Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Like canaries in a coal mine?--on the agunah issue

Canaries: Warning System for Coal Miners"

Early coal miners didn’t have the special equipment miners have today to measure gas in the air, so it was impossible to tell if the gases were building up to dangerous levels.

Miners started to use canaries to test the air quality in the mines. Canaries are very sensitive to carbon monoxide. The canaries would chirp and sing and make noise all day long. But, if the carbon monoxide levels got too high, the canaries would have trouble breathing, and maybe even die. When the canaries were no longer singing, miners would know that the gas levels were too high. They would leave the mine quickly to avoid being caught in an explosion. This is how canaries acted as a warning system for miners.”


Question: What are the three areas in which right-wing Orthodox rabbis seem most likely to issue chumrot (stringent interpretations of Jewish law), and/or rabbis and/or laypersons are most likely to adopt the least flexible interpretation of what constitutes correct Orthodox practice?

Answer (in my opinion):

  • Kashrut (dietary laws, the laws governing what’s kosher)

Within roughly the past five years, the kashrut (“kosherness”) of the following have been called into question—corn (maize) on the cob, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, asparagus, strawberries, onions (a mainstay of cold-climate cooking, without which my Russian Jewish ancestors would probably have starved), and New York City tap water.

  • Technology

Never mind all the teeth-gnashing about the dangers of the Internet and cell phones. In some communities, even the parents' ownership of a television is enough to get their kid barred from admission to a yeshiva. Movies and video games? Not even The Sound of Music and Super Mario Brothers would pass with this crowd.

  • Women

In this case, I’m not speaking only of the Chareidim (right-wing fervently Orthodox). Consider this question: What’s the one thing that differentiates even the most left-wing Modern Orthodox synagogue from even the most right-wing traditional Conservative synagogue? Answer: A mechitza.

This post by Trep about the recent meeting of Chareidi men to discuss the tzniut (modesty) issue involved in the growing trend toward the wearing of tighter sweaters and shorter skirts by Chareidi women garnered quite a slew of interesting comments. I thought this was one of the more pointed remarks:

“. . . It seems to me that the more frightened the rabbis of these communities are of modernity, the more they take it out on women.

It may be about clothing on the surface, but in my opinion it's not nearly as much about clothing as it is about power and control. Something about women today is really scaring this particular rabbi or group of rabbis if he/they could cancel a conference about the agunah issue and schedule one about clothing in almost the same breath.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I believe that it is not really about clothing at all.

Posted by: Rahel | Nov 21, 2006 1:05:00 AM

Match that with this comment by Mississippi Fred MacDowell to this post by Dilbert: “the matter of feminism is a sticking point. The trend within the rest of Orthodoxy, from centrism on rightward is not in that direction.”


Question: Are Jewish women as a group the canaries in the coal mine for Orthodox Judaism? Is the manner in which issues involving Jewish women are dealt—or, in the case of the agunah issue, pointedly ignored by the more right-wing elements of the Orthodox community—one of the hallmarks distinguishing much of the Orthodox community from the non-Orthodox community?

I invite your thoughts. As always, my only rule is that all comments be written in a respectful manner.

25 Comments:

Blogger westbankmama said...

With all due respect Shira, you have WAY too many generalizations in this post to lead to an intelligent discussion. What exactly is a "right wing Orthodox Rabbi"? How do you define "technology"? And saying that they Rabbis rule stringently about "women'????What exactly does that entail? Women compromise half of the population - when there are rulings about kashruth, Shabbat observance, etc. are we then not included? Are you referring just to the laws of family purity and mikva (where I know from personal experience that there are just as many times where a Rabbi will rule leniantly as stringently, if it is appropriate). Marriage? Mechitza? I think you need to specify your topic, or your discussion will degenerate into "those awfull blah-blah - they really hate women, etc." which is just not true.

Thu Nov 23, 01:52:00 AM 2006  
Blogger Neil Harris said...

Shira,
You are bringing up very good issues. Each topic is probably a posting in itself.
The Agunah issue is really a big problem, and each case is different.
Kashrus and technology are two different issues. One is Halacha and its practical application (the more recent prohibitions involving veggies).
Technology is more subjective. Everyone puts down tv, but if not for tv technology that gave us live broadcasting and video taping, we would have video from the Chofetz Chaim Her. Foundation on Tishav b'Av.

