Thirsting for Hashem's Words

 ב"ה

I know I'm probably not the first person to realize this but given that I used to think I shouldn't bother Hashem with my little problems, this is like a thunderbolt to me -- and it only took me 67 years of learning and a video from Tovia Singer -- Tovia said that the Greeks believed that G-d didn't have time for them and didn't interfere in their lives. So by asking Hashem for the little things I not only "testify" that G-d helps us even on the small things but that He's involved in our lives even while taking care of the cosmos, making sure all the stars shine and the galaxies orbit and the planets and space objects are aligned for us here on earth (which is just a rock if People aren't here) as the pinnacle of Hashem's creation -- and all roads lead to people as those keeping Hashem's mitzvot. This is why I think it's important to spread the word of the sheva mitzvot to the nations of the world. But we Jews are too afraid to missionize (so to speak). It's not missionizing so much as showing the world what Hashem wants and, after all, isn't that what being the "Chosen People" is all about????

And there is a question the Rabbis discussed -- is it good that Christianity came or bad -- I think it's good because these are people -- especially here in the US -- who are thirsting for G-d but they don't understand yet. So the more we teach them (without being too obvious???) the more they drink up

There's a song I really love: 

הנה ימים באים והשלחתי רעב בארץ לא רעב ללחם ולא צמאה למים כי אים לשמוע את דברי 

Behold the days are coming [says G-d] and I will send a famine on the land Not a famine for bread and not a thirst for water but to listen to the words of Hashem

Roe, Roe, Roe your Court

ב"ה

With the current Supreme Court nomination in the news, the concern over Roe vs. Wade is popping up again.

I have issues with "both sides" of the aisle. First of all, I don't like the names -- I think they are both misnomers. The pro-life side is only pro-life when it comes to unborn babies. Once the baby is born, they don't seem to care. They are, for the most part, in favor of dumping welfare programs even though most of the people on welfare are children. They also don't seem to know (or want to know) that a high percentage are on welfare for under 2 years (Between 1999 and 2008, 73% were on welfare 1-2 years and only 8% more than 6 years). But I digress.

The pro-choice side, on the other hand, is often led by people who aren't pro-choice at all. They often neglect (or downright refuse) to tell pregnant women seeking advice on the matter that they have options. How can you call yourself pro-choice if you don't offer options? Apparently, the only option they allow for is abortion.

In any case, I was reading an article this morning that helped me to understand my own position. The article is called The Abortion Debate is not about When Life Begins. With that title statement I agree. And I agree with several points the author makes, one being that biology is not the crux of the argument.

But the article, clearly written with the "pro-life" point of view in mind, misses some points. First of all, it totally misses any religious argument. From my perspective, that there is a debate at all stems from religion. It stems from the members of the Christian Right's belief that they are the only answer and what their religion tells them should be the law of the land.

As an Orthodox Jew (who has learned a bit about the Jewish view of abortion) I can tell you that if abortion is outlawed per the Christian view of abortion, abortions that are not only halakhically (Jewishly legal) permitted but even some that are ordained would be prohibited by American law.

My arguments with anti-abortion camps and laws are many. But one of my main arguments is that by giving full "human rights" to unborn babies, you are impinging on the rights of the mother. Think about this -- in the case of rape or even danger to the mother's life she could be forced to carry a child. Judaism puts the life of the mother (and her health, physical, mental and emotional) ahead of the baby's until any part of the baby comes out -- then they are equal. But as long as the baby is still in mother's uterus, the mother takes precedent. (Keep in mind, if the mother wants the baby, it is considered a baby but if the mother doesn't want it the fetus represents a threat to her well being.) That is not true of Christian theology.

Part of what makes it easier for me to support true choice (with abortion being only one of the possible choices) is that I believe in the soul and I believe that the soul enters the body at birth, not in utero. For any fetus that doesn't get born, the soul is there for the next baby. I am certain that G-d doesn't leave the decision of what souls need to come into the world to us.

Keep in mind, also, that by passing laws outlawing abortion on the federal and state level, we are only denying abortion to people who can't afford to go to Canada or Europe and have an abortion there. Most Northern countries have liberal abortion laws. It would be easy for any "woman of means" to find a place where abortion is legal (and safe). Before Roe vs. Wade, desperate women of no means sometimes used "back alley abortionists" or coat hangers and often lost their lives.

