Welcome to TheCollegeRabbi.com

birthright adAre you a Jewish college student? Do you feel disconnected from the Jewish community? Is the Jewish community on your campus too small? Is there a large Jewish Student Union but it’s just “not your scene”?

Maybe you run the show. You’re a small Jewish college community that would like to provide more from their students, but just don’t have the resources.

I’m here for you. I am the College Rabbi and I can provide the Jewish resources you need. I’m here to answer questions, provide resources, and just to talk to if you need.

Feel free to surf the pages of this site. Also, enjoy the blog!

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Self Destruction Through Entitlement

Getting garbage jobs is a rite of passage.  Everyone I know who is somebody began as a nobody, making little or even no money in their first jobs.  Before you can make serious money, you have to prove to an employer that you’re worth it.

That’s why I was absolutely horrified by this article in The Dartmouth about students complaining about the poor pay associated with internships, and trying to make the case that it’s in everyone’s interest to throw money at students so that they can intern.   They seem to miss the entire point of interning, and why it’s not a waste of resources for the company.  The irony of complaining was also completely lost on them, since they seem to believe Conde Nast deserved to be sued for paying their interns only one dollar, which in turn caused them to close down their intern program entirely.

Millenials may not want to hear this, but graduating from a university does not make you instantly qualified to run a company.  Adarabah (quite the contrary).  According to many reports, and my own experience, millenials are in fact the worse prepared to enter the workforce.    Internships give companies a unique opportunity to sift through the chaff to find good people to invest their time and capital in while at the same time giving back to the community.  Companies get to fulIn turn, students gain something they absolutely cannot attain inside the four walls of the classroom.  It’s a win-win situation

Posted in current events, personal, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments

I Didn’t Want to Touch Abortion But…

Unfortunately one of my colleagues in the pastoral world decided the 24th of December, an auspicious day for around 1/5 of the world’s population, was also an auspicious day to misrepresent the Jewish view on one of the most sensitive hot-button issues of the day: abortion.  What I mean by misrepresent is he takes his neo Aristotelean values about human life (or lack of value thereof), and ham fists a number of classical Jewish legal sources to justify his view.  The fact that he doesn’t quote any contemporary authorities should tell any reader something is very wrong with this piece.

I anticipated that R’ Shmuly Yanklowitz would take this position, given his fundamentally non-Jewish outlook on what defines life.   In addition to his equation of human and animal life, he adds a new element to his assessment of whether a fetus has a fundamental right to come into this world: science.  This is a terrible error on two counts.  First, scientists themselves disagree on what constitutes life, as is evidenced by the debate over whether viruses are actually alive or not.  Second, and much more important, is science axiomatically rejects the existence of a soul since it is impossible to empirically test for one.  Since science fundamentally lacks explanatory power in this regard, he shouldn’t be appealing to it.  He should look to what Jewish sources say, considering the fact that he’s representing himself as a rabbi and authority in Jewish law and ethics.

So let’s look at what Judaism actually has to say about this issue*.  First of all, Judaism bases the value of a human life based on the fact that people were created in the image of G-d (Gn. 1:26).  Judaism even prohibits the wasting of seed, as is evidenced in the story of Er and Onan (Gn. 38:3-10), and a woman proverbially ‘sits shiva’ (undergoes a seven-day mourning period) for her unfertilized ovum each month (Lv. 15:19).  To claim that a fertilized zygote is less of a living thing that its component parts is preposterous.   Judaism views abortion as prohibited with certain leniencies, not permitted with certain restrictions as R’ Yanklowitz would have you believe.  The only question among our authorities is what prohibition it falls under.  Rav Moshe Feinstein maintained it actually fell under the rubric of murder.  One opinion whose name I am blanking on believed it is learned out from a man causing a woman to miscarry while fighting (Ex. 21:22).  The Siridei Aish learns it from the prohibition to injure oneself.   How none of these opinions were even mentioned in this article is beyond me.

This piece is so utterly irresponsible.  People look to rabbis to provide moral guidance, not rubber stamp their behavior.  If any place was a place to take a strong stand, it was here.  R’ Yanklowitz has misrepresented Judaism and failed his readers in the process.

*I am not claiming to be an authority on medical ethics by any stretch.  My knowledge of the topic of abortion is based on a class I took with Rav Mordechai Willig shlita of Yeshiva University.

Posted in current events, Jewish law, nomorethodoxy, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 5 Comments

A Nonsense Approach to Psak

One of the defining features of Judaism is the fact that is action-oriented, and the actions are enshrined in codes of law.  The process by which Jewish law is decided is called psak, literally stating the conclusion of a search through the body of authoritative Jewish judicial material.  This material includes Tanakh (Bible), Mishnah, Talmud, Midrashim, and later Rabbinic authorities.  The rabbi goes through this body of material and tells the person asking what to do the appropriate action.  The reason that the person listens to the rabbi is because he is acting with the authority of the Torah, and the reason the Torah is authoritative is because it is the word of G-d as transmitted to the entire Jewish people on Mount Sinai 3,300+ years ago.

So when read R’ Ysoscher’s article defending his recent article on changing the procedure for ritual immersion in the mikveh for the purposes of conversion, I was left scratching my head.  One thing that’s very clear he that he does not believe the Mesorah (Jewish tradition) is the immutable word of G-d.  If he did, he would never even raise the possibility of changing Jewish law based on non-Jewish morality, much less leaving it open to constant revision based on the whims of the day.  Clearly, he believes morality to be progressive, but fails to even entertain the possibly that progressive morality may be progressing off of a cliff.  The Torah accepts the fact that morality is purely a function of the Divine Imperative as axiomatic, and an approach to psak that operates under different premises simply isn’t psak.

