« Reverse Battleship | Main | Funny you should ask... »
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Nothing Specific...
Here are a few things that were on my mind when I sat down at the computer this morning:
1. What did he/she mean by that?
English graffiti spotted yesterday in Tel Aviv:
"KNOW HOPE"
Since seeing this spray-painted message on the wall of a building not far from Azrieli Center, I have been wondering if the spelling of the first word was accidental or deliberate.
2. 'Carnival of the Cookie Jars'
The comments (both online and off) to the post about our cookie jar gave me an idea. Provided I get enough responses, this week's Photo Friday will feature YOUR photos. Everyone is invited to email me a digital photo of your family's cookie jar (treppenwitz AT gmail DOT com). Feel free to include any background info and/or your rules about when and by whom the cookie jar can be accessed.
3. Relativity
I deleted a comment that was submitted on my post about having lunch with Lisa before I'd really thought about it. Without revealing the author I will re-post it here:
"Zahava, Be there next time. I'm sure you trust David but this is a loose woman he's hanging out with."
This comment was so far out of bounds that I instinctively hit the delete key before I'd considered what might be behind it. No, I'm not trying to find a way to make such a deliberately hurtful statement acceptable... I just found it interesting how relative (yes, I'm taking about moral relativism... get over it!) things are from community to community.
For instance, my wife dresses very modestly (by our community's standards), and we are raising our children to understand that issues such as modesty and premarital intimacy should not to be treated lightly. Yet many Haredim (ultra-orthodox) communities would see that my wife doesn't cover every strand of hair or wear opaque stockings all the time and make a snap judgment that she is a shameless hussy. My point is that just about everyone is morally 'loose' in the eyes of someone else.
If you can't help yourself from thinking the thought... at least try to keep it from coming out of you mouth (or being transmitted through your fingers onto the computer keyboard). A little self-editing is all I ask.
4. JIB (Jewish & Israeli Blog) Awards
It's that time of year again (where did the time go?). IsraellyCool and the Jerusalem Post are behind this year's effort and the first round of voting is going on now.
I had intended to write a bit about my favorites in some of the categories but there are far too many wonderful new and veteran sites to possibly do them all justice. Go here and discover some wonderful new points of view.
By the way, at the risk of sounding presumptuous, if you happen to find yourself in the 'Best Life in Israel' (group 'B') or 'Best Post' (group 'B') categories, and you notice a familiar name (wink wink, nudge nudge), I'd be deeply honored to receive your vote (you can vote only once every three days).
BTW, thank you to whichever kind soul(s) nominated me for these awards.
Posted by David Bogner on January 11, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c581e53ef00e5503e9d4f8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Nothing Specific...:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
If I don't have a cookie jar, can I send a photo of something else? :-) I hate feeling left out.. may have to buy cookie jar this evening...
Posted by: nrg | Jan 11, 2006 2:08:19 PM
re your comment I don't think many in the charedi world at all would see her as a 'shameless' hussy.
Most wouldn't think negatively at all.
If halachikally there is a problem, most would assume the person doesn't know the halacha well or isn't motivated.
Your comment was a judgemental and unfair characterization of the charedi world, just adding fuel to the fire. And to think that you were the one giving mussar about self-editing!
Posted by: yank | Jan 11, 2006 3:09:18 PM
nrg... No need to go making a purchase on my account. But if you were going to get one anyway... :-)
yank... I'll admit that I was a bit over the top with this example, but please note that I said 'many' and not 'all'. But when you say "Most wouldn't think negatively at all" I have to wonder how you can then go on to say something quite negative and judgemental. When you say that someone would look at a woman such as my wife who is covering some, but not all of her hair and automatically assume she "doesn't know the halacha well or isn't motivated", you have confirmed my thesis of how we judge each other - often unfairly - based on relativism. My wife was routinely treated differently (worse) than the shaitle-wearing crowd when she used to shop in Boro Park, and I know enough Yiddish to understand the word 'shmutzedik' when it is directed in a whisper in the direction of a woman wearing a hat or beret rather than a wig.
