Morethodoxy: Exploring the Breadth, Depth and Passion of Orthodox Judaism

Eight Hours in Dubai: More Enlightening than I Thought

I had been looking forward to spending a little time in Dubai, on our way from Jakarta to Amman and finally, Thursday night to Jerusalem. However, it turned into a mini adventure that put the day’s activities into perspective.

This morning was a great session hammering out a consensus statement from the group. Many Muslim leaders – from the States and Indonesia – emphasized how important it was for the Arab world and the Muslim world to recognize the State of Israel – but, of course, they wanted it along with recognizing either the rights of the Palestinians to a state, or, some beyond that, to outright recognizing Palestine. 

In the end, we crafted a document that recognized the national aspirations of both the Israelis and the Palestinians. I was very happy with that language which did not attempt to propose a political solution to achieve that goal.

But it was impressive that Muslims had moved their people so close to recognizing Israel. 

After the session, one of the Indonesians worked hard to explain how Hana – in Javanese, meaning existence, was like – אהיה אשר אהיה – I will be Whom I will be. I don’t always understand them, but all the Indonesians – Christian and Muslim – are proud of how the Javanese culture has integrated Hinduism and Buddahism with Islam. 

Dr Yousuf – of the NU organization which represents the 30 million Muslims, mentioned yesterday, sat next to me on the bus to the airport and he said the organization stands for: Moderation, Tolerance, Balance.

Interestingly: Indonesians wear ties – the don’t interpret the Qur’anic verse of prohibiting going in the ways of the pagans (like the Torah’s “uv’chukoteihem lo telechu – the ways of the gentiles) in the way the Iranians or the old ulama (religious leaders) used to. They consider prohibiting ties to be merely a political prohibition. Kids in the religious boarding school we saw yesterday wore ties as did their teachers…

So that’s Indonesia. Smiles – sincere smiles – from everyone, and at least the language of tolerance and respect. Felt so comfortable there – so welcome. The government might not be doing enough to fight the forces of intolerance, but at least they seem to believe in respect and tolerance for all.

And on Emirates Airlines we felt the same way: they have kosher meals on Emirates – from Belgium. Not so good, but very kosher. And they have good Scotch (Glenfiddich 15…). So the airline was fine.

But Dubai is a world apart – no more smiles from anybody. What a contrast!

And with the five Jews in our group of 24 wearing kippot, it didn’t take long for the trouble, or challenges that I wrote of on Facebook just a few hours ago. A soldier/officer type asked me how many Jews were in the group. And while I answered, that I thought about 5, I really didn’t feel good about answering. Both the Muslims and the Christians in the group that were aware of the reason for the delay – that soldier had to ask his superiors, etc. – were very supportive. One Imam offered to wear a kippah. The Episcopalian was not happy with the excuse the guard in the white robe gave that there was no problem with Jews in Dubai, just for our own protection we had to either cover our kippot with a hat or take them off.

Some of us joked that this felt like an Entebbe moment – I cannot remember when I personally have ever been selected or separated as a Jew. In the end a Palestinian American Imam schmoozed with the guard, and tried to sensitize him to how it would feel if a Muslim woman were asked to remove her head covering. We shared Hadith about Muhammad and Jews who liked him. There is a lot of work to be done, but still believe it starts with relationship building.

So I sign off from an ornate hotel room in a glitzy hotel in Dubai, wearing my kippa. The guard said we could inside the hotel… I want to see how things will be in Jordan, Ramallah and Bethlehem. But I am with a great group, and we are all growing together.

Layla tov and Shalom al Yisrael,

Asher Lopatin

An item posted yesterday (2/21) on JTA quoted political commentator Alan Steinberg as  asserting that “[Sen. Rick Santorum’s]  stance on social issues will be a plus, particularly in the Orthodox community.” This is a markedly glib assessment however, reflecting both an ignorance of and disrespect for the sophistication  and nuance of Jewish law. There may be other reasons that Orthodox Jews may prefer Santorum, but his positions on several social issues stand in stark opposition to deeply entrenched Jewish legal tradition.

