After reading the transcripts of the recent YU event I have to apologize to the Frum and Gay crowd for my flippant tone the other day. Clearly, whether God wrote the Torah or not, growing up gay in the OJ community is extremely challenging, and for that alone these people deserve our deepest sympathy.
But is our deepest sympathy of any use? Sure, it's better than the opposite, but at the end of the day it doesn't really solve the situation does it. For someone who is really gay, being frum just isn't going to work, no matter how "sympathetic" everyone is.
You can talk about fighting the yetzer horoh all you like, but what kind of marriage can such a person have? Who could they possibly marry? Are they doomed to remain single? (Unless maybe a frum gay guy marries a frum gay girl, so then they're both equally miserable). I recall reading somewhere that the "traditional" frum solution is for frum and gay people to become meshulochim, and travel the world (alone) collecting tzedakah. Is that the only option?!
How can a genuinely gay person remain genuinely frum? They simply can't. They have to leave OJ, because OJ even at it's most sympathetic could never accept 2 gay men living together as a couple. Now some people have suggested that the only real issue here is a certain type of sex act, so as long as (at least officially) people are not doing that act, if 2 males live together then there's no technical problem.
But this is ridiculous. How can you expect two gay men in love to pretend that they don't have sexual relations with each other? What kind of life is that? It's not a realistic solution.
Every which way I think about this, there is only one real solution for a frum and gay person - he should leave Orthodoxy. Staying will force him to live a horribly unfulfilled life. One of my Rabbis has apparently counseled people out of Orthodoxy (don't know if that was because they were gay), and that would seem to be the prudent thing to do.
And please note, my motivation here is NOT to kick out undesirables - chas vesholom - rather, I am just trying to give good advice. I support OJ because I think it's a good lifestyle - but when the OJ lifestyle is so fundamentally flawed for you - the only sensible thing is to leave. Sure, there will be some anguish over leaving the comforting religious sect of your childhood, but surely that doesn't compare to the anguish of living your life in the closet, all alone.
I would further say that the only moral response for a Rabbi, when faced with a frum and gay person, is to counsel them out of OJ. It would be unethical for an OJ (MO) Rabbi to insist to a frum n gay person that they MUST stay and fight.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
When out is in and in is out
Afte a week of considering all the pros and cons about outing myself and having a non anonymous blog, it seems to me that the cons outweigh the pros. This is because as an anonymous bloger, I actually get to be truly "out". I can blog about my true feelings and thoughts, about what people I know actually said to me, about what is really going on. Anyone who has read this blog (and it's deceased predecessors) consistently over the past five years knows me better than many people in real life.
This blog is the real deal.
On the other hand, if I out myself and have a non anonymous blog, I will be forced to be more "in" the closet. I will have to censor myself significantly, and as Gil pointed out, I will no longer be able to quote my friends for fear of outing them too. Being out will actually force me to be more in.
As for the possible gain that I might be taken more seriously, there is no actual evidence to back this up. Is Missisipi Fred taken less seriously because he is anonymous? Is Gil taken more seriously? In fact, the opposite may be true, once there is a name to the blog, people are like, well, who knows what he really thinks, he has to say that to keep up appearances. I think that about Gil all the time.
So in conclusion, I guess I will stay anonymous. Thanks for all the feedback.
This blog is the real deal.
On the other hand, if I out myself and have a non anonymous blog, I will be forced to be more "in" the closet. I will have to censor myself significantly, and as Gil pointed out, I will no longer be able to quote my friends for fear of outing them too. Being out will actually force me to be more in.
As for the possible gain that I might be taken more seriously, there is no actual evidence to back this up. Is Missisipi Fred taken less seriously because he is anonymous? Is Gil taken more seriously? In fact, the opposite may be true, once there is a name to the blog, people are like, well, who knows what he really thinks, he has to say that to keep up appearances. I think that about Gil all the time.
So in conclusion, I guess I will stay anonymous. Thanks for all the feedback.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Would the Rambam allow Homosexual activity?
As quoted in the previous post, the Rambam states unequivocally that halachah "ignores the injury that might be caused to a single person through a certain maxim or a certain divine precept". In other words, even though the entire point of halachah is to improve us, it's quite possible (or even probable) that at least for some people, some of the time, some halachot don't just not provide any improvement to the person's overall welfare (spiritual, emotional, physical, mental etc), but are even injurious to that person. So in such cases, what should that person do, according to the Rambam?
This is the obvious question here, but the Rambam completely ignores it. From a rational, Rambam perspective, since the whole point of halachah is to improve you, then if there is (genuinely) a halachah which is detrimental to you, yet you are mechuyav to be improved, it would seem that the Rambam's only rational approach would be to permit you to break the halachah in such a circumstance.
Now, you might counter argue that permitting the breaking of halachah is a very slippery slope which will inevitably result in everyone making all sorts of excuses why certain halachot are injurious to them. So clearly, such a policy could not ever be "official".
But it would seem that according to the Rambam, if you were to do an aveiroh, let's say in private, and it was genuinely the case that keeping the halachah in such a case was not in any way beneficial to you, then according to the Rambam you would be justified (or probably even mechuyav) to do whatever is most beneficial to you.
I can't see that the Rambam could take any other approach, since according to the Rambam your task in life is to be perfected as much as possible, and the halachah is simply a rational means to that end. When the halachah works then good, and when it doesn't then the only rational thing to do would be to ignore it.
Now, I'm not going to get into details about what kinds of halachot could be injurious to which kinds of people - according to the Rambam it would seem that each person has the right to make his own cheshbon. Of course if you are biased and make the cheshbon incorrectly then your actions may end up being injurious to you, and you will suffer any natural and rational consequences arising therefrom. But if you are correct in your assessments, then all will be well with you.
This is the obvious question here, but the Rambam completely ignores it. From a rational, Rambam perspective, since the whole point of halachah is to improve you, then if there is (genuinely) a halachah which is detrimental to you, yet you are mechuyav to be improved, it would seem that the Rambam's only rational approach would be to permit you to break the halachah in such a circumstance.
Now, you might counter argue that permitting the breaking of halachah is a very slippery slope which will inevitably result in everyone making all sorts of excuses why certain halachot are injurious to them. So clearly, such a policy could not ever be "official".
But it would seem that according to the Rambam, if you were to do an aveiroh, let's say in private, and it was genuinely the case that keeping the halachah in such a case was not in any way beneficial to you, then according to the Rambam you would be justified (or probably even mechuyav) to do whatever is most beneficial to you.
I can't see that the Rambam could take any other approach, since according to the Rambam your task in life is to be perfected as much as possible, and the halachah is simply a rational means to that end. When the halachah works then good, and when it doesn't then the only rational thing to do would be to ignore it.
Now, I'm not going to get into details about what kinds of halachot could be injurious to which kinds of people - according to the Rambam it would seem that each person has the right to make his own cheshbon. Of course if you are biased and make the cheshbon incorrectly then your actions may end up being injurious to you, and you will suffer any natural and rational consequences arising therefrom. But if you are correct in your assessments, then all will be well with you.
Houston, you have a problem
Wow, what the heck's up with the Houston Jewish Community? If you read this comment thread there's all sorts of nastiness and accusations. Our town looks like gan Eden by comparison, eh Dude? And I always thought that Houston was such a nice place.
And what's with Eidensohn? He seems to have it in for Tropper. What's up with that???
And what's with Eidensohn? He seems to have it in for Tropper. What's up with that???
The Most Important RAMBAM on Homosexuality
A few people asked me what does OP think about Frum n'Gay., so here's what I say:
IT is also important to note that the Law does not take into account exceptional circumstances; it is not based on conditions which rarely occur. Whatever the Law teaches, whether it be of an intellectual, a moral, or a practical character, is founded on that which is the rule and not on that which is the exception: it ignores the injury that might be caused to a single person through a certain maxim or a certain divine precept. For the Law is a divine institution, and [in order to understand its operation] we must consider how in Nature the various forces produce benefits which are general, but in some solitary cases they cause also injury. This is clear from what has been said by ourselves as well as by others. We must consequently not be surprised when we find that the object of the Law does not fully appear in every individual; there must naturally be people who are not perfected by the instruction of the Law, just as there are beings which do not receive from the specific forms in Nature all that they require. For all this comes from one God, is the result of one act;" they are all given from one shepherd" (Eccles. xii. 11). It is impossible to be otherwise; and we have already explained (chap. xv.) that that which is impossible always remains impossible and never changes. From this consideration it also follows that the laws cannot like medicine vary according to the different conditions of persons and times; whilst the cure of a person depends on his particular constitution at the particular time, the divine guidance contained in the Law must be certain and general, although it may be effective in some cases and ineffective in others. If the Law depended on the varying conditions of man, it would be imperfect in its totality, each precept being left indefinite. For this reason it would not be right to make the fundamental principles of the Law dependent on a certain time or a certain place; on the contrary, the statutes and the judgments must be definite, unconditional and general, in accordance with the divine words:" As for the congregation, one ordinance shall be for you and for the stranger" (Num. xv. 15): they are intended, as has been stated before, for all persons and for all times.
There's a very important RAMBAM in Moreh Nevuchim, possibly the most significant RAMBAM anywhere, yet many people don't even know about it. Ironically, the statements of the RAMBAM that get the most play these days are his rather silly kiruv clowny statements about the Torah being allegorical (bbut only where it needs to be), which Spinoza already ripped to pieces five hundred years ago (or something like that).
No, what I'm talking about is when the RAMBAM says that Halachah is NOT a perfect system for everyone at all times. Not at all. Like all general systems, it fails in many individual cases. To my knowledge, no other Rishon says anything like this. On the contrary, everyone always goes on about how perfect halacha is for all people for all time yada yada. Maybe nowadays there are some grumbles about agunos and woman's rights and things, but in 1200CE? Not so much.
So what on earth motivated the RAMBAM to say such a radical thing? I don't know for sure, but the RAMBAM seemed to have a very rational view of halachah. It exists for a rational purpose, to secure rational outcomes, and of course rationally, it can't always work to produce such outcomes in every circumstance. So he was probably just being rational. After all, they don't call him the Rational Rishon for nothing.
So, following on from this, I would say that the "family" orientation of Halachah (and I'm obviously not talking about Jake has 2 Daddies) is there as a general, ideal system, and this is what the halachah upholds. Don't fit into that system? OK, there may well be good reasons why you don't. Does that mean you are less than ideal? I don't think so. On the contrary, it might mean you are unique and better than the average. However either way, you're a misfit, and halachah is not going to work, and may even be detrimental to your growth and wellbeing. The RAMBAM seems to accept that as a given.
Of course nothing is forcing you to be Frum n Gay, you could be Reconstructionist and Gay if you want. These are all lifestyle choices. You could also decide to stay and fight, like I am doing for OP. But like I wrote, I think OP has more chances of success than Frum And Gay (FAG).
Why? For 3 reasons:
1. Half of MO is OP, or at least open to the probability. Half of MO is not gay (though they may be gay friendly).
2. Many MO Rabbis know there is a problem with the ikkarim, and some don't even believe themselves. I doubt there's many gay MO Rabbis (though statistically speaking there must be some).
3. Eccentric (non) beliefs are one thing. Anal Sex between Yankel and Shimon (or in MO land, between Brett and Nathan) is another.
But like I said, I may be biased. Maybe Frum n Gay could work somehow. It's not my fight, but good luck to you if it's yours. You have my somewhat ambivalent support.
UPDATE
For all you people who are ignorant of the Rambam, or too lazy to look it up, here is the quotation: (Chapter 34):
IT is also important to note that the Law does not take into account exceptional circumstances; it is not based on conditions which rarely occur. Whatever the Law teaches, whether it be of an intellectual, a moral, or a practical character, is founded on that which is the rule and not on that which is the exception: it ignores the injury that might be caused to a single person through a certain maxim or a certain divine precept. For the Law is a divine institution, and [in order to understand its operation] we must consider how in Nature the various forces produce benefits which are general, but in some solitary cases they cause also injury. This is clear from what has been said by ourselves as well as by others. We must consequently not be surprised when we find that the object of the Law does not fully appear in every individual; there must naturally be people who are not perfected by the instruction of the Law, just as there are beings which do not receive from the specific forms in Nature all that they require. For all this comes from one God, is the result of one act;" they are all given from one shepherd" (Eccles. xii. 11). It is impossible to be otherwise; and we have already explained (chap. xv.) that that which is impossible always remains impossible and never changes. From this consideration it also follows that the laws cannot like medicine vary according to the different conditions of persons and times; whilst the cure of a person depends on his particular constitution at the particular time, the divine guidance contained in the Law must be certain and general, although it may be effective in some cases and ineffective in others. If the Law depended on the varying conditions of man, it would be imperfect in its totality, each precept being left indefinite. For this reason it would not be right to make the fundamental principles of the Law dependent on a certain time or a certain place; on the contrary, the statutes and the judgments must be definite, unconditional and general, in accordance with the divine words:" As for the congregation, one ordinance shall be for you and for the stranger" (Num. xv. 15): they are intended, as has been stated before, for all persons and for all times.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
RU Frum n Gay? YU Poor Thing
I'm not going to go into details about the whole YU gay thing. In short, they held an event, then the RY's got nervous (OMG! What will the RW say?) and issued a clarification (not a condemnation). A storm in a teacup, though I think the event itself was significant.
So what's my opinion on the frum gay YU students who have spent their lives struggling with the terrible knowledge that their orientation is such a Toevah according to God? Oh you poor, poor things, condemned to a life of struggle, knowing that God condemns your behavior, desperate to maybe get some kind of heter or at least some level of acceptance?
Well, I'm not going to go all DovBeary and get kvetchy (crooked weights are also a toevah, just the act is a toevah but you can be as gay as you like, only dominant aggressive behavior is a toevah, etc etc). No. I'm going to say this:
Get real you fools! God didn't say Gay was a Toevah, a group of scribes in 8th century Palestine did.