Posted by: treppenwitz | Jan 11, 2006 3:21:58 PM
You know this is only my second time on the blog and it was recommended by a friend but already I'm disappointed.
You quoted my "most would not think negatively" and then skipped the central
"If there is a halakhic problem"
and went straight to 'most would assume that she doesn't know the halacha or isn't motivated..'
There are halachos involved here. Varying parameters but halachos nonetheless.
Take a parallel. When I see a woman with no hair covering whatsoever who tells me that she is Shomer Shabbos, I assume that she doesn't know the halachos or has not been given the right education in order to motivated to keep them. That is not unfair - it is judging favorably.
Your editing is worthy of the New York Times.
I don't know what happened in Boro Park and don't know or care how much hair of your wife's is covered.
You wrongly took a stab at a group of Jews, falling into stereotypes all the way and then stepped in more muck instead of just saying sorry and backing off.
Posted by: yank | Jan 11, 2006 3:44:32 PM
It would be more hopeful, of course, if the writer had intended to write "Know Peace", but I kind of like thinking of it as someone who intended "No peace" and left the opposite for passerby to ponder.
I love the carnival of the cookie jars idea. I trust we will get a glimpse of your own "big, gaudy" cookie jar?
As someone who has been on both sides of the Charedi lens, I can attest that what you say regarding tzniut is true for the most part. But "many" is a good qualifier.
Not a big fan of the JIB Awards voting process (though I do appreciate the exposure they provide to many blogs) - it's kind of a farce, but I am a big Treppenwitz fan...so I may just have to vote anyway...
Posted by: mcaryeh | Jan 11, 2006 3:57:12 PM
Mcaryeh... Yes, I will gladly share a picture of our cookie jar. Just so we're clear... I meant 'gaudy' in the best possible way. :-)
Yank... I'm sorry to not have lived up to my billing. It's a big old Internet out there... please don't let me hold you back. I don't think there is much chance for a meeting of the minds if you don't see how the portions of your comment I quoted might be construed as judgemental. I agree, there are halachot involved, but I assure you my wife spent many hours learning the laws of kisui rosh with a very knowledgeable woman before we got married. There are many different sources for this particular halachah and quite a few conflicting opinions as to the reason hair is covered, where it should be covered and how much should be covered. For you to take a look at a woman and "assume that she doesn't know the halachos or has not been given the right education" sounds a lot like you feel there is only one correct way of following this law; the one to which you adhere. This is moral relativism. I am not attacking anyone... simply stating facts for which you have been kind enough to supply living, breathing examples.
Posted by: treppenwitz | Jan 11, 2006 4:03:22 PM
again you skipped the all important phrase if there is a halakhic problem.
I didn't say there was. I don't really care. Maybe there isn't. Maybe it is grey zone.
I was clearly discussing one theoretical case: I just said that if there is one, people would assume the person doesn't know the halacha etc yada yada.
what is the point in commenting if you only read the parts that fit into your worldview.
On to the NYT
Posted by: yank | Jan 11, 2006 4:13:32 PM
Yank... you are missing the entire point. Whether or not there is a halachic problem is, by itself, a judgement call. Let's take your example in its entirety so there is no question of cherry picking: "When I see a woman with no hair covering whatsoever who tells me that she is Shomer Shabbos, I assume that she doesn't know the halachos or has not been given the right education in order to motivated to keep them." OK, with that statement you have completely discounted the possibility that a) it might be a very realistic wig; b) she might hold by the halachic opinion that covering hair is only necessary 'in the shuk' and you saw her standing in front of her house. There is even the possibility that she is following the example of devout women such as Rav Solevetchik's wife who never publicly explained why she didn't cover her hair. My point is that we all tend to look at others and judge them according to our own reality. I should also point out that I have not insulted you in any way yet in every one of your comments you have found a way to take a stab at me.
Posted by: treppenwitz | Jan 11, 2006 4:37:39 PM
was hoping this would end but
I didn't miss the point
a) in your original post you attacked the charedi world.
in your response to me telling you so, you said I was being negative and judgemental.
