I've mentioned before that when I was growing up there were basically three designations for religious observance: frum, chasidish, not frum. Somehow we all understood what these labels actually stood for. Well, Klal grew and so did the number of labels that are used to describe types of religious observance. I've been asked if there really are so many different labels. I'm asking you to help in putting together a listing of today's labels/designations for observance. Let's see them all in black and white.
I'm starting off the list with the offerings below. As you give me other designations I'll add them to the list.
MO--modern orthodox
LWMO--left wing modern orthodox
RWMO--right wing modern orthodox
CO--centrist orthodox
MOM--modern orthodox machmir
O--orthodox
C--conservative
R--reform
F--frum
YUMO--Yeshiva University modern orthodox
Y--Yekke
T--traditional
C--chareidi
CL--chareidi light
Y--yeshivish
L-litvish
C--chasidishe
YI--Young Israel type
BA--Bnai Akiva type
FFB--frum from birth
BT--baal teshuvah
BTFB--born into baal teshuva family and frum from birth
H--heimishe
OOTF--out of town frum
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Consumer Recall--Kelloggs
For those who use Kelloggs' cereals, please go to the link below for some information on the recall of some of those cereals.
http://www.kashrutnews.com/2010/06/recall-kelloggs-corn-pops-honey-smacks.html
http://www.kashrutnews.com/2010/06/recall-kelloggs-corn-pops-honey-smacks.html
The cost of Shaimos
We've been going through books and seforim trying to weed out those that need to leave. We have thousands of volumes in the house and there is no way we are going to take all of them with us when we move. Besides, even for the time we are still here, the shelves are more than overflowing and some culling is necessary.
We ended up with three boxes of shaimos. About one carton's worth of the books were still in good condition and useable, and we found a place to give them to. The other two boxes are not useable by anyone and have to go to shaimos. And we've discovered just how much that is going to cost and are floored. One organization quoted us $5 per sefer in the boxes. Oh yeah, and they considered those bentchers you get at weddings as one sefer. 33 bentchers equals $165?! Another place gave us a "bargain" rate and would only charge $50 per box no matter how many seforim are in the box.
When we were in the process of making over our backyard we buried our shaimos ourselves. Unfortunately there's no place to dig up right now, certainly not for two boxes worth of seforim. So, anyone have an idea of where we can take these boxes that won't cost $100 at a minimum? Are there any other options regarding shaimos?
Posting Addition: For a discussion of what shaimos is and how it should be removed, see http://www.shaimos.org/guidelines.htm According to what I read on the site, articles discussing Torah that are printed in the various English language newspapers should be cut out of the newspapers before you dispose of them, and these articles are also considered as shaimos. Remind me that I'm not buying any of these newspapers any more.
We ended up with three boxes of shaimos. About one carton's worth of the books were still in good condition and useable, and we found a place to give them to. The other two boxes are not useable by anyone and have to go to shaimos. And we've discovered just how much that is going to cost and are floored. One organization quoted us $5 per sefer in the boxes. Oh yeah, and they considered those bentchers you get at weddings as one sefer. 33 bentchers equals $165?! Another place gave us a "bargain" rate and would only charge $50 per box no matter how many seforim are in the box.
When we were in the process of making over our backyard we buried our shaimos ourselves. Unfortunately there's no place to dig up right now, certainly not for two boxes worth of seforim. So, anyone have an idea of where we can take these boxes that won't cost $100 at a minimum? Are there any other options regarding shaimos?
Posting Addition: For a discussion of what shaimos is and how it should be removed, see http://www.shaimos.org/guidelines.htm According to what I read on the site, articles discussing Torah that are printed in the various English language newspapers should be cut out of the newspapers before you dispose of them, and these articles are also considered as shaimos. Remind me that I'm not buying any of these newspapers any more.
Monday, June 28, 2010
And Then Along Comes Nature
I imagine that early mankind was a lot more fearful than modern mankind is. There they were in a huge world, surrounded by a natural world that was mostly unknown and more than occasionally frightening. At first food was available only if nature cooperated. You can't eat berries if they don't grow in the winter. You can't eat bread until you have figured out how to grow, harvest and store wheat and grains. You're going to get wet and cold and wet and hot until you figure out the ins and outs of building shelters.
Modern mankind has progressed far beyond anything our ancestors were capable of even dreaming of. Our discoveries and inventions allow us to do anything we want to do. In humankind's mind, we have mastered the world we live in. Uh huh.
Which is why on June 23, 2010, Twitter was burning up the lines with reports about an earthquake extending from north of Toronto into the NJ/NYC area. And then some of the blogs began reporting as well. The reports poured in about buildings shaking, about items moving and falling, about a world gone a bit topsy-turvy, at least in our thinking. There were a few people who questioned why, in this age of scientific know-how and superiority, we didn't have better earthquake prediction equipment, why we didn't have a way to control those quakes; their assumption was that we can control nature, so why aren't we doing so.
