This weekend is Memorial Day, a national holiday which in theory pays tribute to the soldiers who have and continue to defend the freedoms we take for granted, but in reality is an excuse to barbeque and clog up the nation’s highways.
There is also mihag kadum that one is only allowed to wear white from Memorial Day to Labor Day in September. I happen to have an off-white straw hat perfect for Shabbat walks for someone with fair skin. My question for anyone out there with a moderate fashion sense, is does this white rule apply to Memorial Day itself i.e. the Monday, or may one start wearing white on the Saturday of Memorial Day?
Or to put it in brisker terminology, is it taluyi on the yom or the shem of the weekend?
Thoughts?

My previous post on Ryan Karben prompted an interesting conversation with someone who knew him from the YU days. According to this person, Karben’s affinities were an “open secret” at YU and he personally knew people who had been propositioned by Karben.
We then discussed the question of if and when someone’s tendencies should be “outed.” If we are aware that someone is potentially dangerous, to what extent do we pursue this person or expose the risks of being involved with such a person.
On one hand, we do have the obligation of lo ta’amod ‘al dam rei’echa and cannot sit idly by while people are being harmed. If we know that there is a risk in the community, can we risk doing nothing?
On the other hand, pursuing such people needs evidence and as the Gafni and Lanner cases have shown us, they might not do much good. Furthermore, there is always the risk of slander, which is prevalent enough as it is let alone being motivated by religious or political agendas.
I’m open to suggestions.
Update: In an IM, The Town Crier points to other recent examples of whistleblowing both good and bad, including Un-Orthodox Jew and the Kolko issue as well as Jewschool apologizing (and perhaps retracting the apology) for reporting that Gafni was accused of rape. In the Internet Age and instant anonymous blogging, the whistleblowing reporting can be used for good or evil faster with more immediate consequences.

Following up on the topic of conversions, it seems that 3 out of 4 religions agree that freedom to convert from or to another religion is a basic religious right.
However, when it comes to proselytizing, one should really have a good idea of the target audience or community. Fark picked up this story about Hassidim receiving missionizing DVD’s in the mail. As the article says in the last paragraph, “But theology aside, technology might prove a larger hurdle for Katz’s group. However appealing the packaging, most of the thousands of Kiryas Joel households that got the ‘Days of Moshiach’ DVD don’t have televisions or computers on which to view it.”
I can just see how one of the conversations went:

“Don’t watch that thing! It’s kefira!”
“Oh, and how do you know?”
“Um…my wife’s third cousin isn’t so frum and he told me about it…yeah, that’s the ticket.”

The DVD is called Days Of Mashiach, innocuously enough, and if you’re interested here are some screenshots and streaming video.¹

1. YUTOPIA takes no responsibility for anyone who converts due to watching this film. Come to think of it, how desperate is a religion when it actually wants members who are of the mental stability that they would change their faith based on a DVD? Unless of course, we’re talking about The Big Lebowsky in which case all bets are off.

The Jewish Week recently created a stir when it reported that “the Chief Rabbinate in Israel is refusing to accept conversions performed by several leading Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) rabbis,” a revelation which many in the Orthodox world found unsettling. In addition to challenging foreign Rabbinic authority, this policy aversely affects hundreds if not thousands of converts who have trained and studied under Orthodox auspices. The RCA itself was tentative in its initial response, leading some to claim that R. Herring was selling out his constituency. Having discussed the issue more thoroughly at their recent convention, the RCA responded saying that the Israeli Rabbinate was not singling out or delegitimizing the RCA conversions, but generally reevaluating their methods for accepting conversions worldwide.

SIW correctly notes, “While the Chief Rabbinate may not have specifically ‘rejected a conversion authorized by the Beth Din of America,’ it seems by all accounts certainly to be rejecting those authorizations.” This analysis is supported by other quotes in the original article:

The difference is that since Rabbi Amar assumed his position in 2003, he said, “we have been operating according to a list of approved rabbis.”

The list, obtained by The Jewish Week, has fewer than 50 names on it, including some rabbis who are deceased.
“A member of the RCA is not automatically recognized,” Rabbi Krispel said.