But I want to take this from the opposite angle than most of my colleagues.  Even though he wants to take a more tzanua (modest) approach to allow converts to immerse in the mikveh without being directly witnessed, this isn’t completely tzanua.  Why is he requiring this backward ritual at all and putting the prospective convert through the dignity?  How dare he treat non-Jews as dirty!  If he doesn’t assume the Torah is the source of right and wrong, where is he getting his concept of morality from?  From secular Western culture?  Why is that authoritative?  He gives no reason, or any particular reason to believe that his acceptance of secular Western morality as a trump to Torah as anything but following his conscience.  This is no good as a source of morality, and certainly not psak.  We all know that different people’s consciences tell them different things, especially about the controversial issues, and therefore could never be the basis for something as objective as psak.

R’ Katz’ psak isn’t heretical or blasphemous.  It’s nonsensical pure and simple.  He wants to make legal rulings based on sources he casts aspersions on in the very article he uses to defend his methodology!  Who ever heard of such a thing?

Posted in Jewish law, nomorethodoxy, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Why Me, Inc. is not a 501(c)(3)

I’m finding Me, Inc. to be an enjoyable read, and while I’d like to finish it I think for my purposes I’ve read enough to say what I have to say.  I have little to offer in the way of critique of the business aspects of the book, since Gene is rolling in it and it appears that if I went in the funeral business people would stop dying.  Actually, in many ways our business philosophies are quite similar, especially about the philanthropic issue.  He must be familiar with the Rambam’s (Maimonides) statement that the highest form of charity is helping someone become self-sufficient.  I hope in the next 10 years I’m able to catch up at least a little bit.

What concerns me (big surprise) is the Jewish theme, which pops up a lot more than I would have thought before having actually met Gene.  Post book signing, actually not at all.  I stood on line to meet a rock star and I met a Jew, a proud Jew who was happy to speak to an Orthodox Jew for almost 2 minutes in Hebrew, and at least part of the conversation to mention proudly that he learned in Yeshivat Torah v’Da’at.  Understanding Gene’s Judaism is very important to understanding Gene’s philosophy on life, particularly when it relates to business.

I’m going to do something I almost never do when I write, which is switch to second person.  I don’t think it’s any secret that I am writing this with the intention that Gene should read it, and Gene, I think you’d appreciate the sentiment that if someone has something to say to you, they should say it to your face.   So Gene, this is how I understand your philosophy on life. I’d say the number one issue I have with your book is your view on education.  It’s the view of a fifth grader.  Why do I say fifth grader?  Because that’s when you left yeshiva.  While you may have your share of diplomas and degrees on the wall, your fundamental attitude toward education isn’t Jewish.  While I agree with you that education should prepare you for the working world, and I have taken this side of the argument, education is about a lot more than that, a lot more that can be quantified with dollars and cents.  Education should improve your metacognitive skills, appreciation of learning, and moral/ethical refinement.  Whether or not it’s currently doing that…

I want to go further with this point.  You claim that anything you can learn in school you can be self-taught, on the job, no experience necessary.  This may be true, to a point.  There are levels of perfection and refinement that can’t be achieved through self study.  Several times in your book you mention your ability to debate believers based on your having read certain texts.  I think you’d find those of us with serious theological backgrounds, especially those of us with a few years in the beit midrash (upper level yeshiva study,) to be a lot more challenging.  Let’s even talk about music.  You cite a number of musicians, including yourself, with no formal musical training, who have been commercially successful.  This may be true, but your self-study crowd is not producing the next Pavarotti or Yo Yo Ma, or any composers the likes of Mozart or Tchaikovsky.   Do you know there are bass guitar players in the rock world that use a pick?   A pick Gene!!!

I did notice you also got two digs in on Shabbat, so I’d like to address your understanding of vacations, particularly of religious days of rest. First off, none other than the Rambam (Maimonides) quotes Shabbat as being a mitzvah that is inherently logical, just that the specifics of how Jews fulfill it are not.   Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi in the Kuzari also quotes the King of the Khazars (or possibly puts in his mouth) who praises the Torah for giving the Jews 1/6 of the year for rest (including holidays), which he says is a proper balance.  In short, people are not animals and were not meant to work like them, and the workaholic lifestyle is for an extreme view.  The fact that you actually offered some praise for the working conditions of the 1800′s just blew my mind, considering the systematic abuse of its workers that it involved.

Secondly, it is clear that the message ‘Shabbat is a day on, not a day off’ was not properly communicated to you during your time in yeshiva, which is very sad.  Given, it’s not a day to make money.  Rather, it’s a day to earn reward for the Next World, the one that comes after you die and other people get all the money you worked so hard to accumulate.  While many people even in the observant community miss this point, it is nonetheless the point of Shabbat to focus one’s attention away from the mundane and toward the holy, at least in part for preparing for the inevitable.   And I know you recognize this inevitability; you sell coffins for G-d’s sake!

While we’re on the topic of reorienting priorities, I really have to mention your attitude about family, though I could not really do it justice.  What I would have to write would be sufficiently scathing and personal that I couldn’t do a proper write-up without explicit permission.  That being said, I’d like to make one point. I think you recognize, as the sane world does, that you can’t put a price tag on family.  You wouldn’t trade either of your kids for a billion dollars, and you wouldn’t hesitate to go into bankruptcy to save one of their lives.  So why would you advocate something different for others?  I would suggest you rewrite the budgeting section that your young entrepreneurs budget for a significant other and AT LEAST one shorty by the end of theirs 20′s, so that they actually can enjoy them rather than being too old to run around chasing around kiddies.

