Daniel Ish Chamudot

Rubashkin

2008-10-30T15:59:00.003-04:00

Some of you may be following the most recent Rubashkin/AgriProcessors news. I have been, kind of on an off. A few weeks ago, at our Shabbos table, we discussed the Rubashkin saga with our kids, who appealed to us to either go vegetarian or to start to avoid the brand.

Since then, when I have gone shopping, I have made an effort to avoid their product, although I have been aided in my quest somewhat by other shoppers, who usually go to the store before I do and therefore clean out the less expensive product. However, Rubashkin product has still ended up on our table.

Last night was the first time I made a *conscious* decision to avoid Rubashkin. I noticed that the Rubashkin London broil was packed in a "family pack" (actually, a lot of their stuff was) and cost about $20 for two pieces of meat, versus $18 for one piece of similarly-sized meat from Meal Mart. Ouch. Those of you who know what a cheapskate I can be know this was a tough decision for me. I did end up buying the Meal Mart meat instead, although it was painful to do so.

Just in case I had any lingering questions about my decision, I saw this on the news today: http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/110946.html. I don't know for sure how this will play out, but in the meantime, as long as there are other brands to buy, I'll choose those. If not, I guess I can always go vegetarian...

Random Thoughts for March 17, 2008

2008-03-17T15:04:00.005-04:00

Here are a number of random thoughts, some of which I might flesh out at a later date if I am so inclined to do so:

During Elul and most of Tishrei, we recite Psalm 27 (LeDavid Hashem Ori V'yishi.) Near the end, we recite ki avi v'imi azavuni - for my father and mother have abandoned me. In Parshat Ha'azinu which we typically read during or after the ten days of repentance, we read sheal avicha v'yagedcha zekenecha v'yomru lach - ask your father and he will tell you, your elders and they will tell you. Is there a relationship between these two? Also, who do you ask when you have no parents or elders? Is asking yourself a question the same as asking G-d a question? Does this have anything to do with the halacha that during the Pesach seder, you must ask yourself the four questions when you are by yourself?

Parshat Yitro and Parshat Balak serve as "bookends" for the 40 years Bnai Yisrael wandered in the desert. It is interesting that were we to carefully count forwards from Parshat Yitro and backwards from Parshat Balak we would find Parshat Metzora and Parshat Acharei Mot in the middle. Remembering the midrash about Pharaoh's three advisers, Yitro, Bilam, and Iyov, it is interesting that the material in these two middle parshiyot deal with spiritual death (tzara'at) and physcial death. Anyone ever seen this connection before?

Economists are familiar with a theory called "Random Walk Theory" popularized by Burton Malkiel. Simply stated, this theory posits that, similar to a drunk who takes steps at random, stocks, over time, although they move up and down in a random manner, trend in a general direction over time. Like the drunk, the more random steps he takes, the further away from his original location he will be. Is mitzvah gorreret mitzvah and aveirah gorreret aveirah a similar concept?

No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service. This sign, popularized by restaurants across the country, may contain a metaphorical meaning. Shirt, chultzah in Hebrew, represents physical wealth. When we talk about someones generosity, we say that he or she is willing to give the shirt off of his or her back. We talk about people losing everything but their shirt. Shoes, na'alayim in Hebrew, represent spiritual wealth, or haughtiness. I don't know that this is a fact in American culture, but in Jewish culture, removing one's shoes is a sign of humility. Is there any connection between this and the name we give to a man who does not perform Yibbum with his sister-in-law - Beit Chalutz Ha'Na'al?

I think that Rabbis nowadays can make much more of an impact by taking teaching positions, even within the Conservative or Reform movements, rather than becoming pulpit rabbis at Orthodox synagogues.

Michael Crichton wrote a novel, Timeline, which presents time travel as an exploitation of something called "quantum foam" (quantum foam makes me roam.) Briefly summarized, quantum foam theorizes an infinite number of parallel universes which one "navigates" or "selects" throughout one's life or time therein. Although we visualize quantum foam as an ever expanding, open, infinite system, is it possible that G-d can view it as a closed system? Can this be used to attempt to understand Rambam's Hilchot Teshuva, especially the latter chapters which deal with the philosophical contradiction of free will and an omniscient G-d?

