“You don’t recycle?? Don’t you care about the environment? How could you not?? It’s not so hard. Seriously. There are recycle bins wherever you go these days. Can I come over to your house and show you how to do it? I’ll bring the bags and everything. See you tomorrow!”
“You don’t keep kosher?? Don’t you care about your soul? How could you not?? It’s not so hard. Seriously. There’s kosher stuff available wherever you go these days. Can I come over to your house and show you how to do it? I’ll bring the kashering pot and everything. See you tomorrow!”
Questions:
1. Which conversation really happened?
2. Which is more offensive?
3. Would either inspire you to change your ways?
Rabbi Emmanual Feldman talks about having a discussion with a congregant who kept strict kosher in the home, but not outside: "Wonderful! So your dishes are going to heaven,"
speaking as a recycling maniac ( in my own home) i have to say that it is more likely that conversation 1 happened than 2. That having been said, we are maniacs about recycling in our own home. mine is enough. i don't need to do anyone else's.
as far as the second conversation goes, i have a hard time imagining that anyone who cared enough to help someone become a kosher keeper (in their home, regardless of what they do outside) is unlikely to be that cavalier about it. speaking as someone who did go from sloppy kosher to kosher at the level of my orthodox community (and beyond, for work under hashgacha) i had many conversations and asked a million questions. i don't think any of the people who i asked were anything more than cautious in explaining to me what i wanted to know and teaching me what i needed to know because i wanted to keep kosher. i wanted it. they didn't ask me to do it, i asked them.
and in fact, one of them was really clear that while he could say we had gone through the process, it wasn't like he could tell anyone my house was kosher because who knew what was going to happen after he left? this was not said offensively mind you, but practically. the other person explained what our community's standard was, answered every question i had about what i needed to do and then reviewed and reviewed. once he ate in our house, most people would, because they knew he would not eat by anyone who did not understand what the standard was and have the requisite knowledge to keep the standard.
so, i am thinking that actually situation one really happened because people can be total nuisances about pushing their own agendas when it comes to the environment and most people pushing religion have enough sechel to know that its attraction, not promotion that wins the day.
Interesting that in your experience, environmentalists are more of a nuisance than religionists.
Zealotry in general makes me suspicious. And thus I'm a little skeptical of recycling frenzy, although we do recycle. [Moving rather off topic now] Of all the environmental issues we could hyperfocus on, why recycling? I suspect it's because recycling is a form of manufacturing and thus it MAKES MONEY to get people psyched up about it. There is transport, industrial processing, making new things, and selling them. Simply reducing packaging materials would be less profitable, less zealotry-prone, and yet quite effective. Also I think household recycling gets people focused on an issue that is less complex to handle than thinking of how to reduce automobile use: recycling devolves a lot of responsibility onto the individual household, rather than considering a more complex, systemic problem like the reliance on single-occupant vehicles. So it is a strangely "liberal" (in the classic sense of individualist) issue to get people to rally around.
Off topic, yes. But zealotry gets my suspicious-thinking mode going and makes me wonder what the vested interests are behind it. Corner preachers are easy to ignore because there is absolutely no inclination on my part to their ideas. The relationship to zealotry about Jewish practice would be similar.
I thought recycling was popular because it's easy. Changing your driving habits is inconvenient: You can't go where you want when you want. Same with anything to do with energy use.
I'm not into zealotry either. If someone pushes me to buy or do something, my automatic reaction is to refuse. (Pushy salespeople beware!)
I've had someone ask me, doesn't having a lot of kids put a dent in the environment? I was so blown away I didn't respond but it occurred to me afterward that we don't drive once every week, and during all the holidays.
R' refson at neve had a great analogy- if you see someone preparing to drill a hole in their head, would you go to great lengths to get them to stop? we need to see other people's neshamas in the same way, and be in pain and want to do everything in our power to share the beauty of yidishkeit.
I disagree with this so strongly. Hashem gave us free will, and we need to respect people who live differently. You will accomplish far more in terms of sharing the beauty of yiddishkeit if you start from a position of respect and acceptance than if you think that it is your job to "save" someone from themselves.
Hashem is the Dayan Haemet. We do not currently have a functioning Sanhedrin. It is not our place to judge others — educate, yes. Judge, no way.
I've heard exactly the same analogy (gun pointing) used by Christian missionaries to explain why they felt drawn to witness to Jews and others. It is a problem making this argument convincing when the gun is invisible and the 'death' happens in the next world. Furthermore, the level of jeopardy involved in playing with a loaded gun is such that I would feel free to use force to take the gun away – which is not how I feel about kashrut.
If you must make a 'for your own good' analogy for kashrut, I suggest you compare eating treif (for Jews) to smoking. It produces long term damage that is not visible immediately, it conveys immediate satisfaction, and it may or may not kill you, but it is arguably not worth the risk. Furthermore, people use social sanctions to discourage friends from smoking (if you don't keep kosher I can't eat over your house) but few people propose outlawing it, and no one is presently talking about jail terms or fines for smokers.
Miriam, do you feel the same way (free will, Hashem runs the show) in other areas in addition to religious observance (health, safety, environment)?
Absolutely. I live my life in the way I think best, and I have an obligation to teach those same values to my children. As for everyone else in the world, I try to teach by example, but I try to respect their right to make different choices for themselves and their families. I am not divine; I don't have a monopoly on being right.
One more q: if you see someone doing something that you consider dangerous, will you intervene?