The last point I’d like to address, but arguably the most important, is your attitude toward outward expressions of religion.  I touched on the point before, but taking a lesson from your book, I’m going to pound it home.  Religion is not a regular activity or a way to kill time.  It’s not simply an entertainment industry, although as you aptly point out it does have aspects of the entertainment industry, especially the way it’s practiced in America.  Religion is what explains the big questions in life.  It has the explanatory power science lacks.  The only inconvenience of course is with that explanatory power comes obligation; not a waste of time, but obligation. Therefore, to say it should be pushed aside as an impediment to material success is bad advice indeed.  I’m not saying you are wrong that religious expression makes it more difficult to find work.  I can tell you from experience that it is absolutely true.  However, it has gotten much better.  Tim Tebow kneeled in prayer on the field.  Matisyahu, Shyne, Mayim Bialik, and Ben Shapiro either are or were outwardly expressive Orthodox Jews who did not compromise their religious brand for their product brand.  Tim Uppal did not shave or remove his turban to become Canada’s Minister of State for Multiculturalism

And here comes my real point: you could have been part of that, and you could have helped advance it way further than where it is now.  You are one of those rare personalities that takes over a room and a drive to do whatever you want, almost literally.  However, while you were directing your energies toward material gain, there were all the quiet Rosa Parks, or maybe Steven Hills I should say,  out there making changes in society to make being religious and/or ethnic more acceptable.  In the 1980′s, Jews who worked for law and accounting firms had to take their kippot off their heads.  Now find a law or accounting firm, at least ones with a branch in New York, that doesn’t have a Jew with a kippah.  Similar accommodations have been made for people of all faith groups because of those brave labor suppliers that made employers reexamine what might simply be distasteful (peyot, turbans) and what might actually reflect negatively on the candidate (ink, plugs).

So, in short, why isn’t Me, Inc. a 501(c)(3)?  Because there is a fundamental lack of recognition of a world beyond the physical.  Gene has some very deep philosophical questions about the world, but seeing as his yeshiva education ended in 5th grade, so did his trek through the massive body of Rabbinic material dealing with those issues.  With that lack of knowledge comes a lack of appreciation of those things that can’t be quantified on a balance sheet.  While I do find it sad, I can’t blame him given my knowledge of his background.  I do hope this piece challenges some of his conceptions though.

UPDATE:  While I already said the relationship portion requires its own, extensive article, I did finish the book, including the piece on Women Entrepreneurs.  I was sufficiently horrified that I decided to chime in with this piece of wisdom about reading the book.  I couldn’t believe Gene could had such a negative attitude toward child rearing and family until I figured out how he understands wives and children, and the marriage relationship.  Unlike Judaism, which understands the marriage relationship as a partnership and the children as capital assets currently in R&D, he understands himself to be a sole proprietor, with a wife and kids being little more than recurring expenses, ignoring the emotional aspect of course.  This isn’t a surprise given the fact that Gene’s business model is Me, Inc., great for a sole proprietorship and a recipe for disaster for a partnership.  It’s like an old Navy chaplain explained to me: the organization that is successful on a Navy boat would get a Marines platoon killed, and the organization that works for a Marines platoon would cause mutiny on a ship.

Posted in Book Review, current events, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Difference Between Peshat and Midrash

I want to thank an old-time blogger by the name of DovBear for inspiring this post.  We had gotten into a Twitter discussion about whether or not the Rabbis had hijacked the literal meaning of the text (peshat) in favor of non-literal exegesis (midrash) and were using the latter to replace the former.  I realized that many people confuse these terms, and therefore some clarification is needed.

The first thing to understand is that the Rabbis have designated for types of understanding of the text, by the acronym PaRDeS.  To a certain extent there are times that the lines between each category become fuzzy, so I will do my best to describe the categories as succinctly and accurately as possible:

  • Peshat: the literal or simple meaning of the text, which we will soon see can be neither simple or directly literal
  • Remez: literally hint, a subtle layer of meaning added to the text often created by abstract linking of texts or concepts, such as linking the numerical values of words (gematria)
  • Derash: translated as exegesis, this often deviates from the literal meaning to convey some coded moral lesson or overarching principle.  Derash is arrived at using hermeneutical principles of which there are many.
  • Sod: otherwise known as Kabbalah, this is a completely abstract understanding of the texts using a knowledge base and exegetical rules that for the most part is only utilized by very advanced scholars.  It is used to convey very deep ideas very succinctly, often in a way that laymen should not be able to understand.

For the purposes of this piece I will focus on peshat and derash and really I would like to focus on peshat.  Peshat, the “simple meaning” is actually composed of four different components: general, literary, historical, and exegetical.  General context means that the verse or passage is part of a longer narrative.  Literary context is the specific wording of the passage.  Historical context is the context that a particular work was written at a particular time period and that affects how the text should be understood.  Exegetical context would be the underlying philosophy or assumptions made by the author, or that the reader superimposes on the author’s intent.

As much as I have tried to give a definition, it is really best to illustrate with examples.  Now when we think of peshat, we think of something simple like when the Torah says don’t eat pig, then it means no luaus.  But lets take a more complex passage like Isaiah 53.  Isaiah 53 will illustrate my point very well.  The original text can be found here, but a summary of the verses is that there are a group of people who are watching how a lowly, unlikeable person demonstrated their greatness before the world.  Now, anyone reading this passage knows very well this is not just some random guy.  The general context is that the passage comes from the book of Isaiah, which is a prophetic work, and it is a parable for something else.  The literary context is that it is part of a much longer prophecy that starts in Isaiah 40 and basically continues to the end of the book.  The historical context is that it is being written in the days of King Hizkiyahu (Hezekiah).  The exegetical context is the source of a raging debate between Jews and Christians, but after a full workup it is clear that the real peshat, literal reading of the text, is it is speaking about the Jews.  An in-depth treatment can be found here.

Unlike peshat, midrash is not beholden to the literal meaning of the verse in the same way.  The example that comes to mind is this the following mahloket:

“And the frog came up, and it covered the land of Egypt” …Rabbi Akiva said, there was one frog, which then multiplied all over the land of Egypt. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said, Akiva, Why do you involve yourself with aggadata? Finish with your words and go to study nega’im and ohelos. There was one frog, it called to the others, and they came. (Talmud, Sanhedrin 67b; Midrash Shemos Rabbah 10:5; Yalkut Shimoni Shemos 8:183) (sic)

Here it is apparent that the literal meaning doesn’t matter.  Ribi Elazar ben Azarya doesn’t criticize Ribi Akiva for being wrong, but rather criticizes is derash skills.  They both point to a specific odd word, and come up with fanciful ideas that communicate a deeper message, such as the stubbornness of the Egyptians as the continued to hit the frog even as that spawned more frogs.