Logical discrepancy in Pirkei Avot: 2:5 says al taamin b'atzmecha ad yom mot'cha - do not believe in yourself until the day you die. 2:15 says shuv yom echad lifnei mot'cha - repent one day before you die. Is there a hidden message in the wording here?

Having gone through a divorce in the past, one sees that there are (at least) two models for change - the "embracing change" model, as embodied by Avraham Avinu in Parshat Lech Lecha, and the "kicking and screaming" model as embodied by Bnai Yisrael before, during, and after Yetziat Mitzrayim. Are there other models?

Adam and Chava may be a metaphorical model for dealing with conflict in relationships. They had one law they had to follow - not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. They made essentially a life and death decision to not follow that law in a very dysfunctional manner - and they survived the threat of death, together, with their relationship intact. Is the measure of a good relationship the ability to make potentially life and death decisions together, and to be able to maintain the relationship even when the decision turns out to be a bad decision?

I appreciate comments on these thoughts, as well as any other posts, or even general comments.

Still Waiting

2008-03-09T13:24:00.003-04:00

Dear G-d:

Thanks so much for the Les Petites Fermieres dill Havarti cheese and Fontina cheese. They are delicious.

I'm holding out for the kosher bacon and shrimp, though.

Kol Tuv,

Danny Geretz

Baruch Shepetarani

2008-03-09T10:02:00.003-04:00

I learned an interesting Rambam this past Shabbat that gave me a new insight into this bracha that is said upon a child reaching the age of bar- or bat-mitzvah.

Rabbi Artscroll translates the bracha as "Blessed is the one...who has freed me from the punishment due this boy." (I like child better.) Frequently, we think that the purpose of this bracha is taken in the sense of "thank G-d that when this child sins, I will no longer be responsible." This really did not sit well with me - does the parent mean to imply that they did such a poor job of parenting the child that they're going to be a sinner? Isn't this a case of being choshed bikshairim - both by the parent in themself, and also by the parent in the child?

Also, I have been bothered by the language of the bracha: "ma-onsho shelazeh." From the punishment that belongs to this one?

Rambam, in Hilchot Teshuva 6:1, writes "Yesh chait shehadin notain shenifraim mimenu al chet'o...b'vanav haketanim." (There are sins that the law requires that they are repaid from [the sinner] ... through minor children.) In other words, as Rambam La'am explains, young children sometimes die as a result of this sins of their parents (or even ancestors.) As long as they do not reach the stage of "ish" (man) it is possible that they will die as a result of those sins.

Taken in the sense that one reaches the stage of "ish" - majority - at bar- or bat-mitzvah, we can interpret this bracha in a different sense. The parent is actually acknowledging that they are imperfect, and may have sinned in some way that might have detrimental effects on the child. The parent is expressing tremendous relief and thankfulness to Hashem that the child has survived the punishment that might be due them as a result of the parents sins. The parent can take tremendous nachat from the child, and from themselves, that the child has reached this milestone.

This sense is a much more positive sense that the one traditionally attributed to the bracha. It may also be more consistent with the particular wording used in the bracha. Perhaps the bracha is actually bilateral, and is being used in both senses at the same time.

Questions:

Presuming my second interpretation is correct, why, then, does the child not recite the bracha, as well?
I am unhappy about the term used as "ish." We do not, in modern society, think of a thirteen-year-old boy or a twelve-year-old girl as being an "adult." Elsewhere in halacha, other ages are given as an age of majority that are greater than the minimum ages of bar- and bat-mitzvah. Can "ish" be interpreted as some other age or milestone?

Mishenichnas Adar Marbim B... ?

2008-03-06T19:56:00.002-05:00

(warning, graphic images)

Compare and contrast:

Yeshivat Merkaz Harav

Gaza City

Hashem Yikom Damam

Random Thoughts for March 5, 2008

2008-03-05T14:31:00.003-05:00

It looks like random thoughts will be organized periodically and posted. I love comments and appreciate any additional insight my readers might want to add.

1. Filters: I am a strong believer in textual analysis. In perek 5 of Pirkei Avot, we have a series of sets of four types of people, each ending describing a wicked person. The last one in the series, about types of students (mishna 14 or 18 depending on who's numbering them) ends with a strainer and a sieve. According to textual analysis, the sieve would be the wicked student. Most translations I've seen switch the "good" student and the "bad" student at the end. This textual inconsistency bothers me. There must be some comparison here between the four sons, and the similarity to how the wise son and the wicked son ask their questions, which seem to be the same. Any ideas?

