Hilchos Bed-Making

Yeshiva World News Coffee Room By Feif Un:

Many years ago, in a far away country, there was a well-known rabbi who was consulted on all sorts of matters relating to the Jewish people. His wise counsel was sought from people of all walks of life, and the community at large accepted his decisions, as they understood that his rulings and pronouncements were divinely inspired.

So when one time he met with some parents of his students, and a few mothers complained that their children were not making their beds, he assured them that he would deal with the matter. That week, in his public address to his students, he mentioned that the students should always make sure to make their beds in the morning.

When the person transcribing the speech wrote up his review of the talk, he made sure to emphasize the rabbi's intention. He wrote, "The Rosh Yeshiva today ruled that one is m'chuyav to make his bed in the morning." Word spread fast. The halacha had been established: One was obligated to make their bed.

Later that day, someone came to the Rosh Yeshiva and asked, "I don't have time to make my bed before I go to davening. By the time I get back my mother is gone for the day so she doesn't think I make my bed, and isn't pleased. What should I do?" After hearing the answer that was given, the halacha was suitably amended to say that the bed should be made as soon as one gets up. "One is m'chuyav to make his bed in the morning, as soon as he gets up."

The next day, he was approached by a bochur that wanted to know, "When you said 'as soon as he gets up', do you mean immediately - right when one steps out of the bed - or is one allowed some time first?

So they added to the text: "One is m'chuyav to make his bed in the morning, soon after he gets up."

"How long soon after?" he was immediately asked. "How much time exactly?"
"10-15 minutes?", he replied, figuring that's a reasonable amount of time.

And so it was added: "One is m'chuyav to make his bed in the morning, within 10-15 minutes from when he gets up." The bochurim found this to be a satisfactory resolution, but unsurprisingly, it resulted in some bochurim insisting that it should be made by 10 minutes, and others saying it was fine to wait even 15 minutes. After some time, they settled on an unofficial resolution by considering 10 minutes to be the first zman, and 15 minutes the second zman.

Things went along smoothly until one day a bochur came over and explained to him a problem he had run into. "My roommate doesn't like the way I make my bed! He claims it's not really made!"
"What do you mean?", asked the Rosh Yeshiva. "Well, he claims that for a bed to be considered 'made' the pillow needs to be on top and the sides need to be even or tucked in, and I just lay out the cover on top, covering everything, however it comes out. What should I do?" The Rosh Yeshiva mulled this over for a while, and replied:
You're allowed to make it however your family does it. What's acceptable to your mother (or father) is acceptable here. Hakol k'minhago. An addition was added to the halacha: "One is m'chuyav to make his bed in the morning, within 10-15 minutes from when he gets up. The manner of making the bed should be done according to one's established minhag."

(Later that week when the bochurim went home for the weekend, many parents were somewhat confused when they were asked by their sons, "What is the minhag of our family of how to make our beds?", but they figured it was all part of the tremendous spiritual growth they could see in their young bnei torah.)

One morning a few weeks later, as shacharis was beginning, the Rosh Yeshiva was notified about an argument that had broken out between 2 bochurim.

Approaching their room, he heard loud shouting through the closed door. As he entered, he found one of the bochurim vehemently yelling at the other.

Seeing him come in, the young man turned to him and exclaimed loudly,
"Rebbe! I'm so glad you're here! I tried to get him to make his bed but he wouldn't listen! He just ignored me, and now it's 5 minutes after the zman, and look - his bed is still not made!"

Before the Rosh Yeshiva had a chance to respond, the other bochur quickly spoke up in his defense, "That's not true. I only got out of bed 2 minutes ago! I still have 8 minutes until the zman!"

"Yes, he only got out of bed 2 minutes ago. But he woke up 20 minutes ago! That means he should have made his bed 10 minutes ago!"

It was clear that there needed to be some clarification: When the psak was issued that a bed must be made 10-15 minutes after getting up, did 'after getting up' mean after waking up ('m'sha'as kumuso') or did it mean after
getting out of bed ('m'sha'as yitziaso')? At this point a small crowd had gathered around the room and a vociferous discussion had broken out.