Now, having removed God from the question, there is obviously still a huge sociological/values issue. Clearly OJ has never accepted the gay lifestyle as being a legitimate option. Judaism affirms the regular family lifestyle as being the "correct" lifestyle, and our communities, rituals and culture reflects that.
But then again, Judaism never really had to deal with this issue in any significant way. Gay people in the ghetto either had to keep quiet or leave. Today the situation is obviously very different. Can OJ be changed to accept a gay lifestyle as legitimate, without destroying OJ? So I think this one is actually going to be difficult. Once you start messing with the core values, you are on a slippery slope. Some people will immediately cry foul at this opinion, since I have been pushing for major change. But what can I do? I don't mean to destroy the core values, but I can't believe in falsity.
But what about gay people? Should they be denied entry into OJ? How can that be fair? Is that what God wants? Is that moral? So I say that OJ is a family oriented religion. If you're not family oriented (i.e. man and woman family), it's not going to work so well. You'd probably be better off in a Conservative shul. And don't worry about God, he probably doesn't exist. And if He does, I seriously doubt He cares that you're gay.
But what about people who think OJ (or maybe LWMO) should change to be more gay friendly? OK, good luck with that. I mean, I can see there being more tolerance, but outright acceptance? I just can't see it. I think OP has a better chance. But I may be biased.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
I must be the only jblogger who wants to be non anonymous but can't
Grrrrr. So many people wrote to me to explain why I can't be non-anonymous; It will cause too much trouble, I will no longer be able to quote my Rabbis so openly, think of my family, it will affect the whole Tropper thing (?) etc etc etc. It's freaking ridiculous.
And everyone is also commenting that my criticism of Kanefsky is unfair, because in reality he probably holds of the DH (or as one commenter put it - he is a "Complex Thinker") but he just can't say so. Plus the Rabbi I quoted yesterday is upset because of what I wrote.
I think it's pathetic that in the MO world all these MO Rabbis are so scared of [their wives their congregants the right wing the bogeyman ] that they can't be honest about their true beliefs. Yes yes, I know, people just can't handle the truth. But in fact, 50% of MO people CAN and DO handle the truth. So why are we faking it for the other 50%? Maybe they should fake it for us?
What's it going to take to make it OK not to have to believe in stuff which is most probably NOT TRUE ACCORDING TO EVERY PIECE OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH KNOW TO MAN???
What will it take to convince the RCA? The IRF? The EJF? Actually, that last one is the easiest. As long as you turn some tricks for Leib and that Satmar guy, you're in. (sorry, couldn't resist).
Do we really live in a world where to admit that the global concensus of academic research might just be right is such a terrible thing? Is that the kind of world we have to live in? Is it?
IS IT?
And everyone is also commenting that my criticism of Kanefsky is unfair, because in reality he probably holds of the DH (or as one commenter put it - he is a "Complex Thinker") but he just can't say so. Plus the Rabbi I quoted yesterday is upset because of what I wrote.
I think it's pathetic that in the MO world all these MO Rabbis are so scared of [their wives their congregants the right wing the bogeyman ] that they can't be honest about their true beliefs. Yes yes, I know, people just can't handle the truth. But in fact, 50% of MO people CAN and DO handle the truth. So why are we faking it for the other 50%? Maybe they should fake it for us?
What's it going to take to make it OK not to have to believe in stuff which is most probably NOT TRUE ACCORDING TO EVERY PIECE OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH KNOW TO MAN???
What will it take to convince the RCA? The IRF? The EJF? Actually, that last one is the easiest. As long as you turn some tricks for Leib and that Satmar guy, you're in. (sorry, couldn't resist).
Do we really live in a world where to admit that the global concensus of academic research might just be right is such a terrible thing? Is that the kind of world we have to live in? Is it?
IS IT?
Why even LWMO desperately needs Orthopraxy
Rabbi Osher Lopatin.
Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky.
Maharat Sara Hurwitz.
Rabbi Barry Gelman.
These people are (supposedly) the shining stars of the LWMO world. Liberal, modern, educated - not at all narrow minded and silly like the RWMO or kal vechomer the Chareidim (lehavdil elef havdolos).
Yet even these people are unavoidably steeped in dogma and silliness. Take this recent article by Kanefsky on the "Ever Narrowing Orthodox Mind", where he laments that Orthodoxy today demands that we believe such silly things as:
Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky.
Maharat Sara Hurwitz.
Rabbi Barry Gelman.
These people are (supposedly) the shining stars of the LWMO world. Liberal, modern, educated - not at all narrow minded and silly like the RWMO or kal vechomer the Chareidim (lehavdil elef havdolos).
Yet even these people are unavoidably steeped in dogma and silliness. Take this recent article by Kanefsky on the "Ever Narrowing Orthodox Mind", where he laments that Orthodoxy today demands that we believe such silly things as:
1. Superiority of Jewish Souls
2. Hashgachah Pratis
3. Tzoros coming from aveiros
4. The avos never did aveiros
5. Hashovas Aveidah to a goy is ossur
6. Midrash & Aggadah are as true as the Torah
7. Genesis matches Science and it is literally true
8. Conservative shuls are worse than not davening
9. Tehhilim was written by Dovid
Apart from the fact that this is a rather strange list, Kanefsky is seemingly blissfully unaware that he maintains an equally silly set of dogmas, which pretty much mirrors the above list one for one:
1. Jews are the "chosen people" by God (even with the usual apologetics)
2. God has a plan for the universe
3. Aveiros are punished in the afterlife
4. The avos talked to God
5. Eating a cheeseburger is ossur
6. The Torah is true
7. Genesis was meant metaphorically
8. Jews for Jesus shuls are worse than not davening
9. The Torah was written by Moshe.
Is there any difference? Typical MO smugness. This is the stupidity we need to fight against. Yes, Kanefsky and company are better than Kanievsky and company. But does that mean they get a free pass?
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Dibbuk!
Jeez. How can I out myself when there's so much juicy news to make fun of. YWN reports that an avreich has been infected by a dybuk in Brazil. They tried to do an exorcism via Skype but it didn't work. As Rav Chaim Kanievsky explained, the infected person must be there in person. As a commenter there explained, Skype doesn't remove dibukim, for that you need McAfee.
As has been noted many times, once people believe in a magical, fantastical world, then anything is possible. Dybukim, talking fish, magic, visitations from angels, reiki, keys in challos - it all works - as long as some Godol says it does.
As has been noted many times, once people believe in a magical, fantastical world, then anything is possible. Dybukim, talking fish, magic, visitations from angels, reiki, keys in challos - it all works - as long as some Godol says it does.
What's interesting though is that the Rationalist RWMO scoff at such things, yet they inhabit a pretty magical world too (at least in the past) - where gods write books, fantastical miracles happened, and ancient middle eastern leaders were actually prophets, receiving the word of god.
I guess the RWMO perspective is this - it's ok and perfectly normal to believe that the world was once "magical", but of course nowadays the world is very rational. When did things change? Well, obviously some time after Chazal but before the Rambam.
I suppose you could call it a type of "Nishtaneh Hatevah".
Outing Myself: Part 2
Wow, the comments on the previous post were from one extreme to the other: Definitely out yourself to definitely don't. Seems like there are good reasons on both sides.
One possible advantage of doing a non anonymous blog is that it could be more like Cross-Currents (lehavdil), i.e. I mean we could have a range of LWMO/OP types who post. Kinda like DovBear but without the fakery. There would be a clear mission and vision. In the past people have wanted to do a joint blog, but I think it will have to be non anonymous.
I would love to have ej as a contributor. Maybe I can persuade him (under a different, real name). What URL should I use? A different one? Just in case, I already grabbed rationaljudaism.blogspot.com.
IMPORTANT: I plan on outing myself
One of the problems with having an anonymous blog is that you are not taken as seriously asyou should be. Another problem is that under the cover of anonymity you are free to say things that you wouldn't normally say. Of course this can be a good thing, as with exposing abuse and such, but it can also be a bad thing, when you say things you shouldn't. A third problem (at least for me) is that I can't stand fakery of any type, and being anonymous feels a little fake, even though I am as honest as possible. A fourth problem is that certain people who are connected to me didn't want me coming out, as that might affect them (and I respected that). A final problem is that in real life, I'm pretty much a straight up type of guy (I think), and having a crazy blog isn't really me. It was fun for a while but we all have to mature and move on. I am almost at my 5 year anniversary. Do I really want to be photoshopping Rabbis on PIMP costumes in 5 years time?
I had an important lunch meeting today with an Orthodox Rabbi to talk about this. He essentially validated that my core aim (to make Orthopraxy a "respectable" part of MO - within certain criteria) is certainly valuable and neccessary, and that in fact he mostly agrees with me about everything (e.g. TMS, DH). He has some harsh words for certain bloggers (I won't say who) who are essentially not honest brokers, and have pre-conceived beliefs about everything e.g. TMS. These people are not really interested in proper scholarship he said. He also validated that he knows other Orthodox Rabis who feel the same way. He also validated that he knows many people within Orthodoxy who feel the same way.
He also validated my side of the debate with my friend H ('H' for Heteredox). H argued that by fighting the RWMO, we are weakening MO vis-a-vis the Chareidim, and look how bad the Chareidim are. I argued that we cannot accept a religious life which is dependant on perpetuating myths or untruths. This Rabbi argued that H is wrong, and that if people like me on the left push for what we believe in, that will balance out the RWMO. I asked him "But what about the Chareidim" and he said the Chareidim don't regard us as being part of their world, and therefore neither should we. And in light of the all recent scandals, I'm inclined to agree.
So, having said all that, I am VERY seriously planning to come out with a non anonymous blog, either at this URL or another. So unless anyone thinks this is a terrible idea (and can explain why), this is what I'm going to do.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
I had an important lunch meeting today with an Orthodox Rabbi to talk about this. He essentially validated that my core aim (to make Orthopraxy a "respectable" part of MO - within certain criteria) is certainly valuable and neccessary, and that in fact he mostly agrees with me about everything (e.g. TMS, DH). He has some harsh words for certain bloggers (I won't say who) who are essentially not honest brokers, and have pre-conceived beliefs about everything e.g. TMS. These people are not really interested in proper scholarship he said. He also validated that he knows other Orthodox Rabis who feel the same way. He also validated that he knows many people within Orthodoxy who feel the same way.
He also validated my side of the debate with my friend H ('H' for Heteredox). H argued that by fighting the RWMO, we are weakening MO vis-a-vis the Chareidim, and look how bad the Chareidim are. I argued that we cannot accept a religious life which is dependant on perpetuating myths or untruths. This Rabbi argued that H is wrong, and that if people like me on the left push for what we believe in, that will balance out the RWMO. I asked him "But what about the Chareidim" and he said the Chareidim don't regard us as being part of their world, and therefore neither should we. And in light of the all recent scandals, I'm inclined to agree.
So, having said all that, I am VERY seriously planning to come out with a non anonymous blog, either at this URL or another. So unless anyone thinks this is a terrible idea (and can explain why), this is what I'm going to do.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Spinka Rebbe going to Jail
So the Spinka Rebbe was sentenced to 2 years. I see this having the following possible effects on chareidi fraudsters:
1. Frum people will realize that even a Rebbe isn't exempt from the law, and they'll think twice before committing fraud. Outcome: Less Chareidi Fraud.
2. Now that the Spinka Rebbe is in jail, clearly being in jail cannot be a bizayon. In fact, it might even be a mark of gadlus, like with the alterer Lubavitch Rebbes who were always in jail. So jail will lose it's stigma (if it ever had any) and frum people will be less bothered by the possibility of ending up there. Outcome: More Chareidi Fraud.
3. These two opposing forces will cancel each other out. Outcome: Same amount of Chareidi Fraud.
1. Frum people will realize that even a Rebbe isn't exempt from the law, and they'll think twice before committing fraud. Outcome: Less Chareidi Fraud.
2. Now that the Spinka Rebbe is in jail, clearly being in jail cannot be a bizayon. In fact, it might even be a mark of gadlus, like with the alterer Lubavitch Rebbes who were always in jail. So jail will lose it's stigma (if it ever had any) and frum people will be less bothered by the possibility of ending up there. Outcome: More Chareidi Fraud.
3. These two opposing forces will cancel each other out. Outcome: Same amount of Chareidi Fraud.
Unbelievable Hypocrisy from R Reuven Feinstein
Feinstein writes: "The resignation of Rabbi Tropper in no way casts any cloud over the validity of any conversion performed by a Bais Din affiliated with or supported by EJF. " So it was OK when Tropper revoked a conversion because the woman was seen wearing pants, but when he turns out to have been granting conversions for sexual favors that "in no way casts any cloud"?
Also, he writes:
"Our role, as per the halachic rulings of Gedolei Haposkim, is to be mekarev the Jewish spouse in an intermarriage while referring the non-Jewish spouse to an independent Bais Din that will offer the geyrus candidate a universally accepted conversion in a case where both agree to a family life of Torah and mitzvos"
So now it's all about kiruv and the conversion is just a referal?
Also, he contradicts himself:
"I have also agreed to take on a more active role in overseeing all of the halachic nuances of EJF in assuring that all universally accepted conversions are in compliance with the highest standards of halacha"
(Note this sentence actually makes no sense, as written. If it's a "universally accepted conversion then surely it's by definition in compliance? What he really means to say is that EJF wants to ensure that the ONLY universally accepted conversions are those which are in compliance)
"It should be noted that EJF has never been, and will never be, involved in the actual geyrus (conversion) of candidates. "
So if they're not involved in conversion, how do they fulfil their "assurance" role? What he really means is they don't get involved in the day to day details, rather they set the standards for the whole enterprise. This also means that they can invalidate non compliant Botei Din, so by saying "EJF has never been, and will never be, involved in the actual geyrus (conversion) of candidates" he's being completely disingenuous.