Thu Nov 23, 12:21:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Sheyna said...

If I may be so bold, I see (at least) two sides to the specific issue of (temporarily?) turning away from a major important issue (agunah) to focus on what may seem to be a relatively minor one (clothing).

Please bear with me for a moment. I live in a very diverse and low-crime neighborhood. Lately, my city and specifically my neighborhood have been targeted by street gangs moving in from Chicago, Detroit, and other large cities. Yet at the height of the gang violence and a spike in the city's murder rate, the police began to focus intently on graffiti.

Why? Because they understood that relatively minor issues like visible graffiti invited more serious crimes and would only ultimately contribute to the larger issue of violence.

What does this have to do with the treatment of women in stricter Orthodox practice? Just this: my city went about trying to protect the city from violence by becoming very hard-lined about graffiti. So what, exactly, are those who are becoming hard-lined about women's appearance and/or behavior trying to protect?

Are they really trying to protect their own power over women? Or is it something else? Perhaps a sense of control over what has been familiar and comfortable for a few hundred years in the face of a rapidly changing society? Perhaps a sense of security in their own idea of what the world should be like? Perhaps a combination? What is the "coal miner's life" that they are trying to protect or preserve?

I apologize for going on so long here... I'm not trying to hijack your blog - simply trying to refine the question. I think that if we can do that, we can either gain some understanding of "the other side of the mechitza" or craft a specific argument against that with which we disagree.

Thu Nov 23, 12:51:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

WBM, thanks so much for your feedback. I’m sorry that I wasn't clear enough.

The "right-wing Orthodox rabbis" whom I have in mind are those who promulgate what I (admittedly an outsider) see as right-wing rulings. Declaring foods that have been eaten by shomer-kashrut (kosher-law-observing) Jews literally for centuries to be no longer kosher strikes me as an excessively machmir (strict) ruling ( a chumra?), especially when one of the things declared treif is a necessity of life. Isn't there a ruling in halachah that one should not create a burden for the community? (I think the term is “tirchah d’tzibbur. Feel free to correct my limited Hebrew.) What could be a greater burden for the community than being forced to pay double for a necessity of life—water (in a bottle, or through a filter that you yourself must buy)—for which your taxes have already paid (water from the tap/faucet)?

Concerning technology, what’s at issue is anything that brings in the “outside world,” that is, communications and the media. Not only have television, movies, the Internet, and cell phones all come under attack by right-wing rabbis, as I said in my post, but also, in some communities, even radio, newspapers, and books from non-Orthodox sources are forbidden (assur). Some time back, an Orthodox blogger lamented that he couldn’t ask his local rabbi whether it was permissible for his son to see the local debut of Star Wars, Part 3 during Sefirah (a period of time between Pesach and Shavuot when many hold that entertainment should be limited) because his rabbi’s answer would have been, “An Orthodox Jew doesn’t watch movies,” which is to say that the question itself would have been considered “treif" (not kosher, not permissible).

Concerning women, I guess I’m as distressed as Rahel (cited in this post in a quote from Trep’s) about the obsession of some in the Orthodox community with what I describe as the “women as michshol” (women as a stumbling block leading to sin) attitude. Are issues of modesty (kol isha, “full-coverage” clothing) and the separation of men from women (both behind the mechitza during prayer, and, increasing, in some circles, even at the most innocent of social events) more important than the question of whether it’s permissible for women to control their own lives (agunah)?

Perhaps this exchange between Trep and me concerning the agunah issue, which I’m copying from his post, will help clarify what I see as an issue:

[Trep:] "Rabbis are not keen on breaking from tradition based on pressure from the non-halachic world. they usually have a knee-jerk reaction when this kind of pressure occurs. Most of the successful adaptions/evolutions of halacha to the modern world have come from within the halachic world, not from without."

[Me:] Since all women are prohibited, by all current Orthodox interpretations of halachah, from being rabbis, judges, and/or witnesses, are any and all attempts *by women themselves* to seek "adaptions/evolutions of halacha to the modern world," seen by the rabbinate as coming from outside of the halachic world by definition?”