Just to set the record straight, thinking that we can control nature is a huge mistake. We are mislead by some of what we have been able to do. We've learned to build dikes to hold back water in low lying areas, and they work except when they don't work. We've learned to control the flow of our rivers and waterways, except when we can't. We've learned to cool ourselves in the summer and provide heat in the winter, except when a stray bolt of lightening or a winter storm arrives and knocks out our power systems.
How arrogant of mankind to believe that we are far above nature. We may have been given the earth for our use, but make no mistake that God is still in charge--the ways of Nature are His to decide, not ours. Let us heed the lesson of that earthquake well: we only think we are in charge of the world--the evidence doesn't bear out those thoughts.
It always puzzled me that we have brochas to say when seeing lightening and hearing thunder but none to say for going through things like earthquakes and tornadoes and hurricanes (other than, perhaps, bentching gomel). When I've had experience of some these natural occurrences I always say a heartfelt "Thank you God for keeping me safe." God offers us periodic examples to let us know that we may be god-like in our minds, but the reality is that we are still humans and God still runs the world.
Modern mankind has progressed far beyond anything our ancestors were capable of even dreaming of. Our discoveries and inventions allow us to do anything we want to do. In humankind's mind, we have mastered the world we live in. Uh huh.
Which is why on June 23, 2010, Twitter was burning up the lines with reports about an earthquake extending from north of Toronto into the NJ/NYC area. And then some of the blogs began reporting as well. The reports poured in about buildings shaking, about items moving and falling, about a world gone a bit topsy-turvy, at least in our thinking. There were a few people who questioned why, in this age of scientific know-how and superiority, we didn't have better earthquake prediction equipment, why we didn't have a way to control those quakes; their assumption was that we can control nature, so why aren't we doing so.
Just to set the record straight, thinking that we can control nature is a huge mistake. We are mislead by some of what we have been able to do. We've learned to build dikes to hold back water in low lying areas, and they work except when they don't work. We've learned to control the flow of our rivers and waterways, except when we can't. We've learned to cool ourselves in the summer and provide heat in the winter, except when a stray bolt of lightening or a winter storm arrives and knocks out our power systems.
How arrogant of mankind to believe that we are far above nature. We may have been given the earth for our use, but make no mistake that God is still in charge--the ways of Nature are His to decide, not ours. Let us heed the lesson of that earthquake well: we only think we are in charge of the world--the evidence doesn't bear out those thoughts.
It always puzzled me that we have brochas to say when seeing lightening and hearing thunder but none to say for going through things like earthquakes and tornadoes and hurricanes (other than, perhaps, bentching gomel). When I've had experience of some these natural occurrences I always say a heartfelt "Thank you God for keeping me safe." God offers us periodic examples to let us know that we may be god-like in our minds, but the reality is that we are still humans and God still runs the world.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Arrrrrrgggggghh!
I like to believe that I assimilated all those lessons on politeness that my mom gave me over the years. I like to believe that I have a goodly measure of self control when faced with awkward or temperature-raising situations. And then I get into a situation that has me seeing red and it's a real struggle to maintain my equanamity.
In addition to teaching I also do freelance editing/writing work. I had a meeting with a possible client about giving a short series of workshops on the basics of business communication. I knew ahead of time that the person I was meeting with was frum and that the firm's employees are also frum. I spent some long minutes staring into the contents of my closet in deciding what to wear to this business meeting. Obviously "business" dress was going to be required but whose notion of business dress? The weather wasn't making things any easier for me--it was hot, mega humid and with storms expected. In no way, shape or form was I going to get into a black suit and a full sheitle, although I suspected that was what the female employees would be wearing, or some variation thereof.
In the end I settled on hose, and a very nice two-piece long-skirted outfit in the colors of teal blue, raspberry and white. Yeah, I know guys, your eyeballs are turning up in your head. Bear with me. Instead of a sheitle I opted for a hat, which is way less heat inducing than a full sheitle. Yes, the hat was not just a baseball type of cap but a "real" hat. Yes mom, I remembered the lipstick if nothing else.
During my meeting with the client I could see him look very puzzled. Finally he told me that I was something of a puzzle to him. And then he said the words I reallllly hate to hear: "What are you?" I bit my tongue on the words "I'm female" because I so knew that was not what he was asking. He had been told by the person who recommended my that I'm frum and it was obvious that he was having some troubles putting that "frum" together with the way I was attired. What he wanted to know was what kind of frum am I.
I had already figured out this this person was 1)not going to hire me based on the money being charged for the seminars, 2)was not going to hire me based on how many more hours were going to be needed to "give them some English" as the interviewer mentioned about the employees, and 3)it had now become obvious that I wasn't going to get hired because I visually represented the "wrong" branch of observance.