Depends. I don't stop people from skiing or sky diving for example. I don't even oppose people smoking, just not around me. I don't believe forceful intervention is helpful for drug addicts or smokers in most cases. I was appalled when my mother took gliding lessons ("Ma! I've got a perfectly good plane here, with an engine! Why do you want to fly that broken one instead?") but I wouldn't have dreamed of stopping her.
I wrote a long reply and then it vanished. Argh!! Too lazy to repeat it all, so here is my bottom line.
I agree with Larry. There are plenty of dangerous/unwise behaviors around me that I don't comment on. I don't check my friends' smoke detectors; why is it my place to check if they keep mitzvot?
In terms of actions that are dangerous to others (i.e. drunk driving), we have civil laws and civil authorities. If I saw something concerning, I'd report it and expect the civil authorities to intervene. I don't enforce the law myself. For spiritual laws, Gd is the enforcing authority, not me. And unlike civil authorities, I am confident that Gd knows exactly who is doing what, so I don't need to point it out 🙂
I find this really interesting. Because I find that people are way more likely to tell me safety/health stuff, whereas I would never deliver a religious counterpart.
Miriam, I told it was my last q so I'll direct this to Larry 🙂
Is there ever a time that you would intervene in a non-religious, or religious, issue?
I need a definition of intervene. Offer unsolicited advice? Call the police? Complain to a gabbi? Physically attack someone? I would do all of these in different cases, but I think the threshold at which I would do them is higher than many (perhaps most) other people.
If your husband was at the kotel when people were throwing chairs at the women of the wall, would you want him to yell at them to stop? To get the police? To actively restrain them from throwing chairs?
Intervene in any way at all. I would want him to talk to them and try to effect change without resorting to their tactics (yelling, physical).
Don't you think that when people are throwing chairs at other people they're too out of control to even hear what someone's saying to them?
Maybe the purpose of intervening, even when change is unlikely to happen, is to heighten your own sensitivity to wrongness. According to the Torah, as long as you won't damage the relationship or cause more harm, you should speak up with dignity and respect. It's interesting how this injustice was chosen, I guess as a universal example of wrongness, but kosher… well, many would consider that iffy-er. But according to the Torah, they're both wrong. One is between man and God and one is between man and man.
But according to the Torah, they're both wrong. One is between man and God and one is between man and man.
Then perhaps the appropriate place for your husband (or more likely for you) is to be with the Women of the Wall speaking up with dignity and respect to inform them their actions are against the Torah? I fond the idea of saying 'well they're both sinning' to be somewhat mind boggling – perhaps you did not mean to imply the two sets of actions were morally equivalent?
Actually, I meant that if they're endangering others and won't even hear what you're saying, more extreme measures are needed, although your husband might not be the one to take those measures.
I'm not sure what you mean by a "universal example of wrongness".
Larry. Sorry I wasnt clear. By "both," I meant the male perps in the wow situation, and the person not keeping kosher in my op. Of course I'm not equating them. They are different as night and day.
Dg: I meant the guys at the wall are universally recognized as sinning, whereas kosher transgressors are not. So it follows that people are much more comfortable speaking up (or expecting others to) in the wall example, but speaking up in the kosher example doesn't sit well with many at all.
Also, at the Wall, someone else might be in danger, whereas in the kosher example the (spiritual) danger is to the person him/herself.
May I sidestep my husband and turn the question around for a moment? If you were at the wall, what would you do? In your ideal thoughts, and for real?
Great question.
Both conversations happened.
Depends how it is presented as far as whether it is offensive or not, could go either way. If it is brought up by a friend or someone that really cares about you, it would not be offensive at all.
No one changes from just a conversation like this, more discussion is required.
How do you know that recycling is good for the environment? What is the proof?
How do you know that keeping kosher is better for the soul? What is the proof. This one seems to be a much harder one to prove.
Good points Julie. Basically the key factors you identify are:
the depth of the relationship, followup conversation, and ability to prove your stance.
I have to ask: Do Orthodox Jews not recycle? Is that because there are rules about garbage being impure and so it has to be handled in certain ways that would preclude recycling? Or is it because the assumption is that God takes care of the world and so we don't need to interfere with that? Or is it just that there are a lot of other obligations and recycling is just one thing too many?
Orthodox Jews DO recycle. God gave us a world to take care of.
I recycle, but not because I'm an environmentalist.
http://outoftheorthobox.blogspot.com/2012/06/im-jew-ist.html
No rules about garbage. I think some people feel the last point you made. Regarding the "God is in charge" argument, that's why I'm not an environmentalist. But precisely because God is in charge (per DG's comment), I care deeply about the world He made.
I'm genuinely curious about what you see as the difference between "caring deeply about the world God made" and "being an environmentalist."
My concern is pursuant to God's stewardship and includes the physical, the spiritual, and the people.
So do you mean to say that environmentalists are godless? Or that they don't care about people or their souls? I don't mean to be snarky, I just really don't understand your point.
In many cases, the actions of someone like me and the actions of an environmentalist will be identical. But sometimes the differences emerge. Here's an example: a friend of mine posted the following question on facebook: "what have you done for the environment this year?" One respondent wrote: "I didn't have a baby!" That's where we diverge.
In other words, you can only have one "ism" and that's the most important guiding principle in your life?
It's a hierarchy of values. Like this:
http://outoftheorthobox.blogspot.com/2012/03/yoga-feminism-judaism-how-do-you-make.html?
The following was part of the discussion at my shul this past Shabbat. The author is Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the UK.