Here’s another example: the Gemara in Berachot 54b says that Moshe, who was fifteen feet* tall and had a fifteen-foot staff, jumped fifteen feet high to hit King Og of Bashan in the shins to get him to drop a mountain on his head.  While this seems to be taken literally since the Shulhan Arukh says to make a blessing for a miracle when passing the spot that this happened, there seems to be something else going on here.  If Moshe had to jump 45 feet in the air to hit Og’s ankle, that would easily make Og over 300 feet tall!  Another Midrash (Pirke Ribi Eliezer Ch. 13) says that Og hung onto the outside of Noah’s Ark was about 500 feet, which clearly would have capsized the boat.   Something else is going on here, and since both are accepted as being equally true it is pretty clear either one or both are not meant to be read literally.

Now, let’s take a different example, the one we were discussing.  According to the book of Bereshit (Genesis), after Sarah dies Avraham takes a new wife by the name of Keturah.  Rashi, the classic medieval Rabbinic commentator, identifies Keturah as being Hagar, Avraham’s concubine that Sarah had given him to have children with and was thrown out of the house with her son Yishmael because of Yishmael deviant behavior.   DovBear wanted to say this was a case of the Rabbis throwing out peshat.  Not so fast.  Let’s look at what might be causing Rashi to say this:

1.  We don’t know who Keturah is or why Avraham would marry her.  We know why he married his first two wives, so this comes as a surprise.

2. Avraham sends his servant Eliezer to find a wife for his son Yitzhak in Syria, back where his family originated from.  He forbid Eliezer from taking one of the local Canaanite women for his son.  Something doesn’t seem right if a Canaanite woman was not good enough for his son but was okay for him.  So then where did this woman come from?

3. Rashi may or may not have had a tradition that the descendants of Keturah such as Midian considered themselves full brothers with the Yishmaelites instead of half-brothers.  This is purely speculative and of course there are not Midianites to ask since they have all been long killed out.  Nonetheless, when trying to figure out what the text is saying, it is these types of things that need to be taken into consideration.

It could be that Rashi’s explanation is not meant to be literal, or it is an honest attempt to figure out who a random person is in Tanakh.  Either way, this is the difference.


*1 1/2 feet is a very loose approximation of the unit amah, literally on arm’s length

Posted in countermissionary, nomorethodoxy, torah portion, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Slamming the RCA: Never Let a Scandal Go To Waste!

I was shocked and appalled when I first read about the recent scandal concerning one of my colleagues in the RCA in the Forward.  I even feel a little stupid because I had met him on one occasion and while I found him to be a bit gruff, I really thought he was a straight shooter and an upright guy.  I don’t appreciate getting taken, which would in fact be the case should he be found guilty of the disgusting crimes he is charged with.  So, I’ve tried to stay away from writing anything about it, at least until someone crossed a line where it couldn’t be avoided anymore.

R’ Josh Yuter, a fellow RCA member, has crossed such a line.  The accusation that the actions of one person, who to the credit of the RCA was dealt with swiftly and decidedly, undermines the entire organization and the credibility of GPS, the RCA’s conversion division, is absurd on one hand and dangerously misleading on another.  He uses the fuzzy math that two scandals in the past year among the many fine rabbis involved with GPS represents an 18% corruption rate because they happen to be from different circuits, and assumes there’s even more going on, borders on libel.  The accusation that the RCA and other rabbis are acting based on their gut without consideration of halacha or citation of facts on the ground outright jumps the fence.

The halachic reality that GPS and the Chief Rabbi’s strict position regarding conversion policies is not without precedent, and certainly not without warrant.  The Gemara in Avodah Zarah 3b says that converts were not accepted AT ALL during the times of Kings David and Solomon because the Jews were at their prime and converts were assumed to be insincere.  We live in very unusual times and the kashrut of gerim, or the Jewish status of anyone for that matter, is becoming all the more difficult to ascertain.  Who would have thought that a billionaire’s daughter or the daughter of a president would even consider conversion?  There are members of the Hebrew Roots movement who wear Hassidic dress and eat pig in non-kosher restaurants with a cross around their neck.  Forget about what the Reform and Conservative movements have done to undermine Jewish status.

But what about Orthodox rabbis?  Can they all be trusted?  Well, let’s take for example the author of the article himself.  He makes the claim that GPS goes way beyond halacha and is in fact detached from what Jewish authorities have previously said about conversion.  According to his article on conversion, the only requirement for people doing the conversion is that they be kesherim, fitting people, which he defines as “observant Jews in good standing.  He quotes the Rambam Issurei Biah 13:17, Shulhan Aruch Y.D. 268:3, and Aruch Hashulchan.  I don’t have an Aruch Hashulchan in front of me, but I do have a Rambam and a Sh”A.  The Rambam does not say kesherim but rather hediot, which is a massive discussion in Masechet Sanhedrin what constitutes a hediot (regular judge).  However, Maran makes it very clear that only someone kosher TO JUDGE!  There are only three explanations for this egregious mistake: R’ Yuter can’t read the halacha for himself and had to find out from someone else, can but just didn’t bother and relied on hearsay, or actually read the halacha but willfully misrepresented it to advance an agenda.  How am I or any casual observer supposed to feel comfortable with any random group of rabbis who start a conversion factory?

But there’s much more to the issue, because not only is it about criticizing the RCA’s conversion policy, it’s attempting to turn an unfortunate series of events into a left-right power struggle in the Orthodox world.  Since he went there, I guess I will have to address that too.  What is the difference between someone who violates the code of ethics (and neither R’ Freundel nor R’ Broyde were hardly right-wingers despite R’ Yuter’s suggestion to that effect) and what is going on with the radical elements in Modern Orthodoxy. R’ Freudel and R’ Broyde’s indiscretions were lapses in judgement and giving in to the worst aspects of human nature.  However, neither they nor the RCA is making any excuse for their behavior because it is universally acknowledged as unacceptable behavior.  There’s really nothing more to be said but to remove them from their posts of power and let the external powers (police etc…) do what they need to do.  End of story.  The violations of the extremist camp are not indiscretions but rather deliberate efforts to alter Jewish law and belief in ways that are completely inconsistent with the mesorah (Jewish tradition).  Indeed, it is safe to say that a number of these individuals are Orthodox no more.  Furthermore, when they don’t get their way working within the system, they will often run to non-religious and non-Jewish outlets to exert external pressure on the mainstream Orthodox community, a much more massive chillul Hashem than any one scandal, no matter how bad, could ever be.

