28 Apr 2009

So THIS is loshon Horah?

I made a list and I want to know which of these items are lahon horah then?

As far as I see some are facts (e.g. Rav Hutner liking opera), some are impressions (e.g. ones derived my encounter with Masorti Jews), some are good sociological trends (e.g. neither reform nor Orthodoxy dying out), some are interpretations (e.g. that Rambam's Principles were for the masses whilst the Guide was for those seeking truth- the view of Abarbanel), some are philosophical qualms (e.g. Kiruv groups use of dualism), some are pragmatic evaluations (e.g. inability of Reconstructionist Judaism to be attractive), moral principles (e.g. fighting racism no matter which big rabbi said it) etc etc

Yet they are all things that I would like to say. They are all things that I think are important to say. They are all things that are of concern if we don't want Judaism to be corrupt, elitist, boring, unsatisfying, false, intellectually dishonest, split apart, violent, self-interested or hypocritical. Now some of the points will be inconvenient, distressing, or just plain chutzpadik. I can perfectly well understand why a reform person is upset that I don't view their practice as authentically Jewish, or a chareidi person if I say they are insecure. But, get over it or hate me, argue back or ignore me, act differently to how you used to be or show you behaved that way all along, share some different experiences and show the beauty of your point of view but.... don't stop me having opinions.

If “not having an opinion” or at least “not saying it” is what is required to keep the your interpretation of laws of lashon horah, then I will not be cowed away for standing up for truth and morality as I perceive it. Especially when what I am being asked to suppress are the philosophical viewpoints of the Chazal or the Rishonim themselves. I do not, and will not, belong to a Catholic Israel where conformity overrides emet. And yes, I'm poor, stupid and spiritually low. And your point is? Is someone who is spiritual and clever make their opinion right? What I say is probably wrong- but that is the miracle of dialogue- you can tell me.

But yes, if there is a genuine grievance about the ill effects that my utterance will have, I will change it or at least clarify what I meant. I have done in the past and will do again. But first, note there is no attempt at character assasination. Secondly, I stand by the points I make (unless proved wrong) but will seek to mitigate harmful effects on people. Third, PLEASE, PLEASE read what I say carefully.

  1. Don't put words in my mouth. For example I never claimor have claimed that child molestation is more frequent in Chareidi enclaves than elsewhere; just that they don't speak out against the cases that are there. Nor do I calim that Reform Jews or Reform Judaism are stupid, incoherent, irrational and I don't know they are wrong either; just that from an Orthodox perspective I can't see them as legitimate.
  2. A generalisation is just that. No pretensions are made that all Anglo Jews are emotionally stullified, all Masorti are dogmatic, or all Orthodox members of the Knesset out for themselves. But there is a trend I have noticed, and is important to say, and one which I'm waiting you to tell me is incorrect.
  3. Don't take a disagreement of opinion for a criticism. No I don't think gedolim are necessary experts in certain Jewish philosophers but neither would I expect them to be. Yes, Orthodox feminists fit their Orthodoxy into their feminism but doesn't mean I think they are insincere. Yes, reform Judaism is a break from tradition but that doesn't mean that doesn't lead to any positive benefits.
  4. Don't take a true theoretical statement for a practical cause of action. That Israel is wrong to remain in the West Bank doesn't mean it's prudent to get out tomorrow.

So yeh...