Jewish law does prohibit abortion on demand. Not because it regards a fetus as a human being, rather because it sees a fetus as representing potential life.  Though this distinction may seem subtle, it carries enormous legal implications. Jewish Law not only permits but actually mandates abortion in a situation in which a fetus is  (unwittingly of course) threatening the life of its mother. This is directed by the same principle that mandates that Shabbat be violated when life is in in danger. In Maimonides’ words, “the laws of the Torah were not given to inflict vengeance on the world, rather [to bring] compassion, kindness and peace to the world. (Laws of Shabbat 2:3)”.  Nor is the halachik discussion about abortion  limited to cases in which the threat to a mother’s life is physical, with numerous authorities also regarding the prospect of severe emotional or psychological trauma as grounds for abortion.

 And the issue is actually bigger than abortion per se. Jewish law bestows virtually no legal status at all upon fertilized embryos that are not implanted in a mother’s womb. This is why the Orthodox community has always been vocally in favor utilizing such embryos for stem cell research (See for example the statement of the Rabbinical Council of America’s statement  -http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=100553 ). While stem cell research is not as hot an issue as it was a few years ago, its return to research prominence – or the emergence of another, similar technology – is not at all unlikely.

Jewish Law also stands at odds with Senator Santorum’s anti-regulation approach to the relationship between humankind and the Earth. Judaism’s legal approach is defined by the tension between the Torah’s dueling directives that we  subdue the Earth (Genesis, Chapter 1) and simultaneously guard over it (Chapter 2). We are thus directed for example, to take full advantage of the earth’s fertility, and are simultaneously prohibited to needlessly destroy fruit-bearing trees. We are permitted to use animals for purposes of work and food, but we are prohibited to cause them physical or emotional distress (even muzzling an animal while it is threshing grain is prohibited by the Torah), or to drive a species toward extinction (see Nachmanides to Deuteronomy 22:6, regarding the  requirement to shoo away a mother bird before taking its young). The Talmud (Brachot 35a) charges us with the obligation to  navigate the tension between “the  Earth and it fullness are God’s” and “the Earth He gave to the sons of man”. We strive for balance, recognizing that we are at all times both  “subduers” and “guardians”.  In the words of the Midrash, “At the time when G-d created Adam, He took him around the trees of the Garden of Eden, and He said to him, ‘Look at My works, how beautiful and praiseworthy they are! Everything that I created, I created for you; take care that you do not damage and destroy My world, for if you damage it, there is no one to repair it afterwards! (Kohellet Rabbah 7)

On issues like feminism and even homosexuality Judaism’s worldview  is more sophisticated, nuanced and wiser than Senator Santorum’s is. The two should never be confused for one another.

I’m overwhlemed and energized with one full day in Indonesia: A land of gracious, humble people who are courageously breaking from a fog and taking a new look at Israel and the Middle East. But I’m getting a bit ahead of myself, so please allow me to recap today’s events:

After waking up earlier than I had wanted, davening – facing West still – and scarfing down some tuna wraps, I had a bit of time to walk around our hotel.  Of course it’s impossible to “discover” Indonesia or even Jakarta by a 30 minute walk around the hotel, but I did discover gracious people all of whom smiled at me when I smiled at them – strangers, simple folks, deep frying food in the street for breakfast all around the area.  Indonesians are big foodies, and even just the fruit, which is all I have been eating, is fresh and delicious.  There is an element of innocence in this tropical Republic of 260 million people.  I know that’s probably naive, but the people’s responsiveness is captivating.  I only wish that when we wish “Shabbat shalom” to people around us, those we know and don’t know, that we get the same kind of warm, friendly, no-strings-attached response.  Im yirtzeh Hashem – may it be God’s will.  