Are women like canaries in a coal mine for some in the right-wing Orthodox community in that, by advocating for ourselves, and/or praying for ourselves, as groups, we remind the Chareidi rabbinate of the modern world from which they are trying to shield their part of the Jewish community? Why are Orthodox women’s groups seeking help in finding a solution to the agunah problem considered to be sources of outside pressure to such a degree that even rabbis who are among the supporters of efforts to free agunot feel that they must justify their actions as efforts to seek justice, *rather than* efforts to help women? Why are women’s Tehillim (Psalm) group and the “Amen” groups described here considered permissible for women, while women’s Tefillah groups are banned in some circles, as if it’s perfectly acceptable for women to recite blessings over food, or recite psalms, as a group, but a terrible sin if they recite the Sh’ma, a quote reminding us of G-d’s unity, in unison?

I hope I’ve made myself clearer.

Thu Nov 23, 12:55:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

Wow! In the time it took me to write what I hope is a reasonably clear response to WestBankMama's comment, two more people commented! I can't keep up with you folks! :) Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts.

Neil, I'm certainly not arguing about the Internet being a wonderful tool for teaching Torah. I've watched the Orthodox Union's Tisha B'Av webcast for several years, and I rely on their website for all manner of information. It's amazing what I learn about Jewish law and tradition, even from reading Jewish blogs. For example, before Shabbat last Friday, I printed out the OU's explanation of the 39 "m'lachot," types of work forbidden on the Sabbath (all 15 pages), and I learned the saying "dan l'chaf z'chut" from a sister blogger. But I still take issue with any declaration that water, a staple of life, could possibly not be kosher if it's pure enough to be safe to drink.

Sheyna, I think my point (and Rahel's, as well) is that "their own power over women" may be one of the things that gives right-wing Orthodox men a "sense of control over what has been familiar and comfortable for a few hundred years in the face of a rapidly changing society," and a sense of security in their own idea of what the world should be like." It's that sense of familiarity and comfort that may constitute some Chareidi man's "coal mine," and the unwillingness of some women to continue to submit to that control that constitutes the "canary." When women insist on controlling our own lives (with regard to the issue of marriage) and praying on our own occasionally as a group, we're like canaries who've ceased singing the accepted song, thereby indicating the presence of "too much modernity" in the "mine."

Thu Nov 23, 01:28:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

Lest my comment be misinterpreted, as it was on Trep’s post, let me make it clear that I have nothing but the highest regard for rabbis who are willing to go out on a limb in efforts to help free agunot. Kol hakavod! It's the fact that such rabbis catch so much flack for their efforts that upsets me. Why should anyone ever have to justify doing the right thing?

Thu Nov 23, 01:43:00 PM 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can't speak with much authority on these issues, because my experience with not-so-modern Orthodoxy has been limited to the past few months in a new city. (Before then I belonged to Conservative, Sephardic and aggressively "modern" Orthodox shuls, sometimes at the same time).

But in my VERY limited experience, these issues just haven't come up in my town (a mid-sized city with only one Orthodox shul other than Chabad).

So I can't help asking my fellow readers: do the issues Shira is talking about come up in Orthodox environments outside the largest Orthodox enclaves (i.e. NYC and environs in the United States)?

Sat Nov 25, 11:57:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

Conservadox, may you have a point: My opinion may be colored by my having lived in New York City for over 30 years and worked for an Orthodox Jewish organization for the past five of those years. What do you think, folks: Am I just being too NYCentric and/or too focused on what happens in major Jewish enclaves?

Sun Nov 26, 01:37:00 AM 2006  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

Sheyna, I think I sidestepped your point, to some extent. You said, "they understood that relatively minor issues . . . invited more serious crimes. . ." I think you were trying to say that the Chareidi men involved in the tzniut conference saw tight sweaters as as "gateway drug," so to speak, leading to further laxity in observance. That may very well be the case. It's just that many of us are not bonkers about their priorities. There's also the hasbara (public relations) issue involved. That anyone should think it more important that women dress in an even more modest fashion than that some of them are literally prisoners for life in dead marriages because their husbands refused to give them religious divorces simply boggles the mind. These gentleman don't seem to have even the slightest clue of the chillul hashem (desecration of G-d's name) that they've committed.

Sun Nov 26, 02:01:00 AM 2006  
Blogger Sheyna said...