To be honest, I somehow doubt that even a pro-life court will completely overturn Roe vs. Wade. I think some form of safe abortion is here to stay. What I would like to see is laws that require advisers to women with unwanted pregnancies to give them a list of options, only one of which ought to be a safe abortion.

Feminism of the Orthodox Variety

ב"ה

I was reading a few articles on the Aish HaTorah site and one of them moved me to comment. The Feminist Rabbi spoke of his definition of Feminism. And, while I agree with some of his perspective, I disagree with other parts. Here is the comment I made:

Yes, but what about those of us who never found an appropriate mate, never had the opportunity to have children? What about those of us who, for one reason or another, are left without a man to support us; the young widow or divorcee, the woman whose husband is not able to financially support her?

Feminism, to me, means that a person's choices in life shouldn't be limited by his/her gender. I, for example, besides being single all my life (and at a point in my life where children are no longer an option), also love to sing. I'm a pretty descent singer. But because I'm an Orthodox Jew, I can't get a job singing in the secular world ("What? You can't work Friday night and Saturday? Those are our busiest days!") nor can I get a job in the Jewish world (since the concept of "Kol Isha" keeps me out of the spotlight).

I think, with the above and the issue of recalcitrant husbands, the Orthodox world needs to see feminism in a new light. Halakha needs to be reexamined through the lens of the 21st century's needs. Halakha isn't monolithic. Halakha is elastic and we need to see how we can reevaluate the position current halakhic paradigms to meet the current needs of our people.

I would like to add to this my perspective on women as Rabbis. Because there are some laws that are very personal, I think it's not Tzniyut (modest) for women to discuss these issues with male Rabbis. I, therefore, think that women should be permitted to study to become Rabbis. I, myself, am learning in this area. I think it's important for there to be women, learned in the ways of Halakha (Jewish Law) to be there to guide women in particular (but men also, on issues that wouldn't be an issue of Tzniyut) in their Jewish lives. I know this is a controversial opinion, but I think it will become less so in the future.

Malakhim V'Shadim

ב"ה

I just finished reading Dan Brown's book "Angels and Demons". I found a lot of this book rather fascinating, but there were a couple of things that really bothered me. The first was the "science vs. religion" argument and the second was the obsession with "belief" as an entity unto itself.

I have always been puzzled by the attitude many modern scientists have that science and religion are antagonistic. G-d created science; how can they be antagonistic? I think the issue is "belief". When you value "belief" as an entity unto itself (not as a means to leading you to being a good person) then science can be the "enemy". If you think that there is goodness in the act of "believing" (which isn't really an "act", now, is it?) then seeing scientific proof of G-d or G-d's creations removes something from that "belief".

Rabbi Moshe the son of Maimon (also known as "Maimonides" and Rambam -- the initials of Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon) said that it was not "belief" in G-d, rather knowledge of G-d that we should strive for. That makes sense, because as you see the wonder of G-d through nature or science, you begin to know G-d better. Your level of "belief" is irrelevant.

Christianity is a religion of "belief", of faith. Judaism, on the other hand, is a religion of deeds. In Christianity, if a person is evil all his/her life, but believes that "J" died for his/her sins, Christian doctrine states (s)he will end up with "J" in heaven. Not so with Judaism. If a person believes in G-d, but lives an life of evil, that person has not lived a good life. If, in the other hand, a person doesn't believe in G-d, but lives a good life, helps others, is kind and generous, that person does earn a place in the "World to Come".

Because I was brought up in this "belief" system, and because I grew up in an Orthodox community where a large percentage of the working people were in the sciences, I've always seen science as part of G-d's set of creations.

I also don't feel the need to convince anyone that G-d exists. You either see it or you don't. I feel more concerned about convincing people to live a good life. As long as we treat others with respect, as long as we help others, as long as we are kind and considerate, G-d will be happy. And, to be honest, when we treat others with respect, that's how they treat us.

The Good Jew....

ב"ה

Disclaimer: This is my own idea -- I don't know if any authority proposed or espouses this. I feel strongly that this is true, but it's only my feeling.

I speak often to my best friend, Michelle Nevada, since we don't live in the same zip, area or even Morse code. We often have very interesting conversations and oftentimes, talking to her helps me put my opinions and ideas into words. Today was no exception to this.

We were talking about religion and Judaism and what it is that makes someone a "good Jew". And I said that keeping Shabbat and keeping kosher are not what make you a good Jew. Those are G-d's gifts to us. What makes you a "good Jew" is how you treat other people. In other words, if you treat people with respect and do what you can to help others you are a good Jew even if you never kept Shabbat in your life.