I packed up my materials preparing to leave, but I did warn the interviewer that he had wandered into illegal territory with his question, that asking about religion was an EEOC violation. When his eyebrows formed a questionmark, I realized he had no idea what the EEOC was. No, I'm not filing an EEOC complaint. It was my choice not to take this job and I'm not looking to punish anyone. But somewhere down the road this company, and others like it, are looking at real problems unless they get their heads out of the ground they are buried in and become familiar with workplace practices and regulations that the government approves and disapproves of. Strangely enough, or perhaps not so strangely, those seminars I might have given to this company would have covered the basics of what an interviewer can and cannot ask at a job interview.
Their loss, in more ways than one.
In addition to teaching I also do freelance editing/writing work. I had a meeting with a possible client about giving a short series of workshops on the basics of business communication. I knew ahead of time that the person I was meeting with was frum and that the firm's employees are also frum. I spent some long minutes staring into the contents of my closet in deciding what to wear to this business meeting. Obviously "business" dress was going to be required but whose notion of business dress? The weather wasn't making things any easier for me--it was hot, mega humid and with storms expected. In no way, shape or form was I going to get into a black suit and a full sheitle, although I suspected that was what the female employees would be wearing, or some variation thereof.
In the end I settled on hose, and a very nice two-piece long-skirted outfit in the colors of teal blue, raspberry and white. Yeah, I know guys, your eyeballs are turning up in your head. Bear with me. Instead of a sheitle I opted for a hat, which is way less heat inducing than a full sheitle. Yes, the hat was not just a baseball type of cap but a "real" hat. Yes mom, I remembered the lipstick if nothing else.
During my meeting with the client I could see him look very puzzled. Finally he told me that I was something of a puzzle to him. And then he said the words I reallllly hate to hear: "What are you?" I bit my tongue on the words "I'm female" because I so knew that was not what he was asking. He had been told by the person who recommended my that I'm frum and it was obvious that he was having some troubles putting that "frum" together with the way I was attired. What he wanted to know was what kind of frum am I.
I had already figured out this this person was 1)not going to hire me based on the money being charged for the seminars, 2)was not going to hire me based on how many more hours were going to be needed to "give them some English" as the interviewer mentioned about the employees, and 3)it had now become obvious that I wasn't going to get hired because I visually represented the "wrong" branch of observance.
I packed up my materials preparing to leave, but I did warn the interviewer that he had wandered into illegal territory with his question, that asking about religion was an EEOC violation. When his eyebrows formed a questionmark, I realized he had no idea what the EEOC was. No, I'm not filing an EEOC complaint. It was my choice not to take this job and I'm not looking to punish anyone. But somewhere down the road this company, and others like it, are looking at real problems unless they get their heads out of the ground they are buried in and become familiar with workplace practices and regulations that the government approves and disapproves of. Strangely enough, or perhaps not so strangely, those seminars I might have given to this company would have covered the basics of what an interviewer can and cannot ask at a job interview.
Their loss, in more ways than one.
Friday, June 25, 2010
In the Swim of Things
Thanks to my offspring for sending me the following link. http://www.aquamodesta.net/
Someone has come up with a line of "super modest" (you decide after you view them) bathing suits for frum women, including pregnant women. You know, bathing suits with 3/4 sleeves, long skirts etc.. I won't mention the uber bright colors on some of those suits, or the form fitting material. I won't mention how those suits, being so completely different from other bathing suits out there, are going to draw the eye of everyone in the vicinity. I won't talk about how everyone in the vicinity is going to be talking about the wearer. I will mention that the designer's intent, as she states it on her site, is that frum women can now go to a beach, lake, pool, or water park and enjoy the water while being tsniusdikly dressed. We are talking public beaches here, open to everyone. So Rochel is going to be wearing her tsnius bathing suit and everyone else she sees will be wearing just what?! Last I noticed those for whom this type of bathing suit would appeal aren't the type to be on a public beach or in a mixed swimming pool or dipping into a lake or using the swim facilities at a water park.
Oh yes, these bathing suits are also available for children. Perhaps one of my favorites is the suit made to look like denim. This is a denim-look bathing suit for people who won't wear denim skirts because they aren't "frum" enough? Yup, Klal has it all--we go from the sublime to the ridiculous in the blink of an eye.
