October 2007 Archives

The big Jewish story of Summer 2007 was Professor Noah Feldman's now infamous New York Times Magazine article "Orthodox Paradox" (July 22, 2007) in which Feldman critiques Modern Orthodoxy as being inherently and irrevocably inconsistent. The specific "paradox" to which Feldman points is that on one hand Modern Orthodoxy claims to embrace the secular world, yet simultaneously maintains a religious prejudice against it. Feldman cites examples of Jewish particularism in the Talmudic law that Jews do not desecrate the Shabbat to save the life of a non-Jew and through the personal ignominy he faced at his high school reunion having been ostracized due to his intermarriage.

Feldman's article generated some of the most vociferous discussion among the Jewish intelligentsia and throughout the J-Blogosphere, with Feldman being vilified for betraying the Jewish people either for intermarrying or through voicing his critiques in a public forum.¹ While the frenzy has died down since the summer, Feldman exposed a nerve in the Jewish community which still rightfully still agitates many. To address some of those issues and the subsequent reaction, on Thursday October 18th NYU hosted a symposium entitled, "Orthodox Paradox: A Debate on Jewish Values" featuring the eclectic trio of Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, philanthropist Michael Steinhart, and the aforementioned Professor Noah Feldman.

Despite the event's classification as a "debate", there was little collective coherency among the three panelists. Instead of addressing one area of "Jewish values" each panelist discussed his own approach to the question based on his own individual set of values.

One of the most important business commodities, intellectual or material, is the brand name. More than just a logo, a brand name is the symbolic representation of the entire company, implicitly defining the quality and integrity of its products. Building widespread brand name recognition can take several years, let alone correcting a negative impression, but acquiring an established reputable brand name quickly improves a company's legitimacy in the eyes of the public. For instance, Rupert Murdoch's purchasing of the Wall Street Journal gives his new business channel instant credibility (at least in theory).

On a smaller scale, brands can be leased to individuals in the form of franchising. In this system, a small business can leverage an existing brand name and benefit from it's reputation and advertising. However, the corporate office usually dictates uniform policies from products, pricing, and interior design in order to protect its brand and ensure a consistent experience for the consumer.

Religion follows a similar pattern in terms of connecting name recognition to external expectations. We expect Orthodox Jews to keep kosher, observe Shabbat, and follow the laws and ethics defined by Jewish law. The difference is that Orthodox Judaism has no authoritative "home office" to enforce uniform regulations. As such, the religious "franchisees" are left to argue over who has the most authentic characteristics, and in turn discredit and delegitimize their competitors.

Let's look at three recent examples from the world of Jewish news:

I was registered and supposed to attend YU's medical ethics conference on Fertility, Modern Medicine, and Jewish Law this past Sunday but instead paid a shiva call to R. Moshe Tendler, my teacher of two and a half years, and pioneer in the field of Jewish medical ethics. Thankfully, CuriousJew has her typically thorough writeup of the event.

Some quick-hit second-hand thoughts and observations:

• If you ever have the opportunity to hear R. Johnathan Sacks, do so. An exemplar of the "integration" model of Torah U'Madda if there ever was one (and a captivating speaker no less).


• Regarding various fertilization methods, I must cite the classic R. Tendler quote: "You cannot commit adultery with a hypodermic syringe."


• One of the "misconceptions" of infertility attributed to Dr. Richard Grazi is that a pelvic exam creates a niddah. I do not have access to the sources presently, but my father agrees saying that it's really a dispute between R. Yohanan (lenient) and Reish Lakish (strict) in which case we usually follow the teacher. However, he does point out that in a YU shiur he attended, the Rabbi paskened l'humra, apparently buying into the "misconception."


• There was some discussion related to multiple births and viability. This discussion is predicated on the Jewish perception of abortion, a topic into which I will not get. However, I do recall R. Tendler discussing the McCaughey septuplets and praising the family for adhering to their beliefs by not aborting any fetuses.


• The halakhot of shichvat zera levatala are more complicated than simply assur. The Conservative Teshuva on Homosexuality covered many of the nuances despite ultimately punting on the pesak.

Not having been there or having a better command of the subjects, I can't comment further. Hopefully I will not have such a reason to miss it next year.

I just received this unfortunate e-mail:

Dear All:

Barukh Dayan Ha-Emet. I am sorry to note the passing of Rebbetzin Sifra Tendler, wife of Rabbi Dr. Moshe D. Tendler, shlita, (rosh yeshiva at RIETS) and daughter of Rav Moshe Feinstein zt"l.

The funeral will take place today at three PM at Rabbi Tendler's shul in Monsey.

3 PM Community Synagogue of Monsey
89 West Maple Avenue
Monsey, NY 10952

Shiva will be observed at the Tendler residence
4 Cloverdale Lane
Monsey, NY 10952

HaMakom yenachem et'chem b'toch shar avay'lay Tzion vee'Yerushalayim.

Rebbitzen Tendler had been ill for some time, most recently with a relapse of cancer (I believe lymphoma). Our wishes and condolences are with the entire Tendler family.

One of the more popular interpretations of the Lulav bundle is that each of the four species represents a different type of Jew based on their possession of Torah or good deeds (Vayikra Rabba 30:12). Specifically:

• The lulav has taste but no smell, symbolizing those who study Torah but do not possess good deeds.
• The hadass has a good smell but no taste, symbolizing those who possess good deeds but do not study Torah.
• The aravah has neither taste nor smell, symbolizing those who lack both Torah and good deeds.
• The etrog has both a good taste and a good smell, symbolizing those who have both Torah and good deeds.

Homiletically, this midrash teaches a message of communal unity. The lulav bundle, also called an "aggudah" (B. Sukkah 33a), represents joining of religiously diverse Jews, presumably towards the service of God. Practically speaking, this message is largely ignored as evidenced by the widespread infighting amongst the divergent Jewish communities.

I suggest that this midrash is not to be taken in isolation. Rather, the homiletic symbolism of the lulav bundle may be understood in conjunction with the corresponding halakhot to provide not only a unique model, but instructions for maintaining a unified Jewish community.

A few weeks back I bought a generic pair of scissors from a downtown Duane Reade. Of the many ways in which a pair of scissors could be packaged, these in particular were attached to a cardboard backing with a metal washer fastening a loop around one of the handles. Thus after tearing off the backing, the loop was still firmly attached like so:

Now if only I had some utensil, device, or mechanism which could sever this superfluous and intrusive connection.

Oh wait....

New York has always been a culturally dynamic city, but certain neighborhoods have generally been able to maintain their character over the years. To some extent people follow reputations; once an area establishes an identity it is likely to attract those who find such an area attractive, thus perpetuating the status quo. Economics likely play a larger, but related role, in that certain neighborhoods may attract diversity due to cheaper rents while others will be more exclusive due to the high costs. But even the formerly inoculated communities have been finding that as the economies change, so goes the neighborhood.