Also, he writes:
"Our role, as per the halachic rulings of Gedolei Haposkim, is to be mekarev the Jewish spouse in an intermarriage while referring the non-Jewish spouse to an independent Bais Din that will offer the geyrus candidate a universally accepted conversion in a case where both agree to a family life of Torah and mitzvos"
So now it's all about kiruv and the conversion is just a referal?
Also, he contradicts himself:
"I have also agreed to take on a more active role in overseeing all of the halachic nuances of EJF in assuring that all universally accepted conversions are in compliance with the highest standards of halacha"
(Note this sentence actually makes no sense, as written. If it's a "universally accepted conversion then surely it's by definition in compliance? What he really means to say is that EJF wants to ensure that the ONLY universally accepted conversions are those which are in compliance)
"It should be noted that EJF has never been, and will never be, involved in the actual geyrus (conversion) of candidates. "
So if they're not involved in conversion, how do they fulfil their "assurance" role? What he really means is they don't get involved in the day to day details, rather they set the standards for the whole enterprise. This also means that they can invalidate non compliant Botei Din, so by saying "EJF has never been, and will never be, involved in the actual geyrus (conversion) of candidates" he's being completely disingenuous.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Tropper Song
Turns out that 50 Cent is planning to do a song about Tropper. Apparently it goes something like this...
I don't care what you think about me
Cos the rich are givin’ millions of dollars to me
Elyashiv and Wachtfogel, they can’t see
That I'm a mother******* P.I.M.P.
Now Shannon, she in the house, she dancing for dollars
I got a thing for her with that Amir, my Liba, that Satmar
That EJF, and Tuvia Singer
I feed her foolish fantasies, she do ‘em cos she havta
I sent her 3Gs man, and my game got her
A hour later, have that a** up in the Ramada
Them trick Satmars in her ear saying they think about her
I got the bitch by the mikve trying to get a drink up out her
She like my style, she like my smile, she like the way I talk
She from the country, think she like me cause I'm from Monsey New York
I’m that Rebbe trying to holla cause I want some head
I'm that Rebbe trying to holla cause I want some bread
I like how she perform when she in the bed
Bitch do my wife, do the Satmar, but don't do my kid
Look baby this is simple, you can't see
You f******* with me, you f******* with a P.I.M.P.
I don't care what you think about me
Cos the rich are givin’ millions of dollars to me
Elyashiv and Wachtfogel, they can’t see
That I'm a mother******* P.I.M.P.
I'm bout the money you see, girl you can holla at me
If you f******* with me, I'm a P.I.M.P.
Not what you see on TV, no Cadillac, just greasy
Beard full of hair, bitch I'm a P.I.M.P.
Come get naked with me, if you curious to see
how it feels to be with a P.I.M.P.
Roll in the bed with me, but don't put me on TV
From the frontseat of my beis, I'm a P.I.M.P.
If you want to convert, I'm the one you must call
I'll be there to pimp you out to all those guys in shul
If you got problems, I can solve'em, they big or they small
Just remember - to convert, I'm the one you MUST call
I'm your friend, your Rabbi, and confidant, BITCH
I don't care what you think about me
Cos the rich are givin’ millions of dollars to me
Elyashiv and Wachtfogel, they can’t see
That I'm a mother******* P.I.M.P.
I told you fools before, I hang with the Gedolim
I keep a beard, some rims, I'm like one of them Gaonim
I role play with my hoe til I got that bitch confused
She got on Payless, me I got on my Rebbe shoes
I'm shopping for borcalinos, in the summer they cheaper
Man this hoe you can have her, when I'm done I ain't gon keep her
Man, bitches come and go, every Rebbe pimpin know
I’m saying it's a secret, and you gotta keep it on the low
Bitch choose with me, I'll have you stripping in the street
Put my other hoes down, you get your ass beat
Now Liba my bottom bitch, she always come up with my bread
That Guma I was with almost put stitches in my head
If you hoe for my pocket, I'll convert without a hitch
Just gotta believe the world was created in six
Through the EJF, I'll convert any paying bitch
As long as she suck some **** and plays some tricks
I don't care what you think about me
Cos the rich are givin’ millions of dollars to me
Elyashiv and Wachtfogel, they can’t see
That I'm a mother******* P.I.M.P.
Yeah, in Hollywoood they say there's no business like show business
In the EJF they say, there's no business like hoe business
They say I talk too fast, as you can hear on my MP3
But I ain't gonna slow down cos I'm a P.I.M.P.
I don't care what you think about me
Cos the rich are givin’ millions of dollars to me
Elyashiv and Wachtfogel, they can’t see
That I'm a mother******* P.I.M.P.
Now Shannon, she in the house, she dancing for dollars
I got a thing for her with that Amir, my Liba, that Satmar
That EJF, and Tuvia Singer
I feed her foolish fantasies, she do ‘em cos she havta
I sent her 3Gs man, and my game got her
A hour later, have that a** up in the Ramada
Them trick Satmars in her ear saying they think about her
I got the bitch by the mikve trying to get a drink up out her
She like my style, she like my smile, she like the way I talk
She from the country, think she like me cause I'm from Monsey New York
I’m that Rebbe trying to holla cause I want some head
I'm that Rebbe trying to holla cause I want some bread
I like how she perform when she in the bed
Bitch do my wife, do the Satmar, but don't do my kid
Look baby this is simple, you can't see
You f******* with me, you f******* with a P.I.M.P.
I don't care what you think about me
Cos the rich are givin’ millions of dollars to me
Elyashiv and Wachtfogel, they can’t see
That I'm a mother******* P.I.M.P.
I'm bout the money you see, girl you can holla at me
If you f******* with me, I'm a P.I.M.P.
Not what you see on TV, no Cadillac, just greasy
Beard full of hair, bitch I'm a P.I.M.P.
Come get naked with me, if you curious to see
how it feels to be with a P.I.M.P.
Roll in the bed with me, but don't put me on TV
From the frontseat of my beis, I'm a P.I.M.P.
If you want to convert, I'm the one you must call
I'll be there to pimp you out to all those guys in shul
If you got problems, I can solve'em, they big or they small
Just remember - to convert, I'm the one you MUST call
I'm your friend, your Rabbi, and confidant, BITCH
I don't care what you think about me
Cos the rich are givin’ millions of dollars to me
Elyashiv and Wachtfogel, they can’t see
That I'm a mother******* P.I.M.P.
I told you fools before, I hang with the Gedolim
I keep a beard, some rims, I'm like one of them Gaonim
I role play with my hoe til I got that bitch confused
She got on Payless, me I got on my Rebbe shoes
I'm shopping for borcalinos, in the summer they cheaper
Man this hoe you can have her, when I'm done I ain't gon keep her
Man, bitches come and go, every Rebbe pimpin know
I’m saying it's a secret, and you gotta keep it on the low
Bitch choose with me, I'll have you stripping in the street
Put my other hoes down, you get your ass beat
Now Liba my bottom bitch, she always come up with my bread
That Guma I was with almost put stitches in my head
If you hoe for my pocket, I'll convert without a hitch
Just gotta believe the world was created in six
Through the EJF, I'll convert any paying bitch
As long as she suck some **** and plays some tricks
I don't care what you think about me
Cos the rich are givin’ millions of dollars to me
Elyashiv and Wachtfogel, they can’t see
That I'm a mother******* P.I.M.P.
Yeah, in Hollywoood they say there's no business like show business
In the EJF they say, there's no business like hoe business
They say I talk too fast, as you can hear on my MP3
But I ain't gonna slow down cos I'm a P.I.M.P.
DB Converts to JS-Kit (Echo) and so will everyone else
I don't particularly like the new commenting system. It's heavy and slow. But there's really no choice. If you upgrade (for $10) they (claim they) will convert over all your old comments. But if you don't, you're screwed. Staying with Haloscan isn't an option because they are closing down. So, unless you want to lose all your comments, you have to switch. I can't believe Gil will want to lose all his comments (or lose the ability to moderate them), so he'll have to switch too. And everyone else. So it's goodbye Halsocan, we'll miss you.
PS I love the bs spin that DB puts on it: "I've just purchased a Haloscan upgrade that allows you to comment and tweet simultaneously. How great is that?" LOL. (Sorry DB but you know I tell the truth).
Tropper Video
Calm down, I don't have it.
But sources say that it shows them (i.e. all 3 of them) getting into bed, naked, then getting out of bed, with everything in between censored out (but recorded). Sources also say this video was sent to the RCA. (I'm hoping they mean the Radio Corporation of America but I could be wrong).
Can someone send me the video? I have no wish to see Tropper naked, but the other two are reasonably hot. But seriously, this all just in the interest of saving Klal Yisrael. Seriously.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Wackedfoibles says no to EJF!
According to VIN, Rabbi EB Wachtfogel has said no to being head of EJF, and has even issued a letter confirming that. I wonder if the upcoming media storm had anything to do with his decision?
[Truth be told, the only reason for this post is that I like saying Wackedfoibles. Wackedfoibles!]
[Truth be told, the only reason for this post is that I like saying Wackedfoibles. Wackedfoibles!]
Tropper the Godol? Offensive. Tropper the Pimp? Not so offensive
As Chakira writes:
"I actually like Tropper better now that he is not some holy roller but just a Pimp working the streets with his ho's.
Now he is much more human and real to me than this sort of gremlinlike defender of the daath torah cult."
And I agree. As a Godol, he was a scumbag. But as a pimp? He's actually kinda nice. I mean he did keep stressing how much he appreciated X's services, and how he would never force her to do anything she didn't want. This is relatively moral behavior for a pimp.
Maybe all that learning did have some effect after all!
Anyway, I'm glad that after all these years he has finally found his true calling. It would have been a tragedy had he lived an unfulfilled life.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
What exactly is the problem with Tropper?
I don't think the threesome/pimping thing is actually so bad. Before Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom having multiple wives was fine. The Avos had multiple wives. And Tropper wasn't even cheating on his wife since she was in on the whole thing.
And as for the payments and stuff, again, this is all our current subjective 21st century subjective morality speaking. In other cultures (like France) having a mistress is expected. And prostitution is the oldest profession.
So none of that really bothers me to be honest. If 3 adults consent to having a good time together who am I to complain? And if the Satmar guy wants in on the action, is that so terrible? To quote Shakespeare: "Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? If he has a prick does he not have needs?" (or something like that)
So what about the whole EJF thing? Is EJF making it easier for inter-married couples to convert, or harder? EJF seems to get criticized from two contradictory directions: One set of criticism says that they go out and actively recruit people to convert, which is a big no no. Another set of criticism says they make it too hard to convert. So which is it? It can't be both, can it? And from an OP perspective, which is worse? I'm tempted to say that making it hard to convert is a good thing - let potential converts be turned away by crazy Chareidim - it will be good for them.
The only definitive problem I can see here is the blatant hypocracy*. Tropper is on a mission to ban "kefiradick" thinking from the Machaneh, and meanwhile he's a freaking swinger. On the other hand, if you read his blog, he quotes from RYBS, and says you must be respectful of him and Rav Kook.
So basically, it's all a bit confusing.
* And of course the fact that he most likely pressured her into doing things and controlled her through her giyur (though we don't actually have any proof of that)
I wanna shkweeze you, shkweeze you so hard!
From here:Rabbi Leib Tropper, Rosh Yeshiva of Kol Yaakov Torah Center, was born on the Lower East Side to Rav Yehuda Tropper, a popular mechanech at Yeshivas Rabbeinu Yaakov Yosef Elementary School, and Rivka o”h, the daughter of the Valbolneker Iluy, HaGaon HaRav Leib Forer zt”l. After graduating from Yeshivas Rabbeinu Yaakov Yosef at the age of 12 ½, Rabbi Tropper first attended the Yeshiva of Philadelphia and then learned at the Telshe Yeshiva in Cleveland. Before reaching his 15th birthday, Rabbi Tropper traveled to Eretz Yisroel to learn in Yeshivas Torah Ore, founded by Maran Harav Chaim Pinchus Scheinberg shlit”a. Rabbi Tropper spent more than five years at Yeshivas Torah Ore, where he developed a close relationship as a talmid, receiving most of his hadracha from the Rosh Yeshiva shlita.
After leaving Torah Ore, Rabbi Tropper accepted a position at the world renowned Ohr Sameach institutions, then still in its embryonic stages. During that period, Rabbi Tropper accumulated four semichos, the first being from Hagaon Harav Sroyohu Deblitzky shlita, a talmid muvhak of the Chazon Ish zt”l. Subsequently, he received ordination from then Sephardic Chief Rabbi, Rav Ovadia Yosef shlita. However, his most precious semichos were those received from the Mara D’asra of Yerushalayim, Harav Betzalel Zolty and Maran Harav Elazar Menachem Man Shach zt”l, the Ponevezher Rosh Yeshiva.
After five years in Yerushalayim teaching baalei teshuva, Rabbi Tropper returned to the United States to become the educational director of Ohr Sameach, New York located in Yonkers and Monsey. After several years he was encouraged to start a new yeshiva for baalei teshuva who wish to become B’nei Torah and be mainstreamed into a conventional yeshiva environment. Kol Yaakov’s doors opened in Elul of ’81 and was named in honor of Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l, who inspired its founding. In existence for almost 25 years, Kol Yaakov has reached students from across the globe. Rabbi Tropper attributes the yeshiva’s success to the approach in Hashkafa and Chinuch he learned from his Rosh Yeshiva, Maran Harav Scheinberg shlita.