We started with a visit to the Cathedral (Catholic), which overlooks the Independence Mosque, which overlooks the Protestant church. There certainly are issues with elements in Indonesia not being tolerant and burning churches. However, official line is one of tolerance and respect, and the Muslim organizations are supporting that. In fact, Dr. Yusuf, the co-chair from Indonesia of our mission, heads a 30 million strong Muslim organization and political party – he was a member of parliament – and he told me that his
Muslim organization sends its members to guard churches on Christmas. The
Minister of Defense of the largest Muslim country – is Catholic!

You go from the Cathedral, the biggest church in Indonesia, to the biggest Mosque in Southeast Asia (third biggest in the world), by crossing the street. The Istiqlal Mosque means independence mosque. Like many things in Indonesia, it is built with gematria symbols – the hight of this represents this, the length of this represents this, etc. Apparently, that is a Javanese influence – everything is symbolic. It was pointed out that the architect for the Istiqlal Mosque, Frederick Sylavan (sp?) was Christian and also designed the Lutheran church. In the mosque is a 300 year old drum – called a batuk – and… it’s a Hindu minhag (custom) taken over by Islam here. They use it twice a day to call people to prayer (even though prayers are 5 times a day…).

When you look out in the direction of the qibla – Mecca – you see the spires of the Protestant church. Everything in this country speaks of tolerance and blending and taking from other cultures. True, there were almost no Jews here to speak of – perhaps 1000 at its peak – but that makes the warmth here toward the Jews in the delegation even more surprising and powerful. The Muslim leaders in the group – some of them anthropologists, some studying women and Islam – are eager to learn, not only more about Judaism, but also about Israel. They are excited to be going, and everyone repeats that this is an historic gathering of leaders who really want to make a difference.

We met with some young boys and girls – the girls sit in the back, behind the boys – learning in the mosque school, and I even was introduced as a rabbi who knows the first chapter of the Qur’an (the Fatiha) by heart. I think they thought the whole thing strange… But as Indonesians, they were polite and clapped at the end…

From the Cathedral and Mosque we went to an ornate building, Independence Hall, where the Indonesian Declaration of Independence was signed, to meet with the foreign minister. Gold all over, crystal chandeliers, sitting around a fancy table with place cards – for some reason I sat right next to the Foreign Minister and our host, the Ambassador to Washington, Ambassador Jallal. White glove service of tea with Equal packets – what a country! – and sweets (not kosher- but they looked nice).

The foreign minister is a humble, youthful engaging man, tall, man who introduced himself and then asked us all to speak. After our leader, Rabbi Sid Schwarz, introduced the goals of the mission – to use religion to bring peace to the Middle East – he asked to hear from us. I urged him to bring the engaging, tolerant culture of Indonesia to the Middle East. I would love for Indonesia to recognize Israel. In subsequent conversation, we got the foreign minister to declare his support for a Two State Solution, but not – yet – to recognize Israel. Indonesia does “recognize” Palestine, and it even has a Palestinian embassy in Jakarta. But we tried…

Indonesians are the most humble and modest people I think I have ever met – Jews are supposed to be that way – and we are deep down – but Indonesians are that way from the moment you meet them and they smile back when you smile, and say hello – everyone, from the stranger on the street to the people you sit around the table with talking about the Middle East. The Ambassador, who came a few minutes late to the table, apologized not only to the group, but to me personally – how ironic, Mr. On Time Rabbi – for coming late. Amazing people. I need to remember to get a kippa for the Ambassador – he asked for one for his birthday.

And… all the Indonesian diplomats are using iPads. Very cool.

Foreign minister said he was very supportive of the goals of mission – admires “inclusive outlook”. Praise for Ambassador Dino Jallal who made the mission happen. Indonesia is proud of its motto: Unity in diversity. And he claimed that they practice on a day to day basis. He admitted that there were challenges from those less tolerant. But overall adherence to respect, etc. “Interfaith tolerance is in our DNA…”

From the Foreign Ministry – which occupies Independence Hall – we went to a modern building for lunch at the Religion Ministry. I had three courses of delicious fruit. So far I have subsided on a lot of fruit and the tuna sandwiches. The tune is fine; I am praying hard that all this delicious fruit will be OK.