"As guardians of the earth, we are duty-bound to respect its integrity. The mid-19th-century commentator Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch put this rather well in his original interpretation of Genesis 1:26, 'Let us make the human in our image after our own likeness.'
The passage has always been puzzling, since the hallmark of the Torah is the one-ness of God. Who is the 'us' in this sentence? Who would God consult in the process of creating humans?
The 'us,' says Hirsch, refers to the rest of creation. Before creating the human, a being destined to develop the capacity to alter and possibly endanger the natural world, God sought the approval of nature itself. This interpretation implies that we would use nature only in such a way that is faithful to the purposes of its Creator and acknowledges nature's consenting to human existence."
The way I read this, Hirsch is saying that the Torah instructs us to be environmentalists. Or at least good caretakers of the environment, since that distinction seems important to you. It's completely none of my business how you do or don't describe yourself, of course. In my definition, those who care about the earth and takes steps to protect it are environmentalists. They may be that simply for its own sake, or, like you, they may be that because their profound and sincere religious faith obligates them to be responsible stewards of God's creation, but if they take the action they are entitled to the name. It puzzles me that you feel being called an environmentalist would somehow sully the fact that your actions come out of your faith. Or is it just that you don't want to be lumped in with those who take the same actions for secular reasons?
Finally, I hope I'm not coming across as browbeating or being obnoxious by continuing this conversation. I really am genuinely trying to understand your point of view. But if I'm being a pest, please say so and I will cheerfully go away but keep reading. 😉
Not at all. So much to explore here, and I learn from everyone. So thank you!
Do you think Hirsch (love that quote, btw) would concur with the "I didn't have a baby this year" attitude? And it is an attitude, as opposed to a random comment, based on many negative things I've read regarding the Christian family with 19 kids whose name escapes me. People (environmentalists, I guess) were fuming that people would endanger the planet by having that many kids. That's where I don't want to be called an environmentalist – only where it clashes with other values.
Btw what does bratschegirl mean?
I had a neighbor who said she wished she could have another child (she had two), but because she was an environmentalist she could not allow that to herself. I asked, "So what if you RAISE THREE environmentalists?" It struck me as just totally lopsided logic. And don't some environmentalists DRIVE to their meetings? Pardon the reference, but it is here a matter of not seeing the forest for the trees.
"Bratsche" is German for viola, which is the instrument that I play professionally.
As to the kid thing: This is complicated for me. I believe that the world is currently populated at a level that is not sustainable, and that this is getting worse. I would never dream of being so impolite as to criticize someone for having "too many" kids; at the same time, I think that if every family has 19 kids we're all going to be in huge trouble pretty quickly. My own family is small by choice, but not for reasons of environmental impact. I think, generally, that people like the "I didn't have a baby" commenter, who go around patting themselves on the back in public for their choices, and subtly or overtly criticizing others for making different choices, are a pain in the tuchus.
I have no idea how Hirsch would see that comment. Limiting the size of one's family is one way to reduce one's personal environmental impact; that it's not the right choice for everyone doesn't mean that it has no validity for anyone. My understanding is that O Judaism takes a similar view to the Catholic church, that a married couple is supposed to accept with love whatever number of children Hashem sees fit to provide for them (with their, ahem, cooperation…)(am I right about that?), so I don't imagine that someone who takes that view would see consciously limiting the number of one's children as a good thing.
I think I've long since taken up my allotted space for today…
Bratschegirl, thanks for the d'var torah. Love it! But then, I generally love what Rabbi Sacks has to say.
Tuchus…a great word to equalize us all! 🙂 and I would agree indeed to the pain therein.
Sbw: I'm both shocked and unsurprised at the same time, if that makes any sense. Bratsche, to me this sentence is so extraordinarily important and perhaps summarizes an attitude I'm trying to foster via this blog: "that it's not the right choice for everyone doesn't mean that it has no validity for anyone."
How I wish some people could view Orthodoxy this way.
Re birth control, Orthodoxy allows for it where the mom needs it emotionally. I'm not sure if or when it's permitted in Catholicism.
I think in both cases it depends on the listener's beliefs. If you believe recycling/keeping kosher is important but hard, you'll be receptive. If you think the environment is a lost cause or that God will take care of it Himself, or if you aren't convinced that the food you eat has any effect on your soul (or that you even have a soul), you won't.
When I was in college, I thought I should keep kosher but didn't because I didn't think it was feasible. Of course, part of the reason it wasn't feasible was social. I wanted to cook my own food, not eat in the kosher cafeteria, and my roommate certainly wasn't about to keep kosher. Moreover, socializing tends to involve eating, so that would have put an end to my social life. So the most effective way to convince me to keep kosher would have been to introduce me to people who already did.
In other words, showing me how easy it is might have worked, but "easy" involves non-food factors as well. And it would only have worked because I already thought it was right.
I feel uncomfortable with that approach in either scenario- it feels manipulative, I'm afraid. Whereas someone making me welcome in their social life first and gradually explaining how these things work is much more comfortable, and respects me as a person.
I'm pretty sure that conversation 1 is an analogy to better understand conversation 2. While I grew up in a Vegan household that oddly still had a kosher kitchen (one never knows…), as an adult I've listened to many conversations from Jews trying to one-up each other in their Kosher status. Instead of having a thoughtful conversation, it becomes a condescending lecture from someone who is trying to outJew you. It's so bad that people stop being friends, or become a constant subject of lashon harah. I always find it interesting because it's usually from people who don't follow rules in other ways: they aren't shomer shabbas, the don't dress modestly…
I find it incredibly disheartening, because I'm pretty sure HaShem would rather you not keep kosher than berate someone who doesn't keep kosher.