2. Quote attributed to Virginia Woolf that I can find no proof of: Life is what it is, not what it ought to be; it's how we cope that makes the difference. Anyone ever heard this and know the correct attribution?

3. Rabbi Harry Maryles recently put up a post on Daas Torah (er, Daat Torah.) One of the central questions, on which I commented, is whether Gedolim make mistakes. Last I checked, we were Jewish, not Roman Catholic, so we don't believe in saints, papal infallibility, and all that. Still, we believe in saayata dishmaya. I come down on the side of saying that Gedolim are humans, just like the rest of us, and make plenty of mistakes, which is probably how they got to be Gedolim (they learned from mistakes.) For the life of me, however, I cannot point to mistakes that, for example, Rashi, the Rambam, the Chofetz Chayim, or other gedolim, made. Nor would I want to. I guess, since the mistakes were part of their personal learning process, there is no point to us memorializing them or even remembering them, as long as we realize that they were human and did make mistakes, just like out current crop of Gedolim do. History will eventually determine whether our Gedolim live up to the labels we give them now.

4. Is the phrase "Close enough for government work" a positive or negative comment? I can see it both ways. What's your opinion?

5. In those old Charlie Brown TV specials (I'm old, don't kill me) the teacher always said the same thing "wop wop wop" with differing intonations. I think it is a clever remark on human nature, we hear what we want to hear, and tune out everything else. Maybe part of the reason Charlie Brown feels like such a loser is that he is not a particularly good "active listener," he is too busy having an existential crisis. What do you think?

Enough for now. More later, or tomorrow, or next week...

Teshuva

2008-03-04T22:47:00.004-05:00

Last Friday, I attended morning minyan at my daughter's high school, RKYHS. Rabbi Eliezer Rubin, the principal, gave a Dvar Torah, and I had a brief discussion with him afterwards about the nature of teshuva, and whether Hashem ever gives up on a person. His comments got me to thinking, and over Shabbat, I re-learned Rambam's Hilchot Teshuva.

Rabbi Rubin pointed out an apparent contradiction within Rambam. On the one hand, in 1:3, Rambam stresses that one can do teshuva for any sins. On the other hand, in chapters 3 and 4, Rambam lists various sins for which one apparently cannot do teshuva. The specific example Rabbi Rubin gave as an example was "poresh min hatzibbur."

It is possible that we need to make a distinction between teshuva (return) and kapparah (atonement) in the Rambam.

Although Hashem accepts the teshuva of anyone at any time, kapparah is effected only under certain circumstances. Rambam states in 1:3 that "teshuva mechaperet al kol ha'aveirot" and then goes on to describe four different scenarios in 1:4 - immediate kapparah, and three other cases where teshuva is "toleh" (probationary) and kapparah occurs after some other event, such as Yom Kippur, yisurin, or death, in the most stringent instances.

In chapter 3, from 3:6 and on, Rambam details what types of sins disqualify an individual from having a portion in the world to come, and in 3:14, Rambam qualifies the entire discussion to individuals who do not do teshuva before they die.

In chapter 4, Rambam lists a number of aveirot that prevent teshuva, not kaparah. Rambam’s lashon is “ain Hakadosh Baruch Hu maspik beyado la’asot teshuva,” in other words, the individual does not get an opportunity. Rambam then goes on to discuss these aveirot in detail. Again, the whole discussion is qualified at the end of the perek by saying that teshuva is not impossible in the cases.

I see Rambam’s view of teshuva as a partnership between man (and woman) and Hashem. Man is responsible for teshuva, Hashem is responsible for kaparah. Hashem designed human nature such that mitzvah gorreret mitzvah and aveira gorreret aveira – that one tends to engage in habitual behavior. When an individual engages in the sins described in chapter 3 and 4, the individual sets up a habitual behavior that is very hard to break – Hashem is not responsible for the behavior, as this effect is probably a side effect of having free will. It is exceedingly difficult, but not impossible, to break out of the behaviors Rambam describes because all of them deny that Hashem exists.

This is similar to the idea behind the age-old question about Hashem hardening Pharaoh’s heart, and how the language used starts out saying that Pharaoh hardened his own heart and then changes to Hashem doing it to Pharaoh. In essence, Hashem “did it” because this is how He set up human nature, not that Hashem did anything special to Pharaoh. Pharaoh did it to himself.