Everyone started buzzing, talking, sharing their thoughts of why it meant this interpretation and not the other one. Realizing what was happening,
the Rosh Yeshiva put an abrupt stop to it all by loudly demanding that everyone should immediately go to davening and they would deal with it later on.

By lunchtime that day the Rosh Yeshiva had still not addressed the burning issue and a fierce debate had already broken out in the halls of the yeshiva. Even the rabbeim had gotten involved. Some felt that the halacha had to mean from when a person got out of bed, because as they explained, "if it meant 'from when he woke up' then the first thing he would have to do upon awaking would be to look at his clock and remember the time. But this can't be, because we all know that the first thing a person must do when he wakes up is say 'modeh ani'. Therefore it must mean 'from when he gets
out of bed'.
"In spite of this convincing logic others still held it was better to be machmir and go by from when a person wakes up and not to wait until he gets out of bed. They pointed out that all that was needed to avoid the above-mentioned conflict was to first say modeh ani and then subtract 1 seconds from whenever he first looks at the clock. "But not all clock have second hands on them," countered the first opinion, "and besides, it is too easy to forget the exact time including the seconds."
The machmirim had a ready response: "Firstly, someone who cares about the halacha properly can make sure to have a clock with seconds on it, and secondly, he should also have a paper and pen next to his clock so he can mark down the proper time, in order to avoid the chance of forgetting it."

Seeing that positions had already been staked out in this dispute, the Rosh Yeshiva decided not to voice his own opinion and instead told everyone to go by whatever their rebbe held.

Unfortunately, this had the effect of causing a lot of machlokes in the school as some people didn't agree with their rabbeim, and resented being forced out of their beds sooner than they preferred. The problems were soon settled when a young illuy came up with an ingenious solution. He pointed out that even though someone had woken up, if they had in mind that they were sleeping it was like they actually were, since 'machshava k'ma'ase'.

Although his reasoning was roundly rejected by many others, it satisfied those lazier bochurim and they let the matter slide. No one was much surprised at their reaction, as these sorts of students had already demonstrated their laxity of the halacha when it was realized that they were deliberately getting dressed while still sitting in their bed, in order to give themselves more time until the zman of 'when you get up' would commence (according to the shita of m'sha'as yitziaso).

For a brief while the yeshiva. had some omplaints from bochurim who wanted to switch rooms because their roommates were not keeping what they felt was the right zman for making their beds. Already very disturbed by the problems that the previous issue had caused and not wanting to cause any more machlokes in the yeshiva, the Rosh Yeshiva wisely dealt with the problem by declaring that if anyone was concerned about another not making the zman, they were allowed to make the other persons bed for them, as long as the first one had da'as that the other would be yotzei for himself. He also said that the person making the bed didn't have to specific da'as because obviously if he was making it he had da'as to do such a thing. Despite that, it wasn't uncommon to hear people loudly declaring, "Have in mind to be yotzei so-and-so when making his bed!"

Some months after the initial psak was issued, an enterprising bochur started selling a unique clock that had a special alarm. The alarm would wake you up, and when you pushed the right button it would turn off and ring 9 minutes later to remind you that you had 1 minute left to make your bed.
He actually also made a second one that gave you 14 minutes instead of 9,but no one bought it since they felt it was better not to be meikel.

Another issue that the yeshiva had to resolve was that according to the opinions that one must make their beds from when they first woke up, what was to be done if someone fell asleep again shortly after waking up?
After much learned discussion it was decided that falling back asleep wasn't a problem, and the zman only started after the real, final waking up. This was derived from the situation of if one woke up in the middle of the night:
Was he then obligated to make his bed shortly after? For a brief time, some people in the yeshiva. began to follow this custom. But when the Rosh Yeshiva ruled that it wasn't necessary, they understood from that that the zman only began after the last, real waking up.

