YUTOPIA

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.”

If gays can marry, why not polygamy? or incest? or bestiality? The idea, I suppose, is that homosexuality is basically the same thing as everything else outside the bounds of traditional understanding, and homosexuality is traditionally condemned for the same reason as these other activities. Neither of these is true. The same can be said of ones: homosexuality is different from adultery and murder, I should think, in important ways – namely that homosexuality is not, a priori, immoral, while adultery breaches a relationship and murder takes life.

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.

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.

Homosexuality and Orthodox Judaism

A few months ago, Avraham pointed me to this Forward review of Rabbi Steve Greenberg’s new book Wrestling with God and Men. I wrote some preliminary thoughts based on the review, but the YUCS server crashed as I submitted it for posting. This technical glitch proved to be fortuitous in that Rabbi Greenberg visited UC later that week and I was able to talk to him personally and purchase a copy of the book. Although he still did not convince me of his arguments, he conveyed the emotional turmoil with which people live. In halakhic matters, people often ignore the human dimension involved of an issue and develop their opinions in a social vacuum. However, halakha is ultimately followed by people many of whom face difficult conflicts for a myriad of personal reasons. While personal issues alone are not sufficient to change Jewish law, we cannot ignore the tension and struggles that people face in their quest to be observant Jews.

Below is my review of Rabbi Greenberg’s book, as submitted to a writing seminar.

Today’s topic is inspired from the people at www.ProtestWarrior.com. I’d recommend checking out the whole site including the FAQ, a high-schooler’s experience, the photo gallery, and videos. For the abridged version, take a look at their sign collection.¹
These “ProtestWarriors” peacefully demonstrate for their cause using the democratic rights given to all American citizens. Whether or not one disagrees with their politics, they have an equal right to freely express their positions. By facing their “enemy” head on, they become warriors of protest.
In contrast, Israel is faced with a different type of protest warrior – the soldiers who are protesting the government’s orders. A while ago, several soldiers refused to serve where their personal or ethical beliefs were compromised. Today, many rabbis are calling for a similar insubordination to protest Sharon’s withdrawal plan.
As expected, some support and some criticize these insurrections, often changing their views on if they agree with the politics. Prof. Asa Kasher² has been particularly critical, but in reinterpreting his ambiguous code of ethics, the dissenters may have rights themselves.
What are the legitimate rights of protest for soldiers? On one hand, we would expect soldiers to be obedient to their superiors. On the other hand, in the case of crimes against humanity, most would reject the defense of “we were just following orders.” The U.S. created a special category of “conscientious objector” for some servicemen. However, were this to be applied in Israel, the entire military would be dismantled since everyone would object to some element of the government’s policies.
Is it be possible for a military to have its own Protest Warriors without jeopardizing the delicate chain of command? When should we expect soldiers to disobey orders?

1. Ironically, I first noticed this sign on campus which was taken down by the next day.
2. Also son of R. Menachem Mendel Kasher, author of the Torah Sheleima, and to whom I am (or was) personally connected in an exceedingly roundabout way.

Apparently, if I’m not blogging. people think something terrible must have happened. Between numerous e-mails and random IM’s I realized that either have a loyal fan base or disturbed cult following. Either way, I figure I’ve got to get back and somehow work out a way to turn a profit. In the meantime, I’ll try to respond in due time.
As to what I’ve been doing for the past month or so, I leave that as an exercise to the reader, especially if you’re proficient with Photoshop.
Getting back to normal here, you might have seen the stories about the Church Of Fools, the first interactive sanctuary on the net.¹ As part of my ecumenical procrastination, I decided to check out this community which serves the spirituality seekers who cannot be inconvenienced to leave their computer.
Behold, my first foray into Church.² Screenshots included.
Disclaimer: I don’t have the time right now to thumbnail the images. If you are offended either by Christian imagery or slow web pages, please to not read any further.

From The Globe And Mail:

This year, Germans celebrated the 200th anniversary of the death of Immanuel Kant, reports Philosophy Now magazine. “Kant has traditionally been portrayed as a dutiful ascetic moralist — in other words, as rather a bore — but according to the three new biographies, the great metaphysician was not such a square after all. He enjoyed drinking wine, playing billiards and wearing fine, colourful clothes. On occasion, Kant drank so much red wine that he was unable to find his way home, the books claim.”

What amazes me is not that Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable, but I still can’t believe that a magazine called “Philosophy Now” actually exists.
Maybe it’s because I’ve never seen a copy of it.