the pinnacle is the Korach way, as opposed to God’s decree to live life in constant aspiration of doing more and being better.

This idea is especially true in the area of personal character traits. Alan Morinis is his book, Climbing Jacobs Ladder, teaches the following about the goal of mussar practices. “ It assures us that we are not condemned to live forever with every aspect of the personality we happen to have right know, but that we can make changes that will set free the radiance of our inner light.”

The idea of aspiring for more is an important way to view the development of Halacha. For example, Eliezer Berkowitz in his book, Jewish Women in Time and Torah, distinguishes between stances that the Torah tolerates and those that the Torah aspires to. More recently, this approach has been adopted and expanded by Rabbi Nachum Rabinovitch.

Their claim is that some of the laws within the Torah itself are not the “end of the road” since they represent positions that are tolerated by the Torah due to historic realities while rabbinic legislation helps Halacha get closer to the ideal position.  For details of Rabbi Rabinovitch’s application of this idea go to – http://tinyurl.com/5vngcg

God had to show that Korach’s approach was doomed to moral, ethical and even legal failure. It was an approach that could have only left the Jewish people, and anyone who accepts such an approach, stuck and stalled in their present condition. Perhaps the punishment of being swallowed up by the earth was God’s way of showing that Korach’s approach was the equivalent of getting stuck in the sand, with an inability to move forward and aspire to even greater heights.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

March 3, 2010 | 5:50 am

Modern Orthodoxy’s Parallel Universe - Rabbi Barry Gelman

Posted by Rabbi Barry Gelman

Modern Orthodoxy’s Parallel Universe
Modern Orthodoxy’s identity crisis is manifested in compartmentalized living. It seems that many in the Modern Orthodox camp live their lives and at other times live their Jewish lives. Often the two do not resemble on another.
Here are a few examples.
In our daily lives we are committed to equality and embrace the idea that women should have all the professional and social opportunities that men have. When it comes to our Jewish life we often revert to a pre-modern approach wherein we decline to offer women religious opportunities no barred by halacha. In our secular settings we are perfectly happy to listen to a women give a lecture, but many cringe at the thought of a women delivering a Dvar Torah in shul. Consistency would demand that we either embrace the later or refrain fro listening to women speak entirely.
In our work places we interact with non Jews all the time and we accord them respect and treat them as equals. Often when talking about gentiles in the Jewish context the tone and language change and the most radical approaches to gentiles an Jewish gentile relations are accepted.
Another area is in the realm of Torah study and understanding of Jewish law. For the most part, we live a life on nuance and recognize that there is often more than one way to approach a question or solve a problem. However, when it comes to Torah study and more so when it comes to halacha, many in the Modern Orthodox community expect that there is only one approach or answer to a given question. This may stem from the growth in popularity of Daat Torah, that the great sages of the day have the single and ultimate answers to everything. Perhaps some Modern Orthodox Jews have Daat Torah envy.
The problem with this approach is that Modern Orthodoxy, at its core, recognizes that there are often a multiplicity of approaches to a given question and that more than one answer can be legitimate
These are a few examples of the parallel universes that many modern orthodox Jews live in. It seems to me that the modern orthodox lifestyle has been adopted and championed without much thought about the underlying ideals of Modern Orthodoxy. We embrace the Modern Orthodox license to watch television, attend the opera and read philosophy without coming to terms with some of the important ideological underpinnings of Modern Orthodoxy.
This “double life” cuts to the very definition of Modern Orthodoxy and raises an important question. Is Modern Orthodoxy as practiced today in America based on a series of high ideals that lead to a certain lifestyle or is Modern Orthodoxy simply the decision of Jews to live a convenient lifestyle while essentially adopting chareidi philosophical positions?

0 Comments — Leave your comment

February 2, 2010 | 5:13 pm

Education By Psak (Halachik decisions) – Rabbi Barry Gelman

Posted by Rabbi Barry Gelman

Education By Psak (Halachik decisions) – Rabbi Barry Gelman

When Rabbis render Halachik decisions for they are doing much more than answering a technical question. Psak Halacha can also serve an educational function in that it teaches entire communities about values.