The Assistant Minister of Religion who sat at our table, emphasized that at its moment of independence Indonesia specifically avoided calling itself an Islamic state. They are not. But, on the other hand, there is not a full separation of church and state. It’s not religious but not secular.

After lunch we headed for an Islamic Boarding school. There are thousands of these, throughout Indonesia, and they are even more religious than the government religious schools. Kind of like Israel and America: There are public schools, days schools (Mamlachti Dati/Torani in Israel) and then Yeshivas and seminars…

But these frumest of the schools still are co-ed – girls and boys have separate classes and separate dormitories fare away from each other – and we got to spend some fun time with the kids. They were all delightful, engaging, smiling, sweet – everything that their adult counterparts are. Very unique for students to be this engaging.

The boarding school teachers explained that even in this highly religious environment, the schools are multi disciplinary. #1 extra curricular activity: marching band – the girls said this! Frum, modest “tziusdik” cheer leaders…

But here’s an interesting fact:

Since 1970s Indonesia has had women judges in Islamic courts…

We came back inspired by the leaders, by the students and by our group which is excited to forge new frontiers by flying to Israel. Yes, we are also meeting with the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah and Bethlehem. But the “chidush” – the novelty – will be our time in Israel and Jerusalem, Yad Vashem and far beyond and with President Peres.

I ended off the day eating fresh lichee fruit – learning how to peel them, which is as easy as a banana. And then hair fruit and some giant leather fruit. I’ll have pictures soon.

Time to get to bed to get ready for tomorrow’s meetings where we will finalize a letter to all the heads of state about our mission. Interesting discussions no doubt.

Shalom al Yisrael and layla tov – Good night from Jakarta!

Asher Lopatin

Arrived in Jakarta, Indonesia, to sweltering Tel Aviv-in-the-summer type weather. The airport kind of feels like a tropical hotel, with walkways to customs that look out on to lawns and gardens.

After thinking about whether I should where a baseball hat (with a suit?) or my kippa, I opted for a kippa. I thought that if someone starts to give me a hard time – a guard, etc. – I would switch to a hat. But people – everyone: guards, police, people at the passport control, customs, taxi people – could not have been nicer or more gracious. Totally comfortable here.

At passport the man in the booth asked purpose of my visit – I said it was an interfaith mission with Christians and Muslims and Jew. He asked – was I Christian? No, I said, Jewish. Stamp!

The Avis taxi people got me a cab, and then when one had already been ordered by my hosts, they graciously voided my cab fair, and the Avis driver was walked me back to get my money back – no fighting or quibbling as the taxi people do in some other countries, ehem, ehem, and another man seeing my kippa said, Oh you are Jewish… First I thought he said he was Jewish, but I think he meant he was going to visit Israel, but in any case, very friendly – he was Christian. A lot of Christians around here seem to be happy to see a Jew – an even smaller minority than them. Christians are about 10%, Jews – well, there are now 25 in the country including the 5 rabbis.

Believe it or not, but Jakarta has E-toll speed pass! Looks kind of like Israel when you leave the airport with a mixture of hi rises and low rises or single family bungalow. All of Jakarta looks a lot like Tel Aviv with its slummier areas and more modern areas.

Still have the auto rickshas I remember from India 25 years ago! But on the other hand, I think an important measure of how advanced the country is can be seen by the helmets worn by motor cyclists. Every single one of the drivers – on the smallest motor scoter, moped etc. – wears a helmet – and most passengers as well.

Many people wear face masks – pollution… I think that’s an Asian thing…

Right near the hotel is the national (Catholic) cathedral, which shares a parking lot with a giant mosque. Whatever he issues may be in parts of the country between Christians and Muslims – Muslims burning down churches and not being convicted – in theory and on the ground to a great extent this country is still firmly committed to diversity.