Hi Shira,

Yes, that's what I was wondering, if they were trying to regulate clothing to prevent something "worse" from happening. Of course "worse" is up for intepretation.

I don't mean to say that there's a good excuse for this behavior. On the contrary, it seems to me that this sort of regulation betrays the view of women as possessions and not as fellow human beings, to be controlled as one might a dog on a leash. (Note to dog lovers: I'm not saying that dogs are possessions. In fact, dogs may be treated better in many homes than "chained women" are.)

That said, while the issue of agunot is huge and MUST be addressed, the issue of modesty in appearance and action is often at least as important to the women themselves as it is to the men. Is it brainwashing? Are these women saying they're okay with having a bunch of men judge their clothing? I don't know. We'd have to hear from the women, without fear of retribution against them for speaking their true thoughts and feelings.

We've had the clothing debate at our shul off and on, what's permissible, what's not. I find it interesting that the people complaining about modesty issues are all women.

But on the specific issue of an organization (one person?) cancelling a conference on agunot and replacing it with one on tsnius looks to me like grasping at straws (I actually read the article since my last posting - sorry I'm not up to date!). As if they're saying too many women are breaking from their leashes and so now they need electric shock collars (strict dress policy enforced by men) to keep them in their place.

Sun Nov 26, 07:23:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

Sheyna, that was pretty much my own reaction. It's not that tzniut (modesty) is unimportant--I blogged about the issue from my own viewpoint as a Conservative Jew here. It's just that, among some in the Chareidi community, it seems to dominate the conversation to the exclusion of issues that determine a woman's ability to control her own life.

Sun Nov 26, 08:24:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

. . . which is, perhaps, the point--to some among the Chareidim, women's efforts to control their own lives are, in themselves, a "too-much-modernity" warning, like a canary in a coal mine.

Sun Nov 26, 09:05:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Ezzie said...

Well, I finally have the time (and keyboard!) to try and start to comment. This may run a little long, sorry...

As I told you quickly, I disagree with your conclusion. Firstly, I'm a bit confused - are you putting Kashrut and Technology together with Women's issues seems strange.

Technology is the easiest. As technology progresses, each new method and item is far ahead of whatever we've had in the past. Everything can be used for both positive and negative. And while they may not like TV et al - and not without good reason, even if I may disagree - I've never seen people have issue with games - my charedi cousins in Israel love their Gameboy.

Kashrut is weird. As my FIL likes to say, "Anybody can be machmir. It takes someone who knows what they're talking about to be meikal." Basically, people are too either too lazy or not knowledgable enough and are scared of "doing something wrong", so they just say No No No. It's simply stupid (and wrong). As a note, though, there are issues with the items you mention, and we can't just ignore them even knowing we've eaten them for centuries. And while water may be "safe", the legal standards for "safe" aren't great. There was an issue recently where the city of Cleveland criticized Fiji water for having a certain amount of something (sorry). Cleveland water has 2 whatevers per whatever, while Fiji has 6 (Fiji claims they are under 1.5). The legal amount is 10. There *are* tiny copepods in the water here in NYC. Is it still safe? Yes. Are they still bugs? Yes. Are they a problem? Maybe. A filter, btw, is maybe $20 - not a huge tircha. (Or you could do as one rebbe I saw: He fills his glass, looks, says 'I don't see any bugs!', and takes a swig. :) )

As for women... yes, there are people who afraid of modernity. But don't your other examples show that it's not "always taken out on women"? As I wrote on the subject, I agreed strongly with Trep's (and other) posts on the tznius "asifah". But I agree with their points that the asifah should have included women, singles, etc. The actual points they made? Perfectly reasonable. All the women who I've spoken to on the subject seemed to agree completely. And, as someone noted above, women are generally more disturbed (and talk more) about tznius issues than men. (By a large margin, I should add.)

Should people be focusing on more serious issues? Yes. Should they ignore the smaller issues at the same time? No, especially when you include Shayna's point above. I remember arguing with my charedi cousin about certain chumros. Her belief is that by focusing the debates on issues of degree, you keep people from crossing the actual line. For example, tznius: By making the issue over whether women should or shouldn't have to wear socks/stockings, the issue is NOT going to be skirt length. (Not a great example, but hopefully you understand my point.)

