Lubavitch: Are they really the closest thing to Judaism?

I have several friends who are Lubavitch. Many times it seems like we follow different religions. They joke and say Lubavitch is the closest thing to Judaism. I joke and say I think it's really closer to Xianity than Judaism.

Somebody once said every joke has a kernel of truth in it.

One of the more famous Lubavitchers these days is Matisyahu. For those unfamiliar with him, he performs reggae. The question I have is, why has he collaborated with the Xian group POD to appear on their new CD "Testify"? What is it about a Xian rock group that makes it appropriate for a Jew to collaborate with them?

I can't answer it. Perhaps one of my Lubavitch friends can.

Or just maybe, Lubavitch is closer to Xianity than even I realized.

How much is inspiration worth?

The Shabbos (Sabbath) morning service in the synagogue is really two services: Shachris, the morning prayers, and Mussaf, the additional prayers. Of course, if you have a rabbi, you generally have a speech. Where the speech falls in the service is a matter of personal taste.

Some rabbis choose to speak at the end, some speak between Shachris and Mussaf.

There are good reasons for the rabbi to speak at the end. For one thing, it doesn't interrupt the flow of things. For another, anybody who doesn't want to listen can leave. On the other hand, anybody who wants to come just to hear the rabbi speak can come late and skip the prayers (even though they are the whole point of things).

That leaving early thing is really great if the rabbi isn't. However, if you are lucky enough to have a rabbi who is a great speaker, he can truly inspire people through his words. If he speaks at the end, what exactly was that inspiration for? When a rabbi like that speaks in the middle, you can infuse your prayers with so much feeling it's almost like speaking to Hashem face-to-face. Why wouldn't anybody want that?

Is Divorce Idol Worship?

I think most of us have seen weddings, if not in person, then certainly on TV or in the movies. The couple, very much in love and excited about the new life they are about to begin, stands before their clergyman and with the blessings of G-d, they change from two people into one family.

At some time, before the couple reaches the point of holding the ceremony, chances are they went to the county courthouse and secured a marriage license. The question is: Why?

In the words of constitutional scholar Michael Badnarik, what does that license give them permission to do that they could not do before, who gave them that permission, and who gave that person the authority to grant permission? In truth, each religion has its own requirements that it expects a couple to fulfill before they can marry. In Judaism, neither one of the couple can be presently married to somebody else, there are some relationships which are prohibited based on a person's lineage, and they must be knowledgeable in the laws pertaining to marital relations. If they fulfill those requirements, they prepare a kesubah (marriage contract), stand before witnesses and they get married.

Sometimes, after the wedding, people discover things they didn't know about each other. He didn't know she wouldn't like his friends. She didn't know he likes to spend his winters ice fishing above the Arctic Circle. He didn't know her wardrobe occupies its own bedroom. She didn't know he snores.

Alas, for some couples it is too much, and they decide to divorce.

For most people, this means a protracted stay in divorce court. HOWEVER, if they didn't get a marriage license, and only had a religious ceremony, then it is up to the religious authorities to dissolve the marriage. And in Judaism, that is exactly what should happen.

The couple should (and often does) go to a Beis Din (religious court) which grants them the divorce. All too often, however, a Jewish couple, even from a Torah-observant background, will find themselves in divorce court because they involved the government when they decided to get married.

This is wrong.

In his commentary to Shemos 21:1, Rashi states that one who brings disputes before a secular court desecrates the name of G-d. He says it is tantamount to idol worship. So why does this seemingly religious couple bring their dispute before the secular court? Because they got a marriage license.

I wonder why the rabbi signed it. Isn't he then forcing them into the secular court system, forcing them into an idolatrous situation?

There Oughta Be A Law

How many times have you heard (or even said), "There oughta be a law . . ."?

We say this when we don't like what someone else is doing. Thnk about it a minute. If you were suddently granted the power to make whatever laws you wanted, what would they be? No cell phones in restaurants? Mandatory hand-washing after using the bathroom? No colorzing old movies?

Imagine how wonderful it would be if you could enact any laws you wanted. Imagine how nice and orderly the world would be.

Now imagine for just a moment that someone else received that power. What laws would they enact? No smoking in public ever? That's not too pleasant if you're a smoker. How about no meal with more than 3 grams of fat? Forget eating some of your favorite fast food.

