About a week ago, someone sent me an e-mail of a “shidduch meeting” form. For those who don’t know, a shidduch meeting is when a group of (usually) women get together and see who knows whom and if there could be any possible set ups from that group.¹ Since everyone knows different people from their various circles, it’s reasonable that two compatible people would never have met nor would they even have people in common who could get them together.

The organizer wrote up a form with “basic” information. I don’t know how seriously the participants used the forms – it’s possible they just used the names had the “sponsors” describe the singles – but disliked several of the questions asked. Independently, each question provides some information about a person and perhaps indicate if X would be shayachet for Y. As a unit, many of these questions are insufficient or inappropriate to describe the entirety of a person.
For example, here are the 10 questions from the form (in addition to personal background info like occupation, school, etc) with my comments. I copied the questions as they appeared on the form and as you will see, many are horribly phrased. Also, the questions are presented in the order in which they were received, but order should not be confused with importance.

1. Do you/are you looking for someone who intends to cover her hair?
Some may consider hair covering as merely a religious barometer, like a guy wearing a black hat (see below). The major difference is that there are actual halakhot of married women covering their hair. Consequently, if a woman does not plan to cover her hair, or she plans to cover her hair not in accordance with Jewish law,² then she would not be appropriate for a significant population of the Orthodox dating pool.

2. Do you/are you comfortable with (a girl) wearing pants?
Awkwardly phrased. The gist is if you’re a girl, do you wear pants, if you’re a guy, do you care? This infers from the culture religious issues of modesty, but the halakha is not as clear cut as the hair covering. As phrased, this promotes stereotypes of what modesty is halakhic or socially acceptable. Some context would help, as there are many times when pants would actually be more modest than a skirt. At any rate, whether or not one agrees with the implications of women wearing pants, it’s a practical question for determining if two people from the vast modern orthodox community would be appropriate.

3. Do you/are you comfortable with (a boy) wearing jeans?
I don’t understand this one at all. Maybe on some level wearing jeans has some religious implications and indicate where someone is “holding” religiously. It might be a factor for some people, but in my opinion, not enough to make a top 10.

4. Do you/are you looking for (a boy) who intends to wear a hat?
Like #3 this one is directed to the right end of modern orthodoxy. Depending on the people involved, this may or may not make a top 10.

5. Do you plan on having a television in your home?
Interesting idea, but horrible presentation. It’s a religious indicator, but I don’t think television should be reduced to a simple yes/no, good/bad dichotomy. Instead, I suggest the following scale (work in progress):

1. I tape the weather channel to see what I missed.
2. I talk about Rachel, Ross, and Joey like they’re real people.
3. Just give me Law and Order and the Simpson’s.
4. Nothing but PBS and the History Channel.
5. I need it for the VCR…and the news.
6. Box of Satan.

This way you find out not only religious beliefs, but some degree of personality (or lack thereof)

6. Do you plan on attending movies with your spouse?
This one is even more vague than the TV question. What type of movies are we talking about? Finding Nemo? Yentl? Sallah? School of Rock? Blazing Saddles? Lord of the Rings? The Big Lebowski? Dogma? Sound of Music? Rocky Horror Picture Show?³ Furthermore, you could plan on sneaking out to see the movies by yourself without your spouse, or even rent them.

7. Do you/are you looking for someone who will be learning or engaged in a profession?
Is this a choice? My spouse can either be learning or engaged in a profession? Do I want a stay at home wife? Kollel husband? Applicable to a small percentage of modern orthodoxy, this question might be more of a personality indicator than a religious one.

8. Do you/are you looking for someone who will learn on a regular basis?
Regularly setting aside for learning establishes Torah as an important part of Jewish life. Children who see their parents learning may come to value Torah more themselves, or minimally not get as cynical at a society which asserts the importance of Torah and then promptly neglects it.
I just wonder if this applies to women learning too.