There are two major groupings of Mitzvot (commandments) -- those between people and other people (called in Hebrew Bein Adam L'Haveiro -- between man and his friend) and those between people and G-d (called in Hebrew Bein Adam L'Makom -- between man the Omnipresent, or G-d).

The laws between people and other people are the laws about how to treat other people, like helping others, giving charity (called Tzedaka from the Hebrew word for justice), treating others with respect, things like that. The laws between people and G-d are laws like keeping kosher, keeping Shabbat, putting up a Sukka and things like that.

The laws between people and other people are the laws that make getting along in this world, the world G-d created, easier. If we treat others with respect, they will respect us. If we help others, they will help us. If we are honest with people, they will trust us and be honest with us. Keeping these laws are what makes you a "Good Jew", a good person, a righteous person.

Shabbat and other similar laws, on the other hand, are G-d's gift to us. How many people do we know who are "on" 24/7, always available for work, always checking the stock market. I know myself that without Shabbat I would probably be on my computer all the time. But by taking 25 hours off for Shabbat, I have an opportunity to recharge my batteries. Shabbat is the origin of the "weekend".

So, if you are Jewish and think that you're not a good Jew because you go shopping on Saturday or eat ham sandwiches, I'll tell you you're mistaken. You're a good Jews if you are helping others. You are missing out on G-d's gift to you if you go shopping on Saturday or eat ham sandwiches. If you are a Gentile, you're a good person if you help others and keep the laws between people and other people (Gentiles are not permitted to keep Shabbat the way Jews do because Shabbat is a covenant between G-d and the Jewish people). If you will check out the 7 Noachide Laws (the laws that Gentiles are responsible for), you will notice they are all laws of how you interact with other people and other sentient creatures. These are the laws that make one a Good person, Jew or Gentile.

If you are a Jew and you want to begin to keep the laws in both categories, you start with a clean slate; you can decide at any moment you would like to accept the gifts that G-d has given us. You don't have to do anything other than what Nike says, "Just do it!", to make G-d proud.

What Do Women Want?

ב"ה

Disclaimer: I have to tell you, much as men seem to think that all women are monolithic in thought, I can't speak for all women; I can only speak for myself and I can only say that I've heard similar thoughts from some other Orthodox Jewish women. Many Orthodox Jewish women are perfectly happy and content to have men decide for them or live in the "the home is the woman's domain" and learning Tora in lecture classes designed for women only. Perhaps if I had gotten married at some point in my life and/or become a mother I might feel differently, but I doubt it since I've been feeling this way since I was about 5.

I'm often wonder why any Jewish woman wants to get married and give up just about everything of hers forever and ever and ever. All inheritance stuff (that women only inherit if there are no sons) and the "everything that's yours becomes your husband's" makes me wonder about the positive side of committing your life to a man's and makes me feel that women are not taken seriously.

I think it's rather pretentious for men to think that they can speak for women of all ages, eras, generations, etc. One of the problems is that men have a habit of objectifying women. Men, particularly those who haven't spent a lot of time with women, don't see women as serious discussion partners. They seem to believe that women are only experts (or even knowledgeable about) in the area of the home. But, particularly in the Modern Orthodox community, this just isn't true (and I'm not sure it ever was).

We don't live in ancient Israel, women often earn their own salaries and buy their own possessions. This is a new generation. Why should laws that were originally there to protect women in a time where they didn't usually earn their own way shackle women nowadays? And it's not just the property thing -- it's also stuff like Halitza and Get. Halitza is related to Yibum (Leverite marriage); when a man dies before he and his wife have had children, the man's brother is required to marry her. Required, that is, unless they perform Halitza . I don't know all the details of Halitza , but if a man's brother is either too young (under Bar Mitzva, aka age 13) or not interested, then the woman is stuck; she is not permitted to remarry.

The same issue applies to Get. Get is a Jewish divorce document. According to Jewish law (Halakha), a Get is given by the man and accepted by the woman. Men who are vindictive can keep their wives from getting remarried by not giving them a Get (the man would not have the same issues since strict Jewish law permits a man to have more than one wife while a woman is not permitted more than one husband). And, I must add, this is a huge problem in this day and age.