  • Liberal Judaism plays the pluralist card but are quite happy to de-legitimate Orthodox Judaism.
  • The Reform movement is a radical departure in Jewish tradition.
  • When reform Rabbi Jonathan Romain says that the Reform Beth Din has solved the 'agunah' problem by saying “G-d wouldn't allow something immoral”, he has merely ignored the problem and not solved it.
  • There is only so much you can do to make Leviticus read “it's okay to have male homosexual sex”.
  • How does it serve anyone by calling Orthodox Judaism “medieval”?
  • Orthodoxy need to learn a drive for social action from Reform Jews
  • Progressive Judaism is one of the most 'supernatural' strands of Judaism because they can tell us what G-d wants without any method for finding out.
  • Reform Judaism has to accept it is not legitimate in the eyes of the Orthodox.
  • Only Progressive Jews and Lubavitch are prepared to go to where the Jews are.
  • Conservative Judaism understands halacha in a non-traditional way. 'Halacha has always changed' is ill-defined and cannot be used to justify anything.
  • Louis Jacob's “liberal supernaturalism” is just a little too liberal and a little too supernatural.
  • Louis Jacobs was clearly a mensch, a scholar and a devout orthoprax Jew, and a shame on Orthodoxy for scapegoating him
  • Masorti Judaism has moved a long way from Rabbi Louis Jacobs and for all intents and purposes, deny Torah min Hashamayim altogether.
  • In a supposed synthesis between traditional and modern values, Conservative Jews rarely spell out the traditional values.
  • Conservative Jews take a very dogmatic line about 'Bible Criticism' despite having any convincing evidence for their point of view.
  • It is clear that Masorti Judaism fills a need which many intelligent, observant Jews have and Orthodoxy needs to take its head out of the sand.
  • Only Chareidi Judaism spells out what it is, whilst everyone else can focus on what they are not: Not-Chareidim.
  • There is a disconcerting habit of Masorti people I have met to paint themselves as the heir to a “Non-Fundamentalist Orthodoxy” and call people who disagree with them “Fundamentalists”
  • Orthodoxy isn't dying any time soon, and so non-Orthodox Judaism will have to shut up and deal with it.
  • Reconstructionist Judaism is just wrong when it thinks that changing Judaism's doctrines will make it attractive to modern Jews.
  • Neither Modern Hebrew nor Ashkenazi are 'more authentic' or 'more original' (If any is, Yemenite Hebrew is probably closer).
  • I am sceptical of Rabbi Berkovit's attempts to intuit the values of Judaism.
  • When people label themselves “Modern Orthodox”, it usually means they are lax about halacha.
  • Rashi is sometimes wrong and does not always give the pshat.
  • Centrist Orthodox Jews are scared to pasken Halacha.
  • Modern Orthodox Jews, unlike Conservative Jews can be intellectually daring without being needlessly controversial.
  • A large proportion of the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance would rather fit their Orthodoxy into their feminism, than their feminism into their Orthodoxy.
  • Hirschian Jewry such as that in England has led to a tepid, heartless Judaism.
  • Just because a Modern Orthodox shul allowed something 40 years ago doesn't make it halachically acceptable.
  • A lot of Modern Orthodox is pseudo-intellectual and pretentious and distracts from emunah peshuta.
  • Modern Orthodoxy's inability to go anywhere but London shows their inability to live up to their ideals.
  • Messianic Religious Zionism can lead to a dangerous religious violence.
  • Settlers often put “the land” higher than G-d
  • When rabbis (acknowledged gedolim even) make racist remarks, they deserve to be vocally criticised.
  • It is odd and frankly unnecessary to justify “Madda”; so stop it and get on with studying it.
  • The Israeli government are harming the future of existence of a Jewish state by remaining in the West Bank.
  • Rav Hutner enjoyed the opera and studied at the University of Berlin.
  • There is more to midrash than “The Midrash Says....”
  • Ralbag didn't believe in hasgacha peratit
  • If a particular Jewish philosopher's thought is not something the Gedolim knows much about, it doesn't show negligence on their part, nor does it make them any less of a Gadol, but means they should defer to those philosophers' who do know more about it than they.
  • The Chareidi world censors massive parts of the mesorah and the views of many Rishonim would not count as 'Orthodox today'.
  • Religious members of the knesset harm the religious cause by trying to impose religious legislation on people.
  • Rambam wrote his Principles for the religious masses but the Guide for those who are seeking the truth.
  • Artscroll's translation of Shir haSharim ruins the metaphor it's trying to make.
  • Hagiographies do not inspire 'yirat shamayim' in a way that the Gedolim who they are writing about would approve.
  • Kiruv groups teach an outdated Christian, philosophical idea called “Dualism”.
  • Those who say the world is 5769 years old, in the sense the laymen understands a “year” is false.
  • Those who claim that the Torah gives an account of evolution, are incorrectly insinuating that the sages didn't understand Genesis.
  • Only Chareidi Judaism seems to put real effort into prayer.
  • Reform Judaism isn't dying any time soon, and the Orthodox will have to learn to live with it.
  • I've heard too many Orthodox rabbis speak 'lashon horah” about the Chief Rabbi.
  • It's not for a few Roshei Yeshiva who have an alien world-view to me, to pasken for me.
  • Rav Eliyashiv was wrong to ban Rabbi Slifkin's works on evolution.
  • It is a sign of insecurity when Chareidim do things such as ban 2/4 beat music, go through books like “Ethics from Sinai” to purge all non-Jewish references; and reinterpret people like Rav Hirsch to say one can only study for parnassa.
  • There are a lack Chareidi rabbis denouncing cases of massive fraud against the government, or speaking out to protect victims of Child Molestation, for fear of mesirah and lashon horah.
  • Judaism hasn't got out the ghetto, halacha is failing to adapt to national life and is irrelevant for most Israelis.
  • Ibn Ezra learnt a biblical interpretation from a Karaite; and Abarbanel from the Christians.