These events all occurred many, many years ago, and boruch hashem nowadays it isn't as heated an issue as it once was. Everyone understands and accepts the principles of eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chaim, minhag avoseinu b'yadeinu, ba'al nefesh yachmir, and shomer p'saim hashem. Each person has a tradition or chumra that he's entitled to follow. In addition, there have been many wonderful books written on this subject, most recently Artscroll's splendid translation of Hilchos Ish U'Mitoso, which sheds much light on this subject for the average layman (also available in a laminated, newly type-set, pocket edition that one can keep by their bed!).
However legend has it that if you go to this yeshiva and poke in on some of the rooms,
you'll still occasionally find a bochur here and there that tries to be extra zahir in this inyan and - even on a cold winter night - will sleep on top of his carefully made blanket so that he never will - chas v'chalila!- find his bed unmade past the proper zman!

To receive a laminated, large print edition of the special tefila to say before making your bed, please send a fax to 1800-BE-ZAHIR with your proper mailing address and we will be glad to send you one free of charge. "

Heavenly Smile

Source: Achas L'Maala V'Sheve L'Matta

Ban The Buses? - Ban the Chareidim!

Recently, there was another incident on a mehadrin bus, a 497 from Beit Shemesh to Bnei Brak, where some people got out of hand and a melee ensued, involving stones and police, etc., etc. We've heard it before.
What particularly interested me here was a reaction we're starting to see on the blogosphere. Some are asking, why do the Rabonim not do something? Some are even asking, why don't we see bans? Cherems?
I believe these questions are based on a false premise, one that is product of the JBlogospheres, and perhaps the wider MO community's own imagination.
There appears to be a belief that the Israeli Chareidi society is tightly controlled by a system of bans and threats. Every form of freedom, indeed any action that is done by more than three people is subject to review and control. The Gedolim are the ultimate big brothers.
Well, it ain't like that. Sure, there is a fair amount of involvement of Gedolim in public affairs. But the truth is, that most people pretty much do whatever they want. Bans etc. are all only for the people who want to listen. You want a non-meushar phone? Go ahead. If you're not embarrassed, no-one's going to stop you. Want to ride a non-mehadrin bus? It's a free country. Don't like the school rules? Send your kids somewhere else, or open your own. People do it all the time.
And if you think you're a tzaddik gomur, but you're too frustrated to speak to a woman and ask her nicely to move, and can't handle it when she says no, well, just beat her up.
No amount of public proclamations are going to help here. There's no-one listening, and those who are, it doesn't apply to them. When our brothers across the sea start to reign in their imaginations and realize the nature of society in Israel, we might hear some useful suggestions.

A New Churban

The Waqf is currently doing work on Har Habayis involving heavy machinery. A trench is being dug and archeologists claim that in the process, an ancient wall is being destroyed, possibly a wall of the ezras noshim. What are we to take from this?
Chazal say (Yerushalmi Yoma 1:1) that any generation that the temple was not built in it's day, is as if they destroyed it. This means the the existence of the temple is an accurate reflection of the spiritual state of Jewish people.
I would suggest an additional perspective, based on an idea I heard from R' Zev Leff a number of times.
The generation of the churban had their aveiros and were the cause of the destruction. What would happen if we had that temple? Would it survive, or would it too be destroyed? Nowadays we don't actually have anything there to destroy, but the message must get through. So the goyim have to dig up something, and destroy that! Do you get the message? Are we witnessing a replay? Could this be an actual churban? If not on the scale, but surely the message is there.
This is so sad I should sit on the floor and weep and weep.
The answer for us cannot be simply to raise a cry, involve the authorities and prevent the construction. We must deal with the message. Are we combating the root causes of the churban?