In our opening session, getting to know each other – there are 24 us total, with 5 rabbis, and about 8 Christians, one of the members of our group, who represents that largest Muslim organization in Indonesia – 30 million members – spoke passionately about how the Western world and Islam have to come closer together, not further apart. Also, the voices here were about Islam not blaming the West for its challenges – but he hoped the West would not blame Islam either for the acts of radicals.

Another Imam said how good things were in the old days of Medina, when Muhammad “hung out” with the Jews and Christians. But I challenged this view: The Qur’an speaks over and over again about how evil the Yahud – the Jews – of Medina were. Yet another Imam gave a brilliant – homiletic, forced, perhaps, but based on the great commentator Zemachshari – that even in the Qur’an there is a difference between Al-Yahud – THE individual Jews who were so bad to Muhammad and his followers – and Yahud – Jews in general who dwelled in Medina even after Muhammad’s death. Another Muslim leader concurred. It doesn’t really matter to me what Muhammad actually meant, or what the Qur’an really meant. What is important is that I am hearing that there is a different narrative – a narrative tolerant and respectful of the Jews – that is coming out of some circles of Islam. The question is whether this progressive, embracing narrative will win, or will the intolerant rejectionist narrative of the fundamentalists win?

Discovery: Our sponsor is not the Indonesian government. We are guests of the Indonesian Ambassador to Washington, who has taken serious risks to his own career for bringing this diverse multi-faith group together and to go to the Middle East. But our sponsor is mainly a very nice TV mogul who, in honor of our group, is going to have a Muslim, Christian and a Jew on Indonesian TV tomorrow morning. This is all unprecedented. Interestingly, the TV mogul’s parents are intermarried – Muslim father, Christian mother – but it has lead him to believe that we can bridge gaps. Interesting. Even in America, where we desperately are trying to get Jews to marry Jews, sometimes something good comes out of an intermarriage… Food for thought.

Speaking of food: I was able to pass through security (carry on) with tuna and mayonnaise and flat breads – and Rabbi Julie Schohnfeld packed more tuna in her suitcase for me – so even though there really isn’t any kosher food besides fruit, I will be fine.

Ending on one sobering note: For all the divisions that Muslims have, one of the Muslim ulama’a pointed out that they all pray together. Even millions in Mecca can all pray together – whereas Jews are really finicky about where we daven – certainly outside of our denomination, but even within! But Rabbi Peter Nobel pointed out that a Reformation has never really come to Islam. So maybe we just have to give them time…

It’s bedtime in Jakarta.

Layla tov and more adventures God willing in the morning – including meeting the Foreign Minister and I hope to push him on relations with Israel.

Asher Lopatin

Gendered Expectations and the Experience of Children

Alan Krinsky

Something critical is missing in the impassioned discussions over tensions within the Orthodox world. Beyond the philosophical and halakhic divisions and debates over the she-lo asani ishah blessing and women’s participation, little or no attention has been paid to the actual experience of people, especially children.

What do children experience in regard to gender and appropriate gender roles? Do they truly believe or understand that God created men and women with differences, with different roles, but that neither men nor women are “better” than the other in some fundamental sense? That God is neither male nor female? Now, I could be far off the mark, but I do not imagine that most of our children have absorbed such sophisticated theological concepts.

What, instead, do they think and experience? Do young boys and girls genuinely hear the she-lo asani ishah blessing and understand it according to the most common explanation, that it refers to the additional mitzvos incumbent upon men? Or, do boys and girls alike learn from this and other words and practices that men are better than women in an essential sense? That, while we are all created in the image of God, men are more so than women? That at the banquet in the next world, men are sitting at the table and not women? That only a man has the potential to achieve the status of a Gadol in any sense? 

In brief, when boys say she-lo asani ishah, do they really believe they are better than girls? And do girls also believe this when they hear it?

As a member of an OU shul with a YU Rabbi, with a daughter (in an Orthodox Jewish high school) studying Gemara in the same class and at the same level as boys, I can only guess at the gender expectations of my daughter’s peers, the ones with whom she went to elementary school, a mixed Haredi and Modern Orthodox one.