8 Apr 2009

Pesach Thought 1: Hesed and the Prisoners Dilemma

I

We read at the seder- "Let all who are hungry enter and eat; let all who are in need come and celebrate the Passover"

Why the repetition? They actually refer to different things. The second (Kol Ditzrich) means all who are in need but not all who are in need of bread. The person may indeed be a millionaire who who doesn't go wanting. They may have plenty of food but no home or family. The invitation for this person is not to come and eat but to spend and celebrate Pesach in the company of others.

It sounds very nice to reach out to people who might be lonely. However, if you think about the invitation, it is a prima facie absurd act. What are you asking the millionaire to come share with you? What are you going to give him? Maybe you should provide the company but ask him to bring the finest champagne and Pesach food. But no! We invite him so he can partake of the lechem oni- The bread of affliction! A bit of matzah!

Maybe an answer can come with an understanding on the nature of hesed- where, on the seder night, we showing loving-kindness to others. Here is how R' Soloveitchik describes Hesed:

Hesed denotes, in practical terms, the vastness of kindness, contributing more than one's capacity, giving away more than one had a chance to store, accommodating more than one's narrowly bounded existential area will permit. In short, hesed means compulsive kindness, spontaneous sympathy... Hesed does not depend on the actual size of one's possessions, upon numbers and figures. It is rather, a spiritual attitude...

We give away more than our capacity! We take a paltry piece of Matzah that hardly nourishes myselfand yet I break it in half to give the rich man! Surely this is irrational. How can we understand this?

II

A nice way to look at this is with the help of the iterated prisoner's dilemma! There are lots of nice ways to dress this experiment up to link it with real life situations and make it realistic, but let's just illustrate it using a simple points version.

People on computers in two rooms have the chance to press 'co-operate' or 'defect', and they don't know what the other person has pressed until the experiment is over. There are various points you can earn depending on what you choose compared to what they choose. The aim of the game is to have as many points as you can- and points mean prizes!

Here is an example table of points for different combinations:

Player 1 Player 2-> Cooperate Defect
Cooperate 3, 3 0,5
Defect 5, 0 1,1

So what is the rational move to make in the game? One should defect because:

1. You have more opportunities of scoring if you defect. There is only one combination out of four where co-operating wins points.

2. If you defect, you will at least get a point whatever happens.

3. The top prize for defecting is more than the top prize for co-operating.

4. By co-operating you have no means of getting more than your opponent.

This can be seen clearly if the table looks like this:

Player 1 Player 2-> Cooperate Defect
Cooperate win-win lose much-win much
Defect win much-lose much

lose-lose

When you look at an individual's benefit in an individual situation, the best thing to do is to look out for number one. That is the bog-standard Prisoner's Dilemma and is indisputable. What then about the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma? As the name suggests, it is the same experiment repeated many times with the same people, where the points are cumulative. What's the rational thing to do there?

I'm no mathematician but it still seems to be to defect. All other things being equal, it is better to defect. As an individual over many cases, you have more chance in the long term of getting points by defecting. However, experiments show that this is not the case. Individuals get more points by co-operating with each other. I don't just mean that there is a more even distribution of points (more people with more points than before). I don't mean that on average individuals get more points by co-operating (but with some making the biggest profit by defecting). No- it is to the benefit of each and every individual to co-operate despite the math saying otherwise.

Why? What the mathematics doesn't take account of is the human issue of 'trust'. Where you suspect your opponent of going to defect, you will yourself defect. Where there are scant points available, and you think you are going to miss out on them, you will do everything to get each and every point you can. You think you are going to lose everything! Some may co-operate because they think it is the right thing to do (at least in a real-life version rather than points version). Most, for good reason, won't; and you end up in a situation where everyone defects and you only get 1 point each time.