In 1990, Rabbi Tropper began a new outreach program called Horizons, focusing on educating and inspiring the unaffiliated to experience a Torah lifestyle. As its director, Rabbi Tropper has traveled across the world to places such as Berlin, London, Paris among others and visited remote cities throughout the U.S. lecturing and teaching. Additionally, he has also authored three seforim, the first of which was published at the age of 21 which incorporated many of the psakim of Harav Eliyashuv, shlita and received approbations from numerous Gedolim including Harav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt’l and Harav Henkin, zt’l. Another of his Halachic sfarim is based on the p’sokim of his Rebbe, Maran Harav Scheinberg, shlit”a and the third based on halachic decisions of Rav Tuvia Goldstein zt’l.
Rabbi Tropper studied Halacha under the direction of Gedolei Horoah such as, Harav Sheinberg, Harav Tuvia Goldstein and had the special opportunity to learn with Harav Henkin, zt’l.
After leaving Torah Ore, Rabbi Tropper accepted a position at the world renowned Ohr Sameach institutions, then still in its embryonic stages. During that period, Rabbi Tropper accumulated four semichos, the first being from Hagaon Harav Sroyohu Deblitzky shlita, a talmid muvhak of the Chazon Ish zt”l. Subsequently, he received ordination from then Sephardic Chief Rabbi, Rav Ovadia Yosef shlita. However, his most precious semichos were those received from the Mara D’asra of Yerushalayim, Harav Betzalel Zolty and Maran Harav Elazar Menachem Man Shach zt”l, the Ponevezher Rosh Yeshiva.
After five years in Yerushalayim teaching baalei teshuva, Rabbi Tropper returned to the United States to become the educational director of Ohr Sameach, New York located in Yonkers and Monsey. After several years he was encouraged to start a new yeshiva for baalei teshuva who wish to become B’nei Torah and be mainstreamed into a conventional yeshiva environment. Kol Yaakov’s doors opened in Elul of ’81 and was named in honor of Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l, who inspired its founding. In existence for almost 25 years, Kol Yaakov has reached students from across the globe. Rabbi Tropper attributes the yeshiva’s success to the approach in Hashkafa and Chinuch he learned from his Rosh Yeshiva, Maran Harav Scheinberg shlita.
In 1990, Rabbi Tropper began a new outreach program called Horizons, focusing on educating and inspiring the unaffiliated to experience a Torah lifestyle. As its director, Rabbi Tropper has traveled across the world to places such as Berlin, London, Paris among others and visited remote cities throughout the U.S. lecturing and teaching. Additionally, he has also authored three seforim, the first of which was published at the age of 21 which incorporated many of the psakim of Harav Eliyashuv, shlita and received approbations from numerous Gedolim including Harav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt’l and Harav Henkin, zt’l. Another of his Halachic sfarim is based on the p’sokim of his Rebbe, Maran Harav Scheinberg, shlit”a and the third based on halachic decisions of Rav Tuvia Goldstein zt’l.
Rabbi Tropper studied Halacha under the direction of Gedolei Horoah such as, Harav Sheinberg, Harav Tuvia Goldstein and had the special opportunity to learn with Harav Henkin, zt’l.
- All that learning with the world's greatest Gedolim and he's a total menuval.
Does this prove that learning is a complete waste of time? Or perhaps without it he would have been a really, really, really bad menuval?
Apology to the victim in the Tropper case
Although I was careful not to name the person involved in the Tropper case, I did put up a picture which I see that Luke Ford grabbed. However now I see that there are children involved, and I also see that this woman is being ostracized since she lives in the frum community, as she writes:
“I am the victim in the R’ Tropper scandal. I do not know how the audios came into the public, but I beg you to remove the ones containing personal information that identifies me. I can provide edited versions, but please respect me and my children. We are beginning to be ostracized from our community, and I have been banned from entering the day school where my children attend. The trauma endured through this ordeal is indescribable. Please help me from becoming more of a victim.”
There is no doubt that this woman is a victim of Tropper's nefarious ways, and was at his mercy. I feel bad for her and for her kids, but maybe its better for her to stay away from the Chareidim anyways, their morals are suspect. She should move to a nice MO community.
And I don't blame her at all. A single mom trying to raise 2 kids in a frum community, and trying to be megayered at the same time, can't be easy. And then to come across a scumbag like Tropper, oy vey.
The frum community in Houston should be treating this woman like a (role play) rape victim, not like a criminal.
The CHAREIDI community in Houston should be ASHAMED of themselves.
“I am the victim in the R’ Tropper scandal. I do not know how the audios came into the public, but I beg you to remove the ones containing personal information that identifies me. I can provide edited versions, but please respect me and my children. We are beginning to be ostracized from our community, and I have been banned from entering the day school where my children attend. The trauma endured through this ordeal is indescribable. Please help me from becoming more of a victim.”
There is no doubt that this woman is a victim of Tropper's nefarious ways, and was at his mercy. I feel bad for her and for her kids, but maybe its better for her to stay away from the Chareidim anyways, their morals are suspect. She should move to a nice MO community.
And I don't blame her at all. A single mom trying to raise 2 kids in a frum community, and trying to be megayered at the same time, can't be easy. And then to come across a scumbag like Tropper, oy vey.
The frum community in Houston should be treating this woman like a (role play) rape victim, not like a criminal.
The CHAREIDI community in Houston should be ASHAMED of themselves.
No wonder the Gedolim banned the Internet....
It used to be that getting "into trouble" was hard. You had to somehow find someone, be in contact with them, rendezvous, etc etc. Of course it was entirely possible, but it wasn't so easy, except in certain circumstances. Nowadays, it's trivial. There are many web sites full of people wishing to hook up, and even if you're not so attractive you can score easily. I won't go into details but it's really really easy if you want to do something naughty to go do it. When people first realize this, they go a little crazy. I know, I've seen it. A natural Chareidi response is to just ban everything, but that never works. I have some very frum friends who live in the 1960s technology wise (not even a cell phone), yet that still didn't help with raising their kids. The bottom line is that illicit sex is easily available to anyone, anytime, anywhere (OK, maybe I'm exaggerating, but only a little). Even Roshei Yeshivas can have a swinging good time. The solution is not to ban everything and live like recluses. The solution is to realize that what should be stopping you from doing things you shouldn't do is that simply, you shouldn't do those things! Not because you might be found out, not because it's too difficult, not because it's an aveirah (a penuyah or goyah isn't as bad as loshon horoh after all) but because you shouldn't. I think this is a good lesson for everyone.
The Woman's Identity Revealed
So the woman at the center of this scandal is known. I'm not going to reveal any details about her out of respect for her privacy, but she's all over the Internet and it's not hard to find. Whole thing makes much more sense now. I originally thought she was a plant but now I see her details I see she was connected to the guy for a while (sorry to be so vague).
Audio Transcript: Part 2
M: Thank you for calling back I appreciate it. OK so hello
W: I'm here.
M: We have to figure out again - couple of things - we have to figure out - the money I give you now for the lawyer I'm counting as an old past gift. The $1700 that has been cashed is the first of the payment of the 3000, that is November December but I'm going to continue more than that. I have to give you another $1300 for November. I just got an email from Dr White while I was driving - he told me you have the appointment [INAUDABLE] like I told you...$1000 for the visit on Tuesday [INAUDABLE] - that's some money...then there's
W: Why so much?
M: Its two treatments that he is giving you.$500 a piece.
W: $600...
M: He told me its $500 per treatment
W: OK
M: And then he said that also ...erm ... that you'll need three more treatments at six weeks apart over 18 weeks. Each one is $300, which means beside the [INAUD] and everything else that you are going through you have to have another $1000. Its probably closer to $6/700 per trip without sleeping at any place...you have to just figure out all the things with money ... so...even though its beyond [INAUD] I was giving to anything I couldn't turn you down because there was a real tight bond and emotional feeling and whatever glitch of tongue that I had and how you interpreted it and how maybe I should have been more clear about my...
W: Its still the same I just
M: What?
W: It's still the same, that's why I said I wanted it to go back to where it was, its still the same I just can't do those things that are outside.
M: Right, right, so the compromise on that is to [INAUD] ...that doesn't mean I wont take no for an answer, I'll take no for an answer if you say no, the only compromise I want is, ans I want you to go back to the issues and concentrate on what really happened. Zoe I understand you [INAUD] I appreciate that, lets say lets say the other guy that Satmar guy - the moment you spoke to him and everything you said he's not the guy - that should be your call - but what maybe you could do is if you say to somebody I'm not ready to do it right now but can we talk about sex - do you have a problem with just talking about sex to a guy or only actually doing it? Tell me the truth – you don't have to hide anything - its you - you're the person...
W: I think you know talking is worse than doing..to me
M: Really?
W: I have a hard time ..especially somebody that I don't really care for or like, its very hard to get descriptive...
M: Right OK. Kind of like playing on the phone with him not like doing anything, but if you say its not its not, that's the end of the story.
W: In a relationship its very easy to say
M: I understand I got you. [INAUD] I'm not making a condition upon it I just have to feel - if I'm hungry for something - its like somebody who is very hungry and doesn't feel fulfilled - they're eating food they are not eating food that they want or like - and that's what it is like for me..
W: I feel that was my problem because you never expected that before I [INAUD] it, and now I can't take it back.
M: You can take it back, you just have to do it.
W: NO I cant go back. Now I cant go back to the way it was
M: Well you can you're paranoid you don't do anything you don't want to do, I m not going to force you. You're asking me how I feel about [INAUD] I wish you would sometimes - not every person and not every one you can tell me selectively who you feel more comfortable doing it with - the one I say to that I really would want, but its probably not going to happen to you anyway, would be Amir... anything were to happen...he is a very nice guy, he never hurt anybody and he doesn't make you some kind of rough play - he is not nuts - [INAUD] sexual situation - others, yeah yeah no no, if your talking a guy on the phone and you feel, [INAUD] it would make me feel good because I don't know... but... I would take no as an answer, I would take no as an answer...and that's without any question, I'll take no as an answer. But if, everything that you do, and I do to - for - you, whatever it may be, whatever it may be darling, hopefully the people [INAUD] appetite for the person more and more. I don't want to you feel that you have to do it - if you don't want to do it you don't have to do it. You own your body- I don't own your body and that's - your personality is very different to the woman I'm usually used to in my life – if there are things you don't want to do don't do - put that aside as it may. The other thing is the reticence, the ambivalence - the only thing that would be a real turn off is if I see a manifestation or expression of ambivalence I cant go ahead with that. First of all you have to be as positive about it as I am, but If I feel that you don't want anything to do with me and you're not there and you don't want it - I don't know if I can do it I cant go ahead with it if you feel sick
W: I know.
M: I have this conflicting feelings of loving you and my physical desire and [INAUD] I could role play a rape with you but I couldn't actually rape you - you know what I'm saying darling - does that make sense?
W: I understand.
M: So if I detect a kind of ambivalence from you - you're not really into it, so I don't think its worthwhile for either one of us to do that because it always created negative- kinda like a trail of negativity afterwards and its not something that you or I both want. If you don't really care about me and you don't really love me, you're doing because I have a [INAUD] I don't wanna feel that either – I don't wanna feel that I'm giving you money for something that your giving me any kind of attachment - I don't want. You'll be happily married with some person that you'll love so much, like much more than me I promise you....you know the definition of the Iove in terms of the kind of person you can really love as a spouse at least and a spouse and you don't have a problem the person you love you're gonna love him.
W: Well, the person I love, I don't have any problem with anything, its not having that relationship.
M: Excuse me say that again.
W: I have no problem doing pretty much anything with the person I love.
M: Right but I'm not that person and I don't think I'm that person I mean you know, so therefore its hard for me if I feel any ambivalence I just gotta stop it I cant do it. I cant go ahead with it. That's my problem
W: When your in a secure relationship and you know that going to be forever and you know that's your other half
M: I'm not trying to change your opinion, I have a very different out look on life I don't look at it that way. The Torah tells a person to love every person in the world a person can love anybody and everybody if you want to and if you're able to. But I'm not here to argue with you have a conversation, dialogue, philosophical ... and make you change your emotional feeling... your structure emotional is very different than mine [INAUD] If we wanted to work out something, you wanted to work out something, I wanted to work our something [INAUD] the premise is that there is a feeling between us. I trust your honesty [INAUD] last night I was davening [INAUD] I'm not going to be with her she doesn't want to be with me and I'm not... maybe best thing for both of us... well be friends... well email and talk and we'll do things together, but she doesn't love me... I cannot in a million years not have the same feeling for you that I had before, nothing happened to me over shabbes darling. Nothing happened to me at all over the weekend. Something happened to you over the weekend [INAUD] the weekend [INAUD] but whatever it is I believe that it took a 360 degree turn and I'm not comfortable with you being with oeone to facilitate my [INAUD] I wont be able to do it I wont be able to. So if you cant talk yourself back into the old [INAUD} and you were right not to, I'm not making judgement, just as you have an issue in money for the exchange, I have an issue with the exchange - I don't want your feelings to be contingent upon the money. So how do we proceed from here?
W: 10.36 Are you asking me?
M: I'm asking you, I mean I get mixed messages from you darling, you do love me and you don't love me and you can't love me but you wanna love me but you shouldn't love me, and I'm sure that they are all [INAUD] you, all those feelings, you have all these feelings where you can and you can't you didn't have that before and now you are upset about what you should and shouldn't and can and can't.
W: This has been from the beginning you know its, not no, you know you're married there is no way you could be with me at all even if you wanted to even if you wanted to. That's been since the beginning hasn't it?