The ramifications of such a policy are extensive. Since Israel lacks the clear division of Church and State, the religious decisions made by the Israeli Rabbinate affect many areas of social policy. For example, the halakhic rulings of Who is a Jew will determine if one can get married in Israel, or if one may be included under the Law of Return for citizenship.

The purpose of having the Rabbinate wielding such authority is ostensibly to ensure that Jewish law is being followed properly. However, in light of their decisions to reevaluate its accepting of certain conversions, we should question if the standards being drafted are entirely in line with the standards mandated by halakha.

It’s about time I got the Pesach recap in order. Just a quick head’s up on the bandwith that there is lots of pictorial goodness below and I’m splitting up some of the pics to ease up on the load times.
Enjoy!

I know I owe a post on Pesach and that will be coming along soon. In the meantime, being Yom Haatzmaut and all and having recently returned from Israel, I figure it’s time for some random thoughts on Zionism or at least some general attitudes towards it.

While most Jews I’ve met would claim to “support Israel” ideologically but as expected, this support is highly subjective and how it is conveyed is equally varied. Some support Israel financialy through donations, Israel bonds, trips, or purchasing Israeli products where possible. Others take part in ceremonies, programs, or parades demosntrating their solidarity with the Jewish state.

And of course, others actually move there.

I’ve spoken to olim about the Zionism of Americans and quite are cynical, some to the point of outright disdain. If you believe that Israel is that important to the Jewish people as a nation or as a religion, then why not move? As one person expressed to me, the real meaning of an America going to the Israeli Day Parade is like saying that Israel is a great country – for someone else.

Others have toned down the pro-aliyah rhetoric for pragmatic reasons; people don’t always respond well to sanctimonious rantings. Still there is some resentment at the pharisaical Zionistic propoganda from those who haven’t actually made aliyah.

The question I have been dealing with recently is if American Zionism inherently hypocritical. Can one honestly claim to be Zionistic without actively planning and/or preparing for aliyah or is this just another example of vicarious Judaism?

My current thinking is to distinguish between who and how Zionistic messages are being propogated. For example, I’m sure you’ve heard the hocker in shul pontificating as to what Israel ought to do to solve their security or economic crises. Or perhaps you’ve heard the Rabbis extoling the superior spirituality of God’s chosen land.

In these types of rantings, the lack of aliyah mitigates the intended message. Unless the hocker is an expert in history, political theory, or has some other expertise, then his right to an argument is likely based on a perceived connection with the State of Israel. However, were his connection to be serious, then aliyah should be in his short-term plans. Similarly, if the Rabbi truly believes in the ultimate kiddusha of Eretz Yisrael then why not move?

Where I think these discussions disintegrate is in the motivations of the participants. For example, people could be taking extreme positions to overcompensate for their own Zionistic shortcomings.¹ Or like many conversations, people could just be motivated from simple ideological arrogance.²

What are the alternatives? Frankly I’m trying to figure those out myself. Humility would be a good first step, but we could use that all over. On the other hand, Israel is one of the few things about which Jews feel strongly. Perhaps muting such passion would have even more averse consequences.

I’m still working this out, but I’m open to suggestions.

1. At least Rabbis have the capacity to create their own religious justifications for not making aliyah such as they can do more and better work the Jewish people in America or elsewhere. Even so, the premise of this noble sacrifice is rooted in sheer arrogance that their work is that crucial to the Jewish people. Some Rabbis might be able to get away with this, say R. Avi Weiss perhaps, but these would be the exceptions.
2. Not to say you don’t find this among Israelis, but at lest they live there.

One quick halakha before my ride to the airport gets here. This one comes from Shulhan Aruch O.C. 461:5:

Rough translation: Matzah baked with hametz is only problematic (i.e. considered hametz itself and thus prohibited on Pesach) if they touched, in which case, cut off from the matzah at the point of contact and the rest is fine. Lest you think this is some Sephardi leniency, here’s the Ramo:

And just to be sure, the Mishnah Berurah:

If you’d like to make sense of all this, I recommend looking over the entire siman as well as the Bet Yosef or you could hock your local Rabbi.
Hag Kasher V’Sameach!