Chareidim and Violence

A point worthy of thought is the apparent disposition of certain sectors of the Chareidi community in Eretz Yisroel towards violence. Where does this come from? There is no history of violence from Jews in thousands of years, and here in only recent history.
Firstly, I would like to deal with some of ideas I've seen thrown around. One is a suggestion that this is due to the insularity of chareidim, a general reluctance to engage the wider world. I question this. This insularity is widespread within the chareidi world, even some communities in the States have very little exposure to outside society. Our history is crowded, literal, with ghettoes. Many were the times and places with large groups of Jews who simply couldn't speak the host country's language (Russian, Polish etc.), and we didn't see any violence. Furthermore, abhorrence of violence is not a value that is derived exclusively from outside secular sources. Jewish sources alone should be a more abundant source for correct behavior.
It has also been suggested the opposite. It is the small exposure to world events and the learning of what others get up to. It is the fault of just that little bit of modernity without the tempering of good healthy dose of modernity. This solution is even worse. It too ignores any possibility that our own sources might be a sufficient source for appropriate behavior, if not superior, and only recognizes the modern world as a source of good. It also ignores thousands of years of Jewish history. Why is there no precedent.
Both these solutions overlook a basic observation which I believe is the correct interpretation.
Rock-throwing does not happen in Bnei Brak. It doesn't happen in Kiryat Sefer. Nor in Beitar. Or Ashdod, Emmanuel, Rechasim, RBS A, Arad, Petach Tikva, Tzfas and all the other centers of Chareidim. It doesn't happen in almost all the Yerushalayim neighborhoods. It certainly doesn't happen anywhere in chu"l. It ONLY happens in Mea Shearim and RBS B. Why?
I believe there are several factors working here.
The first is the education of that particular sector in recent history (meaning the past 60 odd years). Most of chareidi Jewry has come to terms with the State. We may hate it. We may feel it's the biggest chillul Hashem since the churban habayis. We may be infuriated by it's conduct and abuse of basic Jewish principles, values and laws. And we may not recognize it's legitimacy. But we do recognize that it's a fact of life and you have to live with it. So we act as good citizens, reap the benefits of organized, lawful society and recognize the positive.
But some have grown up with a world view that the zionist state is the Ultimate Source of all Evil and Tumah in the world. It is 100% evil. It has no redeeming factors. Anything associated with it must too be a great evil. That includes traffic police (and traffic lights). It includes garbage collectors and street cleaners, (as an aside, I can't understand why these people are so free to drop garbage on the streets - why do you think is going to clean up?) and their property. It includes bus companies and their buses. In short, everything evil is now viewed in the light of it's zionism. However bad other governments may have been, they were recognized to be legitimate.
So when faced with something that has no positive value whatsoever and is nothing but evil, so why not react with violence. Smash it! Destroy it!
This may be compounded by a feeling that EY is different. Here, it is OUR country. Here it is or right to call the shots and enforce correct behavior. This recalls a famous story with the Brisker Rov who accused a 'kanoi' of being a zionist. "In Russia you wouldn't have reacted this way. Why is here any different?"
There is perhaps one further factor which I am somewhat afraid to mention. It is easy to misinterpret, so I request from you, please, don't read what you want me to say, or what you think I should be saying. Listen to what I say the way I want to say it.
Many people have an attitude towards those in full-time learning that relates to them as people who are engaged in Torah and mitzvos in any form that they present. If someone needs a minyan, well, just pick up a few bochurim or avreichim. They're available for all Torah and mitzva related purposes. Need a chesed? Need someone to do mishnayos? No problem. That's what they're there for. Due to this attitude, I've noticed many yeshivas are highly reluctant to allow their students to get involved in any external activities, however righteous the cause. The students need to learn that right now, they are far too busy at their 'jobs' to do anything else. But I could imagine a setup where the attitude is actually the former, and encouraged. You are engaged in avodas hashem. Most of the time that means serious learning. But it could allow many other things as the need arises. This creates a very flexible schedule amongst people who feel obliged to direct their efforts towards the good of their society.
I am NOT advocating a change in kollel acception or in widespread enrollment. In fact, I'm not advocating any change at all. I simply observe that these people may be in a better position than their working counterparts, or in their counterparts in other yeshivas and kollelim. This part is really conjecture, so consider it on the basis of your own knowledge of their setup (and not your own conjecture).