One area where Rabbis can make a strong educational impact via Psak Halacha is in the area of Pesach preparation and cleaning.  It is very much the Rabbi who sets the tone for how Pesach is viewed, appreciated and enjoyed by communities.

Rabbi Shlomo Aviner writes that it is prohibited to impose stringencies on people that will cost extra money and cause distress, even on Pesach when it is customary to be extra careful. (She’eilat Shlomo 1:157)

Rabbis who do not get caught up in the whirlwind of pesach stringencies and teach that pesach can be enjoyed and not ruined by pre pesach preparations are teaching their communities a valuable lesson about simchat Yom Tov and the value of moderation.

Ethical lessons are also taught from how Rabbis rule on participating in charity drives for gentiles. The recent earthquake in Haiti was an unfortunate opportunity for Rabbis to teach the Halachik sources and via that process, educate communities about the value of all life and the importance of seeing ourselves as part of the global community. The sources from Rambam, Meiri and others are classical legal sources, the message they leave behind goes further than a one- time legal ruling.

There are many examples of education by psak in the writings of Rabbi Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, known as the Sridei Eish. In one Teshuva he forbids burying the cremated remains of a Jews in a Jewish cemetery. For Rabbi Weinberg, prohibiting burial in the Jewish cemetery made clear that cremation crossed a “red line”. It was his hope that by prohibiting burial in the Jewish cemetery, others who were considering cremation would realize just how deplorable that action was and change their minds. This is a very good case of a posek using Halacha to educate his community. Bear in mind that Rabbi Weinberg was dissenting from the view of another great German posek, Rabbi Dovid Tzvi Hoffman who argued that those who choose cremation are no different than any other sinner who is permitted burial in the Jewish cemetery.

Rabbi Yitzchak Blau has written about other rulings of Rabbi Weinberg that serve educational purposes. Go here for an introduction to the life and thought of Rabbi Weinberg http://vbm-torah.org/archive/modern/31modern.htm and here for an article noting some of those decisions http://vbm-torah.org/archive/modern/32modern.htm.

There is much that Rabbis can accomplish in terms of ingraining values in communities via Psak Halacha. Great Poskim have used their piskei halacha for this very reason and it is my hope that more rabbis can do the same.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

January 12, 2010 | 8:26 am

The Converts In Our Midst - Rabbi Barry Gelman

Posted by Rabbi Barry Gelman

The following is a digest of the sermon I delivered in my Synagogue on Shabbat, January 9th, 2010

I feel compelled to address the recent conversion controversy in my sermon. I do so because two things changes.

1.    The woman at the center of the controversy converted.
2.    The Houston Jewish community has been painted with broad strokes as not welcoming her ad questioning her conversion.

Let me say at the outset that the Beit Din that performed the conversion is an unimpeachable Beit Din and therefore I consider the woman at the center of the controversy to be Jewish and fully welcomed in this community.
I have also informed her that I would be willing to convene a Beit Din to convert her son (all he needs is immersion in the mikvah).

I want to share with you a number if halachik considerations. These halachot apply equally to all converts.

1. The biblical obligation to love the convert.
This obligation is spelled out in the biblical verse
“Love ye therefore the stranger; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

Maimonides points out that the commandment to love the convert to Judaism actually is doubly powerful as it is superimposed on the existing obligation to love one’s fellow Jews.

Here are Rambam’s words:

“Loving the convert who has taken refuge (lit., ‘came and entered’) beneath the wings of the Divine Presence [comprises] two positive obligations, one because he is included in ‘fellowship’ (and so is included in the obligation to love one’s fellow as himself (Levit. 19:18)), and two because he is a convert and the Torah said, ‘You shall love the convert’ (Deuteronomy 10:19). [The Torah] commanded to love the convert as it commanded to love G-d (lit., ‘His Name’), as it is stated, ‘And you shall love the L-rd your G-d’ (Deut. 6:5). G-d Himself loves converts, as it is stated, ‘...and loves [the] convert’ (ibid., 10:18).” (Hilchot De’ot Chapter 6, Law 4)
Notice that Rambam also compares the love due a convert to the love due God and that God himself loves converts.