Note: If you want to see the circle turning on bathing suit styles for women, go to http://www.victoriana.com/library/Beach/FashionableBathingSuits.htm
Someone has come up with a line of "super modest" (you decide after you view them) bathing suits for frum women, including pregnant women. You know, bathing suits with 3/4 sleeves, long skirts etc.. I won't mention the uber bright colors on some of those suits, or the form fitting material. I won't mention how those suits, being so completely different from other bathing suits out there, are going to draw the eye of everyone in the vicinity. I won't talk about how everyone in the vicinity is going to be talking about the wearer. I will mention that the designer's intent, as she states it on her site, is that frum women can now go to a beach, lake, pool, or water park and enjoy the water while being tsniusdikly dressed. We are talking public beaches here, open to everyone. So Rochel is going to be wearing her tsnius bathing suit and everyone else she sees will be wearing just what?! Last I noticed those for whom this type of bathing suit would appeal aren't the type to be on a public beach or in a mixed swimming pool or dipping into a lake or using the swim facilities at a water park.
Oh yes, these bathing suits are also available for children. Perhaps one of my favorites is the suit made to look like denim. This is a denim-look bathing suit for people who won't wear denim skirts because they aren't "frum" enough? Yup, Klal has it all--we go from the sublime to the ridiculous in the blink of an eye.
Note: If you want to see the circle turning on bathing suit styles for women, go to http://www.victoriana.com/library/Beach/FashionableBathingSuits.htm
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Cite It Correctly!
As a professor of English, one of the things that I teach is accurate/correct citation methodology. Yes, my department is very makpid that ANY material that is not 100% solely the ideas and writing of a student be cited as to source. It is not only directly quoted material that must be cited: paraphrases are also required to be cited as to original source.
What I teach is 100% congruent with Jewish philosophy. We are taught that we must give credit to the source of any ideas or information about which we are writing/speaking. We don't hide behind a nebulous "they" but name names. Just peruse our writings and see the multiple examples that begin "In the name of ______ it is said" or "_______said," or _____ and ____ said."
Why this posting now? There is apparently a bit of a brouhaha about a letter printed in one of the Anglo-Jewish papers. The writer states that he conferred with daas Torah, that he conferred with gedolei Yisroel, and that the people he conferred with are 100% in agreement with him. He states that the rabbanim of the area in question are also all in agreement with his position. What he doesn't do is name names. This leaves the reader of the letter with some problems. If a gadol, if a rabbi is in 100% agreement then why aren't the names of these gedolim and rabbanim stated? Surely an argument would get stronger when respected names are listed as being of the same opinion as the letter writer? You can't offer as support for your position that others also hold that position without naming who these people are. There is no way to verify what the truth is without some black and white facts.
Were a scientist employed by a known research laboratory to offer up a statement that X is absolutely not the correct approach/view about phenomenon Y, and were that scientist to offer up as corroboration the statement "I have conferred with known greats in this field and with others who are also researchers and they support my opinion," he/she would be the laughingstock of the scientific world if no names were mentioned. What scientists and what are their credentials? Un-named scientists just don't make it as expert opinion.
So, why do we accept less in areas that affect us as observant Jews? Daas Torah says? Do we have only one learned person in all of Klal? Is there only one posek whose word is taken above all others? According to whom? It is poorly crafted writing/argument to leave out the names of those who supposedly have given their imprimature to an idea. Who is that masked man behind the mask of "Daas Torah"?
What I teach is 100% congruent with Jewish philosophy. We are taught that we must give credit to the source of any ideas or information about which we are writing/speaking. We don't hide behind a nebulous "they" but name names. Just peruse our writings and see the multiple examples that begin "In the name of ______ it is said" or "_______said," or _____ and ____ said."
Why this posting now? There is apparently a bit of a brouhaha about a letter printed in one of the Anglo-Jewish papers. The writer states that he conferred with daas Torah, that he conferred with gedolei Yisroel, and that the people he conferred with are 100% in agreement with him. He states that the rabbanim of the area in question are also all in agreement with his position. What he doesn't do is name names. This leaves the reader of the letter with some problems. If a gadol, if a rabbi is in 100% agreement then why aren't the names of these gedolim and rabbanim stated? Surely an argument would get stronger when respected names are listed as being of the same opinion as the letter writer? You can't offer as support for your position that others also hold that position without naming who these people are. There is no way to verify what the truth is without some black and white facts.
Were a scientist employed by a known research laboratory to offer up a statement that X is absolutely not the correct approach/view about phenomenon Y, and were that scientist to offer up as corroboration the statement "I have conferred with known greats in this field and with others who are also researchers and they support my opinion," he/she would be the laughingstock of the scientific world if no names were mentioned. What scientists and what are their credentials? Un-named scientists just don't make it as expert opinion.
So, why do we accept less in areas that affect us as observant Jews? Daas Torah says? Do we have only one learned person in all of Klal? Is there only one posek whose word is taken above all others? According to whom? It is poorly crafted writing/argument to leave out the names of those who supposedly have given their imprimature to an idea. Who is that masked man behind the mask of "Daas Torah"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)