9. Do you/are you looking for someone who will attend minyan on a daily basis?
Yet another religious indicator (noticing a pattern?), but practically useless for a marriage, especially once kids come.

10. Are you a Kohen?
According to halakha, a Kohen cannot marry a divorce or a convert and the convention is not to set up kohanim with people who have questionable Jewish lineage. Very important question.
Most of these questions attempted get a religious sense of a person. While society is obviously important in a modern orthodox society, many of the questions are irrelevant to having a successful marriage. Several questions merely reinforce harmful stereotypes of what is and what isn’t religious. On the other hand, if people think in these stereotypes then these questions may be useful. So my question is, for men and women, what are the top 10 questions you think would be most applicable to the most people in the modern orthodox community? What questions would best define you as a man or woman?

The goal here is not to tell everything about a person, but to have a sense if two people would be compatible. Also, the questions have to be phrased in such a way that they will be useful. People don’t always like thinking about themselves, or would just lose patience with a long survey. More questions would help, and so would asking how important an issue is to someone. For example, I may not want a TV, but I won’t care if my spouse does.

Grayson Levy does a great job of this with Frumster. He asks a nice mix of religious and personal questions, and he forces members to express themselves beyond simple multiple choice questions.

I also acknowledge that most of the forms tell more about the person who constructs them than it does about the singles.
Anyone else have suggestions?

1. Not to be confused with kiddush or shabbat lunch. This at least has no pretense of being anything else but a shmooze fest.
2. Or at least the “Jewish law” as understood by the guy, or more realistically the guy’s rabbi. I’m not going to discuss here the laws of hair covering and what is “real” halakha and what is custom. My point is that if a guy thinks that what a woman plans to do is forbidden, don’t set up those two people.
3. My personal opinion is that some of these movies are assur to see, others are mehuyav on everyone. No, I will not say which is which. My father likes to tell following story from R. Faur’s shiur. One day R. Faur said the only movies which are mutar are cartoons and westerns. After naively seeing Fritz the Cat (or part of it at least), he then told his shiur that cartoons are also assur.

Lacking a functional laptop, I’ve been working on a computer at the Hillel. I never thought I’d say this about YU, but their public computing system is far superior. Knowing it’s possible for YU to get some things right makes the politics all the more frustrating.
It’s far too easy to find faults in YU. Anyone can complain, but fewer offer plausible suggestions for improvement. On my mind today, specifically, is the YU smikha honors program.
YU’s rabbinics program, offers financial fellowships for students accepted into one of the honors programs. Most (perhaps all) of these programs require students to enroll in R. Hershel Schachter’s kollel, whereas the kollel is optional for other rabbincal students.
Similar to a “directed study” class, members of the kollel independently study talmud during the afternoon and are tested periodically. Failure to take or pass one of these tests will result in a delay in ordination.¹
I recently had a conversation with someone who participated in this kollel and was somewhat critical of the testing system. According to this person, the tests are not so much on the talmud being studied as they are on R. Schachter’s thinking. If one is accustomed to R. Schachter’s derekh ha-limud system of learning, then these tests will not be unsual. However, the majority of rabbincal students have no prior experience studying with R. Schachter and would most likely be accustomed to a different system of learning. Since the honors program is contingent on the Kollel, the ramification is that in order for a rabbinical student to be elligible for an honors fellowship, he must eventually re-train himself to think like R. Schachter. This structure unnecesarilly restricts those talented rabbinical students who are not part of R. Schachter’system, especially since the kollel members are not actually taught by R. Schachter.²
I am not going to suggest modifying the kollel, but I do think YU has the resources to offer an alternative program for talented rabbincal students. Instead of testing the kollel students from a specific system, let the students develop as they have been trained. This can easily be accomplished by requiring these students to produce an article based on their learning of the year or of an important contemporary issue. Perhaps these articles could be published in a specialized kollel journal³ which would not only help fundraising, but it’s topics could contribute to the Jewish community at large. Therefore, rabbinical students who are so inclined may participate in the honors program with the intellectual freedom to develop their minds and the obligation to contribute to the Jewish community.
In my first-year class’s meeting with R. Lamm, someone asked the then-president why YU offers so many choices for smikha co-requisites and which one was “better.” Students can get an MA in education, social work, Judaic studies, or learn in kollel. What should a student do? R. Lamm sarcastically commiserated that YU has different options for different types of students. If YU is serious about its role in the Orthodox world, it cannot afford to allienate potential talent. It might be time for yet another option.

1. I personally did not participate in this kollel, opting for the M.A. from Revel instead. I am basing my assessments on the descriptions that I have heard from other people. The fundamental descriptions have been fairly consistent. If I am incorrect, let me know.
2. I am not evaluating R. Schachter’s system. I am merely acknowledging that there are other systems of learning, even within YU. For example, R. Tendler, R. Ben-Haim, R. Katz, and R. Weider all have unique styles of learning, none of which are R. Shachter’s.
3. Unlike “Beis Yitzchak,” this should be more accessible to the Jewish community, and the writing would be of a much higher caliber.

My previous post “The Harm In Being Nice” generated a great deal of feedback. Thanks to everyone who posted, IMed, e-mailed, voted, and threatened. Although some people missed the point, just about everyone contributed something positive to the discussion.

I’d like to address some of the issues raised in the subsequent correspondence. I tried to address the phenomenon of why women would want nice guys as “just friends” as opposed to a more serious relationship. I argued that when a guy is loyal, considerate, emotionally sensitive etc. the woman would have the primary effect of a relationship without the commitment, employing the metaphor of “why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free.”

This was just my attempt at explaining a phenomenon. Obviously, relationships are as complicated as the participants. Many people suggested contributing factors as “two sides of the same coin,” but the complexities more closely resemble AD&D dice. However, I couldn’t very well write about relationships with disclaimers every five sentences.¹ That’s what followups are for.

Most people responded to the following scenario: woman breaks up with guy using the ever popular “you’re really nice, but…” line. Most of the time, this completely ends the relationship. My theory applies more to women who don’t want to date someone, but still want to maintain some friendship with the guy. I’m not saying that women should just continue dating someone just because. It’s possible the woman has her own legitimate reasons for not wanting to marry a guy, and she has her own reasons for not articulating them. I was taking the woman at face value: 1. that she thinks the guy is nice and 2. she just doesn’t “feel” it or see it going anywhere and that is why she is ending the relationship.

There could be any number of reasons why a woman wouldn’t want to continue dating a particular nice guy. She might not like the way he looks, they could have incompatible career goals, etc. Sometimes men come on way too strong which is also a turnoff. I also must stress that “niceness” is not a substitute for “personality.” Simply going through the motions of politeness just means you’ve been trained well – but it doesn’t say anything about who you are.² Niceness might not cause a breakup, but niceness alone will not lead to marriage. If I may get biblical, sur mera must be followed by ase’ tov.

Can mixed friendships exist as healthy relationships? I think so under certain circumstances.³ Being able to talk to the other gender is not only useful for advice or different perspectives, but it also trains people to view the other gender as “people.” As early as high-school (perhaps earlier) the Orthodox world indoctrinates men and women about the dangers of temptation.⁴ The intent is admirable – to prevent rampant immorality and various other forms of sinning – and for the most part it succeeds (or at least better than the alternative). There is however an unintended consequence. By constantly emphasizing the avoidance of temptation, one is in fact placing temptation at the forefront. If every time I look at a woman I think, “must…avoid…temptation,” then I am really looking at the woman as a sex object to be avoided, rather than as a person.⁵

On the other hand, there can be downsides as well (aren’t there always). The hurt of the rejection will be proportional to the feelings felt by the rejected person. If these feelings are too strong, then a person might not be able to “get over” the rejection while maintaining a friendship. To use another personal example, there was a woman whom I liked and dated, and we broke up in the typical fashion. When I found that maintaining contact was too difficult for me emotionally, I withdrew. Recently, I was able to speak to her about a personal event,⁶ and she provided very useful insights.

As I mentioned, relationships are complicated and no single theory will account for all cases. However, this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t think about it and see what patterns have effected our own personal lives. For yet another perspective, see this salon article which comes courtesy of Dr. Manhattan.⁷

On that note, the poll results are in. With a whopping 68 people voting:
49% – Stay nice – just stop being such a wimp (33 votes)
43% – Stay nice – Something good will turn up eventually (29 votes)
6% – Get a complete attitude adjustment – might require mental reprogramming and/or lobotomy (4 votes)
3% – Stay nice – might not work for you, but why should everyone else lose out? (2 votes)

The clear majority says I should stay nice, with some discrepancy as to how or why. Some are pure optimists, while most voted that I should develop some sort of spine. I will start by not letting a silly internet poll determine my behavior. (I’ve been getting better at being nice without becoming a doormat and I will continue to do so).

I’ve also tracked down one of the people who suggested the lobotomy, and I’m looking for the others.

The final 3% of you are just selfish bastards.

1. And really, who reads footnotes?
2. Ignoring for now how long someone should give as a chance to “be him/herself”
3. Yes, I have seen When Harry Met Sally.
4. For more details and what some people are doing about it see End The Madness.
5. Before people start yelling at me about this, I’m not saying that we should let everything go. I’m just saying that there can be unintended consequences. When I was in Gruss a few years ago, R. Miller gave us mussar that married couples were too friendly with other’s spouses. He did not elaborate as to what “too friendly” meant, but I can assure nothing major happened. I think that this mentality reinforces how the people were raised in treating interactions with women as primarily being sexual.
6. The “.5” from the last post found this website.
7. Who ironically lives in the Bronx now.

Looking for a good deal on Artscroll’s Stone Chumash (BN.com has it cheaper btw), I noticed their new book, “Walking With Rabbi Miller.”
I was somewhat disappointed that it’s about Rabbi Avigdor Miller and not Rabbi Israel Miller or his unheralded son Rabbi David Miller who barely has any mention of him on the web. Nothing against R. Avigdor Miller at all, but I think that serious Modern Orthodox Jews would benefit greatly from a book about R. Israel Miller and his family.
I only recall meeting R. Israel Miller once. When I was in Gruss a few years ago, we had a Hanukkah haggigah at his son’s apartment which was next door to his. He passed away a few months later. Those who know the Miller family know how unique they all are. For those that don’t, I can’t do them justice here.
I don’t know if the family is working on a book. If they’re not, someone should. Without any embellishments, it would be inspirational and a refreshing change from the typical mythic “gadol du jour” books and a must read for every Modern Orthodox Jew.
Any volunteers?

Shavua Tov everyone.
A few things on my mind before I get back to the take home midterm. The first is a response to a critique I found on Heimishtown. In my earlier rant on hareidi community I used the phrase “ever so humble self-proclaimed ‘Gedolei Torah.'” Heimishtown rightly points out that in that article the term “Gedolei Yisroel” was used not by the Rabbis themselves, but by the Yated Ne’eman Staff. My understanding is that the term “Gedolei Yisroel” is not just used by the masses to refer to their rabbis. The specific reference was to the Moetzes Gedolei Hatorah. If the rabbis are not part of the same organization, then I apologize for the incorrect attribution.
On a slighly different note, we had an interesting speaker come to the Hillel this week: Rabbi Dan Aronson, the Dean of Admissions at the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College (RRC). I must compliment him on two things. First, he carried himself like a professional. He was always polite and civil despite some rather obnoxious comments by a particular audience member (not me). Second, I always have a degree of respect for someone who admits when he doesn’t have an answer and he has to think about it some more. While this is an ethic commended in Avot 5:7 (or 5:6 in the Rambam’s version), many Rabbis I’ve met would instead fall in the alternative category of the Golem.
At any rate, there were two major critiques I had of Reconstructionism as he described it. The first is really more of a critique of Mordechai Kaplan, the movement’s founder. Admittedly, I have not read much of Kaplan myself, so for now I will rely on what I heard from R. Aronson. As stated on the RRC website, Reconstructionists “define Judaism as the evolving religious civilization of the Jewish people.” R. Aronson then defined what he meant by “evolving,” “religious,” and “civilization.” However, I noticed he did not define what was meant by “Jewish.” It seems to me that this is a circular definition in that the term “Jewish” is used to define “Judaism.” Kaplan would certainly hold that some people are not considered “Jews,” but I do not know what that precise definition would be. Even resorting to ideas like a “symbol set” or relevant ethics, he would probably not say that a Christian who held these ideas would in fact be Jewish.
The other critique is more fundamental to the purpose of Reconstructionism. As presented to us, Kaplan was trying to stem rampant assimilation. Judaism needed to undergo consious changes in order to survive – the “traditional” model would not be sufficient to maintain the Jewish people. Judaism As a Civilization was published in 1934 (if memory serves). Not being alive then, I cannot possibly know what was the reality of Jewish life in America. However, despite the numerous problems througout the “traditional” world, I would think that it’s still in relatively good shape in that it’s not going anywhere. Yes, assimilation still happens, but I would say that I don’t think that the “traditional” models are going to disappear any time in the near or distant future.
Finally, there was one particularly poignant observation from one of the audience members. Kaplan writes about the need for Judaism to evolve in order for it to survive. However, he does not explan why Judaism ought to survive. What would make the “Jewish” set of understandings significant enough to warrent perpetuating? If it is just to preserve the history, then we could easily set up a museum for it and cease any form of observing it at all. Kaplan’s stated goal of combating assimilation only makes sense if there is something in Judaism that’s worth not only keeping, but keeing vibrant and alive. If there is indeed something inherently significant to Judaism – it cannot be divine by its nature since Reconstructionists do not belive in divine revelation of the Torah – then what would it be?
R. Aronson recommended Exploring Judaism as a good text to understand more about Reconstructionist Judaism. If there are any experts in Reconstructionism out there, feel free to post your comments.

One last post today and then I am so done. In honor of Halloween, MSN’s Learning and Reseach Center rates nine scary monsters from various cultures.
The Golem gets a 4:

Sometime around 1500, it seems, a certain Rabbi L?w [sic] of Prague decided to build a tireless servant. He shaped a heap of clay into a crude humanoid, muttered a spell and–say hello to the golem, a powerful pile of mindless matter that follows its master’s orders relentlessly.
Needless to say, it didn’t work out as hoped.

Three issues:
1. “Muttered a Spell” – I think even the Kabbalah Center would be upset with that description
2. “build a tireless servant” – Hey, the water carrier thing was just a cover for his true purpose – to thwart the blood libels attempted by the anti-semitic peasentry. (oh, and once to rescue a Jewish woman who was raised Catholic). I used to read the comics in the Jewish Press, and they wouldn’t mislead me. Not about this anyway.
3. Here’s the kicker: “Didn’t work out as hoped”??? What does that mean? Does anyone know of stories that involved the Golem going on murderous rampages? Ok, maybe the evil anti-semitic peasants got their blood libel plans foiled, but hey, they deserved it. And as we all should know from the X-Files, the golem only exists to extract revenge on the enemies of the Jews or to serve as their protectors like that episode of Gargoyles. Even Mendy got along with his golem.
Sorry, I’m in a bad mood today.

Mendy informs me of Shlock Rock’s new album which is mostly of Broadway parodies. As always, some are clever, and others are painful. Two comments though. Though I can’t prove it off of the web yet, I do remember Rechnitzer Rejects already doing a song called Get Me to the Shul on Time. (It began with the line “I’m getting maftir in the morning…”). I’m also noticing that he does a parody of Allan Sherman’s “Hello Muddah.” Been there, done that.