Donald Bradman – The Greatest Sportsman Of All Time

F.M. Alexander regarded Sir Donald as a beautiful example of poise.

According to Wikipedia: “Sir Donald George Bradman, AC (27 August 1908 – 25 February 2001), often referred to as “The Don”, was an Australian cricketer, widely acknowledged as the greatest batsman of all time. Bradman’s career Test batting average of 99.94 is often cited as statistically the greatest achievement by any sportsman in any major sport.”

When Nelson Mandela was released after 27 years in prison, his first question to an Australian visitor was, “Is Sir Donald Bradman still alive?”

Posted in Cricket | Comments Off on Donald Bradman – The Greatest Sportsman Of All Time

You’ll Swing For That

I’m watching season four of the great Aussie crime drama Underbelly: Razor.

It’s about the underworld in Sydney between 1927 and 1936.

I notice how the crooks keep deciding to stay away from murder because “you’ll swing for that.”

That’s when Australia had the death penalty for murder.

Posted in Australia | Comments Off on You’ll Swing For That

When The Steipler Became A Holy Man

In his second lecture on the Steipler for Torah in Motion, professor Marc B. Shapiro says: After the Chazon Ish died, people turned to the Steipler with their problems.

“The Steipler begins to assume the role of the tzaddik, the holy man, much like a hasidic rebbe who has clairvoyant powers. The Chazon Ish in his lifetime was never regarded like this. You don’t have Lithuanian gadolim regarded like this in their lifetimes.

“The Steipler’s son (Chaim Kanievsky) has assumed that.

“During his lifetime, the Steipler was treated as a holy man, a man with ruach hakodesh (the divine spirit). He would give brachas (blessings). The Steipler never shied away from this. Presumably his hasidic background came to the fore here. This is what he grew up with.”

“He did not function as a posek (decider of Jewish law). He functioned as a leader.”

“He said that abortion is forbidden except when there’s a danger to the mother’s life.”

The Steipler has negative views of non-Orthodox Jews. He’s different from American haredim who want to bring such Jews closer to Torah.

The Steipler’s disagreements with the anti-Zionists, the Satmar, are over tactics, not over ideology. “We are in exile in the state of Israel.”

The Steipler said that the Yom Kippur war was brought on by the Labor government to boost its election chances.

“The Steipler and Rav Shach all had negative comments about psychologists. They were convinced it was a waste of time. They think that psychologists are all about turning people against religion. It was certainly forbidden to go to a non-religious psychologist.”

“When it comes to doctors, they don’t care. He’s an expert. With psychologists, they’ll be very careful who they send to, as they should. As religious Jews, I don’t think we can go to any psychologist. That’s dangerous.”

Posted in Haredi, Marc B. Shapiro, Orthodoxy, Psychology | Comments Off on When The Steipler Became A Holy Man

How Does The Haredi World Change?

In his second lecture on the Steipler for Torah in Motion, professor Marc B. Shapiro says: “Any changes are only valid if they are put forth by their authority figures. All the propaganda put out by people like Avi Shafran that we don’t believe in this or that, it’s all nonsense. They believe in what the gadolim tell them. That makes perfect sense, more sense than what the apologists say who try to explain the haredi world. Avi Shafran does not know what the gadolim will say until they say it.”

Posted in Haredi, Marc B. Shapiro, Orthodoxy | Comments Off on How Does The Haredi World Change?

Why Is Luke Not Married?

Greg Leake emails: Hi Luke,

On the last Torah Talks at the end you asked, “Why am I not married?”

Obviously, you were bouncing off the obscenity comedy that you were advancing prior to the question. I don’t know whether you actually want to get married or not, but there may be some factors you have not considered.

You will remember that several months ago i was living in the Orthodox jewish community of Dallas. I had a lot of opportunity to observe the species close up.

Your best shot at marrying someone modern Orthodox would be a divorcee. In my neighborhood there was quite a number of middle aged modern Orthodox women who were divorced. These ladies were highly motivated to find another husband. In fact, they were willing to step outside the strict protocol of orthodoxy if it meant the possibility of some good match-up.

Some would privately confide that they were willing to marry a goy if a really suitable candidate were available.