As far as I can tell, the normative, expected course for these girls is graduation from high school, followed by a year at seminary, possibly a college degree part-time, and marriage and children not too long after the completion of high school. They will not become Talmudic scholars, even if more capable and inclined than many of the boys. (And these girls, even the most brilliant, will not become doctors, neither of Medicine nor of Philosophy.) In a world where this is the epitome of a life in this world, what does she-lo asani ishah mean, and what effect does it have on girls and boys?

At the least, I would suggest, we not rush to condemn Rabbis or laypersons who express their discomfort with a blessing like this and imagine a different world—one remaining squarely within the four amos of halakha, if not quite adhering to what most of us feel is traditional. We should dan lecaf zechus, give the benefit of the doubt, and take these people at their word, that they are committed to a life of mitzvos and Torah. That their concerns, even anguish, is not unreasonable. That they not be pushed out of the tent of Orthodoxy. 

The last question, one for which I have no answer, is whether or not—if such experiences are genuine—whether or not these facts should influence how we understand and even rule on the matter? And maybe, I might humbly suggest, the values our children experience and learn could be considered, even by poskim, in determining whether or not reciting the she-lo asani ishah blessing is necessary for men to remain within the tent of Orthodox Judaism, on an equal level with keeping kosher and keeping Shabbos. If this blessing, in fact, contributes towards inculcating a set of beliefs none of us hold—including that men are in some essential way “better” than women—is that itself reasonable cause for its reconsideration?

Alan Krinsky, PhD, MPH, works full-time as a Senior Analyst in the field of healthcare quality improvement, and is also a writer. He was previously a monthly columnist for Rhode Island’s Jewish Voice & Herald, and his essays have been published at The Huffington Post, in The Providence Journal, and on the online version of The Forward. He lives with his family in Providence, RI and currently serves as the President of Congregation Beth Sholom.

(Asher Lopatin writes: Rabbi Winberg touches on some of the same critiques that I have of Rabbi Shaul Magid’s response to Rabbi Dov Linzer’s Op Ed in the New York Times).

Guest Post from Rabbi Seth Winberg who received rabbinic ordination at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, and an M.A. from Yeshiva University. Rabbi Winberg is currently Assistant Director at the University of Michigan Hillel.

-

Poor Rabbi Dov Linzer. I am honored to have been a student of his remarkable erudition and emotional sensitivity. Reacting to unconscionable behavior in the name of Torah by some Jews in Israel, Rabbi Linzer’s op-ed, “Lechery, Immodesty, and the Talmud”, appeared in the New York Times late last month. A full analysis of talmudic sources appeared on his blog a month before the op-ed. The upshot of Rabbi Linzer’s argument is that the Talmud “places the responsibility for controlling men’s licentious thoughts about women squarely on the men.”

Professor Shaul Magid quickly responded in an open letter to Rabbi Linzer: “To instantiate your reading of the Talmud would require you to act decisively to abolish all the legal mandates that objectify women’s bodies and put the onus on the men to take full control of their libido and desire.” Rabbi Linzer did not go far enough for Professor Magid in promoting liberal values.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rabbi Linzer is trying to have a real conversation about important values. If Rabbi Shafran and Professor Magid take Torah and ideology seriously, perhaps in the future they will engage in relationship building with their liberal Orthodox colleagues and leave polemics for other situations.

The larger challenge in this discussion is the extent to which the entire conversation is dominated by men. (I am guilty as charged.) I am pleased to see Rabba Sara Hurwitz adding her perspective. I pray that other women–students and graduates of Yeshivat Maharat, the Drisha Scholars Circle, GPATS, and similar programs–will add their voices too.