You don't think that is insulting?
chutzpah!
b) in my example it wasn't a wig or a possibility of one (sometimes as in short hair, it is clearly obvious); it wasn't in the house or private domain, it was in a shuk; The Rav was on record many times as saying that halachically a woman needs to cover her hair. When asked why he didn't divorce her like the gemara mentions, he said clearly that the gemara says you can but doesn't say you need to divorce such a wife.
Is it so hard for you to find a case where THERE IS A HALAKHIC PROBLEM?
You clearly like pointing out weaknesses in other communities...why not admit to some in your own?
As we learn from the Chafetz Chaim, Judging favorably doesn't mean that the person is ALWAYS acting within the bounds of halacha. Often it means that the error is just that, an error. Like we all make.
Posted by: yank | Jan 11, 2006 4:49:30 PM
Yank... The only chutzpah I see here is a newcomer to treppenwitz lecturing the site owner (me) without listening to any of the conciliatory things I have said. Clearly you have an agenda based on your statements, the best being your last one, "You clearly like pointing out weaknesses in other communities...why not admit to some in your own?" It pretty much comes down to that doesn't it? You may feel you represent a particular community... and you may even feel the need to defend it, but I don't. That you feel free to suggest that 'my community' has weaknesses is in, and of itself, a clear case of someone judging another based on their perspective. I'm being nice here and giving you fair warning. If you continue to escalate this I will have to ask you to keep your promise and abandon treppenwitz for the NYT.
Posted by: treppenwitz | Jan 11, 2006 5:05:19 PM
So Trep, back to the Cookie Jar idea - I Love it.
But as you are now aware, there is no cookie jar in our house, since the cookies would never stay in it long enough! : )
Hey my daughter is selling girl scout cookies...anyone interested?
Posted by: jaime | Jan 11, 2006 5:11:38 PM
show the entire conversation to neutral observers.
See if you were insulting or conciliatory.
I'm open to criticism of myself and my community you clearly only like criticizing others.
you initially admitted to going over the line but then had to attack again.
If you don't like people disagreeing and correcting you, have a nice life
bye
Posted by: yank | Jan 11, 2006 5:13:59 PM
So much to say... [sigh].... so little time....
Mmmnkay. Let's start with Yank's taking offense at Trep's unusually exaggerated use of poetic-license. HE WAS EXAGGERATING. He was not, G-d forbid, trying to speak ill of the Haredi world, just pointing out every community has their own spectrum to define the range of normal or acceptable. Talk about blowing things out of proprotion and focusing only on a miniscule section!
Next. If there is a halakhic problem. This is, in fact, a very big IF. There are only 2 references in halakha regarding kisoi rosh. Neither gives a specific measurement or a definitive definition. Didya know that?!
One reference states that a woman must cover her head in the market. The other is in Sota and refers to the hair of the accused adultress. The thing of that reference is that the original meaning and usage of the word to describe what was done to the woman's hair has been lost. It is commonly translated today in one of three ways -- 1) they cut her hair, 2) they let down her hair, 3) they uncovered her hair.
The multiple practises in use today are all derived from interpretations of these references. Did you know that in the Aruch Hashulchan, it states that for a Jewish woman living in places where it is not customary for the indigenous population to cover their it may be permissable for her to adopt that custom?
Yank, your comment stating that you would assume a woman without any hair covering lacks the proper education -- does that statement take into consideration that perhaps she obtained a heter al pi the Aruch haShulchan?
Now. On a completely different note. Zahava. Be there next time. Whoa there, Nelly! In addition to being horribly derogatory towards Lisa, which is nasty in-and-of itself, it speaks volumes of your low opinion of my husband and of our relationship.
Does the person who said this mean to infer that Trep is so incapable of controlling even only perceived temptation that he requires round-the-clock supervision?! Or that our relationship is so flimsy that I should be concerned every time he leaves the house without me? The possibilities for offense are endless.
I am trying to have dan l'chaf zchut (benefit of the doubt) that the author didn't fully consider either the words or their very negative implications to both Trep and Lisa.
Which brings us somewhat back to what I think was the essential nature of today's post: thinking about what you say and how you say it.