Mehadrin Buses - A Chareidi Perspective - Part IV

Pregnant and elderly women. Firstly, this doesn't apply on intercity routes. There is no natural division between the front and back sections. It moves in respect to the makeup of the passengers. Even on an intracity bus where the division is clearer, I really don't see the issue here. Do only men have to offer their seats but not women? Why can't a woman stand? And what happens when an elderly man gets on the bus? Why is any of this relevant only to mehadrin buses?

Now to Miriam Shears. Before you jump, no I don't approve of any violence, and what happened was completely unjustified. But she was also not entirely innocent. By her own admission, she regularly and deliberately sat in the men's section. She consistently refused to move, even when requested politely. She knew she was annoying people. She knew was antagonizing people. Even if she couldn't be expected to understand, after all, she'd heard of Rosa Parks, and the whole Mehadrin arrangement was strange to her, why couldn't she see what she was doing? What did she hope to achieve? Re-education?!? Eventually someone got annoyed enough.
So was she within her rights? Yes. Did she deserve what she got? No. Does she deserve any sympathy? Absolutely not!

Mehadrin Buses - A Chareidi Perspective - Part III

What about the violence?
Firstly, it must be pointed out that all the unpleasentness is not on the private lines. I have travelled these buses and sheruts for years and nobody has ever, ever had a complaint. Why should they, it's private.
What I have seen is on the Egged routes, someone will get on and sit in the wrong area. After a while, a fellow passenger may approach him/her and point out that this is a Mehadrin, while politely requesting that they move their seat. I have even seen, and I stress that this is only rarely, the offending passenger refuse to comply. So somebody else attempts, and still no go. So he shrugs his shoulders, as if to say, "Nu, what can you do. Some jerk has to be a nudnik". End of story. I have, after many years, never seen a case of someone forcibly evicted, nor of any physical fights, spitting or even name-calling. I don't claim that it doesn't occur, but this must be approached in perspective. The chareidi community, by and large, is non-violent and tolerant with regards to nudnik jerks.
What to do about the violent ones? I don't believe there is anything you can do. They are individuals and are basically impossible to identify. Public declarations do not register with them. Bans and cheirems don't apply because they are unidentified.
In addition, this has nothing to do with mehadrin. A thug doesn't need to see a good arangment violated to get angry. He can get just as easerly angry with no arrangement at all! Stopping the system does nothing to appease him.

More in next post..

Mehadrin Buses - A Chareidi Perspective - Part II

Why the women at the back? Why not the men at the back or side by side?
One major issue here is the Rosa Parks experience. Anyone who is capable of a detached observation will recognize that our concerns with the 'back of the bus' is a knee-jerk reaction. Blacks were sent to the back to degrade them. So they were degraded. There is no such objective here. Even though there may be something intrinsically inferior in the back than the front, one has to start by removing al his cultural prejudices. So why the back? It's the most practical arangement. The men hardly see the women. The women don't care to see the men. This is unlike a side-by-side arrangement where everybody gets a good look. A curtain down the middle is really not a practicle option, and it doesn't avoid the jostling problem. Someone suggested seating the men at the back - facing backwards. This person does not seem to be a regular bus ridder, or else he would be aware that the seats do not swivel, and they're fixed facing the front.

More in next post..

Mehadrin Buses - A Chareidi Perspective - Part I

There seems to be a recent revival of the mehadrin bus brouhaha, and there have been a number of points raised which I wish to address.
1) Why do we need these busses at all. Is it just another opportunity to control or abuse women?
2) Why now? Gedolei Yisroel rode the busses and never complained.
3) Why is it good enough to have mixed busses in the US but not in Israel?
4) What next? Separate times or lines in the makolet? banks?
5) Why should non chareidi be forced to fit chareidi contrived standards?
6) What about pregnant and elderly women? Why should they be forced to stand?
7) Why women at the back? Why not the men?
8) Are we just following the lead of a few violent thugs, and are too afraid to raise our voices? Or are we by our silence really acquiescing?