This is entirely consistent with the statement that Hashem never gives up on anyone; people only give up on themselves. Ultimately, according to Rambam, it appears that people give up on themselves when they fail to recognize that Hashem exists and that He never gives up on them. If they truly believed in Hashem, then they would not give up on themselves, inasmuch as Hashem never does. People who do not believe in Hashem, by definition do not believe in teshuva or kaparah (why should they?) and thus, do not have an opportunity to engage in teshuva as the process has no value and is of no interest to them.

Questions for discussion:

Is there any relationship between the use of the term K-V-D when Moshe tells Hashem in Shemot 4:10 that he is a "k'vad peh u'k'vad lashon," its use in places such as "vayachbed Pharaoh et libo" in Shemot 8:28, and its use as an adjective when describing some of the plagues, such as "kaved meod" in Shemot 9:18?
What is the difference between the verb CH-Z-K and K-V-D? Sometimes CH-Z-K is used (the sense of intensifying or making stronger) such as in Shemot 9:35, in other places K-V-D (the sense of making heavier or more massive) such as in Shemot 8:28.
Comments on the Rambam chapter 5 and on are appreciated, as some of the material there is very challenging.

Nitkatnu HaDorot

2008-03-01T19:51:00.009-05:00

Rabbi Harry Maryles recently posted an article about Nitkatnu HaDorot (each successive generation is not as great as the previous generations.)

Have I mentioned recently that I am a fan of fractals? I think that fractals are another way of looking at Nitkatnu HaDorot. One property of fractals is self-similarity at different magnifications. Take, for example, the Mandelbrot Set, shown above (click on the picture for a larger view, and ensure you are viewing the image at 100% magnification for best effect.)

Essentially, no matter how strongly you magnify the fractal, you will see that the very small part of the Mandelbrot Set has the same shape (characteristics) as the whole. This is shown nicely in an animation in the Mandelbrot Set Wikipedia article cited above, about 1/3 of the way down on the right (as of 8:21 pm today, when I last viewed it.)

Nitkatnu HaDorot may be a metaphor for that fractal nature of Torah. Hashem gave Moshe Rabbenu the Torah, and Moshe Rabbenu, Yehoshua, and subsequent generations did work to give us the general "outline" of Torah; each successive generation has refined that "outline" and worked at successively smaller scales. Although the work we do at each generation is a refinement, and only addresses a microscopic portion of the "outline," we can view our work as being on the same level as earlier generations in that we show our small portion of the "outline" to be self-consistent with previous generations and the Torah that Hashem gave all of us.

This may be a further explanation of the famous midrash in the Gemara (Menachot 29b) about Moshe Rabbenu and Rabbi Akiva (see the bottom of page 1 here, sorry for the shameless self-promotion.) Why, specifically, Rabbi Akiva and the crowns of letters?

Rabbi Akiva lived during the second century C.E., and was one of the last generations of darshanim on Torah Shebichtav. As a matter of fact, he may epitomize the "crowning achievement" of being able to darshan it. Rabbi Akiva was martyred shortly after the Bar Kochba revolt in 135 C.E. Within a century subsequent to that, the Mishna was compiled. Thus, Rabbi Akiva may be viewed as the "end" of one era and the beginning of another.

Although Torah Shebichtav and Torah SheBeAl Peh appear to be discontinuous, this may be due to the fractal nature of the Torah more than anything else. Just when Rabbi Akiva had just about pinned down every last detail, including even the crowns of the letter, (bang!) along comes another generation at a finer level of magnification, and shows that it will always be impossible to pin down every last detail.

There is always hidden inner beauty in the Torah, just around the next bend, and no matter how hard we work, Torah is bigger than any one person will ever be able to encompass.

(In another act of shameless self-promotion, I suggest this D'var Torah on fractals and Kohelet, as well.)

Three Random Thoughts

2008-02-25T20:22:00.007-05:00

I have had three whole random thoughts over the past few days and am posting them for your consideration and commentary.

1. Regarding the Meraglim (spies) in Parshat Shelach (Numbers 13:33): We were like grasshoppers in our eyes, and so we were in their eyes. The mussar haskel (upshot) is that others percieve us as we percieve ourselves. If we perceive ourselves in a negative light, it's not surprising that others will, too.