Posted by: zahava | Jan 11, 2006 5:15:15 PM
Yank... No, I said my comment was "over the top", not 'over the line'. According to the OED (I am looooving my new online subscription) 'over the top' means: To an excessive or exaggerated degree. As Zahava pointed out I was using a deliberate exaggeration to better illustrate my point - a small point in the scope of the entire post. I am sorry you took offense... but then again perhaps it's best that you've already said good-bye. Having a flame war in the comments section of a post about tolerance and measured speech is just too much irony for one blog.
Posted by: treppenwitz | Jan 11, 2006 5:30:02 PM
Uhm...re: "cookie jar". Glad to participate, given I find the time until Thursday :)
Posted by: mademoiselle a. | Jan 11, 2006 5:38:35 PM
Oh. My. Since in writing my response I missed about three exchanges between Yank and Trep, I'd like to further something I started in my previous comment, because Yank, I do think you missed the point.
In the original post, Trep used an over-the-top exaggeration to illustrate the concept of relativity. The intention was NOT to insult the Haredi community. He was not being literal when he used the phrase shameless hussy . He was using what he thought would be an obvious exaggeration to emphasize a point.
When you pointed out how insulting that comment could be to the Haredi world, he admitted it was stronger than he intended, and clarified his intentions. In fact, I think that he genuinely regretted having used such a liberal dose of exaggeration.
On the other hand, where he did accuse you of being negative and judgemental was in your assertion that the assumption (whether yours or your community's isn't clear) would be a lack of education or motivation rather than entertaining the possibility that the person subscribed to a different understanding of the halakha.
You are quite right that the Chafetz Chaim teaches that judging favorably does not always mean that the act was halakhic. The Chafetz Chaim also insists that even in a case where it might be inferred that something is derrogatory that it is assur (forbidden) to say it, even if it is true.
Yank, you had every right to take offense at the choice of words used and point out that the same point could have been made differently and without perpetuating unfortunate stereotypes. Your reception would have been warmer, however, if you'd refrained from doing exactly what upset you and followed your own advice as-it-were.
Posted by: zahava | Jan 11, 2006 5:49:22 PM
I think you were right to delete the comment in the first place.
Posted by: westbankmama | Jan 11, 2006 6:11:30 PM
How about that Johnny Damon.
Posted by: Jack | Jan 11, 2006 6:17:26 PM
Oy, this is an exciting blog!
Re: Carnival of Cookie Jars.
Looking forward to see all the submissions, but have none of my own, um, because, well, the cookies *don't live long enough to meet a cookie jar*. LOL!
Relativity.
How is it that I always have the dubious fortune of reading all the comments before they get deleted? Hmm, a thing to ponder onto itself.
The discussion on modesty has been inspirint to me... So I'll probably wind up writing about it separately on my own blog.
JIB: I wonder why so many people have issues with the awards. I think it's a great idea! Then again, I've heard a number of horrible stories about last year's awards (which I SO totally missed!), and I'm wondering what's up with that. This is just an online thing to promote Jewish blogs!
Anyway, I've cast my votes... and now can't wait to see how things turn out. Best of luck! : )
Posted by: Irina | Jan 11, 2006 9:52:49 PM
Is there any chance that the commentor was just kidding?? I mean far be it for me to take to task some1 for making a comment thats deemed waaaaaaaaay too inapropriate, but I could see how some1(prefereably some1 who knows u well) might think it funny to make a comment like that, and I could understand ur taking it the absolutely wrong way and getting mad about it(it's a pretty shady comment and not really a topic that leads to good jokes) But i could see how this might be a misunderstanding.
Posted by: brad | Jan 11, 2006 10:15:57 PM
Oh ... I can't help myself. YOU yourself AND Lisa ... blatantly went out of your way to mention that Zahava ought to be there in your next meeting. Gee. What is one to think about what is going on 'behind the scenes' in these two minds? I won't go into what I think of Lisa's morals (widely discussed on many blogs) cause you'd just delete it anyway.
It WAS a joke. It was mean. I still mean it.