And here we find your catch-22, Luke.

these divorcees explained that there was a certain security for them in the Orthodox community. Their rabbis would have mobilized resources of whatever variety if it meant protecting them from some set of circumstances that were threatening.

As a consequence the Jewish community operated as sort of a de facto family. And since this family had a very rigidly defined set of criteria they were very limited when it came to presenting a potential partner to the community. Obviously they weren’t going to stroll into the synagogue unless the man would be met with approval. Marrying up was the best possibility. And this was somewhat like a girl not wanting to bring some man home to her family unless she felt the family would approve. And the neighborhood I was in would mean that the guy would have to be pretty successful and respectable.

Now some of these same women would have been willing to make a match with a suitable goy.

However, a marriage with a goy would mean that they had to leave the Jewish community with its potential support. Therefore, for them to jump ship, the goy would need to have a lot going for him. The goy would also have to be very successful and probably respectable, because if they were going to trade their Jewish credentials for a match with a goy, then they had to be certain that the new match would not diminish safety and security, but in fact increase it.

So, Luke, the catch-22 for you is that when you crossed the Orthodox line you instantly diminished your possibilities of an Orthodox Jewish girl because of the fact that you are a convert and because of your unsavory past and reputation. Now had you been simply a convert who was maybe the respectable president of a bank or something, you might have fallen into a different category. However, since the Jewish girl had already been ingratiated into Jewish society before you ever converted, she understands full well the social consequences with her family and her community if she were to hook up with someone who had these strikes against them. It’s not so much that a jewish girl might not like you or be attracted to you; but the social penalty for getting together with you could be acute.

Actually if you were a very successful goy or maybe a Conservative Jew, some of the divorcees in modern Orthodox might see you as a real candidate since after they have had kids and divorced it’s a whole different ballgame. The problem there is that they would be turning in their Jewish credentials for someone who doesn’t offer security along with excitement and romance.

The irony is that had you not crossed over to the Orthodox realm, you probably would be married already. There are millions of women who would be attracted to you outside of the Orthodox Jewish world. You’re a nice-looking, intelligent guy with a good sense of humor, and were you just an ordinary bloke you would have no trouble getting together with the sheilas.

Modern Orthodox has built in an automatic catch-22 for you, and it is one that may offer an obstacle too large to overcome. A girl unconcerned about modern orthodoxy who has a great interest in the Alexander Technique could offer a level of compatibility without the catch-22 looming over your head like the sword of Damocles.

Posted in Modern Orthodox, Orthodoxy, Personal | Comments Off on Why Is Luke Not Married?

Is Religion Just About Sex and Guns?

Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky writes: “When a candidate runs as a devoutly religious person, what kinds of public positions does he or she take? In the political contest playing out in presently, the foreign policy positions of the devoutly religious are hawkish, and their social policy positions are conservative. The devoutly religious politician is anti-abortion, anti-contraception, and anti-feminism. The same general pattern (with shades of difference) holds true among devoutly religious politicians in many other countries, regardless of which one of the world’s major religions is being practiced there.”

…”I am a devoutly religious person. And I believe that our deepest religious values should inform our political views. And I am befuddled and disturbed by the fact that our leaders who wear their religion on their sleeves, exhaust their passions on our military challenges abroad and birth-control pills at home. The world awaits the expression of America’s deep historical religious passions for justice, compassion, and peace for all humankind.”

I don’t like criticizing Rabbi Kanefsky on my blog because I like the man and I like his shul.

Still, he has chosen to go public once again with an absurdly contemptuous dismissal of those to his right. Rabbi Kanefsky paints those who differ with him as morons (obsessed with birth-control pills, etc), but fails to give any specific examples to back up his claims.

I can’t think of any right-of-center politician in the world who’s obsessed with birth-control pills.

The rabbi is plainly taking aim once again at Rick Santorum but Rick Santorum has said nothing about using government to hinder women’s access to birth-control pills and the like. The rabbi’s attack completely lacks factual foundation.

The rabbi writes: “The devoutly religious politician is anti-abortion, anti-contraception, and anti-feminism.”

The rabbi provides no examples to back up his charges. Ron Paul is devoutly religious and yet he does not align with the rabbi’s generalizations.