What happens if you do trust the opponent? Remember that you have never met the person, don't know their temperament and have no assurance that they will co-operate. And vice versa. But what if you do? You are more likely to co-operate yourself and then they will begin to trust you and so, reciprocate. In this way, you will get 3 points each time and end up, individually and collectively, with more. People think acting for the 'common good' means being 'charitable' and giving up on individual benefit. Yes, if you are focusing on each act as an isolated act. Overall though, the common good is your individual good.

III

How does this bear on the lechem oni?

Slaves don't share! Where you are worried about where your next meal is going to come from, you will grab what you can and when you can. If there are very limited resources available, you want to make sure that you get your fill. You don't have the wherewithall to think about others because the only way to survive is to eat what you have been given. It makes no sense to give away your bread.

The slave is certainly 'hard done by' and has been forced into a situation which was no fault of their own. Yet... they have a defective personality! They are not just a slave by situation but have a slave personality. If you just look after yourself (although perfectly rational to do so), you cannot contribute to wider society. They are disqualified from being witnesses, are unable to marry and are freed from time-bound mitzvot. Slaves are excluded from anything that involves a true relationship or where one has to rely on them for the good of the whole.

Conversely, what of those who do well in a society of competition? The overall rationale is to get more resources than other people and to stay ahead of the game. That is how they got to where they are. Of course, they may sometimes be 'charitable'. They may sometimes give up some their wealth and choose to 'co-operate'. However, the master-slave relationship continues unabated.

The giver is doing something self-consciously 'generous', out of the normal order, and expects to be thanked. The receiver simply gobbles up the food knowing that it may not happen again. They remain 'dependant' on the whims of the more powerful or rich person. If it's not something they can expect, they may as well take the opportunity to 'defect' and take full advantage of the rich person's rare 'co-operation'. There can be no free relationship between these people. The powerful person is lonely and can't have any relationships- everything is about the goods he gets or generously gives. It is not hesed.

Where then can there be hesed? You will find it where there is the biggest sacrifice. The mark of someone who goes from slavery to freedom is their sharing their insufficient amount of bread- their bread of affliction! They "contribut[e] more than one's capacity, giving away more than one had a chance to store". It's an irrational move on their part if one considers the individual act and or even many individual acts over time. They gamble their survival, where there is no expectation that the master will reciprocate. The master may just stamp home his/her advantage and dominate more. It is a risk but only through "compulsive kindness, spontaneous sympathy" can you be free.

"Why you being so hard on the poor slave? Why is all the burden and responsibility on them? Why you being so easy on the big, fat, oppressor?" Let's first make it clear that the richer or more powerful person has to reciprocate and 'give back' to the poorer or weaker person. If not, the process is dead. They have to accept restrictions on their liberty in order to enhance the liberty of others. They can't just think about what is rational for them now but what is good for everyone always. In fact, they have to make the first move. Remember the first line of our text was "Let all who are hungry enter and eat".

However, whilst it is not the fault of the slave that he is under external conditions of oppression, it is only the slave who can lead the way to true freedom. The important point to bear in mind here is that it is the oppressor who is most "in need". It is essential that the poor's physical needs are met and so - let him come eat. But the powerful- despite their wealth or power- has the debilitating spiritual condition of loneliness. Nothing they can do, as I said above, can lead to a true relationship because even giving money away cements the power relationship.

Only through the absurd gesture of the slave sharing his bread of affliction can those "in need" be redeemed from solitude. Only from something as genuine as this can you have a chance of forming free relationships. The restrictions both parties accept upon themselves are not simply altruistic but good for everyone materially and spiritually. Maybe there will be equality after all.

Only through telling a story so absurd and seemingly irrational as the Jews exodus from Egypt, can we learn about a free society. Only through recounting an event so grounded in faith and trust do we have a chance of creating freedom for everyone, everywhere.

6 Apr 2009

(B"H) A Little Gratitude

It never hurts to thank people when they deserve thanking and to show gratitude if you have been the recipient of a person's good traits. This is what I intend to do!!!!

(I must admit, however, that the impetus to write this was not completely altruistic. I had sinned, was feeling very guilty and wondered how I could achieve kappara. I felt too guilty for confession (vidui) at that moment, as I couldn't vouch for my genuineness as to whether I would do it again or not. Giving money to charity was an appropriate response but felt that was too much like bribing G-d to remove the evil decree. As for repentance (teshuva) we'll have to wait and see! So I thought to myself, "What good can come from this that wouldn't otherwise happen?"- this is my insufficient response)

So here goes...