Thnk about everything you do. Is there anything that someone, somewhere might not like? Maybe you drink too much (and some people consider any drinking too much). Maybe you like to eat animal products (which doesn't fly too well with the animal rights people).

Let's pretend that every time you get to pass a law against behavior you don't like, someone else gets to pass a law against your behavior. It starts to make what other people do a bit more tolerable, doesn't it?

In Norwood, Ohio, Joy and Carl Gamble just lost their home to the powers of eminent domain. It seems a developer wants their land for a shopping mall/condo complex. Joy and Carl want to keep their home, but at what cost to the community?

With the new development comes more jobs and more taxes. Those things are good for the city and for the majority of the citizens. Why shouldn't they be forced to give up their home for the greater good?

Only one reason--if they can be forced to give up their home, so can you. If we don't protect the rights of others, nobody will bother to protect ours.

If you want freedom, the only way is to work and fight for the freedom of evverybody else.

Pet Peeves

I'm in the mood to vent on a variety of topics, so if you aren't in the mood for ravings, skip this post.

MISPLACED PRIORITIES

If you aren't Jewish, this may be incomprehensible. Feel free to skip to the next topic.

I was recently at a sheva brachos. Among those chosen to make brachos were two men who couldn't get through it without stumbling over the words. That was expected of one of the men. He isn't frum. He doesn't pretend to be frum. He doesn't want to be frum. The fact that he can read Hebrew at all is something to be commended.

The second man, however, does claim to be frum, and in his mind, he probably is. One look would tell you he is "frum." He wears a kapota and a gartle. He dresses all in black, from his shoes to his hat. Yet he can't get through a simple bracha without stumbling. How does he daven?

As it happens, he is a member of a particular group who tends to put appearances over substance. (I'm choosing not to name them because there are a few members who are unusual and don't fit the stereotype. They should not be held accountable for the sins of their brethren.) Over the years I've met many members of this group. In addition to the man in black who can't make a bracha, I've seen so much else.

I've seen a man with yarmulke and tzitzis go into a store to buy a non-kosher candy bar. I've seen a man at a shiur wanting to share "chasidic" insights into the parsha (Vayeira) and then ask the rabbi what made him think Sarah was childless? I've seen countless people who've been frum for years who, like the gentlemen above, cannot get through a simple bracha. I've seen many people who have minhagim that would be aveiros to the rest of the world.

This stems from one cause: as long as you have the right "feelings" the halachos can come later. All too often, the halachos never come at all. We are left with feelings.

But isn't that important? As long as I "feel" Jewish. doesn't that count?

Of course it does. Just ask any non-frum Jew. They'll tell you that feelings are more important than halachos.

Ask any reform Jew. They'll tell you that feelings are more important than halachos.

Ask any christian. They'll tell you that feelings are more important than halachos.

I am relatively certain that no member of that group would want to be associated with non-frum Jews, reform Jews, or christians. Yet they behave the same way.


BEING PUNISHED FOR BEING SINGLE

I recently had occasion to be among the hostesses at a party. Here's a lesson for the future: discuss finances beforehand. Thoroughly.

Let's give an example (which is not based on reality, but based on round numbers being easier to work with).

Imagine you are single. You are giving a party along with four other people whom we'll call Ms. A, Ms. B, Ms. C and Ms. D. The party costs $500 and there will be 50 people there.

Should you each put in $100? At first glance, that would seem fair. However, let's look a little deeper into the situation.

You are coming to the party alone. Ms. A is bringing her husband. Ms. B is bringing her husband and 1 child. Ms. C is bring her husband and 2 children. Ms. D is bringing her husband and 3 children. That means there are 15 "family" members and 35 "guests."

Remember, the party costs $10 per person.

When you pay $100, you are paying for yourself plus 9 guests. Ms. D is paying for her family and 5 guests. Why should you pay for more guests? Why should you subsidize the Ds?

Here is what's fair: each of the five hostesses should pay for their family and seven guests. Therefore you pay $80, Ms. A pays $90, Ms. B pays $100, Ms. C pays $110 and Ms. D pays $120. Yes, Ms. D pays 50 percent more than you, but her family is 400 percent bigger than yours.

In fact, I spoke to several people. They all told me when they've been in this situation, they divided the costs per person and each paid for his or her own family, plus an equal number of guests. That's how it should be. I wish that's how it had been.