In a Responsum, Rambam writes that the obligation to love a convert is even more intense than the obligations we have towards our parents. In relation to our parents we are obligated to respect and fear them – both of which can be accomplished without loving them. In fact, the Torah never commands the love of parents. However, regarding the convert we are obligated to develop actual love for them.

Perhaps the Torah especially commands us regarding loving the convert because it is not always so easy to do so. Often converts come from different cultures, look differently and speak differently than those they are trying to join.
There are often cultural barriers that make it difficult for converts to be fully embraced by the Jewish community.
To all of this, the Torah says: Love the convert – we must work on it and develop love in our hearts.

2. The biblical prohibition of oppressing a convert

This prohibition is spelled out in the biblical verse:

“And a stranger shalt thou not wrong, neither shalt thou oppress him; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

The Sefer Hachinuch elucidates two very important ideas related to how we treat converts in our midst.

First he notes that the capacity to sanctify God’s name or to desecrate God’s name is in our hands in terms of how we treat converts.   

“At the root of the precept lies the reason that the Eternal Lord chose the Israelites to be a holy people to Him, and wished to make them meritorious. He therefore guided and ordered them onto the ways of kindly grace and compassion, and adjured them to adorn themselves with every desirable and precious trait of character, to find favor in the eyes of all who behold them, that they should say, “These are the people of the Lord.”

The Sefer Hachinuch ascribes great power in terms of how communities accept and treat converts. Certainly in this local controversy their has been a tremendous chillul Hashem - desecration of God’s name. We have the capacity, to a degree, to reverse the chilul Hashem by carefully adhering to the Torah commandments of loving and not oppressing theconvert.

Secondly, the Sefer Hachinuch sensitizes us to the challenges overcome by a convert. “ Well, how much a way of gratification and delight it is to adopt loving kindness and do good for a person who left his nation and the entire family f his father’s and mother’s house, and came to shelter under the wings of another nation, in his affection for it, and in his preference for truth and hatred of falsehood.”

Many of us are aware of the great personal, social and economic struggles endured and sacrifices made by converts to Judaism. It is no easy task to leave behind the religioun on one’s upbringing, family customs and social network. Those who do that must be treated with dignity, respect and maybe even awe.

         
3.The obligation to pray for the welfare of converts.
The thirteenth blessing in the Amidah includes an explicit prayer for righteous converts. According to some the phrase “Tzadikim” – “righteous” is that blessing refers to converts as well. We are obligated to prayer for the welfare and wellbeing of the converts among us. 

Finally, I wish to clarify something very important: There have been press reports painting all of Houston Orthodoxy with one brush in their claims that she has not been welcomed and that her conversion is being questioned. While I do not accept those media reports as being entirely accurate, I do wish to make it clear, that the UOS community fully welcomes her as a member of Am Yisreal.

The famous Ovadiah the convert to whom Rambam famously ruled that he, even as a covert, may recite: “Our God and God of our forefather” in the amidah once complained to Maimonides that his Rabbi has been mocking him for tings he said. In response Rambam addresses Ovadiah ad says: ” He who blessed Abraham your teacher, and gave Abraham his reward in the world and the world to come, should bless you and give you your reward in this world and in the world to come and lengthen your days…”

These words should direct our approach to all Jews by choice in our midst.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

December 8, 2009 | 8:56 am

On Line Psak – Bad Medicine - Rabbi Barry Gelman

Posted by Rabbi Barry Gelman

I am sure that many are familiar with the phenomenon on internet piskei halach – the popular notion of asking halachik questions, usually anonymously, to a rabbi. Often times even the rabbi who is answering in anonymous as the question is sent to a pool of rabbis.

No doubt there is some benefit to this technological option. It saves time as one can send the question and then great on with their life as they wait for answer. It also allows for sensitive question to be asked with minimal or no embarrassment.

On the other hand, online psak share the same pitfalls that so many other online relationships do. There is no doubt that the internet has allowed many to expand the number of people they are in touch with. The flip side is that while we are in touch with more people quantitatively, the quality of many of those relationships has deteriorated.