I understand the frustration of converts with being not being accepted by the community, with being burdened with what may seem like insurmountable obstacles.  I understand the frustration of individual rabbis who feel like their power and influence is being stripped away by bureaucratic bodies.  What I don’t understand is taking a terrible scandal, in which many people were hurt, and using it to manipulate the system in order to advance an agenda.  To work to remove menuvalim from positions of power is a noble task.  To undermine halacha and control of Jewish personal status is just messed up.

Posted in current events, nomorethodoxy, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Savage, Learn About Your Religion!

A major problem that I’ve noticed with people with advanced degrees is they will speak about just about any topic with authority despite having very limited knowledge of the subject. Yesterday afternoon, Michael Savage really stepped in it.  I understand that many secular people want to equate all religions as being backwards and having skewed moral values and often see the ancient religious texts as sucking people back into the past.  However, his attempt to equate Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) and the Quran was completely inaccurate and demonstrated his utter lack of knowledge of Tanakh and Jewish tradition in general.  I’m not looking to turn this article into a Quran hate fest but only to vindicate my own tradition, and I will leave Muslim apologists to defend their own faith.

The major diatribe that prodded me to write this piece is Michael Savage’s statement that a verse in Isaiah is the source of Jewish polygyny and that Tanakh advocates for it.  Wrong and wrong.  Avraham (Abraham), Yaakov (Jacob) in the book of Genesis, Gidon (Gideon) in the book of Judges, Elkanah and David in the book of Samuel, and Shlomo (Solomon) in the book of Kings all had multiple wives.  Polygyny is also discussed in Deuteronomy 21:10-21.  None of these incidents make polygyny look glorious or desirable.  Indeed the verse he quotes, Is. 4:1, which is part of a much larger prophecy and only looks positive because it is found at the beginning of a chapter, an artificial creation of Christian publishers that has no source in Jewish tradition.  It happens to be part of a curse started in chapter 3.  Polygyny is a social construct that existed to protect women inside the institution of marriage and to assist with procreation.  The attitude of the Tanakh is fairly clear: it was a sometimes necessarily evil but certainly not a glorious institution.  See this article by Dr. Marc Goldfeder for further study.

The issue of sexual morality is misunderstood and obviously the most quickly demonized.  Of course, Dr. Savage should have taken a little time to look into the issue before denouncing it on air.  Yes, there are a variety of Biblical offenses beside murder that entail the death penalty.  Such was, and in some places is, normal in other societies, something he is quick to point out and thus equate.  What he doesn’t mention is the standard of proof to execute someone.  Receiving the death penalty in Biblical law requires the testimony of two witnesses that warned the perpetrator during the offending act.  The Mishnah in Makkot says a court that sentences a person to death once in seven years is a bloody court, and Ribi Elazar ben Azaria once in seventy years.  Judaism’s general attitude, which is the Biblical attitude, is that sins committed in private are between the person and G-d.*   Nonetheless, the Bible does state that sexual behavior can be regulated, as do many societies including the U.S.   The Bible’s regulations do not make it more backward.  Rather, it is an issue open for debate which behaviors should or should not be permitted in a civil society, if both sides wish to be intellectually honest.

Finally, there is the issue of violence, or specifically warfare.  The fact is that the Bible, and therefore Judaism, has no concept of conversion by the sword.  Yes, the Bible discusses wars that the Jews entered into.  The wars in the Bible have to do with two things: existential survival or territorial rights/competition for limited resources.  Unless you are willing to say that no war should ever be conducted, even in these cases, then the Jews should not be condemned for the wars we engaged in during the Biblical period.  The issue is obviously more complicated, as are any of the moral issues involving war.  The point is simply that one should not simplify the issues just because the Bible is a religious text.

I sincerely hope Dr. Savage takes some time to become acquainted with his tradition, and not to just write the Bible off just because it was written before Einstein and Sartre.  I’m very sorry, but even radio hosts need to be familiar with the relevant issues before they go off on something in public.


Posted in current events, philosophical pieces, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Coming Full Circle With Gene

If you had told me last year I’d be standing in line at a book signing, for anyone, I’d tell you that you were out of your mind.  Here I am, KISSing it up.  I was never a KISS fan but over the past few months I’ve become a fan of Gene.  His music is growing on me, but that’s not the reason.  His behavior?  No comment.  The thing about Gene I like, and I relate to, is he says exactly what’s on his mind and pulls no punches.  And he what is says is clearly what he believes and not just for shock value.

There clearly is more to it though, and it’s not just the circumstances that ended up pulling me into KISS world.  Some people may be surprised, some not, but it is the Jew thing.  He’s a very proud Jew and seemed genuinely happy to see someone with a lid at the book signing.  I’m about 25-30% that he knew who I was before I introduced myself, and he was STILL happy to see me.  He, not I, started with the Hebrew and he davka wanted to my Hebrew name.  Hebrew though is a small part of it.  He also proudly told me that he had gone to Yeshivat Torah vDa’at and knew the Rosh HaYeshiva Rav Avraham Yaakov Pam zt”l.  He even said he would read my pieces, but we’ll see.