There are other ways to teach about keeping kosher: leading by example, inviting a family for dinner, starting an open dialogue where the conversation in truly open.
Interesting. So basically, Shoshana and Maya agree that the technique I described is off, and there are better, more subtle ways to effect change, whether the issue is Judaism or another -ism.
Yes?
Interesting, this post could easily have been healthy eating vs. kosher eating. I don't even want to comment on either of the concepts here on the blog because I am sure I would upset people with my thoughts.
Go for it Wendy! No one on this blog is afraid of divergent, respectful opinions.
Wendy,
I would love to hear your thoughts and I think it probably would not upset most of the people who read Ruchi's blog.
BTW–I know many people (not myself) who keep Kosher that are VERY healthy eaters. I don't think that eating Kosher and being healthy are mutually exclusive? Do you?
1. Which conversation really happened?
Probably both of them, but are different times, with different people.
2. Which is more offensive?
Niether is offensive to me, but they are in inherently different. Someone could show me a scientific study about how important recycling/conserving is and how important it is to the health of the world. They could show me real, tangible consequences of what would happen if people didn't recycle. However, with keeping kosher, it is not a science, there is no chart you could show someone which would show them they would be healthier/happier/better people if they kept kosher. Also, for a person not driven by religion or who rejects the idea of a soul or G-d, the argument for keeping kosher probably wouldn't sway them at all.
3. Would either inspire you to change your ways?
I already recycle and conserve the best I can, so I don't need convincing to do that. Kashrut is a harder one! I've studied a lot about it and try to keep parts of it the best I can (only dairy out, no pork/shellfish), but to be honest I don't see any benefit to it. I know the main reason for keeping Kosher (and the rest of the Torah) is because "G-d said too", but I have doubt that G-d exists, and I then continually question myself as to why I would even bother to keep kosher at all.
OOTOB fan, so why do you then keep kosher at all? I am really curious. I get it why 'hardcore' believers would, but what about marginal believers?
Someone could show me a scientific study about how important recycling/conserving is and how important it is to the health of the world. They could show me real, tangible consequences of what would happen if people didn't recycle
Still a matter of shared values and beliefs. If I were childless, or if I thought that world had no purpose I was primarily interested in maximizing my personal pleasure I might not care what shape the world would be in 100 years from now. If I thought that the free market automatically produces the things people desire, then I would expect the market to come up with viable solutions for dealing with garbage etc. If I thought that the world was going to end with the coming (or the return) of the Messiah shortly, then I wouldn't see the point either.
SBW- great question and one I struggle to answer on a daily basis! For a while now (5 years), I've been fascinated by Traditional Judaism. I've learned a lot, but was unable to come to Observance through belief (I've read countless books on why G-d exists, why the Torah was given at Mt. Sinai, why it's literally true and talked to Rabbi's about this), but my skepticism/realism/doubt wins in the end.
Since I was unable to come to observance through belief, I decided to try another tactic. I wanted to feel more Jewish and thought that if I could take on Mitzvot, I could come to believe in G-d that way. A year ago, I lived with an Observant roommate and we had a kosher kitchen (sadly I moved back home now and my family doesn't keep kosher). At first the kosher kitchen was new, exciting and challenging and I felt very "Jewish" using it. Plus, we lived in a very Jewish area and it was exciting to me that observant Jews could eat in my apartment. However, as time wore on, I began to get frustrated by my kosher kitchen. It's a huge pain to have 2 (sometimes 3) of EVERYTHING and kosher cheese and meat is more expensive than non-kosher cheese and meat. Also, I couldn’t rectify this sacrifice by saying that even though it was a pain; I was going to do it because G-d wanted me too, because I sincerely doubted G-d’s existence.
Even though I cannot reconcile my lack of belief in G-d with feeling that I should keep Kosher (hopefully I one day will), keeping kosher is the correct Jewish way. Also, I realize that my beliefs and actions don’t align with Observant Judaism (lack of belief in G-d, not keeping strict kosher, struggling with Shabbos observance), but I don't deny that that is the correct way to live a Jewish lifestyle. SBW, I’m not sure if I full answered your question…I’m conflicted about it myself and will be the first to admit it’s contradictory.
I'm the queen of conflict and contradiction, so those aspects don't discredit anything you say–in fact the opposite!
even if Moshiach is coming very soon, which orthodox Jews are obligated to expect i.e. that he could come any moment, that wouldn't necessarily mean they wouldn't see a point in recycling. A Jew has to believe that Moshiach is on his way,but that doesn't mean abandoning the halacha. Since there is a halacha — ba'al tashchit — of not wasting resources that can be of use to humans (although admittedly I am sure that there must be differing opinions regarding whether recycling falls into the orbit of this mitzvah). The big difference is WHY you are recycling. A non-frum person might recycle because they believe that they need to do their bit to save the planet. A frum person might think that outcomes and ultimately what happens to the planet, are in the hands of Hashem but they need to do their hishtadlus, their personal effort and also to do the will of Hashem which is follow halachos like not wasting etc. This would apply whether they believed Moshiach's arrival was imminent or in a thousand years.
OOTOB, I find your words remarkably touching. I think you display a lot of courage and honesty in your journey.
SS: I think that was very well-said.