Posted by: Scott | Jan 11, 2006 10:32:10 PM
Time for an off topic joke (my wife's favorite):
A racehorse walks into a bar. The bartender says "Why the long face?"
Posted by: Doctor Bean | Jan 11, 2006 11:21:05 PM
Ummm, Scott... Just a guess here, but I think that the reason that Trep suggested that I join them next time was because he thought I'd [gasp!] actually enjoy her company.
Either that or they are interested in a three-way....
(Just in case folks are inclined to take that last comment literally, IT'S A JOKE! IT'S NOT FUNNY. BUT IT'S STILL A JOKE! )
Posted by: zahava | Jan 11, 2006 11:25:12 PM
Now that's funny Zahava. My 'joke' was 'ornery' or mean but yours was very funny. You'll pay for it but it was funny.
Posted by: Scott | Jan 11, 2006 11:41:33 PM
Gee, who knew a post about Cookie Jars could get so exciting? My goodness! And to think I was going to send you a picture of our cookie jar - I'll have to rethink this - it is glass and therefore see-through. . .
;-)
And yes, THAT WAS A JOKE!!
Posted by: Ezer Knegdo | Jan 12, 2006 12:04:44 AM
You know, it is so interesting how no matter which community of Jews you live in, there are varying degrees of observance. UO thinks MO is not O enough, MO and O think C is faking it, and EVERYONE has it out for RJ. And, to top it off, RJ thinks everyone else is off the deep end. What does that say about us as a people? I think I might have to post about this. Any thought, Z & D?
BTW - your "Daddy Syndrome" post that I found on the JIB website made me laugh so hard I was hiccuping. I forwarded it to my husband who can relate to showering with a toddler (ouch!)!
Posted by: Ezer Knegdo | Jan 12, 2006 12:12:09 AM
mademoiselle a. ... Why am I not surprised that you have a cookie jar? :-) I'll bet it's always full of yummy homemade things.
Westbank mama... I rarely delete comments. This particular commenter seems to get under my skin more than others... partly because he is smart as a whip (and therefore is tough to ignore)... and partly because I don't think he's deliberately being mean, but rather just incapable of holding back.
Jack... Nice segue... that really defused the tension. Thanks. :-)
Irina... The big problem with the time difference is that any offensive comments can sit there in plain sight while I snooze though the Israeli night... and can offend lots of western hemisphere readers before I wake up.
Brad... there is always that chance, but we haven't had the kind of exchanges here that would suggest it was a joke. Also, when making a funny in a comment... especially an off-color one... emoticons are sort of mandatory.
Scott... Just for the record, Zahava and I have been trying to arrange a [platonic] get together for months but Lisa's globe-trotting and hobnobbing with the stars has prevented it so far. I'll take you at your word that it was a joke, but you don't know me or Lisa nearly well enough to expect that we would have found it funny. At least you admit it was mean. Just do me a favor... please count to 10 before sharing any more 'jokes' here, OK?
Doctor Bean... Nicely done. Have you and Jack been taking segue lessons together? :-)
Ezer knegdo... To paraphrase Forest Gump, "blogging is like a bag of party mix... you never know what kind of nuts you're gonna to get". I hope you'll consider sending a shot of your cookie jar anyway. I promise not to look too closely. :-) I like your observations about interdenominational warfare. Just be careful what you post... a topic like that has the potential to offend everyone! Oh, and I'm glad you enjoyed Daddy Syndrome. I'm just getting to the point where I can laugh about it. :-)
Posted by: treppenwitz | Jan 12, 2006 12:24:30 AM
Doesn't someone manage to get offended anyway? Even if you are even-handed and polite (see your comments today!!)? I am certainly NOT saying we shouldn't be carful with our language and tone, but these discussions are important - a productive, if heated exchange of ideas that promotes understanding and moves our people forward is better than not saying anything b/c of a fear of offending. We'll see where it takes me. I read RenReb & Dov Bear - I know where it can go. But the significance of the topic might propell me to undertake the idiotic anyway!
;-)
Lilah Tov to you!