Diversity Within Halacha: Rejecting the Need to Jettison the Entire Halachic System

Rabbi Asher Lopatin

Rabbi Shaul Magid’s “Open Letter to Rabbi Dov Linzer on Modesty and Jewish Law” (http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/5613/an_open_letter_to_rabbi_dov_linzer_on_modesty_and_jewish_law_/

tries to limit Rabbi Linzer’s attempt to defend all of genuine Jewish law and tradition from being the basis for the radicalism that we are witnessing in Beit Shemesh, Meah She’arim and other places.  “What anyone claims as the position of the Talmud is false by definition,” he writes.  Clearly Rabbi Linzer can only stake out “a Talmudic position and not the Talmudic opinion.”  I agree with his point that no one, and no one source,  can speak for all of Judaism.

Nevertheless, after making his point, Rabbi Magid then attempts to do exactly what he criticizes Rabbi Dov Linzer of doing: painting all of Jewish law and tradition with a single monochrome brush.  Whereas Rabbi Magid accuses Rabbi Linzer of defending all of Jewish law – and showing how progressive it is – by a single quote from on passage of the Talmud, Magid tries to show how the Jewish legal system as a whole, as we know it today, “serve[s] as the foundation of the problem” and that the “key authoritative texts of the tradition” have given rise to misogyny and bias against women.  If Rabbi Magid were following his own arguments consistently – and I support his argument – he would have to admit that Jewish law and Jewish sources are diverse and not monolithic.  Just as some authorities could bring proof to refute Rabbi Linzer’s declaration that “The Talmud says (to men): It’s your problem, Sir [if the women are not dressed in the way you would want them to dress]; not theirs.”, likewise, Rabbi Linzer and those Modern Orthodox who support his view can bring real sources through the generations that would support his arguments.  

Rabbi Magid tries to show that there are no nuances or disagreements in traditional sources regarding mehitza, prohibition on hearing a woman’s voice or even women saying Kaddish.  While there certainly are sources which claim the purpose of a mechitza (separation in a synagogue between men and women) is for the men not see the women, Maimonides, in his key halachic work, the Yad Hachazaka, specifically rejects the idea of seeing, and writes that the purpose is merely to separate, not to hide the women.  There are traditional Jewish sources which  challenge any prohibitions on a woman’s voice, except if it sexually intended, and Chavot Yair, four centuries ago, dismissed any halachic prohibition on women saying Kaddish.  Modern Orthodox women cover their hair today because they are following what the Talmud calls “Jewish tradition” through the millennia, not because men might be attracted to women’s hair.  That was established a century ago by the Lithuanian author of the Aruch HaShulchan.  Even chareidi women who wear gorgeous, natural hair wigs, are not doing so to reduce sexual attraction.

Rabbi Magid can claim that these sources are minority sources, or contrived, but the history of halacha is filled with minority opinions that come to dominate.  Just consider Maimonides trying to claim that the scores of anthropomorphic descriptions of God in the Torah and the Talmud are merely metaphors!  Do we really believe this?  Well, Orthodoxy does, whether it was contrived to fit Judaism into Greek thought or not.  When the Tosafists of the 12th century saw women shaking lulav or saying blessings over hearing the shofar, they found internal halachic justification for such behavior, without the need to reject the halachic system.  

Modern Orthodoxy might not be the only way, and the Ultra-Orthodox view of women and modesty may indeed be able to find sources in the halachic tradition.  However, Rabbi Linzer, and those of us in the Modern Orthodox world who support his enlightened view of relations between men and women, do not need to jettison the traditional halachic system to find a better, and, in our own mind, a more Torah true attitude.   From Maimonides to the Tosefists to the Chavot Yair till today, rabbis will struggle to understand what the halacha and the Talmud is really saying.  They will end up with diverse understandings based on who they are, where they are living, and which values they are sensitized to.  But this diversity is not false or disingenuous : it is the way the halachic system was designed to work to allow us to meet the challenges of every generation.  Rabbi Linzer’s take on modesty and men’s responsibility is a Torah-true outcome of that process, which can find real halachic sources from the Talmud till today.