Online psak is no different. It allows for no relationship between posek and questioner, a very important ingredient in psak halacha. In on line piskei halaca it is very ahrd to flesh out all the detsil of the question. A fundamental ingredient missing in almost all on line pask is the ability for the Rabbi to ask questions to the questioner. The seasoned posek knows the questions that will assist in finding the proper answer.

Psak Halacha is a very personal matter as no two questioners ask the same question. Even thought on the surface it may seem that the very same question is being asked, the specific circumstances of the questioner, their religious background, their financial, and domestic situation all play a role in making a correct decision.

It is interesting to note that a major issue discussed by rabbis is rabbinic autonomy and that in some areas of life, halacha is becoming centralized One of the main objections to centralized rabbinic authority is that the rabbis of the central authority often lack familiarity with those asking the questions. The same shortcoming exists in the realm of internet psak.

A doctor can do a better job diagnosing a treating a patient when the patient’s personal history is known to the doctor and the doctor has time to ask question and clarify matters. The same is true for a rabbi asked to answer a halachik question. All of the factors mentioned above, if known by the rabbi, an serve an important role in rendering an appropriate decision

0 Comments — Leave your comment

November 24, 2009 | 8:41 am

Saying Kaddish Over Kaddish - Rabbi Barry Gelman

Posted by Rabbi Barry Gelman

A well known phenomenon of American Jewry is the widespread recitation of kaddish in memory of deceased parents. Even those Jews who are not particularly observant find deep meaning in reciting kaddish for deceased parents. Even those Jews who otherwise rarely come to weekday minyan find the time to come to synagogue almost every day, three times a day to say kaddish. It strikes me as odd that before and after the death of a parent, these folks had no time to come to services, but as soon as a parent dies, time is found.

I wish there are another way to honor our parents in death. Because it is related to honoring parents after death, saying kaddish has become the most widespread ritual on the American Jewish scene and often the perceived hallmark of piety. It has come to the point where people think that, almost to the exclusion of all other ritual and concern for Jewish law, all that a person has to do is say kaddish for their parent upon their death.

It is interesting to note that kaddish does not speak of death, but rather of sanctifying God’s name and faith in times of distress. Ironically, reciting kaddish has lead to the de-sanctification of God’s name and less faithful activity as people ignore other mitzvot in favor of kaddish.

Saying kaddish is an important for children way to reflect the values and ideals their parents stood for. When a child recites kaddish the deceased parent may be judged more favorably as the faithful recitation of kaddish stands as testimony to the parent’s spiritual legacy.

But here again we must wonder if there is a better way. Certainly greater merit can be brought to deceased parents if their spiritual legacy is more than eleven months of kaddish.

In light of this analysis, I wish to highlight a suggestion made by Rabbi Shlomo Ganzfried, author of the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch – The Concise Code of Jewish Law. In Chapter 22 (Laws of Mourners Kaddish) he writes: “Though kaddish and prayers are helpful to the departed, they are not of primary importance. What is most essential is that their children proceed in the path of righteousness and, in the manner, bring merit to their parents…A person should command his children to be scrupulous in the observance of a particular mitzvah. Their practice of it will be considered more important than their recitation of Kaddish.”

Along these lines, I recommend a new mourning custom – one that hopefully will have more lasting spiritual and religious staying power. I propose that all parents whose children are not Sabbath observant tell their children that either instead of (or in addition to) saying kaddish for a year that their children should remember them by observing Shabbat for a year.

In the scheme of mitzvot, Shabbat observance is more important than the recitation of kaddish, so if one mitzvah is going to be focused on for the year, better Shabbat than kaddish.

Another, perhaps more compelling reason to focus on Shabbat over kaddish is for the benefit of the grandchildren of the deceased. Children who grow up in a home where Shabbat is observed on a regular basis stand a much better chance of marrying another Jew and building a home where Jewish traditions are observed. Additionally, for all those other than the mourning child, saying kaddish goes largely unnoticed in the home. Shabbat observance encompasses the entire home and atmosphere of the family.

It is time to say Kaddish over Kaddish and welcome new Jewish life.

0 Comments — Leave your comment