Back to the main point: If anything, there are no canaries in the coal mine. Sadly, the approach is (all too often) that we simply close the coal mine 'just in case'.

Mon Nov 27, 11:11:00 AM 2006  
Blogger Noam S said...

looking at the comments, is obviously hard to leave a short answer.

Its hard to pick out a specific issue and discuss how a certain group addresses it without having a grasp of the underlying philosophy/halachic methodology of that group. If the group is consistant in its application of its method, one should be able to predict how it will respond to different topics and issues.

To grossly generalize, chareidim will err on the side of keeping things as they were. So, unless technology is clearly without downsides(and it isn't- internet porn, phone stuff, etc.) they will avoid it as much as possible, until it either becomes impossible(telephones in the house, running water, electricity) or has a very high benefit/risk ratio. same with kashrut and women's issues.

I would divide MO into two groups, those that are willing to re-examine basic issues and take socio-historical influence into account when looking at psak, and those who are not. Call them right and left wing if you want. right wing would be represented by YU and left wing by YCT and UTJ(although they do not define themselves as orthodox, for all intents and purposes they are).

Both groups of MO see benefit in science and technology, so the default position would be to use it and benefit from it, while the chareidi default would be not to use it unless it were shown to have more pluses than minuses. So there isn't a big difference among the MO groups regarding technology.

Women's issues are what really seperates right and left wing MO. In order to find halachic justification for WTG, women presidents of shuls, and many other issues important to women, one has to re-examine basic attitudes towards women and take into account historical-cultural issues, otherwise the weight of decisors amassed through the generations is against innovation on these issues. Some are willing to do this. Some are not. This is what divides R and L wing MO.

As far as kashrut, similar issues pertain. Chareidim err on the side of don't eat it unless you are 100% certain. Righ wing are comfortable with uncertainty within halacha. Left wing are willing to look at the specifics of halacha and allow more science into the equation. Ergo, different outcomes.

I dont think that the women's issues are so much removed from the others. It all stems from a philosophy and halachic viewpoint. However, the bottom line is that one can only call oneself Orthodox if one accepts the conclusion, no matter what it is, positive or negative, with "love and understanding."(to paraphrase R. Henkin when he came down against certain categories of kol isha.

Mon Nov 27, 01:22:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

Ezzie and Dilbert, thank you so much for your thoughtful responses. Unfortunately, I'm a bit wiped from tonight's synagogue board meeting, so please be patient--I'll try to respond tomorrow night, when I'm awake enough to write something reasonably intelligent.

Tue Nov 28, 12:08:00 AM 2006  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

Ezzie, I think the best way to describe the point of connection between kashrut, technology, and women’s issues would be to say that all three seem to be “gateway-drug” issues, gateways to modernity, or, as some might prefer to put it, siyag laTorah (“fence around the law,” to prevent accidental “trespassing,” that is, violations of the law) issues. Technology? Your Chareidi cousins may love their Gameboys, but meanwhile, back at a certain Midwestern branch of the Chafetz Chaim Yeshiva network, young men are still getting their MP3 players confiscated. Kashrut? If the bugs are so small that they can hide among the strawberry seeds, do they still count? Isn’t there some law (er, batel b’shishim?) that says that miniscule amounts don’t affect kashrut? I’m with that rebbe on the kashrut issue—if I can’t see the bugs without special training and/or a microscope, they “don’t exist” from a kashrut perspective. There’s the somewhat less obvious, but, from my perspective, much more important question of just how many healthy foods one can declare treif (non-kosher) without creating health problems. Broccoli happens to be one of the healthiest vegetables in existence, not only high in antioxidants for fighting cancer, but also one of the few high-calcium foods that we lactose-intolerant folks can eat. No rabbi alive or dead is ever going to convince me never again to eat broccoli for the rest of my life. As your FIL was saying, "Anybody can be machmir [strict]. It takes someone who knows what they're talking about to be meikal [lenient]."

I think we agree that the issue of modesty is important, but that the manner in which it was discussed was inappropriate. Neither women nor singles of either sex were included in the discussion, and the men were sent home with marching orders to tell “their” women how to dress, as if wives and teenage or adult daughters were nothing but overgrown children or obedient slaves. Is this, as Shayna and you suggested, a “nip-it-in-the-bud” maneuver? Probably. But the fact that skirt length was considered an appropriate subject for discussion while freedom for “chained wives” was not remains a serious issue.