Readers in the Los Angeles area have been buzzing (no pun intended) for almost two weeks now about the Jewish Journal’s cover story about bugs in vegetables. The story aroused much exasperation and cynicism in the Pico-Robertson ‘hood, as it implied that one could only conform with the prohibition on consuming bugs through a combination  of tedious inspection and washing of some vegetables, paying an exorbitant price for others, and giving up entirely on yet others.  The story featured the sweeping sub-headline “The presence of even one bug can render an entire vegetable not kosher. On this matter, Orthodox rabbis are unequivocal.”

Unfortunately  the Journal story omitted a significant portion of the classical halachik discussion on this issue, the portion that applies normative halachik leniencies to the bug issue. For the sake then of expanding the parameters of the discussion in the ‘hood, I offer the following brief points (you are invited to check the Bnai David – Judea bulletin over the next several Shabbatot for the fuller discussion at www.bnaidavid.com):

(1)   We are forbidden to eat bugs that are big enough to be seen by the naked eye.  And leafy vegetables that tend to have bugs on them at least 10% of the time, need to be checked. On this, Orthodox rabbis truly are unequivocal. What’s the checking procedure? To quote the  Star-K website, “Make a complete leaf by leaf inspection, checking both sides of the leaf. Wash off any insects prior to use.” Pretty straightforward.

(2)   Bugs that are not on the surface of leaves, but which are lodged inside the florets of broccoli for example, are by Torah law, deemed insignificant (“batel”) as they occupy less than 1/60^th of the broccoli’s total mass. There is however, a potential complication introduced by rabbinic law, which generally regards any complete organic unit (like a bug for example) as being resistant to the laws of “insignificance”. Thus the possibility that embedded bugs too must be removed.

(3)   However, Rabbi Moshe Heinemann, the Star-K’s rabbinic administrator explained in a 2007 article, why the laws of insignificance pertain to embedded bugs nonetheless. There is a reasonable chance, he points out, that any given head of broccoli may contain no bugs at all, which is to say that the presence of embedded bugs is a “safek” (doubtful). And as a general halachik principle, we only refrain from  rabbinicaly prohibited items when they are certainly present, but when they are only possibly present, we rule leniently. In Rabbi Heinemann’s words, “[in] cluster vegetables, where parasites hide themselves in the vegetable’s florets and we cannot see them through visual inspection, the halacha postulates that we can take a lenient position and assume that the florets are insect-free”.

(4)   He continues that it is nonetheless “proper” (perhaps to insure that we’re not dealing with an unusually heavily-infested head) that the Star-K’s checking procedure be used, which involves the following fairly simple steps: “Agitate florets in a white bowl of clean water. Examine the water to see that it is insect-free. If insects are found, you may re-do this procedure up to three times in total. If there are still insects, the whole batch must be discarded. If the water is insect-free, look over florets to see if any insects are visible on the tops and stems. If no insects are noticed you may use the vegetable.” Again, pretty simple and straightforward.

(5)   Rabbi Heinemann was far from the first to rule leniently on these matters. Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein, in his classic halachik work Aruch HaShulchan identifies three additional reasons why bugs that are embedded in vegetables need not be checked for or removed (at all). One of the three reasons is that the rabbinic stringency concerning complete organic units was never meant to apply to items that people find repulsive (like eating bugs for example)

Of paramount significance is Rabbi Epstein’s motivation for seeking leniencies in this area. He observed that the religious Jews of his day routinely ate vegetables, only removing the bugs that were visible on the surface. “And it is unthinkable to suggest”, he says, “that the people of Israel (“Clal Yisrael”) are all stumbling with regard to this prohibition.., and it is proper therefore to search [for leniency] in their merit.” And he concludes his discussion by saying, “and God will judge us meritoriously, just as we are bringing merit to the people of Israel”

It is this spirit, the halachik authority taking responsibility both for the law, and for the people, that has sadly fallen out of today’s bug conversation, warping much of  the contemporary rabbinic approach.

 Please do follow up with your own rabbi with further questions, but the general approach outlined above, is a solid halachik framework.