The rabbi writes: “The same general pattern (with shades of difference) holds true among devoutly religious politicians in many other countries, regardless of which one of the world’s major religions is being practiced there.”

Protestant politicians have no problem with the use of birth control. Non-Orthodox Jewish politicians have no problem with the use of birth control.

India has many devout Hindu politicians. According to Wikipedia: “There is no ban on birth control in Hinduism.”

Different religions and different denominations within religions have completely different views on birth control and the politicians who identify with these various religions have equally different views. There is no right-wing view on birth control.

Nobody can take Rabbi Kanefsky seriously on any matter because he repeatedly publishes dismissive and false generalizations about those with whom he disagrees.

Posted in R. Yosef Kanefsky | Comments Off on Is Religion Just About Sex and Guns?

Does A Jew Need To Earn His Beard?

I was taken aback a few years ago when I had a beard when an old woman told me I had to earn the right to have a beard and I clearly had not.

I thought it was clearly the Jewish ideal for a man to have a beard.

In his first lecture on the Steipler for Torah in Motion, professor Marc B. Shapiro says: “Novardok [yeshiva] students wore beards.”

“If you’ve seen pictures of the great yeshivas in Europe, none of them wore black and none of them had beards. The rosh yeshivas wore beards. The bocherim (students) were not supposed to wear beards. It was haughtiness. Who heard of a 20-year old who doesn’t know anything wearing a beard? Maybe when you know 25 masechtas and you’ve been in yeshiva for 20 years.”

“This has changed in America. I was in Lakewood in six years ago. A good three-quarters did not have beards. It is disputed, but Rav Ahron Kotler did not believe that you could use shavers.”

“Maybe some women did not want a guy with a beard?”

“If you wanted to grow a beard [in a yeshiva traditionally], you had to get permission from the rosh yeshiva to grow a beard.”

“Black [clothes] only becomes yeshivish in the 1970s as a result of Hasidic influence. Until then it was, who do you think you are to wear black? It became rabbinic garb to wear black, even in the religious Zionist world.”

“Black means modesty but you [traditionally] needed a reason to be modest [so ostentatiously]. The yeshiva world today does not wear black for modesty. They wear it because it is their uniform.”

“People complain that YU is so frum today because a lot of the guys wear the uniform. Penguins, they call it. Black and white with a hat. They just want that yeshivish mode. In Israel, they would never dress that way because black means haredi.”

“In Lithuania, they did not put their tzitzit out.”

“In the Sephardic world, of course you don’t wear the tzitzit out. The Ari ruled that you wear tzitzit in.”

“In Morocco, no one wore tzitzit out.”

“R. Ovadiah Yosef has a long responsa that you should keep it in.”

“No one has done a history, a sociology, of the American yeshivas the way I would do it. We have Samuel Heilman. William B. Helmreich. I’m not interested in the things they’re interested in.

“I’m interested in when did the black clothing coming in. When did they start wearing tzitzit out?”

The Steipler is the only gadol who was in a non-Jewish army.”

Posted in Marc B. Shapiro, Personal | Comments Off on Does A Jew Need To Earn His Beard?

Why the NAACP Went to Geneva

Dennis Prager writes: The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the NAACP, has gone to the United Nations — specifically the U.N. Human Rights Council — for, in the words of USA Today, “help battling what the organization views as forces attempting to push back voting rights.”
Those “forces” are laws being passed by various states that require a photo ID for voting.
The NAACP move is so absurd and so self-destructive that one has to wonder why the organization has done this. According to the Freedom House 2011 assessment of freedom in the world, of the 41 members of the U.N. Human Rights Council, fewer than half are free countries. Ten are ranked “Not Free,” and 12 “Partly Free.” Among the “Not Free” members are Angola, China, Congo, Cuba, Jordan, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Those countries’ elections, if they have them, are rigged, and prominent opponents are jailed, tortured and killed.
To bring a human rights complaint before countries in which there are almost no human rights is truly absurd. That the alleged human rights violation takes place in the freest country in the world further elevates the level of absurdity. And when the alleged violation is a law that requires all voters, irrespective of race, creed or color, to show photo identification before voting, we have gone beyond the absurd and entered a modern Twilight Zone.
The absurdity explains why what the NAACP doing is also self-destructive. It’s one thing for a prominent individual or organization to make a mistake. But it is quite another to seem ludicrous, which is how the NAACP appears to everyone who is not on the left — and perhaps even to thoughtful leftists.
Why, then, would the NAACP open itself to ridicule?
According to NAACP President Ben Jealous, the reason is that “We are here today because in the past 12 months, more U.S. states have passed more laws pushing more U.S. citizens out of the ballot box than in any year in the past century.”
One can only say that if in the past 100 years, fewer blacks were disenfranchised than in the past 12 months, all the claims about Jim Crow laws disenfranchising blacks must have been wildly exaggerated. But, of course, this, too, is absurd.