Me: "Someone could show me a scientific study about how important recycling/conserving is and how important it is to the health of the world. They could show me real, tangible consequences of what would happen if people didn't recycle"
Larry: "Still a matter of shared values and beliefs. If I were childless, or if I thought that world had no purpose I was primarily interested in maximizing my personal pleasure I might not care what shape the world would be in 100 years from now. If I thought that the free market automatically produces the things people desire, then I would expect the market to come up with viable solutions for dealing with garbage etc. If I thought that the world was going to end with the coming (or the return) of the Messiah shortly, then I wouldn't see the point either."
Larry, this is true, but I do believe that people have a responsibility to take care of the planet for future generations. I hold none of the beliefs you mention above. Although you're correct, if I sincerely believed in the Messiah's coming ( I don't) and if I truly thought the free market would fix everything (nonsense), then I could use both of these as an excuse for inaction. It's tragic that people use these views as an excuse to not conserve and to use resources freely as though we have an infinite amount.
But I would still argue the recycling analogy would be different than kosher. For example, I could show a person a scientific study on why they should recycle and what will happen if people don't and they could look at me and say I don't care the free market will fix it and/or I don't care the Messiah is coming soon anyway. That being said, they still could view tangible results of their inaction. With Kosher, if you presented me with an argument on why I should keep kosher and I turned it down, it's difficult for me to imagine you could produce real, tangible (In this world) consequences that would follow if I choose to never keep kosher.
And on a lighter note, I'm going to have to change my name to "SBW #2", because I seriously need to get back to work, but this conversation is so interesting!
I'm loving it! No time right now to respond to each point, but I definitely will get to it later.
Not to draw you back in, but it is a serious question whether recycling is in fact better for the environment. That question probably has different answers for different items and places – you have to take into account the environmental costs of the recycling trucks, the recycling process itself and so forth. It is actually a difficult problem, especially as it is hard to find an objective study.
This is similar to the electric car issue. Electric cars are a great idea in CA, which has a lot of warm weather and where the power to recharge the cars comes from hydroelectric sources, which are relatively non-polluting. Widespread use of electric cars in the midwest or the Northeast might actually be more polluting than hybrids – the power to charge the cars comes from coal plants, and the low temperatures mean the cars need to be charged more often.
As a general rule, if you want concrete results rather than to feel good yourself or look good to others, it is worth investigating with your head rather than making a gesture with your heart.
Similarly, daylight savings time was supposed to save energy because of less need for electric lights, but in fact, when parts of Indiana finally adopted DST a few years ago, they found that they were using MORE energy because of increased use of air conditioners!
I agree that "tangible results" are still hugely subjective.
Larry, you've drawn me back in! 🙂 I understand what you and Ruchi are saying about subjective results. But let's take something more black and white. For example, I think that almost all mainstream people and doctors would argue that eating healthy, exercising and maintaing a healthy weight are important for your health (of course healthy people can still become ill, but this can generally decrease your chances). These are tangible results. If I lead a healthy lifestyle, my chances of becoming ill generally decrease, but if I lead an unhealthy lifestyle (eat poorly, don't exercise, drink excessively, smoke etc.), the chance that I will become ill increases.
Aside from telling someone that G-d wants them to keep kosher, could you give someone real, tangible benefits that they would gain from keeping Kosher and likewise could you give someone the consequences of not keeping Kosher?
OOTOB Fan, I think you answered your own question above. A tangible immediate benefit of keeping kosher is cultural inclusion in the Jewish community as well as support of Jewish institutions/businesses which other Jews depend on. A tangible cost of not keeping kosher is greater division within the Jewish community. At an individual household level, the cost [of keeping kosher] of alienating non-Jewish/non-ortho family and friends may be greater than the benefit of including ortho family and friends. On an institutional and communal level this should be an important factor.
In my parents' community there is currently a debate about adding non-kosher food options at the Jewish Home for the Aged. While some residents want that option, the end result is that the Orthodox community is being disenfranchised and excluded. I have also seen the difference between communities where Federation policy is that all events must be kosher and communities where Federation does not routinely provide kosher food. In one place all Jews are welcome; in the other, old-fashioned fanatics who keep these crazy laws are not part of their donor base.
Kashrut (and associated laws such as food blessing) raises the mindfulness with which you live your life, It imparts holiness to the physical act of eating. It promotes self discipline as you are often tempted to eat for convenience or conviviality's sake in non-kosher environments. It promotes socializing among other kashrut observant Jews, and thereby strengths your social bonds with them. It is a constant reminder that you have duties to a cause or power higher than yourself. It is a pathway to the study of Jewish law, as you will often have questions as to whether something you just did was permissible, or how to recover if it was not. It will give you a reason to stay in touch with your rabbi or someone else knowledgeable about Jewish law.
Not keeping kosher is like choosing not to have a rigorous program of exercise. Depending on how you live your life (frex if you are a weekend hiker or a couch potato) it might have minimal effect, or can deprive you of the benefits mentioned above. It will be a barrier for you socializing and otherwise integrating with observant Jews – you can eat with them, but not the reverse.
Agree with Miriam's and Larry's thoughts.
Also, OOTOB, "healthy" itself is highly subjective. Some think low-fat dairy and lean poultry and fish are integral to a healthy diet. Others consider them poison.
I am thinking that there could be a potential halachic problem with conversation 2, other than the fact that it might come across as pushy, rude, offensive and ultimately be a turn off to yiddishkeit, all of which pose their own halachic problems, but if someone really is genuinely ignorant of kosher, then up until now their "sin" has been completely unintentional. If a person comes on all strong on someone telling them that everything they're doing is wrong, and trying to educate them, then if they now still don't keep kosher, their "sin" has been transformed from unintentional to intentional which would carry much stronger consequences for the neshama that the initiator of conversation 2 was so set on trying to save.