Dan l'kaf zechut- benefit of the doubt

The greatest example of this fine trait is my elderly neighbour- Betty- who lives in one of the flats downstairs . What is great is that she doesn't even know she is doing it. Often, she is there ready to intercept me (or any passer-by) in order to have someone to talk to. She'll often ask, of a morning, if I'm on my way to work. Now it has been known for me to sometimes oversleep. Okay- maybe slightly more than that. Now once I overslept till 11 and yet, when I go downstairs Betty casually asks if I'm on my way to work. There's not the slightest hint in her voice or manner that she takes this to be an unconventional time to go to work! If that is the time I'm going, then there is no assumption that it should be otherwise or that I'm doing wrong.

A shining example to us all!

Free Books

Below are three books that for altruistic reasons have been given to me. Admittedly, issue-based novels, works of practical halacha and books about the intersection of Darwin and Judaism would not be my first choice. But maybe that it what is so special about these gifts- I read things that I otherwise wouldn't!

The Fixer

Dan (one of my old housemates) and I were in a taxi on the way back to LA airport and the Russian driver noticed we were Jewish. He was clearly so himself and started up a conversation. Dan did most of the talking with him, as I didn't like many of the views that he was expressing and could only manage nods and grunts. However, as we arrived at the airport, he took out a book from the compartment in the car door, and gave it to me as a present.

The book was clearly one of his favourites that he had read and re-read tens of times. The book is decades old (cost 95 cents at the time), pages are worn and grubby, the front cover is torn in various places, the spine is slowly pealing off, the corners are bent and every time I touch it, something falls off! He obviously liked it enough to keep in his car.

Why he decided to give it to me I'm not sure! The novel was about a blood libel against a Russian Jew, and I'm sure anti-semitism came into our conversation. But I'm sure he would have had Jewish passengers in LA before and he would of talked to them about anti-semitism too! Also, why did he specifically give it to ME, as opposed to Dan? I'm not sure but THANK YOU- it's a good novel!

Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism

Geoffrey Cantor was my supervisor on my undergrad philosophy dissertation on Maimonides. He is also an expert historian on how both Jews and Quakers interacted with and viewed science over time. The year following my dissertation, I found a free copy of a new book he had helped edit, with a little note, in my philosophy pigeon hole. He wasn't generally giving them out and was touched that he thought of me!

Pirchei Shoshanim's "Making the Shabbos Kitchen"

I have filled in a couple of times for Rabbi Yechiel Conway and leined in Harrogate. This is because of an accident he has had. Anyway, when collecting the keys for the Harrogate shul flat, he had this book ready to give me which he had helped edit. Again, very kind. But I won't attempt proper gratitude myself but quote the gratitude of the books author to him, in the preface:

"I must acknowledge the inspiration, lively email discussions spanning over 2,200 in number, and the considerable clarity brought to the text by the editorial revisions he provided. R' Yechiel is a remarkable person, with a brilliant mind. The friendship that emerged from working together is the highlight of my participation in this project."

My Boss

I like him- what more do I need to say! Well there is the fancy MP3 player he gave me for Chanukah (NB: That's not the reason I like him). I intentionally didn't tell him of my birthday, just in case he got me another unnecessarily large present. In hindsight, maybe that was a bad move as no friends got me anything (cough... only gratitude from here on in). However, I don't think my conscience would allow me to take anything more from him.

I could list a few more nice things but then my "I like him- what more do I need to say! " would seem incredibly strained, so I won't.

Shabbat Meals

A few thank yous to those North Leodensians that have been so kind as to offer me Shabbat meals. I have literally relied on these people!!! :-)

Nicole & Simon Myerson

Valerie and Ivor Baum

Susan and Neville Cohen

Dabrushie and Eli Pink

Ettie and Yehuda Refson

Ruth and Chaim Bell

... and Shalom Kupperman

Eleanor and Allan Taylor

Elise and Jason Kleiman

Denise and Stanley Surr

Valerie and Jonathan Bodansky

Leonie and David Apfel

Naomi and Daniel Levy

Jonathan Sumroy and parents

Also, thanks goes to a few people who have wanted to have me but for certain reasons, I could not eat there.

And...

My parents, agents and publicist; without whom, I wouldn't be where I am today.

Oh! And... Of Course....

....Baruch Hashem

(B- shows promise but could do better)