So, often when I ask men (usually my meaning is more rhetorical, but I often am given an answer, though I don't really want one, but I digress) why a Jewish woman would want to get married, they supply me with a rather flip answer that it is an accepted tenet in rabbinical circles that woman want to be married and this, I was just told, is still an accepted tenet. But this is not necessarily the case.

In the past few generations, there has been a growing number of women who have left their homes and families to find fulfillment elsewhere. There has been a growing number of women who have found marriage and motherhood unsatisfying. There is a growing number of women who just don't want to get married or be married in the first place. Seeing this, how can anyone say this "accepted tenet" is still true? It may have been true in an era when women's only opportunity for survival and gratification, her only opportunity to feel as though she accomplished something in her life, was through others, through her husband and children (like the Bach's mother-in-law, Sara, who earned a living for herself and Rav Yoel and his wife (her daughter) by being a seamstress and financially supported a Gadol (great Rabbi and commentator). So grateful was Rav Yoel that he took as his surname "Sirkis" which is a diminutive of the possessive of his mother-in-law's name Sara.) But this just isn't true today. And, I must add, that BECAUSE, in earlier days, this WAS the only way for women to find a sense of accomplishment, it is very likely that women suppressed that part of themselves for the most part. And, if that's the case, then that flip explanation that I have heard ad nauseum since at least my pre-teens probably never was true at all!

My displeasure with the attitude of men in this regard is that men often feel that, just because they have the power to decide for women, that they know what women want and what women are thinking and feeling and that's just not the case. Now, I must admit, I don't know much about what men are thinking or feeling (only, inasmuch as I can extrapolate from their own words or gezeirot -- statutes) I'm not out there claiming to know a man's "heart" (clearly I don't or I'd be in a relationship, but I digress) or out there making laws or statutes that men are obligated in. This has been my bete noire pretty much all my life.

I think it is important that more and more women begin to study what men do to become Rabbis. Whether or not a woman gets the title of Rabbi, we need to know what it is that the men are saying and what it is that they are saying about us. We need to understand the river of halakha and how psak (conclusions/decisions about what halakha is on specific issue) is arrived at. Toward that end, I am studying so I can be part of the dialogue. Men don't have a corner on the knowledge market or the analytical market. We need to shop in that market too.

True Love is not only Physical

ב"ה

One of my cousins (his Mom is my first cousin) just got married. He just post on FB in his status how awesome his wife is. He made me think about my standard שבע ברכות [Sheva Brakhot -- Literally 7 Blessings -- Sheva Brakhot is a period of one week after a wedding -- the first being at the wedding -- where the bride and groom -- חתן וכלה -- Hattan v'Kalla -- are feted by friends and relatives, during which people who couldn't get to the wedding can share in the couple's joy] דבר תורה -- D'var Tora -- literally words of Tora. In the past, particularly at Sheva Brakhot of my siblings, but also at Sheva Brakhot of friends, I have often been asked to speak.

The idea for this D'var Tora began on Purim. The first time I was in Israel, I was there on a program (called WUJS -- World Union of Jewish Students) and as part of the program, I learned in a serious learning group and one of the things we discussed was מגילת אסתר -- Megilat Esther -- the book of Esther. We analyzed the nuances of the Palace intrigue and the plot against the Jews by the evil המן Haman. Haman was so evil that a minor quibble with the hero of our story, מרדכי Mordekhai the Jew escalated into Haman decided to kill all the Jews from India to Ethiopia (127 provinces).

Haman's wife זרש Zeresh is mentioned a few times in the narrative, but always at times when Haman is asking advice or telling of his day and always in the phrase "זרש אשתו וכל אוהביו" (Zeresh his wife and all his loved ones) or similar phrases.

I occurred to me that this implied that Haman no longer loved his wife. יצחק Yitzhak (Isaac, the Patriarch), on the other hand, married his wife רבקה Rivka (Rebekka) and then grew to love her. So what is the difference between Haman and Yitzhak in this regard?

Haman, being an evil person, made his decision about who to marry based solely on externals, solely on looks. Yitzhak, on the other hand, realized that externals are not enough. You can't decide on a lifetime partner, a person to work with, build a home with, raise a family with, solely on external appearances. There has to be more.

My cousin, is one of the sweetest people I know, and one of the most caring. He is also moral and rooted in Tora values. I haven't yet met his wife (I hope to soon -- hint, hint, hint) but I'm certain that he made his decision based on shared values, shared interests and mutual desire to live a good Tora life.

May they always feel the spark of love they feel for each other now.