It is a fact of life that men's minds do not work the same as women's. A woman can stare at a man from morning till night and not suffer for distracting thoughts, or alternatively, she will get little enjoyment from it. A man's mind works very differently. He can receive pleasure from staring at women, even briefly. Note the popularity of pin-up girls. Similarly, if he wishes to remove such images from his mind, it is very challenging. The Torah exhorts him to prevent those images in the first place. And because of this weakness, even a fully clothed woman be a distraction. Not as much, but a distraction nonetheless. While a woman can hardly be blamed for arousing such thoughts in a man, provided she acts within the spirit of the laws of tznius, she does have the opportunity to participate in overcoming his challenges.
But how far should she have to go? As already stated, if her dress and actions are those that do not arouse undue attention, which means basically, not sticking out, anything else is hiddur.
In addition there is a problem of men and women jostling each other. This is a problem, for both men and women. Mixing with women who are improperly dressed is also a problem (at least for men). So what's the hetter? If the issur is not meikar hadin, strictly forbidden, then the hetter is due to the fact there is no suitable alternative.
That is the idea behind the mehadrin bus. A man can have a ride on the bus with one less thing to disturb him. A woman can enjoy a bus ride without being jostled by women. From personal experience, I have found exactly that. Peace of mind. Perhaps I have a problem that others don't. Perhaps not. But I don't need a woman who understands nothing about men's minds, especially one who has a poor sense for tznius or kedusha, to tell me where I stand.
Once we understand that the issue is hiddur and not issur, the questions of gedolim and history, banks and the US become easier to understand. Men and women jostling each other on public transport is a problem. Being in places where women are poorly dressed is a problem (for a man). When all you have is the regular bus routes, there's no alternative. So there's no problem - as far as the mixing problems are concerned. The US has no other options. The banks are not offering other options. It was never an issue in the past, because there were no other options. The hiddur issue doesn't even start.
But Israel has come of age. The chareidi community is large enough to support it's own transport, run according to it's own preferences. In fact, on a small scale, the system has been running for years. Anyone who has traveled between Bnei Brak and Yerushalayim by way of sherut knows the arrangement. Full size buses were just the next step. So these buses ran alongside Egged buses, intercity. Nobody had a problem. Don't like it - go with Egged - or walk. This is a private bus. The success, and continuing success, of these routes is testimony of the desire of the community for Mehadrin.
The problems really only started when Egged stepped in. Egged came to an arrangement with a number of private intercity routes to take over, according to the same format. Some routes were also started intracity in the absence of competition under pressure from passengers. Some routes were bullied into submission by price cuts and legal methods. All these new lines are still not exclusive. Don't like it. Take the non-Mehadrin. True that many of the Mehadrin buses are far more frequent than the alternatives, but this is simply a capitalist market response. The Mehadrins are more popular.
But Egged has been negligent. The buses are not properly marked, and the alternative routes have also not been made clear. So a person could really get on without being aware that in some way he has committed himself to a set of guidelines. This is where the antagonists find their nitch.
So if you don't like a Mehadrin bus, pick up the phone and ask Egged what your alternatives are. Perhaps due court activity will force the issue.

More in next post..

Perlstein, Malinowiz and of course, Slifkin

Rav Shlomo Zalman Perlstein, known by many as Mara d'asra of Ramat Beit Shemeh Aleph, wrote a letter concerning the recently started series of shiurim by Slifkin in Beis Tefila on Torah and the Animal Kingdom.
In it he declares that one should not attend the shiurim as express by the Gedolim.
The rav of Beis Tefila, Rav Chaim Malinowitz, wrote a letter in reply, transation as follows:

About the question regarding the letter publisheda few days ago in a local RBS publication, as if it had been written by a local Rav ABD (av beis din) against R' Natan Slifkin. It is obvious and clear that the letter is a forgery, as I will show. And it is a shame for the honor of said Rav ABD that has been desecrated by this forgery, as if it emanated from him, that contains within it things that never happened.