All in all, I cannot see how this technique could be successful save in a circumstance where someone was almost ready to "go kosher" and just needed a bit of a push and some handholding. But even then, the judgemental tone of "what, you don't keep kosher?" just isn't nice.
Incidentally I know a few people who look at the frum world and the seeming obliviousness to environmental concerns (foam and plastic plates/cups at all social functions, or even every night for dinner as many larger families do, disposable tablecloths, lack of recycling) and they see it often as a reason to be judgmental in the opposite direction in such a way that it all seems to cancel out like "yeah, I don't keep kosher, but I care about healthy food and the environment, yeah, they keep kosher but they don't care about their bodies or the planet so it's all good". Or that because it's easy to find fault with so much of an orthodox lifestyle then they are somehow absolved of any obligation to follow one.
Halachic problem: very interesting. I hadn't thought of that. I agree that the technique is highly flawed in both instances. And as for your final point, I've seen that tactic in many different incarnations. (Well, I don't cover my hair, but at least I don't gossip.) Actually, someone else's flaws are irrelevant to your own personal Jewishness.
Wouldn't the halachic issue depend on whether the person actually accepts your "education"? I'm not sure telling someone that they should keep kosher is enough to turn anything into an "intentional" sin. If the listener has been raised in a non-kosher home and grew up in an environment where no one kept kosher, one tirade about how they're doing everything wrong won't outweigh that. They'll still really believe in the principles they grew up with.
You raise two issues – the laws of rebuke and the principal 'better that they sin unintentionally than that they sin intentionally'. Both are complex topics. I am not a rabbi so this is not halachic advice, merely my understanding.
Rebuke comes in two forms, public and private. Private rebuke is is for the benefit of the person making the mistake. Most sources say that there is no point in administering private rebuke if you think it won't be heard, and some say it is forbidden if you believe it will make the situation worse. Again, the key to private rebuke is that it is for the benefit of the person making the mistake, not to show off your knowledge of the law and to make you feel superior to that person. One should carefully inspect ones motives before giving private rebuke, and if your motivations are unworthy you should let someone else do it.
Public rebuke is most commonly for the benefit of the 'lurkers'. If there is a real chance that someone performing a sin in public would inspire emulation in those around him some sources insist you must publicly rebuke them, even a hundred times, up to the point where they use physical violence against you. Many sources make a distinction between biblical and rabbinic laws in this regard.
My very limited understanding is that the principle 'better they sin unintentionally than intentionally' only applies to rabbinic mitzvahs, not biblical ones. I've never seen this codified, so please place a low degree of reliability in this assertion. I know the most common example of this principle is not telling people an eruv has fallen on shabbat. Carrying in an area that could be bounded by an erev is generally a rabbinic prohibition, not a biblical one, walled cities aside.
This is really interesting Larry. Is this the idea behind the infamous spitters at Beit Shemesh? That the public rebuke is necessary to deter emulators? But the there are other commandments against that sort of thing. I can see how the proliferation of principles and commandments make it hard to adjudicate these things. This is why different posters on this thread see the obligation to inform other Jews of their shortcomings very differently. What is strange to me is that common decency doesn't seem to get factored in.
Perhaps my head is too far into a halachic mindset (my wife certainly thinks so) but I'm not sure what you mean by 'common decency doesn't get factored in'. I have nothing but contempt for the spitters of Beit Shemesh. They have no rabbis on their side who are willing to come out in public and support them – the closest I have seen is rabbis who explain why they are refusing to publicly condemn them.
Do you mean that common decency would suggest that standing outside a schoolyard with picket signs would be a more mentlich (civilized) form of protest than spitting on little girls? If someone is attacking a third party with intent to kill I'm entitled to use for the save the third party up to and including lethal force. But I'm only entitled to use the minimum amount of force necessary to stop them taking into account risks to myself and to the victim. Spitting on 8 year old girls is not a proportionate response to their provocation of dressing like 8 year old girls.
Larry, I share the contempt. I was just trying to understand what would be a Judaism-based 'excuse' for the behavior, since presumably the spitters believed they were doing something good (another reason for my suspicion of zealotry). It seems to me that your explanation of the need for public rebuke could be hijacked by spitter types to support that behavior. And then there would need to be a Torah-based response to people who would agree with that hijacking, in order to persuade them that they were violating Judaism. As opposed to just invoking common decency, which is "don't behave abominably, especially to children".
Based on what I've heard and read, I don't think the spitting in Beit Shemesh had much to do with this. Yes, there are some haredi ("Ultra-Orthodox") Jews who consider it their responsibility to enforce Jewish observance. But they don't hit, spit, or attack in any other way. For the most part, they just annoy people the way pesky salespeople do.
I think the spitting is defensive. You might wonder what they're defending themselves against. After all, children walking peacefully to school are no threat to them. But they don't see it that way. They have little exposure to outside sources of information, and their own sources tell them that the rest of society, including the government, is anti-religious and wants everyone to stop observing Jewish law. They consider every immodestly dressed woman, every car driven through their neighborhoods on Shabbat, to be a deliberate provocation. (Although the school in that particular case is religious, they consider anyone not haredi to be totally secular.) I'm hesitant to even write these things because I have trouble believing that anyone could think something so absurd. But from what I've heard, they really do. (They also believe that their own children's souls are at stake because they might be pulled toward non-haredi ideas and lifestyles.)
