More is Less

Raising the Bar Beyond the Average Person’s Reach

Posted on:October 13, 2015

Posted by:Rabbi Shmuel Gluck

Since High school and post High School interviews are looming in the coming weeks for both boys and girls, this article intends to help parents decide which are the most appropriate schools for their children. (I’ve written an extensive article describing my approach to school placements, and will gladly forward it to anyone interested.)

Several parts of this article may seem as if they’re directed towards changing the Yeshiva system, but they aren’t. I often tell parents that it’s not their responsibility to grade, judge, or fix, the Chinuch System. Their only job is to be objective as to what’s best for their children, and follow through with those conclusions.

Many people believe that for children (This article speaks to parents, but applies equally to adults, and their aspirations for personal growth.) to reach their maximum potential, they must be presented with increasingly higher standards. I’ve found that this attitude, the unrealistically raising of what will be defined as the norm, is the belief of many of our schools, families, and individuals.

Classroom hours are increasing, the calendar is expanding, and there’s pressure to learn outside of mandatory class time. The image of a Ben Torah/Chassidishe student in the minds of many people has been expanded beyond what most people would’ve imagined when they were younger.

Continue reading…

From Areivim, here.

The Uncomfortable Truth About the DDT Ban

The worldwide crusade to ban the pesticide DDT is a classic example. This crusade was begun by the much revered Rachel Carson, whose best-selling book “Silent Spring” was based on the premise that DDT’s adverse effects on the eggs of song birds would end up wiping out these species. After that, springtime would no longer be marked by birds singing; hence the silent spring.

Rachel Carson and the environmentalists she inspired have succeeded in getting DDT banned in country after country, for which they have received the accolades of many, not least their own accolades. But, in terms of the actual consequences of that crusade, there has not been a mass murderer executed in the past half-century who has been responsible for as many deaths of human beings as the sainted Rachel Carson. The banning of DDT has led to a huge resurgence of malaria in the Third World, with deaths rising into the millions.

An excerpt of Thomas Sowell from Town Hall, here.

Confirmation can be found in J. Gordon Edwards’, DDT: A Case Study in Scientific Fraud, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 2004.

Elon, Aviner, Pogrow, Etc.

May one learn the Torah books and pamphlets of disgraced Rabbis, such as Shlomo Aviner and Meir Pogrow?

There’s an overview from OU.org on this question, here.

Excerpt:

Before addressing the permissibility of learning Torah from a disgraced rabbi, we must first emphasize that this entire discussion refers to a rabbi whose misconduct has been confirmed.  Unfortunately, in today’s age of digital communication, unsubstantiated rumors contrived and disseminated by agenda-driven parties fly through the news and, especially, social media, before the facts are sorted out and verified.  And, knowing the impatience of media consumers, many of whom do not generally read past article titles, news websites run irresponsible, sensationalist headlines that misrepresent the facts and can lead to baseless suspicions.  The “juicy” nature of rabbinic scandals, along with the anti-Orthodox agenda of many media outlets, make rabbis prime targets of unverified rumors and allegations.  Common sense, common decency, and the obligation to respect Torah scholars all dictate that we avoid reaching conclusions based on hearsay or melodramatic headlines, and reserve judgment until allegations brought against Torah scholars are confirmed.

This warning was issued already by the Rambam, in one of his published responsa (Shu”t Ha’Rambam, 111), where he addresses the situation of a well-respected scholar who served as his congregation’s cantor, and about whom rumors spread of serious misdeeds.  The Rambam devotes the bulk of his responsum to emphasizing that nobody should be demoted from his post based on rumors, particularly if that individual has adversaries with a motive to sully his reputation.  Drawing upon the Gemara’s discussion in Maseches Moed Katan (17a), the Rambam writes that a Torah scholar who is suspected of wrongdoing should be privately reprimanded, and if he mends his ways, then he may retain his post.  It is only if the wrongdoing is committed publicly that he must be demoted.

Likewise, the Chasam Sofer (Teshuvos, O.C. 1:175) addresses the case of a גבאי צדקה – director of a charity fund – about whom rumors spread of an inappropriate relationship with a certain non-Jewish woman.  In the wake of these rumors, community members pressured the rabbi to remove him from his post, but the rabbi refused.  The Chasam Sofer emphatically supported the rabbi’s decision, asserting that nobody should be deposed based on rumors and hearsay:

אין לפסול איש על רינון וקול בעלמא, ואין להחזיק הקול אלא בעדים ברורים.

One should not disqualify a person based on murmurings and mere rumors, and the rumors should be verified only with reliable witnesses.

The Chasam Sofer writes that in the end, the person confessed to his wrongdoing, and was promptly dismissed from his position.

Another example appears in a responsum of Rav Meir Simcha of Dvinsk (13), who was asked about a certain shochet who was imprisoned by a non-Jewish court for an alleged crime.  Rav Meir Simcha ruled that the court’s guilty verdict did not suffice as grounds for removing this shochet from his post, as the courts at that time could not be trusted.