Posted in Dennis Prager | Comments Off on Why the NAACP Went to Geneva

Jews Rarely Have Open Casket Funerals

I grew up a goy, a Seventh-Day Adventist. It was not until I came to America at age 11 that I went to funerals with open caskets.

In a 2010 lecture titled “R. Avraham Shapiro” for Torah in Motion, professor Marc B. Shapiro says: “Many of R. Joseph Messas’s decisions (psakim) are incomprehensible today because of the meta-halachic concerns that make us look like Christians.

“It’s clear that Jews have to be buried in a separate cemetery. R. Joseph Messas’s says it is permitted to bury Jews in a cemetery with other religions so long as the Jewish graves are at least four cubits apart from the rest.”

“In Christian countries, you could never have decisions like this. Jewish graves near Christian graves with crosses? It wouldn’t work.”

R. Joseph Messas’s was asked if it was permitted to view the dead and to put flowers on the coffin? A posek (decider of Jewish law) in Europe would never agree. It’s obvious that these are non-Jewish practices. Most of us have never seen a dead body because we do not have open caskets.”

R. Joseph Messas’s says this is permitted. It is the original Jewish approach. He’s dealing with societies in the Muslim world where no one had open caskets.”

“He sees no problem with flowers on caskets.”

“Fifteen years ago, there wasn’t one essay on R. Joseph Messas’s. Now there are loads.”

R. Joseph Messas’s shows us that traditional Judaism can encompass a wide variety of thought.”

Posted in Marc B. Shapiro | Comments Off on Jews Rarely Have Open Casket Funerals

Can You Ask A Question Of A Haredi Rabbi?

In a 2010 lecture on R. Avraham Shapiro for Torah in Motion, professor Marc B. Shapiro says: From a journal published in Sivan, 2009. Here’s something I disagree with. I think it is a negative approach. It’s a recording of a lecture by R. Zvi Yehuda Kook. Somebody asked him, what about asking a halachic (Jewish law) question of a haredi rabbi (such as the Steipler). Can you ask a haredi rav a question of kashrut? Tzvi Yehuda bangs on the table and says, Haredi ideology means a lack of faith, a lack of appreciation of the era we’re in and it means a lack of wisdom and you look out for them.

“Tzvi Yehuda is saying that when it comes to ideology, we obviously can’t be led by the haredim but in even purely halachic matters, you can’t ask them any questions. Their halachic decisions will be based on faulty logic. They’re not intellectually honest.”

“It was the haredim who started this shtick. It’s ahistorical. In a traditional Jewish community, say in Europe, when you had a halachic question, you asked the rav of your community. If you had a different hashkafa (worldview) from him, that was irrelevant.

“The hasidim acted that way also. In almost every city the hasidim lived, the rebbe was not in charge. There was a rav. If they had a halachic question, they went to the rav. They didn’t regard the rav as their spiritual leader. The rav was a technician and could answer these questions.

“The haredim in Israel after WWII, they started this. If you don’t share their outlook, then you are invalid in all areas.”

“This was started by Samson Raphael Hirsch. He declared that for ideological reasons, a rabbi is declared invalid. That took place in Frankfurt. Because the rav disagreed with Hirsch’s separatism, his decisions are invalid.”

Posted in Haredi, Marc B. Shapiro | Comments Off on Can You Ask A Question Of A Haredi Rabbi?