Historically, unfortunately, there were indeed serious efforts made in Israel (often successfully) to coerce people (especially children) into abandoning their religious observance. And today one still hears denunciations by secular Israelis of haredi practices that many haredim consider integral to their religion. Therefore these people are fighting tooth and nail to defend their spiritual lives.
SBW, common decency absolutely must get factored in. That's exactly why I couched the religious coercion in an example of other-coercion: to bring out that common decency is sorely lacking in both.
Larry…I'm amused at your comment about your wife 🙂
And finally, DG: I appreciate and admire your response, because it offers a meaningful and nuanced insight into those with whom you (and all of us here) severely disagree. As you can see from the presidential debate reactions tonight, this is a rarity indeed.
SBW there are certainly halachic principles to support 'common decency'. One example is Derech Eretz Kadma LaTorah – the ways of respect precede the Torah. Here's a practical example of how the principle can be applied.
My version of it says 'Mentchlicheit is a prerequisite for frumkeit' (Being a good person is a requirement for being a Jew who is recognized as being an exemplar in living as an observant Jew.) Unfortunately that is either a pious hope or the denotation of the words – in normal usage the 'frum Jew' who is rude is considered a societal reality (and failure).
So when do we get the true answer to question #1?
Well, I'm having so much fun keeping everyone in suspense. Kidding. Coming right up.
There is a natural evolution to having opinions on anything.
Step One: a person becomes convinced that something is right for himself personally.
Step Two: Then a person begins to consider whether the thing which is right for himself is also a universal ethic that applies to others as well.
If he concludes that the ethic applies to more than himself alone, he will begin trying to have an impact on others by trying to convince them to volunteer to accept that ethic or moral choice. Those with tact will do this tactfully. Those without tact will do it their way.
Step Three: At a certain point in every civilization, people might become so convinced about the universality of certain rights and wrongs that they feel it is worth exerting force, physical or political or even military, to get people to live that way.
In America, when it comes to religion, the First Amendment keeps us at Step Two. Hence, Kiruv. And Tact.
In Israel, whose pre-State Ottoman culture was at Step Three, things work differently, which is a big turnoff for anyone from the West who prefer a Step Two Culture. Fortunately, there has been some growth in the Israeli Step Two culture in the past generation, which has led to Lev L'Achim and some other tactful Kiruv thinking.
Oh my goodness. I wish I would have read this before living in Israel for 5 years! It would have been hugely helpful!! Fascinating observation.
I don't think this sequence holds up in many cases. Step two would seem to precede step one in the very cases we are discussing, namely the decision to keep kosher. If I were to decide to keep kosher it would not be because I thought it was "right for me" and then maybe later I would think all Jews should. Rather it would be because I would think it was right for all Jews, and so it is right for me.
The whole point of the Jewish law, I thought from what Ruchi has said, is that it is not about what you think is right for yourself but rather what it means to belong to Jewry. The free will issue that Miriam evokes is not about just 'deciding what you want for yourself' but deciding whether you want to take up the obligations of Judaism. Or?
SBW: I was thinking pretty much what you wrote in your first paragraph. I did start keeping kosher because I thought it was right for Jews and therefore for me. Somehow I can't imagine myself deciding that just because something is right for me personally, it's right for everyone else. (Should you wear blue because it looks good on me? Should you take a pain killer because I have a headache?)
As for your second paragraph, I see Jewish law as what God expects of us as Jews. Free will applies in that He doesn't make us obey the law. Just as we can decide to steal or drive recklessly, we can decide to eat pork.
I understand that the Torah holds that eating kosher is right for all Jews. Yet at the personal level one reaches, this does not matter to everyone who keeps it. I notice many people taking the commitments of Halacha upon themselves because they see it as a good fit in their lives, just as people take on healthy eating, or environmentally conscious living etc. First there is the "Does this fit my life" or "Can this fit my life". But they really don't give much thought to whether they should extend themselves to convincing others of the benefits. It's not necessarily because they have tact or sensitivity. It's because it simply doesn't concern them. Their thinking is a form of "live and let live".
Step Two can last a moment: Is my preference for Blue universal? No. The end. But what if it's a preference for a fashion that is a matter of tradition, like a wig, or a kipa? Then it's a matter of tact, and a process that can take years. In some cases, or with some people, a Step Two Jew might never say anything because the challenge is perceived as too great. We judge that there is no way at all that the person will be receptive to the change I would recommend. Too often, the tactful people stay back, and the tactless people dive in for the sales pitch.
Also, I DIDN'T start keeping kosher because of any of the above reasons. I keep it because I was raised that way, and, as I grew up, learned deeper reasons and fringe benefits. Easily, that could morph into "everyone should do it," or, at least, "I believe that God would like everyone to do it, but there's only so much I can do about that reality."
The problem in both scenarios is that the person speaking has "skipped a step." The speaker's comments are based on the assumption that the listener agrees with the underlying belief: in the first case, that recycling is always better for the environment (questionable, because of how much energy, water, and fuel it takes to run the recycling trucks and plants etc) and in the second, that not keeping kosher will damage a Jew's soul.
A much better approach (second only to keeping one's mouth shut unless asked one's opinion) would be to say, "You don't keep kosher? May I ask why?" And then listen. You might be surprised at people's reasons.
A final (for now) thought: I know many people who keep kosher and many others who don't. Among those who don't, nobody has ever explained their reason to me as "It's just too hard!"