I have to wonder as a rabbi what would been had Gene been in the yeshiva system now, with real teachers with real education backgrounds teaching him instead of old Holocaust survivors who were the only teachers yeshivot could find after the war since no one in America knew how to learn (study the Talmud and commentaries) at the time.  Do I think he would have been a rabbi?  No.  But businessmen can also inherit the World to Come.  What I do think is he would have been a much more active member of the Jewish community, and there are many of his insights that the Jewish community could sorely use.  I also think he may have engaged his ruchniut (spiritual side) more and possibly his gashmiut (physical side) less.  Who knows.   What I know, what I saw, is Chaim Witz, the person buried most of the time under Gene Simmons, but buried with a thin layer of soil.

Gene, it was a pleasure.  I do hope we get to meet up again and have deep intellectual conversations.  In the meantime I’m backlogged on one book review before I get to yours, but I will get there.  As you astutely pointed out in your book as I glanced through, religion is a business too, and I have what to learn from you.

!?!?אבל דבר אחד: מכנסי עור? באמת  #smdh

Posted in current events, personal, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Defending a Critique: The Continuing Saga of Social Media Class

I’d like to thank Dr. Vickery for continuing the conversation and addressing the critique of a particular piece of content (not attack which would personal as opposed to academic).  While she makes many points worthy of addressing unfortunately I will not able to address them all.

Before I begin I would like to address how our interactions came to be.  After a pleasant conversation about the Rambam, we followed each other.  At some point she unfollowed me, perhaps due to an error of following me in the first place, but nonetheless at some point there was reciprocity in this Twitter encounter and there was enough interesting information coming across the feed that I continued to follow even when I realized I was no longer being followed back.  Now there seems to be a misunderstanding about exactly how events transpired, which we can either clarify by scrolling through every one of my 11K+ tweets or paying for a Twitter database service, which would be fine.  Or we could just let it go and Dr. Vickery can accept my apologies if there was any wrongdoing on my part, though I insist there was none.

Now a lot of weight seems to be given to the title of my post, which for whatever reason I could think of no other, despite admittedly it doesn’t have the nicest tone to it.  Just blanked.  But I invite anyone to scan it over and find at any point where I ever criticized Dr. Vickery personally or her class, and please feel free to point it out.  It was a respectful, if not harshly worded, criticism of what I feel is a major deviation from how I believe students should be taught at the collegiate level.  It’s an issue I’ve very passionate about.

Now, I know Dr. Vickery will disagree with the next sentiment, but it’s my justification for writing the last piece as well as this one.  I have a vested interest in what goes on in the many classrooms in public colleges and universities all over our fine country.

  • As a citizen and taxpayer: Teachers and students are not the only stakeholders in the classroom.  Parents and administrators obviously stakeholders since it is their children and employees in the classroom.  However, because of the fact that society as a whole invests in the schools and are the recipients of their products i.e. graduates, what goes on classrooms very much concerns us.  One day my children will go to college and I will be involved with hiring graduates.  I have great interest in both the product offered and the product being produced.
  • As an educator:  Education is a very big part of who I am.  Besides being a rabbi, I also taught Social Studies 7-12 (public and parochial) for seven years and hold advanced degrees in Education and Education Administration.  In fact, I was working toward my dissertation until circumstances led to a career change (for another article).  I didn’t mention this before since I feel credential dropping takes away from the substance of the message.  Besides, people with big credentials have sometimes held some rather ‘controversial’ opinions.  I tried to get around doing it by using language that would demonstrate that I was a fellow academic but that was taken as having “an often condescending and elitist tone.”  So basically I felt the assignment needed to be addressed and it was just right to let Dr. Vickery know I was doing it.

First misunderstanding to clear up:

Rather than just considering the pedagogical value of a video, he directs the entire post at me, my course, and my students. “

What I am being accused of here is what is called an ad hominem attack, an attack on a person rather than an idea.  Please point out to me where I ever did such a thing, especially the students, for whom I have the highest regard.  Quite the opposite.  My entire point is that a 10-minute clip from a TV pundit they might watch anyway just to chill is BENEATH their capabilities and therefore more difficult work would be appropriate.  I’m pretty sure what I said is that if students are given the choice they will pick the easier assignment.  Obviously.  I would too as would most people.  It enables you to get other things done.  That’s not a criticism by any stretch of the imagination.

While he makes some valid points, he also makes a lot of assumptions about the course (without having ever discussed it with me) and overlooks the realities of teaching in a diverse classroom of learners (some of whom are struggling just to master the English language, much less digest jargony academic writing).”

I don’t believe I made any assumptions about the course.  I made comments about the materials being used.  I can do that because looked at the syllabus (was having problems with the link to the syllabus this time though).  I didn’t see peer reviewed academic literature being used, but I did see a video, and the use of that video was enough to comment on.

I understand very well the difficulties in teaching English Language Learners.  I did it all the time as a public school teacher.  I’ve done differentiated instruction and used multiple assessments.  And it is important for students to have education catered to their needs.  However, there is a major difference between high school and college.  Freshman year of college is not 13th grade and it shouldn’t be the default place to go if you just have nothing better to do after high school graduation.  Being a freshman in college means there’s a certain expectation of the work you can handle.  And quite frankly, the requirements in other countries vis a vis English aren’t different.  English is still the lingua franca of the world and many universities around the world have tough English requirements at the college level even if English is not the official language.  Also see here  and here .

“I feel compelled to respond to his assertions and assumptions and to defend my pedagogy, my course, and my students (who are accused of “flushing money down the toilet”).”

“I have to completely disagree with the first part of this statement, the goal of higher education is so much more than merely preparing students for a job. That’s what trade schools are for, and that’s a great option for a lot of people (in fact, I wish the U.S. education system provided more viable pathways in high school and post-graduation for non-college routes). However, college is about the higher part of higher education.”

I apologize for my bluntness but I wanted to make a forceful point.  Also, I never said they were flushing money down the toilet, only that IF they are not being challenged enough they are.  Since Dr. Vickery insists her class is rigorous enough, she shouldn’t have taken offense to the comment.  Here’s my point though: I can get information on the web for free in just about any discipline: science, philosophy, religion etc..  and I can also find forums to discuss the information.  Information is very democratic now.