DISRESPECTFUL CHILDREN

There is a girl in my shul who likes to get to the kiddush table early and take all the potatoes out of the cholent bowl, leaving none for anybody else. Although she has been told not to do this, she continues, week after week. Unfortunately, she is not an aberration.

I was recently at a different shul. Here there was a separate table for the girls. Before all the adults had a chance to take cholent, a couple girls came and took the cholent bowl to their table. It never returned.

Where does this behavior come from?

Rabbi Alter tells of a time he was in a store in New York. This store was owned by an older couple. While Rabbi Alter was in the store, he witnessed the son berating his mother for some perceived misdeed. Rabbi Alter was ready to say something when the young man's father walked in and started berating his wife for yet another perceived misdeed. What could Rabbi Alter say? How could the son learn respect when the parents don't show any?

I was recently at a dinner in someone's home. When one of the men got up to make a speech, several of the women got up to clear the table. It was very distracting to those of us who wanted to hear what was being said. I did mention to one of the women that perhaps it might be considered rude to be clearing the table while someone was speaking, but she said she didn't care.

Here are people who have not learned respect. If they haven't learned it, how can they pass it on to their children?


A FINAL NOTE

I have to recommend a book. it's not a new book, it's been out for several years. However, I have been re-reading it lately and it is as marvelous, if not more, the second time than it was the first. It's "Doesn't Anyone Blush Anymore?" by Rabbi Manis Friedman. Buy it. Read it. Practice it.

Unions

Those of us of a certain age probably remember the "Look for the Union Label" commercial of some years ago. For those who are too young to remember, it was a commercial for the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union. The commercial reminded people to buy union-made clothing so that union workers could keep their jobs, feed the kids and run the house.

My grandfather was one of the founders of the Garment Workers Union. He helped many workers who were being exploited by unscrupulous, or simply greedy, bosses.

Times have changed.

I worked in a union shop. I learned the truth about unions. Although they do help many people, unions are not the answer for everybody.

The company I worked for had a union contract which based salary on experience--not necessarily with the company, but experience in general. The older you were, the more experience you had, the more money you made.

But what if a younger worker was more efficient, more capable or just a harder worker? Too bad. A mediocre older worker would get paid more than a top-notch younger worker because that was what the union contract stipulated. Fair? I don't think so.

Now, a union has struck again.

A friend of mine works for a company, also controlled by a union contract. A position opened up for which he was qualified, so he applied. Many of his co-workers felt he should get the position. In fact, while the position was vacant, he was filling in and doing the job. Finally, they've chosen someone. Did he get the job?

He should have. He's qualified, he's already been doing it, he's been with the company longer than anybody else in his department. However, the union contract states that all positions have to be offered to the public. He was passed over in favor of an outsider.

Loyalty meant nothing. Hard work meant nothing. Ability meant nothing.

The union spoke. So be it.

How We See Things

Many years ago I went to a concert given by the Civic Orchestra of Chicago. As the musicians came on stage, I was amazed that the orchestra was mostly women. I was not alone. I heard someone sitting near me exclaim, "My G-d, this orchestra is all women."

At that moment I decided to count and see how many there actually were. As it turns out, the percentage of women was 49%, less than half. So how do we explain the mistaken impression that the orchestra was mostly women?

It seems pretty simple. Those of us who are familiar with orchestras know they are overwhelmingly male. Since we expect to see at least 19 men to every woman, something that approaches a one-to-one ratio appears to us as more than what it actually is.

As numerous experiments have proven, two eyewitnesses to an event can come up with very different versions of the facts. Neither of them is lying, they just saw things differently.

What we see is naturally colored by who we are, what we've experienced, and any pre-conceived ideas we may have.

This is my seventh posting to this blog. The first was a short post about nothing. Three were about politics. One was about cultural differences, although it touched on religion. Only the most recent one was truly religious in nature.

Yet someone asked why everything is about my faith. Two people see the same things, and see them totally differently. Is my view so colored by my belief in G-d that I don't even recognize when it creeps into my writing? Is his view so colored by his views (lack of belief?) that he sees more religion than actually exists, just as I saw more women in the orchestra than were actually there?

How much of what we see in life is what is really there, and how much is a product of what we want to see?