M: 11.22 But that doesn't mean you have to conceal the love that you had for me the whole time, this morning , I said that I love you -I can't figure this out - this temprementalness, this untrustable emotional zigzag drives me very very much into frustration. You know (W: Uh huh) BUt if its not its not and thats fine and we can be friends without loving each other - I take the word very seriously loving [INAUD] have to marry the person. Grover Cleveland told a [INAUD] even if I was single I couldn't marry you darling, because we are very very different people. I couldn't live with a person who in my perspective is an a feminine person - the assertiveness that you have that you posses is very very difficult for me and you know it and I've told this to you a number of times - I can't deal with aggressively assertive women its not my - there are men who love to be eunuchs, but I can't - that doesn't mean I cant love you, it doesn't mean that. And this includes hope, longing, wishing there was a different...care for you, worry about you, making your concerns my concerns. That's for me. You have a different interpretation of love [INAUD]. You're relationships with people in Houston, that you are willing to be with them without loving them, and I'm not getting this - I'm so much in a turmoil about this - maybe you can help me resolve this in my mind how to proceed from here - because as I stand right now - darling - I don't have the same passionate urgency - [INAUD] I have the same things about IT, not about you but about it. I don't want to be in a situation where I'm [INAUD] I want you to enjoy something to have pleasure from something, that's what I want and if you feel that its not going to happen -fine - I'll give you two months money I'm not going to hold back on that because you had to be involved with attorneys and everything else. [INAUD] giving you $10,000 a year and helping you with that. Not the money that I gave you in the past - an unbelievable thing I mean I was [INAUD] day and night, time that I was with you alone, [INAUD] those who you loved and who didn't give a half, a fraction of the amount of money that Leib Tropper gave you, [INAUD] you dedicated to him , you are heartbroken you are distraught, and even now you wish that things were different and you could go ahead with your relationship with him, married, not married , whatever will be. You didn't think about the question [INAUD] can marry - he told you from the beginning that he can't marry you because he is a Cohen, [INAUD] relationship in any event. I don't know whats going on I want to truly understand you because I do love you. I do. You may not, but I do. I understand you - you understand me?
W: I do, I understand you.
M: NO you not me?
W: Understand me, no I don't understand me.
M: You tell me when you want to [INAUD] and I will be happy to try and accommodate some level of that. I told you how much I'm willing to do, I told you. [INAUD] Sometime Liba doesn't want to sexually what I want to do but [INAUD] out of love, and she is so happy that I'm happy, so is so happy to see how much more relaxed I am and how laid back I am - last night was [INAUD] I'm not going to go into details but I wanted a certain position that she wasn't interested in. She said OK, of course if it makes you feel better, if it will make you feel more relief afterwards, so we did it that way and this morning we went together into the city [INAUD] it was great - a bit of a tense moment and you know thanks to your, the situation with you, caused a lot of tension for me [INAUD] so she was very happy for me. I understand and that's OK, you have your limits of what you can do and you can't do, and that fine. But I can't have a situation where kind of you know, vehemence and not happy and [INAUD]. I can't - I can't do it darling. I'm not a piggy bank.
SO. I understand.
M: {INAUD} So give me call and explain how you feel and I'll take it from here....You want to think about it or you want out? If it were up to me I think...
W: I wish I could go back to the beginning, when there were less expectations, but can we talk about it later?
M: Whatever you want, but I'm not passing on any funds at this time until you tell me what you want me to do, OK darling? I'll do it as soon as you tell me {INAUD} OK darling?
W: OK
M: Thank you so so so so so much for understanding everything and I'll wait for your call. Alright?
W: OK, bye.
M: Bye.
W: I'm here.
M: We have to figure out again - couple of things - we have to figure out - the money I give you now for the lawyer I'm counting as an old past gift. The $1700 that has been cashed is the first of the payment of the 3000, that is November December but I'm going to continue more than that. I have to give you another $1300 for November. I just got an email from Dr White while I was driving - he told me you have the appointment [INAUDABLE] like I told you...$1000 for the visit on Tuesday [INAUDABLE] - that's some money...then there's
W: Why so much?
M: Its two treatments that he is giving you.$500 a piece.
W: $600...
M: He told me its $500 per treatment
W: OK
M: And then he said that also ...erm ... that you'll need three more treatments at six weeks apart over 18 weeks. Each one is $300, which means beside the [INAUD] and everything else that you are going through you have to have another $1000. Its probably closer to $6/700 per trip without sleeping at any place...you have to just figure out all the things with money ... so...even though its beyond [INAUD] I was giving to anything I couldn't turn you down because there was a real tight bond and emotional feeling and whatever glitch of tongue that I had and how you interpreted it and how maybe I should have been more clear about my...
W: Its still the same I just
M: What?
W: It's still the same, that's why I said I wanted it to go back to where it was, its still the same I just can't do those things that are outside.
M: Right, right, so the compromise on that is to [INAUD] ...that doesn't mean I wont take no for an answer, I'll take no for an answer if you say no, the only compromise I want is, ans I want you to go back to the issues and concentrate on what really happened. Zoe I understand you [INAUD] I appreciate that, lets say lets say the other guy that Satmar guy - the moment you spoke to him and everything you said he's not the guy - that should be your call - but what maybe you could do is if you say to somebody I'm not ready to do it right now but can we talk about sex - do you have a problem with just talking about sex to a guy or only actually doing it? Tell me the truth – you don't have to hide anything - its you - you're the person...
W: I think you know talking is worse than doing..to me
M: Really?
W: I have a hard time ..especially somebody that I don't really care for or like, its very hard to get descriptive...
M: Right OK. Kind of like playing on the phone with him not like doing anything, but if you say its not its not, that's the end of the story.
W: In a relationship its very easy to say
M: I understand I got you. [INAUD] I'm not making a condition upon it I just have to feel - if I'm hungry for something - its like somebody who is very hungry and doesn't feel fulfilled - they're eating food they are not eating food that they want or like - and that's what it is like for me..
W: I feel that was my problem because you never expected that before I [INAUD] it, and now I can't take it back.
M: You can take it back, you just have to do it.
W: NO I cant go back. Now I cant go back to the way it was
M: Well you can you're paranoid you don't do anything you don't want to do, I m not going to force you. You're asking me how I feel about [INAUD] I wish you would sometimes - not every person and not every one you can tell me selectively who you feel more comfortable doing it with - the one I say to that I really would want, but its probably not going to happen to you anyway, would be Amir... anything were to happen...he is a very nice guy, he never hurt anybody and he doesn't make you some kind of rough play - he is not nuts - [INAUD] sexual situation - others, yeah yeah no no, if your talking a guy on the phone and you feel, [INAUD] it would make me feel good because I don't know... but... I would take no as an answer, I would take no as an answer...and that's without any question, I'll take no as an answer. But if, everything that you do, and I do to - for - you, whatever it may be, whatever it may be darling, hopefully the people [INAUD] appetite for the person more and more. I don't want to you feel that you have to do it - if you don't want to do it you don't have to do it. You own your body- I don't own your body and that's - your personality is very different to the woman I'm usually used to in my life – if there are things you don't want to do don't do - put that aside as it may. The other thing is the reticence, the ambivalence - the only thing that would be a real turn off is if I see a manifestation or expression of ambivalence I cant go ahead with that. First of all you have to be as positive about it as I am, but If I feel that you don't want anything to do with me and you're not there and you don't want it - I don't know if I can do it I cant go ahead with it if you feel sick
W: I know.
M: I have this conflicting feelings of loving you and my physical desire and [INAUD] I could role play a rape with you but I couldn't actually rape you - you know what I'm saying darling - does that make sense?
W: I understand.
M: So if I detect a kind of ambivalence from you - you're not really into it, so I don't think its worthwhile for either one of us to do that because it always created negative- kinda like a trail of negativity afterwards and its not something that you or I both want. If you don't really care about me and you don't really love me, you're doing because I have a [INAUD] I don't wanna feel that either – I don't wanna feel that I'm giving you money for something that your giving me any kind of attachment - I don't want. You'll be happily married with some person that you'll love so much, like much more than me I promise you....you know the definition of the Iove in terms of the kind of person you can really love as a spouse at least and a spouse and you don't have a problem the person you love you're gonna love him.
W: Well, the person I love, I don't have any problem with anything, its not having that relationship.
M: Excuse me say that again.
W: I have no problem doing pretty much anything with the person I love.
M: Right but I'm not that person and I don't think I'm that person I mean you know, so therefore its hard for me if I feel any ambivalence I just gotta stop it I cant do it. I cant go ahead with it. That's my problem
W: When your in a secure relationship and you know that going to be forever and you know that's your other half
M: I'm not trying to change your opinion, I have a very different out look on life I don't look at it that way. The Torah tells a person to love every person in the world a person can love anybody and everybody if you want to and if you're able to. But I'm not here to argue with you have a conversation, dialogue, philosophical ... and make you change your emotional feeling... your structure emotional is very different than mine [INAUD] If we wanted to work out something, you wanted to work out something, I wanted to work our something [INAUD] the premise is that there is a feeling between us. I trust your honesty [INAUD] last night I was davening [INAUD] I'm not going to be with her she doesn't want to be with me and I'm not... maybe best thing for both of us... well be friends... well email and talk and we'll do things together, but she doesn't love me... I cannot in a million years not have the same feeling for you that I had before, nothing happened to me over shabbes darling. Nothing happened to me at all over the weekend. Something happened to you over the weekend [INAUD] the weekend [INAUD] but whatever it is I believe that it took a 360 degree turn and I'm not comfortable with you being with oeone to facilitate my [INAUD] I wont be able to do it I wont be able to. So if you cant talk yourself back into the old [INAUD} and you were right not to, I'm not making judgement, just as you have an issue in money for the exchange, I have an issue with the exchange - I don't want your feelings to be contingent upon the money. So how do we proceed from here?
W: 10.36 Are you asking me?
M: I'm asking you, I mean I get mixed messages from you darling, you do love me and you don't love me and you can't love me but you wanna love me but you shouldn't love me, and I'm sure that they are all [INAUD] you, all those feelings, you have all these feelings where you can and you can't you didn't have that before and now you are upset about what you should and shouldn't and can and can't.
W: This has been from the beginning you know its, not no, you know you're married there is no way you could be with me at all even if you wanted to even if you wanted to. That's been since the beginning hasn't it?
M: 11.22 But that doesn't mean you have to conceal the love that you had for me the whole time, this morning , I said that I love you -I can't figure this out - this temprementalness, this untrustable emotional zigzag drives me very very much into frustration. You know (W: Uh huh) BUt if its not its not and thats fine and we can be friends without loving each other - I take the word very seriously loving [INAUD] have to marry the person. Grover Cleveland told a [INAUD] even if I was single I couldn't marry you darling, because we are very very different people. I couldn't live with a person who in my perspective is an a feminine person - the assertiveness that you have that you posses is very very difficult for me and you know it and I've told this to you a number of times - I can't deal with aggressively assertive women its not my - there are men who love to be eunuchs, but I can't - that doesn't mean I cant love you, it doesn't mean that. And this includes hope, longing, wishing there was a different...care for you, worry about you, making your concerns my concerns. That's for me. You have a different interpretation of love [INAUD]. You're relationships with people in Houston, that you are willing to be with them without loving them, and I'm not getting this - I'm so much in a turmoil about this - maybe you can help me resolve this in my mind how to proceed from here - because as I stand right now - darling - I don't have the same passionate urgency - [INAUD] I have the same things about IT, not about you but about it. I don't want to be in a situation where I'm [INAUD] I want you to enjoy something to have pleasure from something, that's what I want and if you feel that its not going to happen -fine - I'll give you two months money I'm not going to hold back on that because you had to be involved with attorneys and everything else. [INAUD] giving you $10,000 a year and helping you with that. Not the money that I gave you in the past - an unbelievable thing I mean I was [INAUD] day and night, time that I was with you alone, [INAUD] those who you loved and who didn't give a half, a fraction of the amount of money that Leib Tropper gave you, [INAUD] you dedicated to him , you are heartbroken you are distraught, and even now you wish that things were different and you could go ahead with your relationship with him, married, not married , whatever will be. You didn't think about the question [INAUD] can marry - he told you from the beginning that he can't marry you because he is a Cohen, [INAUD] relationship in any event. I don't know whats going on I want to truly understand you because I do love you. I do. You may not, but I do. I understand you - you understand me?
W: I do, I understand you.
M: NO you not me?
W: Understand me, no I don't understand me.
M: You tell me when you want to [INAUD] and I will be happy to try and accommodate some level of that. I told you how much I'm willing to do, I told you. [INAUD] Sometime Liba doesn't want to sexually what I want to do but [INAUD] out of love, and she is so happy that I'm happy, so is so happy to see how much more relaxed I am and how laid back I am - last night was [INAUD] I'm not going to go into details but I wanted a certain position that she wasn't interested in. She said OK, of course if it makes you feel better, if it will make you feel more relief afterwards, so we did it that way and this morning we went together into the city [INAUD] it was great - a bit of a tense moment and you know thanks to your, the situation with you, caused a lot of tension for me [INAUD] so she was very happy for me. I understand and that's OK, you have your limits of what you can do and you can't do, and that fine. But I can't have a situation where kind of you know, vehemence and not happy and [INAUD]. I can't - I can't do it darling. I'm not a piggy bank.
SO. I understand.
M: {INAUD} So give me call and explain how you feel and I'll take it from here....You want to think about it or you want out? If it were up to me I think...
W: I wish I could go back to the beginning, when there were less expectations, but can we talk about it later?
M: Whatever you want, but I'm not passing on any funds at this time until you tell me what you want me to do, OK darling? I'll do it as soon as you tell me {INAUD} OK darling?
W: OK
M: Thank you so so so so so much for understanding everything and I'll wait for your call. Alright?
W: OK, bye.
M: Bye.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Audio Transcript: Part 1
[M = Man. W=Woman. ?? = garbled speech. [] means something is missing]
M: Hello 1 second ?? whats the name ?? edwards are coming, both of them are coming ?? reuben sent a hundred eighty dolar check ?? Reuben, Dr Zvi Rreuben.from Far Rockaway ?? last name is alpert ?? Rav Feinstein rsvped, Stacy Goldberg rsvped, she’s coming, her husband not ??Tom and Dafna both coming.. I want to tell you this …come back early morning that day.come to the wdding ?? I asked malcolm honlein to come ?? he likes to sit with Tom ?? i’ll call you back OK..