Posted by: Ezer Knegdo | Jan 12, 2006 12:36:09 AM
Stay away from my cookie jar. It is loose. (Seriously, I can't get the seal to work and the kids keep getting in)
Posted by: ralphie | Jan 12, 2006 1:01:07 AM
Aww, I was waiting for a repetition of the "Full Transmit Mode" rant. It is one of my favorites.
And on the topic of silly humor I give you:
A Priest and a Rabbi are riding in a plane. After a while, the Priest turns to the Rabbi and asks, "Is it still a requirement of your faith that you not eat pork?"
The Rabbi responds, "Yes, that is still one of our beliefs."
The Priest then asks, "Have you ever eaten pork?"
To which the Rabbi replies, "Yes, on one occasion I did succumb to temptation and tasted pork."
The Priest nodded in understanding and went on with his reading. A while later, the Rabbi spoke up and asked the Priest, "Father, is it still a requirement of your church that you remain celibate?"
The Priest replied, "Yes, that is still very much a part of our faith."
The Rabbi then asked him, "Father, have you ever fallen to the temptations of the flesh?"
The Priest replied, "Yes Rabbi, on one occasion I was weak and broke with my faith."
The Rabbi nodded understandingly for a moment and then said, "A lot better than pork isn't it?"
Posted by: Jack | Jan 12, 2006 1:33:05 AM
Hey David, what am I, chopped liver? : )
And nobody signed up for the girl scout cookies, C'mon, they're KOSHER!
Posted by: jaime | Jan 12, 2006 2:11:12 AM
Ezer knegdo... Good for you... go for it! I didn't mean to suggest you run and hide. I just wanted you to be prepared for a lot of people to come complaining because your ox gored their sacred cow. I'll look forward to reading the post.
Ralphie... Just a picture, that's all I'm asking for. I promise not to lift the lid. :-)
Jack... An oldie but a goodie. I see we were raised in families with similar senses of humor.
Jamie... At least a portion of my waistline can be directly attributed to consuming Thin Mints and Samoas with no attempt at restraint. Good luck with the cookie sales but keep your little darling away from my door please! :-)
Posted by: treppenwitz | Jan 12, 2006 8:49:37 AM
I'd like to think the grafitti artist had spelt their message correctly, it's quite a thought provoking statement.
Orthodoxy is certianly something that is viewed subjectively, everyone lives their life their way, the important thing is to feel strong in your actions, and to try not to judge.
Good luck with your JIB nominations!
Posted by: ifyouwillit | Jan 12, 2006 10:31:05 AM
Yes, I WANT GIRL SCOUT COOKIES!!!! Can they be sent to norway?? I'll pay big buck for some contraband Samoas or Thin Mints. And isn't there some new caramel thigh-destroying version now too??
Posted by: nrg | Jan 12, 2006 11:17:15 AM
re: "What did he/she mean by that?"
Over here in Seattle there wouldn't be anyone who would miss that reference. It might be related to the bumper sticker: "No Jesus no hope, know Jesus know hope." Over there, however, one can't be sure what they had in mind. At least the grafitti seems relativly positive, whatever they meant by it. Hope for some event there?
Posted by: Observation from Seattle | Jan 12, 2006 12:42:22 PM
NRG - in all seriousness, you can contact the North Atlantic Girl Scouts office which is located in Germany through the military bases at www.norags.com
and they might be selling the cookies overseas.
If that doesn't work, perhaps we can work out something for you. We wouldn't want you to be deprived of these delicious cookies.
Posted by: jaime | Jan 12, 2006 4:21:56 PM
Hey, Speaking of cookie jars, what ever happened to your weight counter - just wondering :)
Posted by: YourNeighbor | Jan 12, 2006 9:30:57 PM
Late to the thread, but I wanted to say this about the commenter and his comment (I'm presuming here that the commenter is a man):
If it was intended as a joke, it was in extremely poor taste. If it wasn't, it says a great deal more about him than it does about you or Lisa.
What I'd like to know is: how are the bees doing in all this rain and cold weather? And how do bees who don't have a friendly Treppenwitz to care for them get through it?
Posted by: Rahel | Jan 13, 2006 6:57:23 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