Wed Nov 29, 12:46:00 AM 2006  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

Ezzie and Dilbert, old buddies old pals, I’m sorry to have to give you this not-so-subtle reminder, but please, have rachmones/rachmanut/mercy on those of us not blessed with a yeshiva education. I find myself in the rather unenviable position of having to explain the meaning of words that I’m not even sure I myself understand—did I do alright on “machmir” and “meikal”( meikil?)?— and to un-abbreviate all those acronyms. Even my husband didn’t know the meaning of WTG. For the benefit of my readers, here’s a handy-dandy vocabulary list:

MO: Modern Orthodox

Psak: (I’m probably out of my depth, here, but this is what I understand. Feel free to correct me.) A rabbi’s legal decision on a question of halacha/Jewish religious law.

YU: Yeshiva University, flagship institution of Modern Orthodox post-secondary religious and secular education in the United States.

YCT: Yeshiva Chovevei Torah, a left-wing Modern Orthodox rabbinical school. Many believe that it was founded as a response to the increasingly right-wing leanings of Yeshiva University’s rabbinical school, the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary (RIETS).

UTJ: Union for Traditional Judaism. The UTJ refuses to use any denominational label, but some consider the religious practice of its members to be indistinguishable from that of left-wing Modern Orthodox Jews.

WTG: Women’s Tefillah Group. A gathering of Orthodox women to pray, as a group, those parts of standard religious services that one is permitted to pray without a minyan—Kaddish, Barchu, and Kedushah are *omitted.* Some women’s Tefillah groups read from a Torah scroll, an even more controversial practice, even though brachot/blessings that are not permissible without a minyan are omitted.


Where was I before I so rudely interrupted myself? Oh, yes . . .

Wed Nov 29, 01:04:00 AM 2006  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

When it comes to technology and kashrut, ”To grossly generalize, chareidim will err on the side of keeping things as they were.” There you have it, folks: Chareidi Judaism explained while standing on one foot.

“I would divide MO into two groups, those that are willing to re-examine basic issues and take socio-historical influence into account when looking at psak, and those who are not. Call them right and left wing if you want.”

“Women's issues are what really seperates right and left wing MO. In order to find halachic justification for WTG, women presidents of shuls, and many other issues important to women, one has to re-examine basic attitudes towards women and take into account historical-cultural issues, otherwise the weight of decisors amassed through the generations is against innovation on these issues. Some are willing to do this. Some are not. This is what divides R and L wing MO.” And there you have Modern Orthodoxy explained while standing on one foot.

So women’s issues separate not only the Chareidim (and the slight-more-to-the-left Yeshivish) from the Modern Orthodox, but also the Modern Orthodox from the Modern Orthodox. Oy.

“I dont think that the women's issues are so much removed from the others. It all stems from a philosophy and halachic viewpoint. However, the bottom line is that one can only call oneself Orthodox if one accepts the conclusion, no matter what it is, positive or negative, with "love and understanding."(to paraphrase R. Henkin . . .”

The problem with what appears to be the current Chareidi approach is precisely that they don’t have any conclusion because they refuse even to begin the discussion. Either women are the canaries in the coal mine/Chareidi community, warning of “too much modernity,” or, alternatively, as Ezzie said, the Chareidim are so afraid of modernity that they’ve closed the coal mine/put half the community under house arrest—in the case of an agunah, that’s almost literal—just in case.

Wed Nov 29, 01:07:00 AM 2006  
Blogger Ezzie said...

Your Chareidi cousins may love their Gameboys, but meanwhile, back at a certain Midwestern branch of the Chafetz Chaim Yeshiva network, young men are still getting their MP3 players confiscated.

A certain Yeshiva I attended. And while I may disagree with them, the reasoning there is that they don't want guys listening to non-Jewish music. Guys are allowed to have stereos - they just can't listen on headphones. And who listens to MP3 players unless it's with a set of headphones?

In terms of Kashrut, that Rebbe is right. But the copepods CAN be seen without a microscope. His point is that he looks - if he doesn't see them, it IS fine.

Meanwhile... I think we're agreeing on everything. See my post on the modesty tailors. I'm just noting that these don't generally come with no basis or reason - we just disagree with them.