We both agree college is about the higher part of higher education, but disagree about what that is.  I agree with her that there is an aspect of self-actualization but that’s not enough to justify the four years in school given the costs involved.  For example, if someone were to make $30,000/year without a college degree and $60,000 with one, and college cost $30,000/year, it would take that person 8 years just to break even! That’s four years of tuition plus the four years of opportunity cost of not working for that time.  Therefore, for a real return on investment, college must offer something that can’t be obtained anywhere else, besides the credentials.  It would seem to me that the main thing the school can offer is skills building, which means assigning work that builds advanced skills.

“…I’m not training workers, I’m helping guide global citizens whose lives and intellect and experiences matter infinitely more outside of the workforce.”

I also think it’s important to build global citizens, but I think the way the rest of the world is doing it is better.  Rather than focusing on what makes us different, education systems from around the world are taking a ‘best of breed’ approach to education, using what works best regardless of its cultural origin.  Whatever the traditional sciences were of a particular locale, and no matter how sophisticated they got, now every university teaches Western science a la Newton, Einstein, and Susskind.    Every business school teaches TQM and all of the other great advances in Organizational Management that have come out of Japan.  Koreans are now incorporating Talmud into their curriculum.

Research demonstrates that students are tired of their self-driven modes of learning being invalidated in the classroom.”

As I previously mentioned, I’m well equated with educational research, and I’ve seen very few studies conducted on college-age students.  Most of the studies are conducted on students K-12, and as I said previously I’m sure part of the reason is higher education is fundamentally different.  Also, students should be aware that research should undergo individual scrutiny before it’s quoted.

Well, yea things have changed in 400 years, or even 100 years. Let’s just start with the fact that more than half of my students weren’t even allowed to attend the same universities as their white peers 100 years ago. Close to half my students were highly unlikely to pursue a college degree because society structured their life options around marriage and babies. So yea, things have changed a lot in the university in the past 100 (or 400!) years, and I would say many of these changes are welcomed responses to centuries of structural injustices.”

When I read this I just thought it came completely out of left field.  What could this possibly have to do with what should be taught in the curriculum?  I’m well aware of the biases that existed in the universities.   I graduated from Brandeis University, a college founded 66 years ago for Jewish students because Harvard wouldn’t accept Jews.  To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a substantive difference in the requirements of the two schools.  The reason Latin, Greek, and Hebrew are no longer requirements of graduation have nothing to do with responses to structural injustices, just that even schools like Harvard and Princeton that were founded as theological seminaries now have completely different focuses.  Very few students attend their theological seminaries now.  The updates in the curriculum are purely a function to meeting the requirements of a changing world and a changing workplace, mostly to address the fact that most people go to college now for job prospects as opposed to becoming theologians and academics.  While Latin specifically may not be a marketable skill, no one would argue fluency in another language is a waste of time, and Latin can easily be swapped for Russian, Chinese, or Arabic.  It was a practical shift not an idealistic one, and I’ve heard a number of academics argue that it’s not for the better.

“And I take issue with the assumption that students need to learn academic jargon. Unless they are pursuing a career in academia (which, I cannot with good conscience recommend to the majority of my students, given the current financial crises in academia and the wavering job market), they do not need to know academic speak. What they need is the critical thinking skills to formulate arguments and construct critical analyses, which they learn alongside and outside of academic writings. “

I beg to differ, and I believe most employers would as well.  Employers are quite upset about the lack of skills recent graduates have, and one of those skills is being able to access research and bring it to the real world.  It’s increasingly becoming part of the job, especially with management, and the employers are complaining the students can’t do it.  This is one of the few things universities are in a unique place to offer students help in.  Part of building the critical thinking skills is getting the academic reading, which is incredibly important in teaching students the context of language and how it communicates ideas.  Operationalizing definitions is a crucial skill that students should learn earlier before their dissertation head, or their boss, whacks them in the head because they’re not clear about what they mean by certain terms.

My goals are to not only prepare students for the workforce (something I know my class does and  I will address in a bit), but rather to also prepare my students to be responsible and contributing members of society, in all aspects of their lives, not just as potential members of a capitalistic workforce.”

This is the last thing I’m going to mention, because even though there’s still a bunch of things I’d like to address in the article, I can no longer justify taking the time.  I’ve spent longer on this piece than about 90% of what’s up on my site.  I’ve never understood academia’s fascination with Socialism.  There was no reason to add the word capitalistic next to the word workforce but it’s clearly not an accident, and it has a subtly negative connotation.  I just had a discussion with a colleague about Socialism, and while it’s written specifically to a Jewish audience many of the ideas expressed in it are universal.  However, just to add to it, academia’s distain for Capitalism makes little sense given the fact that it is such a major beneficiary of it.  Just look at the names on all the buildings around campus.  The Renaissance would have never happened if not for the generous funding of the House of Medici.   Timbuktu grew to be the great learning center of Africa due in large part to the salt trade, a business that is not incomparable to today’s gas and oil trade.  Being part of the business world is a great thing and a major contribution to society, even if some people abuse their roles in it.

It’s been a great time talking to the students.  Every student I spoke to has been very respectful and communicated their ideas well, and even caught me on one or two things.  That’s what happens when you take an extreme position and bang out work quickly.  I knew it would happen and it’s no blow to the ego.  I write what I do to start conversation, not usually to end it.  I imagine that if my first piece made some ripples, this definitely will.  I’ve been at this three hours.  I’m tired and I’m not proofreading, which should make this even more fun.

I apologize for the delay but before Yom Kippur just wasn’t happening and there wasn’t enough time before Sukkot.  Hey, I finished before Simhat Torah right? :/  Okay, time to go off the grid for another three days and then no more holidays for awhile.


If there was any doubt to the driving ideology of the class, this tweet certainly clarified it:

I had no clue what my college professors’ political persuasions were until graduate school, and even then it was only one or two very outspoken professors.  And even when they spoke about it, it was just an offhanded comment.  There certainly was never a continued political narrative in a shared account, or whatever the equivalent was back in the Stone Ages when I went to college.