Hey SCJ,
See OOTOB Fan's comment above, where she describes how it was just too hard. And I definitely see and hear that reason among my friends here at home.
I do know a number of people who don't keep kosher because it's too hard, or too expensive. By "too hard" they also mean too hard socially, in terms of how much it would exclude them from a large number of family-and-friend gatherings and events. That's why I have a tremendous amount of respect for those who overcome that hurdle.
I don't know if people would readily admit it, though, because it's embarrassing to say that. Maybe that's what SCJ meant.
That's part of what I meant, yes. When I said "too hard" it was in direct response to "it's not too hard, I'll bring my kashering pot and show you how!" The kashering stage isn't usually the deterrent, and neither is recognizing a reliable hechsher… those were the "hard" things I've never heard anyone reference.
What I often hear is that kosher food is way too expensive; that keeping kosher would severely restrict one's social interactions; that there aren't enough Kosher AND organic/ethical meat and dairy products available and that people have chosen organic/ethical over kosher. I suppose those can all be lumped in as "too hard", but they're not the kind of "hard" that can be helped by a kosher friend coming over with a kashering pot one day. Ultimately, if done "right", keeping kosher can be a major lifestyle shift.
AND THE ANSWER IS….
#1 actually happened, about 5 years ago. To me. With very slight modifications. And when it did, I thought to myself: now how would this person react were I to now turn the tables and ask about kosher in the exact same way? So conversation #2 existed in my imagination only.
Question 2:
I personally couldn't have either conversation, and wouldn't respond well to either. I find the approach distasteful. But I admire the passion, albeit possibly misdirected, of the person who could.
Observation:
My personality is such that I don't offer unsolicited advice. I'm not back-patting; it's just how I am. Maybe sometimes I offer too little, even. So when people give ME unsolicited advice, about anything, my first thought is: if I told this person about a Jewish concept in the exact same way, I'd betcha they'd run for the hills!
What do you guys think? Is there a double standard out there? Is religion just considered so sacred (ha) and personal, that you can't compare the two?
I think your personality and acceptance is part of why you are successful as a kiruv rebbetzin. You are offering people content, they know they can come to you for more when they are ready for the next step, and you aren't shoving it down their throats or judging them for who/where they are.
I don't think there is a double standard particularly related to religion. As someone said above, some people have tact and some don't. Also, I think some people are more aware than others that everyone may not agree with them. Living in SoCal, I continuously meet people who ASSUME everyone shares their politics, their beliefs, their environmentalism, etc. People can be quite bullying about it. When I lived on the east coast there was more of a natural range of opinions.
I think it depends on your relationship. I hate unsolicited advice from people who don't know anything about me or my situation, but if it comes from someone who does know me, it might make me aware of options I never knew about.
Maybe the difference with religion is that it depends so much on the individual's premises. My arguments won't convince you if you don't agree with my premises (e.g., whether God exists, whether He gave us the Torah). With health issues, we're likely to agree on the premises, but even there I'm not convinced that the hard-sell approach is effective or appreciated. Most people probably agree that being 100 pounds overweight is unhealthy, but I for one wouldn't tell someone who weighs that much to go on a diet. I'm sure the person has already thought of it. Unless she raises the subject, I assume she doesn't want my input.
Let's say I have an obese friend who's constantly talking about wanting to lose weight. I won't try to stop her from eating cake, and I'll even offer her dessert at the end of Shabbos dinner because that's expected (unless she just told me that she's trying not to eat desserts). And I probably won't say anything when she takes a second or even third piece of cake, no matter how much I wish she wouldn't. She already knows it's fattening. She doesn't need me to tell her.
So basically, I don't think there's a double standard. If you see that someone you're close to has a problem that you think you can help with, go ahead and gently, hesitantly offer suggestions. They might be appreciated. But if your suggestions are based on premises that the other person doesn't accept or are ideas that they probably thought of themselves, keep them to yourself.
That's my advice 🙂
Both are rude and off-putting. Perhaps where there is an existing friendly relationship, one might conceivably phrase it as "You don't [activity]? Well, honestly, I wish I could change your mind about that, but it's none of my business and I promise not to pester you about it. But if you ever decide to try it out and want any tips about how to get started, feel free to come ask me."
One difference between recycling and keeping kosher is that there are people who have a passionate commitment to not keeping kosher. I'm not one of them, but many who describe themselves as Classical Reform adherents feel this way, actively rejecting the idea rather than simply not bothering to take it on. With recycling, although there are people who can't be bothered, and some who question whether it's as green a pursuit as it claims to be, I don't think I've ever encountered or heard of someone who had a passionate, affirmative commitment to not doing so. Then again, others' mileage may vary.
There are definitely environmental impacts created by recycling, and I'm not qualified to address them comprehensively. Yes, there are transportation and manufacturing processes involved, although they are probably a wash when compared to the transportation and manufacturing impacts of new, say, glass containers. It can't be denied, however, that recycling glass does not require using raw materials in the same quantities that manufacturing virgin glass does, and it's hard to see how it can be argued that this is a deleterious thing for the environment. We might disagree on how much of a benefit it has, but this much is indisputable, as is the fact that creating recycled paper products uses vastly less virgin timber than creating non-recycled ones.
I doubt I would have the gut to say either of these, and though I keep kosher and recycle, I would probably find both offensive. Then again, it depends on the person's relationship to you.
You catch more flies with honey.
Fff, thanks for your comment and welcome to the blog 🙂