Sorry about the abbreviations. In posts, I try to always put them in. In comments, it disrupts the flow too much, and the people reading are generally those who are already familiar...

Conservative ideology in terms of religion *does* make a lot of sense, and often is the correct approach. The jumping into change that the Conservative and Reform movements did over the past 100 years or so were - according to Orthodox ideology - wrong, and seriously hurt religious Judaism. They're correct in this as well if one uses the simplest method of measurement, which the Orthodox usually do: People identifying themselves as Jewish in future generations.

I may agree with you that in many cases, this goes too far, but this conservative approach does - by and large - work.

Wed Nov 29, 03:07:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

Ezzie, half the fun of writing that "Midwest yeshiva" bit was knowing that you'd been a student there. :)

I'll response further tomorrow night, when there's a chance that I might be awake enough to say something intelligent. I went to a concert at Makor tonight (er, last night?), and am up way past my bedtime.

Thu Nov 30, 01:29:00 AM 2006  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

"The jumping into change that the Conservative and Reform movements did over the past 100 years or so were - according to Orthodox ideology - wrong, and seriously hurt religious Judaism. They're correct in this as well if one uses the simplest method of measurement, which the Orthodox usually do: People identifying themselves as Jewish in future generations."

I suppose that my take on this would be that neither Orthodox nor non-Orthodox Judaism has really worked out the kinks on how to have a religion that evolves at a reasonable pace to deal with new and/or critical issues. A movement that evolves too quickly loses the "future generations" battle, as you said. For example, I just can't accept the idea that a non-Orthodox rabbinical student would publish a blog post on Shabbat Yom Tov. (Yep, I saw this with my own eyes.) If one's standards are that "open," folks are bound to wander off the not-so-clear "derech"/path and be lost to Judaism altogether. On the other hand, a movement that moves too slowly loses people who aren't willing to wait three or four generations, or more, for progress. The agunah issue is the classic illustration of a problem that's taken Orthodox Judaism way too long to deal with. This issue has been around for well over 2,000 years, and there's still no solution in sight.

Conservative Judaism was supposed to have been the answer--a movement that evolved, but at a reasonable pace, and with respect for halacha/Jewish law. I don't think it's worked out quite that way. There's an old joke that a Conservative synagogue is a synagogue whose rabbi is Orthodox and whose congregants are Reform. Since that's a fairly accurate description of my own synagogue, I'll say no more.

Fri Dec 01, 12:33:00 AM 2006  
Blogger Ezzie said...

...but that's not all quite true. As much as people get annoyed with how issues are not dealt with, you don't see people flocking from Orthodoxy because of the agunah issue. Instead, they're upset, but not running away.

Judaism is still trying to find that 'right balance'. (Oooh, I could write posts on this!) Modern Orthodoxy thought Charedi ideology was too closed; Charedim thought MO was too open. Both were right. Now we're seeing a slight recovery to the center, even as we do see the nutjobs on the right and the uncaring on the left. We'll see what happens...

Fri Dec 01, 03:07:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

Okay, Ezzie, maybe people aren't exactly leaving Orthodox over the agunah issue specifically. On the other hand, I can't tell you the number of women whom I've met over the course of my lifetime who left the Orthodoxy in which they'd been raised because of the limitations Orthodoxy imposed on their participation in public ritual. If anything, that problem has gotten worse within the past decade or so, as entire communities have been forbidden to hold women's Tefillah groups, which were gaining popularity in the 1970s and were specifically intended to provide an outlet for women's participation *within* the rules of Orthodoxy. Personally, I think that rabbis who forbid women’s Tefillah groups are shooting Orthodoxy in the foot.

“Judaism is still trying to find that 'right balance'. (Oooh, I could write posts on this!)” Please do! I’d be very interested in seeing what you have to say on the subject.

Sun Dec 03, 01:44:00 AM 2006  
Blogger Ezzie said...

BeyondBT already did, though, today. :) (Well, on one aspect of it, anyway.)

Mon Dec 04, 11:52:00 AM 2006  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

Thanks for the tip, Ezzie. I'll check it out.

Mon Dec 04, 11:09:00 PM 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home

<< List
Jewish Bloggers
Join >>