2. Also regarding the Meraglim, upon the report of the spies, Bnai Yisrael stayed up all night crying and complaining that it was better to return to Egypt than to go to Eretz Yisrael. This was a 180 degree turn in the wrong direction, for which they were punished by having to wander in the desert for 40 years and having that entire generation die out.

According to the midrash (I think - I'm quoting from memory so I might be wrong), this occurred on the night of the 9th of Av. On the night of each 9th of Av for the following 38 years they had already "served" 2 years), all the Jews of that generation would dig their own graves, lie down in them to sleep, and the next morning, would find about 1/38 had died over night. Therefore, the last year (year 38), all the people going to sleep knew for sure they would not wake up in the morning. Yet, they woke up in the morning. They assumed they had made a mistake in counting days, and repeated this procedure on the night of the 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, and 14th. On the night of the 15th, they saw the full moon and knew for sure that they had not made an error, and realized they were "off the hook".

This presents us with a number of interesting questions: It seems that the generation of slavery had an entrenched attitude that could only be removed by a complete housecleaning, yet the midrash implies otherwise. Did the remaining members of that generation actually live to go into Eretz Yisrael? Does this imply that no attitude is so entrenched that it cannot be changed? G-d had vowed not to let anyone from that generation except Joshua and Caleb go into Eretz Yisrael - did He then break his vow? How can that be? Is there any numerological significance to the six nights and then the seventh night?

3. Judaism is called a monotheistic religion, yet I disagree with that term. Judaism is actually monodeistic - that is, we believe in one G-d. As far as theology goes, I might say that even Hinduism or other Eastern religions, are monotheistic, since they are all built upon one consistent (to them, at least) ideaology. They are decidedly not monodeistic, since they believe in multiple gods. Judaism, broken up into Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, et. al., appears to be monodeistic but not necessarily monotheistic. Does any of this make sense?

Overall, 64-million-dollar-question: Can all of this material be related, do you think?

Educational Theory

2008-02-24T07:43:00.000-05:00

I am, as I have mentioned, an amateur educator. An idea occured to me a few weeks ago that I want to air out.

My fiancee is an educator, and a strong believer in Montessori. On the face of it, Montessori appears to be inconsistent with Judaism, especially because Maria Montessori was a Catholic, and thus, many Jews associate Montessori with Christianity. As a believer in learning from all people, I think that attitude is narrow minded.

Montessori is, at its essence, an acknowledgement of "chanoch la'na'ar al pi darko," a self-paced self-correcting method of teaching children. Therefore, Montessori is largely consistent with a Torah hashkafa. Theoretically, at least, it ought to be possible to integrate a secular and religious education under the aegis of a Montessori school, inasmuch as Montessori is an environment that is integrative in that it subsumes even secular subjects under a Torah-consistent educational model. Montessori also models the attitude of learning as its own reward, which is essentially a restatement of learning lishma.

I believe that all people learn things one at a time, and when learning a new concept, they reach a point where they "get it" and then move on to another lesson. Most subjects build upon previous material, so ensuring that someone "gets" a lesson before moving on to the next one is important. The trick is to get a student to a point where they are receptive to learning things, and usually that is because they have asked a question and are genuinely interested in finding out the answer.

The Pesach seder is an embodiment of what I have described above. As a matter of fact, embedded in the seder are the four sons, yet another restatement of "chanoch la'na'ar." Note that the first three sons are receptive to learning, because they have asked a question. The fourth, sh'aino yodaya lish'ol, who doesn't even know how to ask a question, needs us to start out for him. And I think that it's important the the "you" who needs to start out is phrased in the feminine, because it takes a certain, "motherly" mindset to get a child who hasn't started out asking question to ask that very first question on start out on a life of learning. (In other words, when you "kick someone in the pants" to get them started, you need to do so in a kind, loving manner.)

The four sons can also be viewed as four developmental stages in an educational process, starting at the bottom and working toward mastery of a particular subject.

One important aspect of the things that people learn is what I'll call "granularity." Take, for example, learning the times tables, which is a struggle for apparently a large number of children. Children either "get" that the multiplication facts never change, and decide to memorize them to save counting on fingers or what have you, or they don't. There is also the rote memorization of learning the times tables. Is the granularity the entire times table, a single row thereof, or a single cell (one fact)?