M: So anyway, so yeah I’m saying its best for all practical purposes if I know where finally you stand darling, and you know, whatever if it, if its no, yeah, if we have some relationship with you on some level, we’ll be friends and ??? I just got to somehow you can tell I can tell…
M: So anyway, so yeah I’m saying its best for all practical purposes if I know where finally you stand darling, and you know, whatever if it, if its no, yeah, if we have some relationship with you on some level, we’ll be friends and ??? I just got to somehow you can tell I can tell…
W: I keep telling you, I keep telling you and you keep umm avoiding, you’re not listening
M: Maybe I’m ot hearing you well
W: You’re not, I want everything to be the same, the same as it used to be
M: You want everything to be the same, you want it to be
W: Yes, I just, I just want to do..
M: Oh, I thought you said I don’t wanna do.. OK Fine! I understand that, I’m fine
W: Could I er Could I, I can’t, I can’t sleep with these men, but err
M: I asked you, I asked you a question
W: I know!
M: I didn’t tell you to…
W: You asked if I could, If I could just call them on the phone and do like phone things and talk about.. that I said no to, I didn’t say no, I said it’s hard, it’s not something I’m used to, you know if I have feelings for the person, if, then I can do, you know, sex things on the phone , but…
M: Right. Would you be willing, would you be willing to get …
W: It’s very difficult with somebody you don’t really …
M: Okay, fine, OK, I heard you loud and clear
W: The other men, I keep telling you, it was …
M: Whatever it is, azoy, I don’t want to get into a philosophical argument, it is what it is, you owe me ???
W: That’s it , that’s what I’m uncomfortable with and I keep telling you that everything else I want to remain the same
M: I didn’t hear you well, I’m sorry, I thought you said you don’t want to be like it was before, I thought you said “don’t”
W: No, I do, I do
M: OK darling fine, OK fine
W: ?something? Liba is fine, I love that! It’s fine
M: OK, fine darling, it’s OK. I’m just saying, the only other thing I asked you for, to try with ??? if that would be possible, I think that would be possible ???.. how often that will happen, will it ever happen
W: Well it certainly is not going to happen around the wedding, cos there’s too much going on
M: Well yeah, right exactly I’m too busy, I’m too busy, not going to happen this time for sure, there’s no question, in my bed..It can’t happen, I mean it finishes Tuesday, then Wednesday, and then Thursday, not going to happen, and you’re leaving early morning so..not going to happen on this trip..but in general..Theoretically speaking, what do you think? Do you think you could say well ‘It’s one thing, I’ll try this one thing’. I’m not going to go ask you to do anything else you know, with them, you know, if you don’t want to do that
W: Right, well yeah, that’s
M: OK. OK fine! end of story. You don’t even…That’s very nice of you. I’m appreciative, thank you very much
W: I want everything else with us to remain the same
M: Ok, great! Darling, you do want to feel the same feelings, you do want to feel loved and a half and you do want me to be able to ?love? you also right
W: Yes, I want it to be the same
M: OK darling, greeeat! Greeat! I’m so happy. I’m ready right now. I’m ready to shkweeze you, shkweeze your [cut] shkweeze your [?] so high [garbled] shkweeze you (laughs)
W: You are crazy..
M: Am I crazy?! I am ! Crazy about who? About who?
W: About..that..
M: Tell me! Crazy about who?
W: That fat ugly blond chick in Houston
M: That’s right! The short fat lady with the mustache. The short fat lady with the mustache. Exactly.
W: (softly) Yes
M: OK darling, you’re really great. Great great great great great. So, OK, so, I will be actually.. so when I spoke to him before, he wasn’t sure, he wasn’t even sure he brought the money with him..he left a night early, on Saturday night, he caught an early flight, motzei shabbos, so he doesn’t know if he brought the money with him, but he thinks he’s pretty sure he has it, it’s very important, and he’s going to call you soon
W: How does somebody travel with thirty seven hundred dollars and they’re not sure they have it?
M: (pause) No, he wasn’t sure if he took it from his house, his mother’s house, he was here in Monsey for shabbos, he took it out of his pocket before shabbos , you understand?
W: Right..
M: He put in the drawer, in the drawer, he wasn’t sure if he put it back in his pocket going on the plane, he ran out motzei shabbos and..
W: Maybe, maybe money is not that important to so many people but if I had thirty seven hundred dollars, anywhere, in a drawer, in a pocket..
M: No, but, in his parents house..
W: …in a suitcase…I’d know exactly where it is
M: No, he knows where it is! He knows it’s either with him or he left it in the..in his drawer, in his room..don’t make an issue, it’s not a big deal, I’ll get it to you tomorrow, I could find a thousand people going to Texas and give it to you..but he’s pretty sure he has it, he’s pretty sure he has it.
W: OK.
M: OK darling, so I’m going to, here’s what I want to do darling. I’m going to send you an email, outlining the things you are going to do, only the things you are going to do, because everything else you don’t do is not part of the agreement, not part of the agreement, I can’t expect you to, it’s not part of the agreement, I’m going to put it in. As you invest in it darling, I promise you, you’ll get back a lot of benefit?
W: (annoyed) Why are you emailing me?
M: I won’t email you, I’m just telling it to you darling, OK? I won’t email it to you, I’m telling it to you
W: Why..
M: OK, I won’t email it to you, I’m telling it to you
W: What, are you documenting stuff? What is going on?
M: Are you crazy? I would get rid of it. I don’t want people.. I remember what I said to you
W: Yeah but you just told me everything. Why would you want to document that kind of agreement on an email?
M: No I mean, you’re right, I shouldn’t do that, I just want, I want to have some kind of a understanding that we can refer to, that you know, that it shouldn’t be a problem later on, you know ‘I didn’t say that, I didn’t say that’, I want something that.., you mark it down yourself
W: No, I thought you said I should delete every email you send me and I send you you delete it
M: I do! I do! On the spot! I don’t have any emails darling. Listen to me closely, listen to me closely
W: So what are you going to refer to in the future?
M: (pause) I said maybe you should write it down on your own piece of paper in your house and put it in your drawer have what we made up on the phone, that’s all I’m saying to you, maybe you could do that, you’re right, for a moment I said email, but that’s stupid, it’s not good to have anything that we don’t need to have, but you should have in your drawer, I should have in my drawer, a piece of paper that I wrote down, I’m going to write down what I’m telling you on a piece of paper, I’m going to keep it in my drawer, I’ll read you what I wrote, so you can agree to it, that’s all, I’m not going to go email it to you, I’m not going to document it not on email, I’m not going to document it all. I’ll write a piece of paper and put it in my drawer. My handwriting, my name, not your name, just me and myself
W: OK. I’m not signing anything (laughs)
M: I’m not asking you to sign anything
W: No, you make it sound like so, so like
M: You’re so suspicious of every stupid thing in the world..you don’t trust..you don’t trust God!
W: I have a very hard time ..
M: I know! You have a very hard time trusting anybody
W: I do trust God..but that’s not you!
M: OK darling.. trust which is not tested is not trust. You do trust God, you don’t trust God, you don’t trust anybody in the whole world. Untested trust is not trust. And if you have a friend who you can’t trust, like me, I would be more, I should be more worried about myself, I’m not going to do this, I’m not going to do that, because I don’t trust her, maybe she’ll tell somebody, maybe she’ll say something to somebody, she has told people things, people told me you told them things, and I know you do tell people things, and I don’t know what you’re going to share with this guy, that guy, jack, err Jill, Michael, I don’t know what the hell you’re going to share with who, who knows what you’re going to share.with every Rabbi/Guy? .in Houston Texas, I have no idea. So I should be suspicious, I should say I don’t trust her, I don’t trust her at all, but I’m not! I’m not that nature, and neither is my wife, unfortunately we’re not, we’re very much accepting of people, ? doesn’t know what it means to lie, so she never suspects anyone of lying to her, that’s why she gets so messed up with things in her life. She gets messed up, she gets in trouble. Sexually, or physically..anything..she trusts people. It’s unfortunate, because she’s not as lie? In herself. Tom doesn’t know how to lie, so he trusts Guma, but she can’t believe people lie – “Nobody would lie, who would lie”. So I’m stuck with that kind of attitude but..it has to be mutual, you don’t trust me I don’t trust you, you trust me I do trust you, but if you can’t trust me, then you have an issue, you should go the therapist..
W: No, I trust you..
M: You have trust issues darling
W: .. but gosh, documenting things on email just seems like insane
M: So I said to you, I made a mistake! Do I have to tell you a thousand times?
W: But it goes totally, it goes totally against your whole “delete every email as it comes in”
M: Exactly! That’s why I was just, it was a stupid thing for me to say, so, you know calculators have a ‘cancel’ button.. I said that.. press ‘Cancel’, it’s over, it’s done, I press ‘Cancel, I would never do it, stupidest thing for me to think of, because even though it’s an important document for me to have, to write it on an email is the worst thing because it could be hacked, it could be taken it could be used. Terrible! It’s the worst thing in the world. So, I’m not doing that. Every email I get from you I delete immediately! Not just 5 minutes later, immediately it’s deleted, it’s gone it’s done with. So now, the only thing is I will make a document in my house, you don’t have to sign it because you don’t know, all of a sudden you decide you can’t do it anymore, if you can’t do it you can’t do it, I understand , fine, if it happens, whenever it happens, but I just want to make sure that you understand that we have this arrangement, even how tentative it may be, it may be for a month, two months five months six months, maybe 10 months, maybe five years. But I’m just going to document you and I spoke on this day, this is what the result was , I’ll stick it somewhere in my drawer, and that’s it. I’m not going to give it to anybody, nobody’s going to see it, it won’t be hacked, it won’t be deleted, it won’t be publicized in Newsweek magazine. I’d be embarrassed to publicize it.
W: No, so it will just be there for Pesach to find
M: Excuse me, my son Pesach?
W: Yeah, or the housekeeper, or the aide, or
M: No no, (laughs) cutipie, cutipie, I have a private little chest, I lock my passport in it, I lock the most important documents of my life in there, like my.. you know ..[] do those things
W: OK
M: It’s not even a question. It’s not going to say your name. I’m going to put ‘R’, you know ‘R’ which is Rochel
W: OK
M: Anyway, that’s the bottom line, it’s not a big deal. I will do that and I appreciate everything very very much. I’m going to go with you tonight, I will go with you tonight darling, and im yirtzeh hashem, [?] just called me, he hung up on me, I’m going to call him back. I didn’t tell, I spoke to [?] yesterday, he wants to talk to you about it, he’s coming, he’s going [] call you today at two o’clock, you know area code 832
W: Yeah, so call him back
M: I’ll call you back
W: OK, bye.
Best Comment on the Tropper Scandal
"It was never possible to know exactly where the already over-burdened rickety Tropper floundering ship would be punctured and finally sent on its way to the depths of oblivion, or of notoriety, simply because there was so much happening on Tropper’s “ship of fools” at any given moment, from confrontations with other notable rabbis; accusations of major financial wrong-doing; rejection of normative Judaism in favor of a proselytization agenda by EJF that sounded more like a Christian evangelical scheme than anything that was ever taught in any yeshiva; controversial and inciting statements meant to antagonize and humiliate opponents; ongoing and unremitting wars against enemies such as Chabad, Aish HaTorah and Modern Orthodoxy; forging of documents being fraud; lies and cheating of all sorts to gain the upper hand being total amoral; manipultaion of senior rabbis and their views being misrepresented; harsh treatment of genuine converts; spousal abuse; running a personality cult with blind disciples with dangerous consequences; slandering respectable people of all sorts to achieve personal power and control and causing them pain and suffering in their lives; conniving to ruin careers of others and threatening to do so and more…all of which could have been THE moral turpitude that brought down the shameless Tropper, but in the end it was something more primal, his raw lusts and passions that remained entirely untamed as he went about outwardly spouting his religious “holier than thou” creed and blinding many with his ability to utter talmudic insights and say just the right rabbinic thing to impress and cover up for his more nefarious inward lecherous desires and filthy deeds."
Wow. And all in a single sentence!
Lakewood RoshYeshivah says MO like Esav
I saw this story (with slight variations) from multiple sources:
"Last Shabbos the Flatbush Jewish community was treated to a visit by Roshei Yeshivos from Beis Medrash Govoha of Lakewood. While speaking at Shalosh Seudos at the Aguda on Avenue L (Agudath Israel Bais Binyomin), one of the Roshei Yeshiva (R Malkiel) offered a d’var torah exhorting the listeners to follow Yaakov’s example in fighting the angel representing Esau, and in like manner, beware of other evils that appear brotherly. His list of heretics ended with “...Reform, Conservative and Modern Orthodox.” There was a palpable embarrassment throughout the room at the notion that he would paint halachik, Sabbath-observing Orthodox Jews with this broad bush, but no apology issued from the Lakewood luminary."
"Last Shabbos the Flatbush Jewish community was treated to a visit by Roshei Yeshivos from Beis Medrash Govoha of Lakewood. While speaking at Shalosh Seudos at the Aguda on Avenue L (Agudath Israel Bais Binyomin), one of the Roshei Yeshiva (R Malkiel) offered a d’var torah exhorting the listeners to follow Yaakov’s example in fighting the angel representing Esau, and in like manner, beware of other evils that appear brotherly. His list of heretics ended with “...Reform, Conservative and Modern Orthodox.” There was a palpable embarrassment throughout the room at the notion that he would paint halachik, Sabbath-observing Orthodox Jews with this broad bush, but no apology issued from the Lakewood luminary."
Is Chareidi society completely morally bankrupt? Or is it just the Gedolim?
This story just gets more and more unbelievable.
Failed Messiah explains the tapes (I have heard the tapes) and now they make total sense. So this major league Rabbi was insisting that a would be convert perform various sexual favors for him, his wife and other friends, in return for a conversion. And this is the same Rabbi who refused a conversion for another woman because she wore pants (possibly there's more to that story too). Meanwhile, this same Rabbi made a chasunah yesterday with a guest list including every major godol there is. As he writes in his blog:
"Maran Hagaon Harav Chaim P. Sheinberg, Shlit”a was Mesader Kiddushin at the Alpert-Tropper Chasuna. In attendance was Rosh Yeshivas Ponoviz, Hagaon Harav Berel Povarsky, Shlit”a, also at the chupa and the Seuda were Rosh Yeshivas Kaminetz, Hagaon Rav Yitzchok Scheiner, Shlit”a, Hagaon Rav Dovid Feinstein, Shlit”a, Hagaon Rav Reuven Feinstein, Shlit”a, Hagaon Rav Shmuel Eliezer Stern, Shlit”a, Hagaon Rav Moshe Shapiro, Shlit”a, Hagaon Rav E.B. Wachtfogel, Shlit”a, Hagaon Harav Moshe D. Wilhelm, Shlit”a, Rosh Yehivas Boston, Hagaon Harav Shimon Alster, Shlit”a, Rosh Yeshivas Cliffwood. Hagaon Rav Aaron Schechter, Shlit”a Hagaon Harav Eliyahu Mann, Shlit”a, Harav Asher Bergman Shlit”a (grandson of Rav Shach, Zt”l), and Hagaon Harav M. Altusky, Shlit”a. Letters of Brocho were received from Hagaonim Rav Shaul Alter, Shlit”a, Rav Chaim Kanyevsky, Shlit”a, Harav M.Y. Lefkowitz, Shlit”a, Harav Shmuel Auerbach, Shlit”a, Maran Harav Eliyashuv, Shlit”a and Maran Harav A.L. Steinman, Shlit”a. Special Guests: Mr. & Mrs. Tom & Dafna Kaplan, Mr. & Mrs. M. Honlein, Mr. & Mrs. M. Lubinsky and Mr. & Mrs. Deniss Rapps attended. "
Could this get any more crazy???? Or is this whole thing an incredibly elaborate hoax / scam perpetrated by powerful enemies? Frankly at this point, I could believe anything. But then again, even if it is possible to fake his voice on tapes, but if there's video (I haven't seen the video), then it's a slam dunk.
Show me the video!
Update: I hear the video is very grainy. So it's going to be his word against hers. Unless someone can find the secret letter in his drawer where he keeps his passport. Or does there exist foolproof voice recognition software that can identify him from the audio?
Failed Messiah explains the tapes (I have heard the tapes) and now they make total sense. So this major league Rabbi was insisting that a would be convert perform various sexual favors for him, his wife and other friends, in return for a conversion. And this is the same Rabbi who refused a conversion for another woman because she wore pants (possibly there's more to that story too). Meanwhile, this same Rabbi made a chasunah yesterday with a guest list including every major godol there is. As he writes in his blog:
"Maran Hagaon Harav Chaim P. Sheinberg, Shlit”a was Mesader Kiddushin at the Alpert-Tropper Chasuna. In attendance was Rosh Yeshivas Ponoviz, Hagaon Harav Berel Povarsky, Shlit”a, also at the chupa and the Seuda were Rosh Yeshivas Kaminetz, Hagaon Rav Yitzchok Scheiner, Shlit”a, Hagaon Rav Dovid Feinstein, Shlit”a, Hagaon Rav Reuven Feinstein, Shlit”a, Hagaon Rav Shmuel Eliezer Stern, Shlit”a, Hagaon Rav Moshe Shapiro, Shlit”a, Hagaon Rav E.B. Wachtfogel, Shlit”a, Hagaon Harav Moshe D. Wilhelm, Shlit”a, Rosh Yehivas Boston, Hagaon Harav Shimon Alster, Shlit”a, Rosh Yeshivas Cliffwood. Hagaon Rav Aaron Schechter, Shlit”a Hagaon Harav Eliyahu Mann, Shlit”a, Harav Asher Bergman Shlit”a (grandson of Rav Shach, Zt”l), and Hagaon Harav M. Altusky, Shlit”a. Letters of Brocho were received from Hagaonim Rav Shaul Alter, Shlit”a, Rav Chaim Kanyevsky, Shlit”a, Harav M.Y. Lefkowitz, Shlit”a, Harav Shmuel Auerbach, Shlit”a, Maran Harav Eliyashuv, Shlit”a and Maran Harav A.L. Steinman, Shlit”a. Special Guests: Mr. & Mrs. Tom & Dafna Kaplan, Mr. & Mrs. M. Honlein, Mr. & Mrs. M. Lubinsky and Mr. & Mrs. Deniss Rapps attended. "
Could this get any more crazy???? Or is this whole thing an incredibly elaborate hoax / scam perpetrated by powerful enemies? Frankly at this point, I could believe anything. But then again, even if it is possible to fake his voice on tapes, but if there's video (I haven't seen the video), then it's a slam dunk.
Show me the video!
Update: I hear the video is very grainy. So it's going to be his word against hers. Unless someone can find the secret letter in his drawer where he keeps his passport. Or does there exist foolproof voice recognition software that can identify him from the audio?
Do the Gedolim have good judgement?
Remember when we used to debate whether the Gedolim had ruach hakodesh, or at least were always correct in matters of public policy?
Well, not only do they not have any kind of ruach hakodesh or even siyatah dishmayah, but it seems that the Gedolim lack even the basic kind of good judgement that the average baal habos has. I mean, they consort with scumbags and felons, and seem to have no ability to judge people's characters - even people they interact with closely. It's amazing.
And this isn't just true of "Chareidi" Gedolim - remember when Reb Hershel Shachter (of YU) got himself into trouble for joking about assisinating the Prime Minister? (Though to be fair, the Chareidi Gedolim are in general much worse).
I remember being quite shocked originally when I realized that the Gedolim were wrong about key matters of reality. Well now I'm shocked all over again to realize they don't even have the basic capacity to handle themselves and their affairs properly. Sad but true.
New - JS-Kit Comments
Sorry folks, but Haloscan has died and gone to to .com heaven, leaving me with no choice but to upgrade to this newfangled JS-Kit thingy. Hope you like it.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Monday, December 14, 2009
FreaKy Minhashamayim?
A while after my blog opened, I got sick and I was petrified that maybe it was because I was rude about the Gedolim (it's not rational, I know) during the early days of the Science and Torah ban, and I was in for it. I vividly remember in Yeshivah hearing all sorts of stories about people who crossed rabbis and ended up dead. (Part of the reason I closed down some blogs). Anyways I turned out to be ok, but meanwhile the two biggest players in the Science and Torah ban on the pro-ban side have now been thoroughly disgraced - one is in jail and the other is the new Chareidi Tiger Woods. Pretty freaky, no?
Holy Freaking Moly!!! Audio is out
I just listened to the audio.
Note to lawyers - I am not accusing anyone of anything. For all I know, it's a fake.
However, all I can say is that there is audio of a yeshivish sounding guy clearly telling a secular sounding woman to do certain things that no married Rav (Chareidi, MO or Reconstructionist) - heck no Baal Habos - should be telling another woman to do. You'd have to really, really REALLY kvetch to give an innocent peshat to this audio. However, considering the amount of kvetching that fundies are capable of, I guess it's possible. You know, when he said X he didn't really mean X, he was just talking metaphorically, hypothetically, moshologically, it was just a test, it's a fake, etc etc etc...
Note to lawyers - I am not accusing anyone of anything. For all I know, it's a fake.
However, all I can say is that there is audio of a yeshivish sounding guy clearly telling a secular sounding woman to do certain things that no married Rav (Chareidi, MO or Reconstructionist) - heck no Baal Habos - should be telling another woman to do. You'd have to really, really REALLY kvetch to give an innocent peshat to this audio. However, considering the amount of kvetching that fundies are capable of, I guess it's possible. You know, when he said X he didn't really mean X, he was just talking metaphorically, hypothetically, moshologically, it was just a test, it's a fake, etc etc etc...
Major Chareidi scandal about to break! And a personal confession
Wow. Yet another big time scandal is about to hit the Chareidi world. A well known Rav (also linked to the whole Science and Torah ban) is apparently about to be outed as a world class menuval. See here:
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2009/12/tiger-woods-of-chereidi-world.html
http://hamekubal.blogspot.com/2009/12/something-fishy.html
http://hamekubal.blogspot.com/
So does this yet again show the extreme corruption and moral bankruptcy of the Chareidi world?
I'm not sure. It's a well known fact of human nature that those who scream the loudest about something often have the most to hide. Remember that anti-gay Senator who was found soliciting in public bathrooms? The most homophobic people are often those who are suppressing homosexual desires. Those screaming the loudest against kefirah might have the most doubts (or maybe they are over-compensating for other aveiros). Those screaming the loudest about purity and standards have their own secret bugaboos.
So, following this logic, I have a confession to make. In fact I had better confess before I'm outed.
Yes, Rabosai, it's true. I harbor secret beliefs in God and TMS. YouTube video is about to surface of me davening with kavanah and learning Sefer Chaim BeEmunasom.
What can I say? I couldn't help myself.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Why doesn't the Torah read like a book?
One question that has always puzzled me (and others) about the Torah is why is the text such a mess? Why are there obvious doublets, disjoints, stories out of place? In short, why doesn't the Torah read like a good book?
The separate literary units are strung together like beads on the single thread of genre, purpose, protagonist, or presumed author. The historical books are collections of episodes, while the prophetic books are collections of oracles and supporting narratives. They are less obviously anthological than Proverbs, Psalms, or the books of laws and ritual prescriptions, yet they are as composite as those latter genres.
These observations challenge the assumption that each book of the Bible should be considered a carefully crafted whole with a plan that is reflected in all its parts. The books of the Bible were not designed to be read as unities. They rather compare to archives. A biblical book is often like a box containing heterogeneous materials brought together on the assumption of common authorship, subject matter, or chronology. Whatever literary unity these books possess was imposed by the editors and is, to some extent, artificial. The editors could rearrange, expand, or conflate the separate units at their disposal in such a way as to achieve the illusion of a single book with a single message.
"Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible" by Karel Van Der Toorn offers an answer.
In 800BCE there were no books. There was no printing technology, there was no booksellers, there were very few people who could even read. Writing was on scrolls or clay tablets, it was difficult and time consuming to write anything, and everything had to be copied by hand.
Given such an environment, the culture was primarily oral, it had to be, there simply were not enough books or readers for it to be any different. Orally transmitted stories have different rythms than regular modern books. A modern book is read (usually silently) by an individual reader. Oral transmission however is by a bard or other kind of story teller / lecturer, to a large crowd. You can't read a 1,000 page novel to a large crowd in one sitting, and it's not as practical to "bookmark" where you were up to and continue later like with a book. Besides, even the "reader" probably didn't have a text, he was reciting the story from memory, so 1,000 page stories were not even feasible.
Ever wonder why the hebrew word for read - "kore" - is the same as shout? Because reading evolved from people shouting out the stories to large crowds.
So why were scrolls produced at all? Usually two reasons - archival purposes and memory aids. The various oral stories might be written down, and then archived in collections, for example in a royal library. Scribes were a highly trained elite group, and were almost always attached to the royal court, so that only kings and rulers could write anything down consistently.
So, summing up - short oral stories were written down by exclusive groups of scribes, primarily for archival purposes. The collection of scrolls would be a collection of stories, possible duplicate stories which had diverged over the years. Later when these collections were edited and compiled into a book, they retained that same flavor of a collection of related texts. The Redactor could only do so much.
As Van Der Toorn writes:
The separate literary units are strung together like beads on the single thread of genre, purpose, protagonist, or presumed author. The historical books are collections of episodes, while the prophetic books are collections of oracles and supporting narratives. They are less obviously anthological than Proverbs, Psalms, or the books of laws and ritual prescriptions, yet they are as composite as those latter genres.
These observations challenge the assumption that each book of the Bible should be considered a carefully crafted whole with a plan that is reflected in all its parts. The books of the Bible were not designed to be read as unities. They rather compare to archives. A biblical book is often like a box containing heterogeneous materials brought together on the assumption of common authorship, subject matter, or chronology. Whatever literary unity these books possess was imposed by the editors and is, to some extent, artificial. The editors could rearrange, expand, or conflate the separate units at their disposal in such a way as to achieve the illusion of a single book with a single message.
How much did the Rishonim innovate in Theology / Philosophy / Hashkafah ?
I've been having a debate on Hirhurim over how much did the Rishonim innovate in Theology / Philosophy / Hashkafah. I thought it was pretty obvious (at least to MO scholarly types) that the answer is 'Quite a bit', but Gil and friends were on the defensive.
Here is what I wrote:
Many hashkafic views in the Rishonim are novel, and many machlokes rishonim in hashkafah are not simply re-enactments of machlokes chazal but are also novel. (of course Midrash is too). To say that Rishonim's hashkafah can be traced in a straight line back to Chazal isn't true. Despite Gil's lame answer above (anon: So when the Rambam says that Chazon Yechezkel was Aristotelian Philosophy he got that from Chazal? Gil:Why not? If not Aristotelian Philosophy, then at least abstract philosophy), there is zero place in Chazal where Chazon Yechezkel is understood as Aristotelian philosophy, or any other kind of philosophy. And that's certainly not the only example. It would be interesting to see how many hashkafic views of rishonim are novel.
And Gil's response:
In other words, anon knows what Chazal meant better than Rishonim.
But Chazal never "meant" anything in these areas. their words are few and far between on these topics. The Rishonim are at best filling in the blanks, and sometimes inventing things out of whole cloth. Anyways, I know people who are experts in Medieval Jewish Philosophy (i.e. Rishonim) so I can just ask them.
And you.
Here is what I wrote:
Many hashkafic views in the Rishonim are novel, and many machlokes rishonim in hashkafah are not simply re-enactments of machlokes chazal but are also novel. (of course Midrash is too). To say that Rishonim's hashkafah can be traced in a straight line back to Chazal isn't true. Despite Gil's lame answer above (anon: So when the Rambam says that Chazon Yechezkel was Aristotelian Philosophy he got that from Chazal? Gil:Why not? If not Aristotelian Philosophy, then at least abstract philosophy), there is zero place in Chazal where Chazon Yechezkel is understood as Aristotelian philosophy, or any other kind of philosophy. And that's certainly not the only example. It would be interesting to see how many hashkafic views of rishonim are novel.
And Gil's response:
In other words, anon knows what Chazal meant better than Rishonim.
But Chazal never "meant" anything in these areas. their words are few and far between on these topics. The Rishonim are at best filling in the blanks, and sometimes inventing things out of whole cloth. Anyways, I know people who are experts in Medieval Jewish Philosophy (i.e. Rishonim) so I can just ask them.
And you.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Torah SheBaalPeh is older than Torah ShebichTav!
I guess this is obvious, but it only just struck me in a succint fashion.
Scholars argue about the date when the Bible was written, the dates range from about 800BCE to 200BCE (at the extreme end). However everyone agrees that the written text wasn't invented out of whole cloth, but rather was formed from various oral traditions which were well known in in anciet Israel (and also possibly some written fragments).
There are many reasons for this "late" dating (i.e. relative to the OJ date of 1200BCE), and at some point I would like to summarize them here, but one basic reason is that it's clear that early Israel was not a textual culture. Literacy was very limited to small groups of royal scribes, and the average Israelite was a farmer/herder who couldn't read or write. It wasn't just widespread illiteracy, rather it was a non-literate society.
This being the case, it's clear that the "oral torah" preceeded the written Torah by many hundreds of years.
Scholars argue about the date when the Bible was written, the dates range from about 800BCE to 200BCE (at the extreme end). However everyone agrees that the written text wasn't invented out of whole cloth, but rather was formed from various oral traditions which were well known in in anciet Israel (and also possibly some written fragments).
There are many reasons for this "late" dating (i.e. relative to the OJ date of 1200BCE), and at some point I would like to summarize them here, but one basic reason is that it's clear that early Israel was not a textual culture. Literacy was very limited to small groups of royal scribes, and the average Israelite was a farmer/herder who couldn't read or write. It wasn't just widespread illiteracy, rather it was a non-literate society.
This being the case, it's clear that the "oral torah" preceeded the written Torah by many hundreds of years.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Divine Inspiration: The LWMO/OP/HD version of Torah Min Hashamayim
One of the principles of my Left Wing Modern Orthodox / Orthoprax / Heterodox (LWMO/OP/HD) Philosophy/Theology is that we do not insist on asserting that extremely unlikely beliefs are true, and must be believed in. Our religious passion and commitment can never be based on lies (or things which are highly unlikely to be true), and must be immune to all scientific or other academic research.
One such belief which therefore cannot be committed to is the belief that God wrote down all the Torah (via Moshe) in 1200BC. The reasons for this are many and have been discussed here and elsewhere many many times, though the focus of those dicsussions is often on individual passges in the Bible, where really the focus should be on the whole notion of oral traditions, textuality, scribal practices and the history, religion and culture of the ancient near east. (Incidentally this is why many of the pontifications of the Science and Torah reconcilers are worthless - they have no knowledge of any of these matters).
However, it cannot be denied that one of the foundational ideas of Judaism is "Torah Min Hashamayim" (Torah From Heaven) and to jettison such an idea completely would be too inauthentic. So what to do?
The solution lies in the understanding of "Torah Min Hashamayim". Chazal broadened this concept incredibly when they claimed that the "Torah ShebaalPeh" was also Min Hashamayim, yet at the same time entirely in human hands to be changed as desired.
The famous story in the Gemara (Baba Metziah) of the Tanur Shel Achinai demonstrates this, when even a Bas Kol emanating from Shamayim proclaiming that R' Eliezer was correct was insufficient to sway the Chachomim, who responded "Lo Bashamayim He" (which itself was an incredible stretch of the original pasuk in Devarim).
So, even though the origin of the Torah might be "Shomayim" (and we will explain later what that means) it is no longer in Shamayim, and can be altered by human hands. Of course Chazal were not referring to Torah Shebaal Peh in that story, but as Chazal placed more practical importance on their concept of "Torah Shebaal Peh" than "Torah Shebichtav", so that even mefurash halachos in TSBK can be overturned by TSBP, it's hard to argue that in theory at least, Chazal couldn't have said "Lo Bashamayim He" with respect to the written text too.
So we have this sence of some origin in "Shamayim", but then the baton being passed to us humans, and yet the "shomayim" part and the "human" part are equally valuable.
What can this mean from an OP/HS perspective?
To me, it means that we recognize that when people are acting leshem shamayim,and are trying to figure out the best approach in life, they are acting as if 'Min Hashamayim". Judaism takes this concept to such a degree that even folk customs of Israel attain the status almost of halachah. As the (metaphorical) saying goes, if we are not prophets we are sons of prophets.
There is also the famous story when Moshe Rabbeinu travelled forward in time to R' Akiva's beis hamedrash, and was dismayed when he couldn't understand what was going on. But then he cheered up when R Akiva claimed that the new halachos he was darshening were "Halacha LeMoshe Misinai". Now it's clear from this story that obviously the halachos were not from Moshe, since Moshe didn't understand what R Akiva was talking about. So why would R Akiva say "Halachah LemOshe Misinai"? Because of this concept that the origin of the enterprise is "Sinai" (so to speak). So there is clearly a concept in Judaism of "Torah" being considered Min Hashamayim (or MiSinai - same thing), even when it is very human created indeed.
Now this could be taken two ways. Rabbi Halivni's theory is that there was an original Divine Torah, which unfortunately got corrupted over time, and Ezra tried to reconstruct it. This approach avoids some of the issues with Biblical Criticism but I don't think it resolved all of them. Plus there's no real basis for it.
My preferred approach is rather to fully accept the academic research of the matter - which is far from being finalized. There is currently a huge debate going on in the world of academic Bible scholarship as to when the Bible was finally redacted, whether around the time of the Babylonian Exile, or much later in Helennic times. But all agree that a date of 1200BCE and a single author is not realistic.
However this does not mean the the Torah is a nothing. On the contrary, Torah - and by Torah I mean the entire corpus of Jewish literature and learning spanning the last 3000 years - is the lifeblood of Judaism. We see it as inspiring and inspired.
Of course not every line of every book will inspire - there are whole stories which nowadays seem odd, or even immoral. But taken as a whole, the enterprise is certinly inspired - and at every stage of history many cultures besides the Jews have been inspired by it (both for good and unfortunately also for bad).
So when I say Torah Min Hashamayim, or that the Bible is Divinely Inspired, I certainly don't mean it in any literal, fundamentalist sense. Rather I asm saying it in the same sense that Chazal elevated Torah Shebaal Peh to being Halachah LeMoshe Misinai - our sacred literature is inspiring and inspired, as if Min Hashamayim.
Some may wonder what "Divinely Inspired" means. Does this mean that God actually planted the words or the concepts in the Biblical scribes (or Chazal) brains? Is it a type of Ruach HaKodesh? (What is Ruach Hakodesh anyways?!)
Who knows? There are famous stories in science when a discovery was literally made in a dream, and I'm sure we've all experienced moments of strange, surreal inspiration. This could certainly all be happening in the sub-conscious, and it would be foolish to insist it isn't, but at the same time, it is also foolish to ignore emotions or assume that science is all there is. Emotionally, we often feel the Divine, and likewise we feel things to be inspired, Divinely or otherwise.
For example, I know an award winning Bible professor who certainly is no stranger to the DH, in fact his career is built on source criticism. He has no illusions as to the physical origins of the text. Yet he told me that when he starts learning Torah as Torah, he really gets into it, and feels inspired.
A hard nosed skeptic will insist (or force himself to insist) that this is all explainable by evolution and cold physics. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. We don't know (and probably will never know) what is underopinning ultimate reality. What is a string made of? It's strings all the way down.
But either way, an emotional commitment to Torah being Divinely Inspired (however you interpret that) is certainly a hallmark of the Jewish people (the people of the book), and certainly not a concept that we should ever jettison.
Just don't take it too literally!
One such belief which therefore cannot be committed to is the belief that God wrote down all the Torah (via Moshe) in 1200BC. The reasons for this are many and have been discussed here and elsewhere many many times, though the focus of those dicsussions is often on individual passges in the Bible, where really the focus should be on the whole notion of oral traditions, textuality, scribal practices and the history, religion and culture of the ancient near east. (Incidentally this is why many of the pontifications of the Science and Torah reconcilers are worthless - they have no knowledge of any of these matters).
However, it cannot be denied that one of the foundational ideas of Judaism is "Torah Min Hashamayim" (Torah From Heaven) and to jettison such an idea completely would be too inauthentic. So what to do?
The solution lies in the understanding of "Torah Min Hashamayim". Chazal broadened this concept incredibly when they claimed that the "Torah ShebaalPeh" was also Min Hashamayim, yet at the same time entirely in human hands to be changed as desired.
The famous story in the Gemara (Baba Metziah) of the Tanur Shel Achinai demonstrates this, when even a Bas Kol emanating from Shamayim proclaiming that R' Eliezer was correct was insufficient to sway the Chachomim, who responded "Lo Bashamayim He" (which itself was an incredible stretch of the original pasuk in Devarim).
So, even though the origin of the Torah might be "Shomayim" (and we will explain later what that means) it is no longer in Shamayim, and can be altered by human hands. Of course Chazal were not referring to Torah Shebaal Peh in that story, but as Chazal placed more practical importance on their concept of "Torah Shebaal Peh" than "Torah Shebichtav", so that even mefurash halachos in TSBK can be overturned by TSBP, it's hard to argue that in theory at least, Chazal couldn't have said "Lo Bashamayim He" with respect to the written text too.
So we have this sence of some origin in "Shamayim", but then the baton being passed to us humans, and yet the "shomayim" part and the "human" part are equally valuable.
What can this mean from an OP/HS perspective?
To me, it means that we recognize that when people are acting leshem shamayim,and are trying to figure out the best approach in life, they are acting as if 'Min Hashamayim". Judaism takes this concept to such a degree that even folk customs of Israel attain the status almost of halachah. As the (metaphorical) saying goes, if we are not prophets we are sons of prophets.
There is also the famous story when Moshe Rabbeinu travelled forward in time to R' Akiva's beis hamedrash, and was dismayed when he couldn't understand what was going on. But then he cheered up when R Akiva claimed that the new halachos he was darshening were "Halacha LeMoshe Misinai". Now it's clear from this story that obviously the halachos were not from Moshe, since Moshe didn't understand what R Akiva was talking about. So why would R Akiva say "Halachah LemOshe Misinai"? Because of this concept that the origin of the enterprise is "Sinai" (so to speak). So there is clearly a concept in Judaism of "Torah" being considered Min Hashamayim (or MiSinai - same thing), even when it is very human created indeed.
Now this could be taken two ways. Rabbi Halivni's theory is that there was an original Divine Torah, which unfortunately got corrupted over time, and Ezra tried to reconstruct it. This approach avoids some of the issues with Biblical Criticism but I don't think it resolved all of them. Plus there's no real basis for it.
My preferred approach is rather to fully accept the academic research of the matter - which is far from being finalized. There is currently a huge debate going on in the world of academic Bible scholarship as to when the Bible was finally redacted, whether around the time of the Babylonian Exile, or much later in Helennic times. But all agree that a date of 1200BCE and a single author is not realistic.
However this does not mean the the Torah is a nothing. On the contrary, Torah - and by Torah I mean the entire corpus of Jewish literature and learning spanning the last 3000 years - is the lifeblood of Judaism. We see it as inspiring and inspired.
Of course not every line of every book will inspire - there are whole stories which nowadays seem odd, or even immoral. But taken as a whole, the enterprise is certinly inspired - and at every stage of history many cultures besides the Jews have been inspired by it (both for good and unfortunately also for bad).
So when I say Torah Min Hashamayim, or that the Bible is Divinely Inspired, I certainly don't mean it in any literal, fundamentalist sense. Rather I asm saying it in the same sense that Chazal elevated Torah Shebaal Peh to being Halachah LeMoshe Misinai - our sacred literature is inspiring and inspired, as if Min Hashamayim.
Some may wonder what "Divinely Inspired" means. Does this mean that God actually planted the words or the concepts in the Biblical scribes (or Chazal) brains? Is it a type of Ruach HaKodesh? (What is Ruach Hakodesh anyways?!)
Who knows? There are famous stories in science when a discovery was literally made in a dream, and I'm sure we've all experienced moments of strange, surreal inspiration. This could certainly all be happening in the sub-conscious, and it would be foolish to insist it isn't, but at the same time, it is also foolish to ignore emotions or assume that science is all there is. Emotionally, we often feel the Divine, and likewise we feel things to be inspired, Divinely or otherwise.
For example, I know an award winning Bible professor who certainly is no stranger to the DH, in fact his career is built on source criticism. He has no illusions as to the physical origins of the text. Yet he told me that when he starts learning Torah as Torah, he really gets into it, and feels inspired.
A hard nosed skeptic will insist (or force himself to insist) that this is all explainable by evolution and cold physics. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. We don't know (and probably will never know) what is underopinning ultimate reality. What is a string made of? It's strings all the way down.
But either way, an emotional commitment to Torah being Divinely Inspired (however you interpret that) is certainly a hallmark of the Jewish people (the people of the book), and certainly not a concept that we should ever jettison.
Just don't take it too literally!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