Posted in current events, Q & A, study skills, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Question: Is Socialism Jewish?

When people talk about Jews having invented Socialism, they usually don’t mean it in a nice way. Many of us are more than happy to let people know that Karl Marx was not raised Jewish (his father converted to Protestantism) and that we shouldn’t be blamed for it.

However, there are many in the broad Jewish umbrella that view Socialism positively, and even have tried to say that the Torah itself, and by extension Jewish tradition, is Socialist, or at the very least holds Capitalism in an unfavorable light:

What we have here is a debate between R’ Menachem Creditor, a reknown Conservative rabbi from the West Coast, and HaRav Avrohom Yeshaya Karelitz, one of the greatest Torah scholars of the 20th century who is known by the name of his magnum opus the Chazon Ish. The Chazon Ish would be the person R’ Creditor calls ‘the one’. Now the Chazon Ish is not here to defend his position that the Torah is Capitalist in orientation so I will do my best.

R’ Creditor opens up (and finishes) with citing Lv. 25. There are two possible things he could be referring to: Sabbatical produce or the return of property to its ancestral owners. I could see where he might say that making farmers declare their produce ownerless once every seven years could be considered a redistribution of wealth. However, only the fruits are ownerless and the farmer ultimately retains ownership of the lands and profits from them over the remaining six years. The return of ancestral lands certainly does not. The return of ancestral lands preserves an inherited wealth structure that would make Marx turn over in his grave.

So in absence of any other arguments from R’ Creditor, I would like to present the Torah’s view of wealth:

  • Ownership of private property: Private property rights are guaranteed in the Torah.  Twice in the Ten Commandments, the Torah tells us not to steal, and not even to covet other people’s property.  A curse is issued against anyone who moves the boundary of another person’s property (Dt. 27:17), demonstrating the value of a person’s real property.  The first chapter of Talmud Jewish boys are first introduced to is the first mishnah of Bava Metzia, which deals with how to divide a cloak found in the street, reinforcing the idea that even private property rights over found objects is respected by Torah law.  Kind David says it best that the Heavens are for G-d and Man was given the land (Ps. 115:16).
  • Accumulation of wealth:  The Torah is loaded with examples of people acquiring private property and the context is favorable.  In the Bible, two of our forefathers Avraham (Abraham) and Yitzhak (Isaac) are described as having amassed great wealth, and Avraham is promised that the Jews will receive great wealth as a reward for their suffering in Egypt (Gn. 15:14), an event that will repeat itself with the coming of the Messianic Age (Is. 53:12).  King Shlomo (Solomon) is described at the beginning of his reign, at the beginning of the book of Kings I, as having stellar amounts of wealth but losing it as he drifted away from the will of G-d.  One of the requirements to be Kohen Gadol (high priest) is that he be wealthy, and if he is not the other kohanim (priests) must kick in to make him wealthy (Yalkut 631, par. “Vehakohen”).
  • Wealth as a vehicle to serving G-d:  Rebbe Nachman of Breslov is quoted as saying that in the End of Days all Jews will be wealthy, because it will be so expensive to keep the commandments.  The fact is that while Jewish observance is expensive and many commandment to require the outlaying of money: tallit, tefillin, lulav and etrog (let’s make it seasonal), pricier kosher food etc…. And let’s not even discuss the costs of providing a Jewish child with a proper Jewish education.
  • Government seizure of wealth: The Torah sees the government’s seizure of wealth in a negative way, a negative evil at best.  When the Jews demand a king from Shmuel HaNavi (Samuel the Prophet), he scolds them and tells them how horrible it will be and how much wealth he will confiscate (S1 8:10-18).  Excessive confiscation of wealth is the immediate cause blamed for the splitting of the Kingdom of Israel into Israel and Judah during the rule of Rechovaum son of Shlomo (K1 12:1-16).  In short, the Mishnah in Avot enjoins us to be suspicious of the government (Avot 1:10), which makes sense given the repeated abuses we accustomed to hearing about the sordid tales of elected officials: taking bribes, extortion, committing adultery, going on costly vacations on the taxpayer dime…  These are certainly not the people G-d would entrust with our personal property.
  • Redistribution:  To come back to the point that I think R’ Creditor was trying to make was that mitzvot such as Shemita (Sabbatical Year) and ma’aser (tithes) are redistributive.  I don’t believe that’s the case since even after all of the tithing people are permitted to keep, as theirs, about 80% of their crop and after the Shemita the land returns to the ownership of the original owner.  The sentiment of the Torah is rather that wealth creates obligation for its owner. Terumah (for Cohanim) and ma’aser (for Leviim) are not redistributions of property but rather payment for services rendered in the Temple and teaching the populace.  Money is to be used as a vehicle for attaining eternal reward rather than be blown on this one (poor people have different vehicles for accomplishing the same task).  The fact is that the Mishnah in Avot (5:10) is very clear about what it thinks about redistribution: he who says what’s mine is yours and yours is mine is an unlearned person.
  • General welfare: G-d says in Lv. 18:5 that we should do the mitzvot and live by them.  The Sages tell us live by them and not die by them.  Socialism simply does not deliver on the goods and services we need and give us the freedom that Capitalism does.  Massive oppression under Communist regimes, rationing, and even death panels have all been the product of Socialist institutions.  Indeed the panacea Socialism promised has never really worked out. *

I do agree with R’ Creditor’s sign off, for the most part.

However, our definitions of how to get there are very different because our understandings of the Torah are very different.  In Orthodox Judaism it is the Mesorah (tradition) that is axiomatic and where we derive our way of approaching the world.  In Conservative Judaism, it is the weltanschauung of the day that often informs its adherents understanding of Torah. However, any time a foreign ideology is superimposed on Torah, there is often a breakdown.  I believe this issue would be one of those points.

*The opinions expressed in this video are admittedly extreme and not endorsed but deal with some of the claims about Socialism in a succinct and well presented fashion.

Posted in nomorethodoxy, Q & A, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments