Category: Jewish Law / Halakha

My Take On The Metzitza Regulations

June 27, 2006 Jewish Law / Halakha, Jewish Thought, Theology, and Machshava

I’ve recently been discussing with SIW the new state policies regulating metzita b’feh for circumcisions. I’m reading this new policy as a pragmatic compromise between the State and the religious institution.
There is obviously a segment of the Jewish population who have been neglecting basic health requirements1 and to protect the general welfare of it’s population, the State understandably wants to take action. One option would be to make the practice of metzitza illegal, but this would be wholly counter-productive. Outlawing metzitza would alienate and antagonize the people whose behavior the State is trying to change. Not only would it be political suicide for whomever would suggest it, but there would likely be a knee-jerk backlash against the state trying to regulate religious practice. In fact I would guess that such an action would lead to more people ignoring the health laws simply out of spite, thus increasing the risk of infections while decreasing the likelihood that such infections would be reported.
On the other hand, the compromise defines mutually acceptable objective standards for metzitza, and in doing so outlines the expectations from both sides. The Rabbis get assurance and security from knowing what the State expects of them (and having input in such definitions), and knowing that given these rules metzitza may continue without futher interference from the government. In return for granting such autonomy, the State can not only expect the Rabbis to follow the mutually approved health code but also to actively assist in enforcing the standards.
From Section III of the Circumcision Protocol:

A. If an infant becomes infected with HSV on or after April 28, 2006 within a compatible incubation period following metzizah b’peh, the NYSDOH will conduct an investigation without prejudging the cause. Such an investigation would include but not be limited to interviewing, reviewing medical records of, and testing the mohel in question and all pertinent caregivers. The mohel in question must stop metzizah b’peh (up to 45 days) until the NYSDOH investigation is completed.
B. So long as each local health department in whose jurisdiction such public health investigation is proceeding agrees to be bound by, without addition to or modification of, any and all provisions of this Circumcision Protocol, community Rabbis are expected to lend their support and cooperation in the event of any such public health investigation.

Quick recap: the Rabbis maintain autonomy and can expect the security to continue the practice and the State now has a legal and social mechanism for pursuing violations.
I’d say everyone wins.

1. And by logical extension the halakhot of pikuach nefesh, but that’s another matter.



Open Thread: Halakhic Whistleblowing Responsiblity

May 19, 2006 Jewish Law / Halakha, Jewish Thought, Theology, and Machshava

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.



Double Standards

May 16, 2006 Jewish Law / Halakha, Jewish Thought, Theology, and Machshava

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.

[Continue Reading...]



One For The Road

April 10, 2006 Jewish Law / Halakha

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

אם אפו חמץ עם מצה, לא נאסרה אא”כ נגעה בחמץ ונוטל ממקום שנגעה כדי נטילת מקום, והשאר מותר

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:

הגה: מצה שנתכפלה בתנור ודבוקה עד שאין שולט שם האש, אוסרים אותה תוך הפסח אבל שאר מצות שבתנור מותרים; וקודם פסח אין לאסור רק מקום דבוקה

And just to be sure, the Mishnah Berurah:

חמץ עם מצה – בתנור אחד אפילו בתנור קטן וסתום דמחמירין לעיל בסימן תמ”ז סוף ס”א בכאן שרי דריח פת היתר בפת איסור אין נחשב לכלום והסכימו האחרונים להתיר בזה אפילו היו נילושים בשמן או שומן ומ”מ אותו מקום שעמד החמץ בתנור צריך היסק כדי להכשירו אבל שארי מקומות בתנור א”צ הכשר דאין מוליך ומתפשט בליעתו בכולו בכחוש בלי רוטב:

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!



One Day More

April 9, 2006 Jewish Law / Halakha, Sermons, Lectures, and Divrei Torah

As some of you may know I’m going to be in Israel for Pesach. It’s my first vacation in just about ever, since for several years I have either had the time or money to travel, but not both. So I figure since I might not have the time or access to post over Pesach, I can address something for which I have recently been getting a lot of flack.

Despite my staying in Israel for roughly two weeks, I will be keeping one day of Yom Tov this Pesach.

[Continue Reading...]



Halakhic Madness

March 16, 2006 Jewish Culture, Jewish Law / Halakha

Thanks to a mistake in one of my brackets this year1 I had the following she’eilah:

    Question: Are you allowed to have North Carolina winning a Texas vs. UConn final?2

Putting aside the merits of the specific teams for a moment, is this a legitimate bracket? Do we count the winners of the games or simply who advances to the next round?
The answer I believe depends on how your bracket is scored. Most brackets are weighted such that victories in the second round are worth more “points” than the first round games, third round more than second, and so forth. The reason behind this system is obvious – the odds of a given team winning in the third round are significantly decreased when you consider that that team may not make it out of the second round. There are far too many variables and possibilities such that correctly picking the tournament champion ought to be worth more than correctly picking the 1-16 game.
Since weighted brackets are predicated on the logic of a formalized tournament, you cannot count a victory which would be impossible in the actual tournament. If you have a team eliminated in the sweet sixteen, that team cannot be counted in your final four. This error could be grounds for disqualification, but I’d be content to treat the errant pick as a loss even if that team does in fact advance in the appropriate round of the tournament itself.
However, in the unlikely event you’re involved in a pool which only scores the total number of wins – possible for a secondary prize – then the placement of these victories is no longer dependent on the actual tournament. As such, logic may be safely ignored and you’re free to pick whomever at any given stage even if you have that team losing in the first round.
UPDATE: Apparently, it’s not just me as even the famed sports guy made a similar mistake.

1. In a non-gambling pool, so no cracks about me being pasul l’eidut. Not for this anyway.
2. By “winning” I mean the actual game, not in some after-the-fact economic or recruiting benefits or the hana’ah (benefit) of mocking Duke for losing earlier in the tournament.



You’ve Got….Marriage!

February 28, 2006 Jewish Law / Halakha

Just got an e-mail from SawYouAtSinai shilling for www.purimbaskets.com:

    This Purim, send your Basherte [sic] a beautiful Purim basket from PurimBaskets.com Choose from an assorted array of elegant Purim baskets at affordable prices. Picture the joy when he or she receives this basket from PurimBaskets.com. You can also take this opportunity to show your appreciation to your matchmaker (shadchan). These Purim baskets will surely make them keep you in their minds. Shipping to USA, Canada, Israel and England.

Ramo in O.C. 695 says that men should not give single women mishloach manot because it would create a safek kiddushin. Perhaps SYAS is more progressive (or agressive) than we thought in solving the shidduch crisis?



Don’t Forget To Remember

February 28, 2006 Jewish Law / Halakha, Jewish Thought, Theology, and Machshava, Sermons, Lectures, and Divrei Torah

With Purim nearly upon us, it’s time once again for the reading of the four special parshiyot. We’re actually in the middle, having already covered sheqalim last week, but this week we get the spectacular fun of zachor (Devarim 25:17-19). Invariably, this reading generates much discussion as to how this passage should be read (including the practice of repeaing the last verse – a discussion for another time), and the extreme importance of being in shul to hear zachor being read.

Most of these discussions are based on the preception that the reading of parashat zachor is biblically mandated. This assumption has bothered me for some time, as well as the cavalier attitude with which it is presented. Despite the lack of textual evidence or logical consistency, few people question the nature of keriat parashat zachor. As luck would have it, my new upgraded Bar Ilan CD just came in and it’s all all revved up for a test spin.

[Continue Reading...]



Bobbing For Mitzvot

August 29, 2005 Jewish Culture, Jewish Law / Halakha

One of the Jewish rites of passage for moving into a new place is the trip to the Keilim Mikvah. For reasons we’re not getting into here, certain new vessels and utensils must be immersed in water to “purify and uplift the vessel” (B. Avoda Zara 75b). Even if someone went for their parents once or twice before, few things compare to schlepping multiple sets of brand new plates, silverware, and cookware to a polluted lake or glorified leak.

Ironically, the body of water used for “purifying” the vessels is usually more contaminated than the Hudson River. Sure there are some exceptions – the one by Breuer’s is relatively clean – most of the ones I’ve seen are in dire need of cleaning, or in some cases, sulphuric acid.

Case in point, I spent part of Sunday at the Springfield keilim mikvah helping out the folks with some of their dishes and without exaggeration, there was at least a full inch of black “stuff” lining the bottom of the basin. Under normal circumstances I wouldn’t care – I’d just lower the objects in the laundry basket, move things around making sure they’re totally submerged with no hatzitzot, lift, dry, and repeat.

Today however, when going through the place settings, my mother noticed that a spoon was missing.
Now we know it wasn’ t on the outside of the mikvah, but even though I didn’t notice anything escape the firm clutches of the laundry basket, we’re still short one spoon. Were this a cleaner mikvah, I’d just be able to look in and see, “hey! there’s that spoon!”
Not this one.

The crud at the bottom of this thing swallowed up virtually everything that had the unfortunate fate of coming into contact with it. Think of the black goo from Creepshow 2 only without the whole jumping out of the water flesh eating part. That’s what I’m talking about.

Against all odds there were a few items which reflected the limited sunlight, so there was some hope. The good people of Springfield were kind enough to supply a pole with nothing attached to either end. This allows unfortunate klutzes to push around the gunk thinking they can get their plates back, but in reality they’re just making it harder to see through it.
When I thought I saw something resembling the wayward flatware, I reached in as far as I could, but was still a good 4 inches too short. Going Jacques Cousteau wasn’t really an option but we did try some other unconventional alternatives.1

Skipping right to the good stuff, we had the best success using a combination of a snow shovel and a reaching/gripper thingie left over from when my mother was recovering from the hip surgery. While we did manage to fish out 2 plates (one of which was shaped like a fish) and 3 spoons and knives covered in at least 25 types of dirt, but sadly the lost spoon is still lost in the abyss that is the Springfield keilim mikvah.
I did get a few things out of the experience. First, shuls really ought to clean their kelim mikvahs. Second, thanks to lefum tzar’ah agra (M. Avot 5:23) on both tevillat kelim *and* kibbud eim, I’m set upstairs for a while.

Still, I am curious if anyone else out there has had their own bizarre experiences with a keilim mikvah and/or the absolute worst keilim mikvah you’ve ever seen.
In the meantime, I’ll be in quarantine until I stop glowing.

1. If you’re asking yourself why make a big deal over one spoon, the answer is: “because.”
2. And I just *know* I’m not the only one here