In case you missed it before, you might want to check out my post from last year The Historical Meaning of Tish'a B'av (9 Av).
Aside from that, not much else is going on this end aside from schoolwork and job hunting. Which reminds me, if anyone out there has job leads for :
Please drop me a line.
If you're Jewish and single, odds are you've been hit with one of the most annoying brachot ever invented:
"Im yirtzeh hashem (God willing) by you" (IYH)
Some go through comical measures to avoid this phrase. For her younger sister's wedding, Sarah made a T-Shirt saying, "No No, Im Yirtzeh Hashem by YOU!" From what I recall her telling me, it worked nicely.
When I was in Gruss, my havruta got engaged and I had to endure my share of IYH's. Noticing my apparent disapproval, one kollel wife said, "Oh, you should be happy! It's a bracha!" Not wanting to discuss the matter, I nodded, smiled, and went on my merry way.
Not long afterward, I was at a shabbat meal with the same kollel wife. Somehow in the context of the conversation, I said IYH regarding someone having children. 1
Instead of accepting this bracha, the incredulous kollel wife said, "You know, you really shouldn't say things like that."
"Why not? Isn't it a bracha?"
"Yes, but you don't know...maybe there's a reason why they don't have kids."
"Maybe there's a reason why I'm not married."
"Look, you just shouldn't."
I could have countered that if IYH is indeed a bracha, then it should be welcomed in all cases. I was not nagging, "nu, when are we going to have some nachas," but "if God wills it, it should happen" - a perfectly "frum" theological blessing. However, by this point in the year I had learned not to engage in logical arguments with the typical YU kollel wife, so I dropped the subject.
Since then, I've asked several people if there is a difference between saying IYH to a single person looking to get married or a married person who is trying to have children. Both deal with highly personal and emotional struggles, yet IYH is socially acceptable in one context and apparently reviled in another.
In this highly unscientific study, I found that most women instinctively see a difference, but few could articulate what that would be. One person related to me stories of friends of hers who have struggled with miscarriages and fertility clinics, emphasizing the myriad of problems that couples face. Since one never knows what a couple goes through, even an IYH could prove to be traumatic.
I do not wish to minimize the struggles that people go through in either area. My problem, and one of my biggest pet peeves, is hypocrisy. If you truly believe that IYH is a bracha and will be accepted as such, fine. If you find it offensive in some cases, then that would indicate that you don't really believe it's a true bracha. I suspect the latter to be true in most cases.
For some reason, many are under the impression that singles have no feelings. We can mockingly throw out an IYH with little regard to what a person goes through. It's like a cultural hazing process that only ends when you get married. Apparently, it's only then where a person's private life is "off limits" from the teases of the community.
So before you throw out another IYH by you - even as a joke - first to think about how it's going to be received by the other person. It's possible they might not be offended, and it's possible that they might accept it wholeheartedly. But it's also possible that you could strike a sensitive nerve and add more to a person's anguish. If you're not sure yourself, think if you would personally say it to a married couple who is trying to have children.
The point is that maybe it's time to reevaluate commonly accepted phrases. Maybe we're actually hurting people with words which aren't as well intentioned as they sound. Maybe we should take the time to think about how our words affect other people, even when they're socially conditioned. Maybe if we can do this, we can try to reverse the mentalities of what caused the hurban in the first place.
Im yirtzeh hashem by us all.
1. I don't remember the details if it was to the specific person there, or about someone else not at the table.
If you ever find yourself in an intellectual discussion, you might hear (or yourself use) the term "slippery slope argument." The general logic behind a "slippery slope" argument is that if we allow X, then Y would be the inevitable consequence. Since Y is obviously bad, then we shouldn't allow X. The main flaws of this logic would be irrationally assigning an extreme value to Y or by not demonstrating how X -> Y. Opponents of "slippery slopes" rarely argue the merits or demerits of the argument but instead chose to redefine the logic as it suits them. Since the reformulation is usually flawed, opponents may then use the derisive "slippery slope" label to easily discount opposing positions.
Some site maintenance pointed me to Zachary Sholem Berger's response to my review of Rabbi Steve Greenberg's book. Berger's first contention is that my position "smacks of the slippery slope argument used against same-sex marriage."