I think that granularity is important because one aspect of "chanoch la'na'ar" recognizes that not only do people learn at different paces - they also learn their fundamental factoids in different "bite sizes." Thus, one child may need to have the attitude of feeling satisfied with themselves only after having learned the entire times table, another may need some reinforcement after each row, and a third may need us to make a big deal as they learn each fact, one by one.

An associated question is whether there is a minimal level of granularity - for example, can you learn half a math fact? My tentative answer to the first question is "yes" and to the second is "no." I find support for this in the parshiyot that we read about the design and construction of the mishkan.

The mishkan was the ultimate do-it-yourself (DIY in Home Depot parlance) project. G-d gave Moshe a brief description of each component, and it was up to Bezalel and Oholiav to figure out the detailed construction plans and techniques based on a general overall plan. Each component of the mishkan was built of multiple materials and components, save one, and one alone.

The menorah was constructed from one gold ingot, and needed to be constructed in such a way that the ingot remained indivisible throughout the process. Additionally, according to the gemara, when G-d told Moshe about the menorah, Moshe was stumped, and G-d tried over and over again to tell Moshe (see Rashi on Shemot 25:40). Finally, G-d had to show Moshe what it looked like. The menorah seems to be emblematic of a minimal level of granularity in an educational process, and also an example of "at ptach lo," what to do when a student is at an impasse and seems to be non-receptive to learning.

As an aside, I note that the word used in Shemot 25:40, "tavnitam," (construction) has a root of B-N-H, which may be a cognate of the B-N-H used in the sense of understanding. Thus, construction and understanding might very well be synonmous.

Finally, I will note that when we "get" something, we often say that we have "seen the light," so it is more than coincidence that the menorah is emblematic of the start of an educartional process - a loving "kick in the pants," if you will, that everyone needs from time to time to start on the road to real understanding.

Theory is one thing; practice is another. I welcome your comments on kind and loving ways to get children of all ages started out on a life of learning.

The Jew and the Gentile

2008-02-23T23:30:00.000-05:00

Early this month, I printed out an article in the YU Commentator with the above title to read, and then got sick for a few weeks (not from printing out the article.) I finally had an opportunity to read the article this past Shabbat. I have followed the whole Noah Feldman (NF) saga off an on, and want to share a few random thoughts that occured to me while I read the article to see what you think about them.

I think that while Rabbi Lamm (RL) might sound a bit shrill (he admits so himself), he does hit the nail on the head. At first glance, Gentile Professor (GP) has totally missed the point - that is, Judaism really is the original and best universalistic religion. GP is essentially denying the divinity of Judaism, and saying that now that we are enlightened, certain attitudes about "chosenness" or whatever have got to go. Following GP's argument in favor of equality and openness might lead one to a logical conclusion that a return to a hunter-gatherer society is a step in the right direction.

GP appears to have missed the fine distinction between equality and universality. The first term implies that everyone is the same, which we clearly are not. The second term implies that people are different, and each and every individual deserves the same respect (kavod habriyot) regardless of their religion, ethnicity, color of skin, or station in life. We all are not and never will be the same, and distinction is even useful from time to time. RL recognizes this, and GP apparently does not.

Leaving RL and GP aside, the whole NF saga, in my mind, begs a larger question: How have we, as families, communities, and Klal Yisrael, failed in our mission to educate our offspring in such a way that they propogate such a fundamental misunderstanding in such a spectacular way? Were I an administrator of the school that NF attended, I might very well cringe when NF made very public comments, because the comments themselves indicate a fundamental failure in NF's Jewish education, for which I might be partly responsible.

As a matter of fact, as a father, future step-father, and amateur educator, I already do cringe. I bear a tremendous responsibility to ensure that those in my charge understand Judaism's universalist message in a way that, whatever they do in life, they are secure in the knowledge that they are Jewish and that G-d loves them even when they stray by accident, and even if they intermarry, chas v'shalom. This knowledge is important because, eventually, they will need to find their way back.

This attitude also leads to a corollary attitude - all people make mistakes, and hurt others by accident - like leaving someone out of a photograph, for example. If those in my charge know that they make accidents from time to time, and that they can find their way back, they are also likely to treat others with the same forgiving attitude.