The letter is forged by its content, as is clear from the wording of the letter that the forger never actually checked the facts of the situation (as will be explained). Even in regards to HKB"H it says in Breishis 11:5 and in Rashi in brieshis 18:21, etc, "And Hashem went down to see... this teaches us that a judge cannot convict until he goes down to see and understand." See Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 10:1 and 17:5-8

The facts are that the Rabbonim Gedolei hador have paskened for those who follow their words that they shall not read the science books of R' Natan Slifkin because those books deal with questions as if there is a contradictions between science and Torah, and R' Slifkin attempts to resolve the questions. Our Rabbis have taught that these books should not be read except by those disturbed by such questions (and some have said nobody should read these books); They have clearly stated (to all those who have asked) that they are not dsqualifying (passuling) chas v'shalom the person [R' Slifkin] himself and not his other books on subjects other than science, only those science books do they instruct not to read. The forger has contradicted the words of our Rabbis that "things that will be revealed to all, a person will not lie about". All this can be clarified to anybody who checks, and it is clear this is a forgery.

As well, R' Natan gives lectures (on the topic of the wonders of creation) in the English language, and those who attend the lectures are those who speak and understand English. The letter had been written in Hebrew and was placed in a magazine whose readership is the Hebrew speaking public. Had it been a serious psak, it should have been wirtten in English and publicized in a publication dediated to the English speaking public. This is another proof that the letter was forged and simply for the purpose of causing argument.

As well, the letter was written as if R' Slifkin is giving lectures on science topics, and just the opposite, because the Rabbonim have decreed that his words on science should not be read or listened to, R' Slifkin is careful in his lectures (which are for the Haredi public in RBS as well) to only lecture on topics of wonders of creation and thereby increase the glory of Hashem and love and fear of Hashem. The forger of the letter claims otherwise, and that is further proof to the forgery.
There is no need to lengthen the topic, and I write and sign in protest against the great desecration of the honor of the Rav AB"D whose name was forged in the letter.


This letter is difficult to understand for many reasons:
1) Our Rabbis have taught that these books should not be read except by those disturbed by such questions

The original ban can be found on zootorah.com/controversy. Where does Rav Malinowitz see that it was only intended for some? The opposite, it says to keep him away from kiruv!

2) and was placed in a magazine whose readership is the Hebrew speaking public

The chadash is distributed to all houses and is read by everyone. Some read just some of it, some just flip through it, but all chareidim will at least take a look.

3) Had it been a serious psak, it should have been written in English and publicized in a publication dediated to the English speaking public.

Is Rav Malinowitz's letter supposed to be taken seriously? Why can he not write in english?

4) There is to my knowledge no english language publication in RBSA that would publish such a letter. There are in fact very few english language publications at all, certainly not chareidi ones.

4) The chadash is the only weekly local paper distributed to all chareidi homes. Wouldn't that be the best place to put the letter?

5) Obviously Rav Malinowitz knows that the letter is original. So what's his explaination? Or according to his forgery theory, why was it in hebrew? Does he think the forgers can't write english? To cause argument - amongst Israeli's who haven't got a clue what a slifkin is?

In conclusion, I wish to state for the record that I have the greatest of respect for Rav Malinowitz. I have heard him speak on numerous occasions, seen him in action and read many of his writings. He is unquestionably a talmid chocham and a pikeach. But the questions I feel are so strong, I have no choice but to conclude that the letter must simply be a forgery.

Slikin and Intelligent Design

Rabbi Natan (Nosson) Slifkin recently wrote an article for the Jerusalem Post entitled The problem with Intelligent Design.

In it, he argues why ID should be rejected by the religious Jew. Before reading his piece, I had no confirmed decision either way. But now, thanks to Slifkin, I'm convinced of it's justification. Here's why.

The basic thrust of Slifkin's argument would appear to be that ID restricts God's involvement with the creation to the inexplicable. A believing Jew recognizes God's involvement in all aspects of creation.

But is this necessarily true. Because I see God in one place, does that exclude him from everywhere else. If God must exist in a case of "irreducible complexity", does that mean that He is only there - or that I am justified to extrapolate; just as He can be seen in cases of "irreducible complexity", so too He must be in all areas of creation.