Here, Berger imposes the issue of morality on my legal argument. His equation compares same-sex marriage with murder on moral grounds. Since there is a moral distinction between them, the laws should obviously be different. However, my critique of R. Greenberg was not based on morality, but on halakhic or legal reasoning. The difference is that laws are not abstract, but they are the rules for normative behavior to which all society must (or at least should) adhere. Jurists from the Talmud through the American Supreme Court have concerned themselves with interpreting law not only for the immediate case at hand, but also the ramifications for future cases.
In the example of oness, R. Greenberg argued that since homosexuals are born with the desire, then we should treat them in the legal category of being exempt if they commit a biblical prohibition. However, if the mere innate desire is sufficient to exempt one type of sin, then the logical consequence would be to apply that logic to other desires as well. Once all desires are outside of one's control, then all transgressions may be dismissed. This is not an issue of what is moral or immoral, but of the ramifications of assigning legal categories.
Similarly, the secular debate of homosexual marriage may be phrased in legal terms as well. Does the government have a legal right to legislate the private sexual actions of consenting individuals? If the government does, then technically, it could have the power to outlaw homosexual unions. If it does not, then by what legal right does it have to prohibit other sexual acts, such as statutory rape based on an arbitrarily decided age of consent? True, many are motivated by moral concerns, but the legal issues must still be addressed.
The other general problem I see with the immediate rejection of slippery slope arguments is the intrinsic inconsistency. Most logical arguments I have seen follow the logic of IF X THEN Y, including those positions taken by those who oppose the slippery slope arguments. For example, Berger concludes, "As a liberal Jew, however, I do sometimes feel like a passenger on a cruise ship, who asks himself, 'How much longer do we have to be swinging right on this thing?'" To which I counter, what is wrong with "swinging right" on this or any issue? Furthermore, why shouldn't we be able to discriminate against whomever we chose? If your answer would follow the logic of IF we did that THEN something would happen, you've just set up a slippery slope argument.
This is not to say that all slippery slope arguments are valid - some are clearly far fetched. However, each one must be taken at its merits and debated as it is formulated, and not as one decides to interpret them. I find it ironic that "slippery slope" arguments are often rejected because of their misleading logic, and so they are dismissed automatically based on equally misleading logic.
Berger's other issue deals more with the question of halakhic authority, one which I cannot detail yet at this point. However, I think it's time for me to just write a general summary of how Jewish Law works, or at least the concepts and rationale for why I believe what I believe.
Introduction
For a prelude, first see the last post. For now, let's get right to it.
Jewish dating stinks.
Everyone has their reasons and explanations. I've heard people blame the men, the women, the shadchanim, the Rabbis, and the whole culture at large. Of course, none of these discussions are productive. Even assuming one could find fault with any element of society, it's unlikely that change will happen on an institutional level. More importantly, it doesn't help the singles with their current situation.
As a friend and Rabbi, I've spoken to many people about their struggles in the Jewish dating world. As a single myself, I've personally experienced my share of disappointments and frustrations. I am not a professional therapist, nor am I trained in psychology. I'm hardly an expert in relationships, and I don't have the greatest track record. However, I do think I have a decent understanding of the situation and of the many people affected. I also have a tendency to think too much.
I've started putting together my thoughts on dating and I've tried to offer some practical advice for singles. Unlike many comments I've seen and heard, I'm going to focus on what you, the individual, can do. Men, women, shadchanim, and rabbis are all out of your control. If you're having trouble finding someone, no one can simply create a person for you.1 If you've fallen for someone, you can't control if that person will respond favorably. However, you are in control of yourself, and only you are responsible for yourself.
My thoughts on dating are constantly evolving, and therefore are subject to change.
Everyone seems to have different opinions about the shidduch "system." Women blame men, men blame the women, everyone blames everyone. About the only thing people can agree on is that the situation stinks. Some of you may be familiar with Chananya Weissman's www.EndTheMadness.org which attributes the problems to misguided perceptions of dating and improper assumptions of Jewish law. Following his impression, Chananya provides general solutions and even formulated a covenant for singles to follow to break the cycle of "social insanity." While there is much truth in Chanaya's analysis and solution, I find that his construction of the problem does not offer practical alternatives for singles. It is an important first step in fixing many of the horrible misconceptions that Orthodox Jews have about dating, but it alone will not help. Furthermore, as this post will show, his assessment is limited to a certain type of stupidity when the problem is with how people view dating and relationships in general.