As far as NF, GP and RL, I leave the more philosophical fine points of the argument to them. For me, I have a job to do, and I know what it is. I welcome, as always, your comments, which might help me to do that job better. Please be kind to me and to others, especially NF and GP, and explain how one might harmonize them with RL.

Lashon Hara and Rechilut Policy

2008-02-23T23:00:00.000-05:00

I've been lurking on blogs for about a year now, and one thing I've noticed is the plethora of anonymous blogs and anonymous comments. I'm of two minds on anonymity.

On the one hand, I dislike anonymity because people tend to be less inhibited about inappropriate language and behavior because they mislead themselves into believing that no one is watching. Pirkei Avot teaches that G-d is always watching, so anonymity for that reason is a fallacy. Also, anonymity makes it harder to take someone seriously, since the Internet is sometimes a vast wasteland of information that might or might not be true. At least if there's a real person behind that information, one can assess the veracity of that information, possibly by calling or emailing the individual and confirming that they really said what they said.

On the other hand, anonymity can be useful at times. When discussing difficult issues, such as sexual abuse, anonymity allows people with an "inside" perspective on the issue to weigh in on a very emotional discussion with less risk of being "outed." It seems to me that for people who deal with these issues, they need a safe outlet to discuss them - test the waters, so to speak - and anonymity helps them to be more comfortable. Hopefully, over time, the safe outlet will enable them to talk to a therapist, a rabbi, or a close friend, and begin to heal what must be terrible pain.

Anonymity also serves to remove the tendency for people to dismiss arguments because of the "you would say that" rationale. This amounts to shooting the messenger because of the message, and is not a reasonable way to conduct a discussion. I myself have experienced this a number of times in my life, and wish to avoid it here. Nonetheless, I am posting under my real name, not under a pseudonym, and am mochel in advance anyone who feels the need to bash me because of my frankness and openness. (For this reason, I may or may not have another anonymous blog to which I may or may not post occasionally, and if I do, I most decidedly will not tell you what blog that might be.)

I am interested in what you have to say, as long as it is done seriously and respectfully. I value serious or humorous comments. I do not value drivel and will ignore it as much as possible. I am somewhat conversant with the laws of lashon hara and rechilut. I am not an expert on it. Experts might very well tell me not to run a blog because it amounts to putting a stumbling block before a blind person. They might also tell me not to attend shiurim, or lectures, for the same reason.

I am not the lashon hara police and have decided against moderating comments. In order to allow those people who feel they have a need for anonymity to post anonymously, and to have some form of accountability, I opted for the "Registered Users" option under comments. That seems to be a compromise between complete anonymity and total accountability. I hold people who come to this blog b'chezkat kashrut - in other words, I trust you. If you register and post under an assumed name, please make it clearly fake so we'll know you're anonymous for a reason. (And to be clear, I will put up follow-up posts, not comments, so any comments bearing my name are counterfeit.)

A few words about my policy on lashon hara. I am a human, just like you, and I am far from perfect. I speak lashon hara from time to time, just like you. I realize that when I speak lashon hara, far from telling the world what a jerk he or she is, I'm really telling the world what a jerk I am. Since I am not a jerk, I try to speak lashon hara as little as possible.

I have lived long enough and paid attention enough to really believe in G-d and hashgacha pratit (divine guidance.) With regards to lashon hara, as with other sins, "what goes around comes around," and when you hurt others, you really only hurt yourself. Please keep this in mind before engaging in any hostility or uncivil behavior on my blog. Before you it the post button, ask yourself whether the statement is still true when you substitute the word "I" for the word "you" or "him" or "her" in your post.

For example: You are about to post "You are such a jerk." Do you intend to post "I am such a jerk," because that's what, in effect, you are telling the whole world about yourself.

If that's what you intend to say, it's fine by me. However, remember that you are not allowed to speak lashon hara about yourself, either, and personally, I don't think I'd hit the post button on the example comment above for that reason.

Remember that for anonymous commenters and commenters who choose to post under a pseudonym or even someone else's name, I may not know who you are, but for sure G-d does. As an aside, I am a professional "hacker," so I might know who you are, too. However, I have better things to do with my time than to investigate morons who have no yirat shamayim (fear of G-d) or who don't believe in G-d and consequently, have no self-respect.

This is your blog as much as it is mine. Please don't litter, and when you do by accident, clean up after yourself.

I reserve the right to update this policy from time to time as I "learn the ropes."