To this point, one would mention the story of Esther. I find it astounding that Slifkin brings this story to prove the opposite! As explained so beautifully by the Vilna Gaon in his perush, the realization of the hand of God in those events allows us, expects of us to extrapolate and see His hand in all events, even where it is far from apparent.

Seeing the Creator in cases of "irreducible complexity" demands of us to see Him everywhere. Not through scientific proof, but through the logic of thought, feeling and sensitivity. And this is a basic Jewish process.

God's involvement in the story of Esther is never proven. But the unlikelihood of the series of events makes God's orchestration the most sensible option. If these cases of "irreducible complexity" will eventually be provided will natural explanations, and I expect they will if anything just to disprove IDniks, that does not at present prevent me from utilizing their phenomena. It makes sense to propose God's hand here.

We would not base our belief in a Creator through these signs, just as the story of Esther does not 'prove' the involvement of a divine 'Manipulator'. But we certainly will use them as tools to help us recognize the majesty of the Creator in all of His creation.

[If it will be shown that proponents of ID actually do deny God's role everywhere else (and they claim to be religious!), well, nothing forces us to follow to that conclusion. But until shown, I don't see this as an issue.]

Lo Tirzach?

A couple of curious signs appeared yesterday in the streets of Meah Shearim. Under the large bold headings " Lo Tirzach! ", my first reaction was, one thing for sure is no one got killed. Lo and behold, no one did indeed get killed. So what's the story?
The first poster has four beautiful color pictures. Two have a man lying in the ground, clutching his head, face full of blood, eyes closed, scrunched up poster next to him, shot (the picture) from different angles. Third is someone being wheeled into an ambulance. Fourth is a hat on the ground with a few red marks next to it.
The second poster has the story. Some fellow called Turchin was hanging posters at 8 in the morning defaming Kletzkin. His crime? He feeds off extortioning widows and orphans by charging for death notices $500 instead of 900 shekels. Then Turchin gets caught by 3 of Kletzkin's thugs who beat him up, grievously wounding him until he bleeds all over his body. So someone calls an ambulance and reports serious injuries. So Kletzkin tells Hatzola "don't worry, not urgent". Since Kletzkin is a money grabber, the wicked zionist police send out beeper messages that there's only light injuries. Eventually the ambulance arrives and removes the unconscience Turchin.
End of story.
But I have some haoros.
1) When you call MDA or Hatzolo, Hatzolo gets there in 2 minutes. How did Kletzkin get to them first?
2) How did Kletzkin get to MDA first?
3) Who informed the police?
4) How did the police get mixed in so fast?
5) Why are the police sending beeper messages to Hatzolo?
6) Why do the police care about Kletzkin?
7) Why was someone taking pictures (and good ones too, from different angles)?
8) Where were the crowds? There are always crowds of onlookers and gawkers within seconds when someone gets hurt.
9) Turchin didn't look so bad to me. So who decided he qualifies as serious? There are standard definitions for these things. Serious means his life is on the line. Moderate means badly hurt but he'll make it. A cut in the scalp and a little concussion don't count.
10) He was supposed to be unconscience. Why is he seen clutching his head?

So here's my version.
Turchin, by himself or maybe with others, is on a campaign. Someone, or someones, who sees him tries to prevent him. A fight breaks out, don't know who started. He punches him, he kicks him, we wacks him, and suddenly Turchin is hurt. Blood all over his face so it looks bad. The opponents flee the scene, they don't want to get in trouble.
But Turchins & friends know how to make the best of it. Turchin lies down while his friend runs home for his camera. Couple of nice pictures and then call the ambulance with a story of death wounds. Hatzolo arrive first, know a light injury when they see one and infom the others on their beepers. Nothing to do with the police at all.
I'll bet Turchin was home for lunch.

Why does someone post up a story so full of holes? Because for every one person foolish enough to write the story, there are a hundred who'll believe it.