Of particular relevance to our discussion is a responsum by Rav Aharon Walkin of Pinsk in his Zekan Aharon (30), addressing the question posed to him by Rav Zalman Sorotzkin concerning a shochetwho was rumored to have had occasionally visited the home of a woman suspected of prostitution.  Rav Walkin writes that sexual impropriety does not, strictly speaking, disqualify somebody from serving as shochet, but additionally, the shochet in question should not be dismissed solely on the basis of rumors.  Writing with particular passion and vehemence, Rav Walkin says that as disturbing as these rumors were, and notwithstanding the fact that a person filling such a distinguished role must have an unimpeachable record, it is forbidden to remove a person from a post based on mere hearsay:

גם אני מרחוק הנני נרעש ונפחד לשמוע כזה על משרת בקודש שנצרך להיות מצויין ביר”ש שכם אחד יותר על סתם בני אדם, אבל בכ”ז בבואי לחתוך עליו דין תורה, את האלקים אני ירא לשפוך עליו כל חמתי ולירד לחייו לקפח פרנסתו דההוא גברא דתלי ביה טפלי. וכל גופא מרתע בי להיות שוחט ולשחוט אב לבנים ובעל לאשה על יסוד שמועות קלושות כאלה… השתא שו”ב ששוחט בהמות אם ידיו מרתתות בו שחיטתו פסולה, כ”ש אני שבאתי לשחוט נפשות אדם, ולא רק ידי אלא כל גופי מרתת, היאך אוכל לשחטו בשעה שעפ”י דין תורה אין יסוד לזה? האם אפשר להתחסד יותר מהתורה עצמה?

I, too, even from afar, am shaken and horrified to hear such things about somebody serving in a sacred post, who is supposed to be outstanding in fear of God, on a level above most people.  But nevertheless, as I come to decide Torah law with regard to him, I am too fearful of God to pour my wrath upon him, to disrupt the livelihood and deny the sustenance of that person accused of wrongdoing.  My entire body shudders [at the thought of] being a slaughterer and slaughtering a father of children and husband of a wife on the basis of weak rumors such as these… A shochet who slaughters animals – if his hands tremble, his slaughtering is invalid; all the more so, then, as I come to slaughter people’s lives, and not only my hands, but my entire body trembles – how can I slaughter him when I know that according to Torah law there is no basis for this?  Is it possible to be more pious than the Torah itself?

Rav Walkin advised Rav Sorotzkin to have the shochet make a formal promise to avoid going anywhere near the house in question, and, as a precaution, to inspect his knife twice each week for a year.

This responsum underscores the extreme caution that is needed before acting upon rumors of misconduct, even as it points to the need for prudent and discreet measures in response to such rumors to ensure that the alleged misconduct does not continue.

Moreover, we must bear in mind the Gemara’s instruction in Maseches Berachos (19a), “If you saw a Torah scholar who committed a transgression at night, do not suspect him the next day because…he definitely repented.”  In other words, not every wrongful act committed by a religious leader warrants public condemnation and a public outcry.  Rabbis, like all people, are flawed and plagued by weaknesses and occasional lapses in judgment.  A person with a reputation of piety who is seen acting wrongly on one occasion must be given the benefit of the doubt that he has acknowledged his wrongdoing and has repented.  Accordingly, the Chafetz Chayim writes (Hilchos Lashon Ha’ra, 4:14):

וכל שכן אם הוא איש תלמיד חכם וירא חטא, אך עתה גבר יצרו עליו, בודאי עון גדול הוא לפרסם חטאו ואסור אפילו להרהר אחריו כי בודאי עשה תשובה, ואף אם יצרו נתחזק עליו פעם אחת, נפשו מרה לו אחר כך על זה ולבבו ירא וחרד מאד על אשמתו…

Certainly, if the person is a Torah scholar and God-fearing, but now his evil inclination overcame him, it is definitely a grievous sin to publicize his wrongdoing, and it is forbidden even to suspect him, because he definitely repented, and although his evil inclination overpowered him on one occasion, his soul is distressed over this afterward, and his heart fears and trembles greatly out of guilt…

Our discussion, then, relates to the unfortunate situations of Torah scholars who have been determined to regularly engage in improper behavior, and the question then arises as to whether people may continue learning from them or making use of their inherently valuable Torah resources.

There is Nothing Wrong With Money!

There are Jews who believe, with many Cursedians, money is an unnatural, necessary evil. They aren’t Marxists, but close. Their conclusion is that media of exchange are only for this, imperfect world, not Olam Haba (the World to Come). Sure, money will still be abolished, just not by man. I don’t recall what proof is brought to this position (probably the out-of-context Zecharya 14:21 ולא יהיה כנעני עוד בבית ד’ צבאות ביום ההוא) but here is a counter, from Pesachim 119a:

אמר רבי חמא בר חנינא שלש מטמוניות הטמין יוסף במצרים אחת נתגלה לקרח ואחת נתגלה לאנטונינוס בן אסוירוס ואחת גנוזה לצדיקים לעתיד לבא
The truth is that money is a natural, wonderful thing (and Divinely ordained) when used correctly.