On Our Family and Yours (Column 231)
With God’s help
We have reached the end of the columns connected with the Sabbath of the Torah portion Matot. Last Sabbath, a booklet by Rabbi Yigal Levinstein from Eli was attached to the Makor Rishon newspaper, entitled Our Family. At first, when they sent me the booklet, I said I was a bit tired of dealing with the foolish outbursts of some of the rabbis of Eli and all that goes with them in these areas. Even so, I went through the booklet, and to my surprise I saw that I agree with a considerable part of what is written in it (as they say: even a stopped clock…), but precisely because of that I thought it proper to clarify what is chaff and what is grain, and where the land mines are hidden in the arguments presented there. These matters connect somewhat to what I wrote in Column 227, which some understood as though I had expressed there a conservative position regarding relations between men and women and sexual permissiveness. As far as I am concerned, I do not think that is what was written there, but I am willing to accept that this spirit may have blown between the lines of my remarks. Since that is so, I have a double and redoubled obligation to clarify where I stand with respect to the conservative Hardal (Haredi-Religious Zionist) approach.
Point of Departure
At the outset I should clarify my point of departure. As a rule, I am not inclined to accept categorical statements in the name of the "Torah" (usually there is no such thing). Beyond Jewish law, in my view there are almost no such statements, and even if there are, they overlap with natural morality; and if there is a dispute regarding one moral principle or another, I assume each side will be able to lean on the "Torah" in one way or another. Speaking in the name of the Torah is, in the worst case, demagoguery, and in the less bad case, naive things said innocently. In most cases, a person inserts his own positions, or those of his rabbi, or of one tradition or another, into what appears to him to be the "Torah," and then develops the feeling that God is speaking through him.
Needless to say, one can find in our sources all sorts of statements that do not exactly fit the accepted family values on whose behalf our conservatives preach. Beginning with the husband’s rights over his wife and daughters (including the prohibition on a woman leaving the house. See an interesting discussion here), continuing with the law of the beautiful captive woman, and ending with institutions such as concubinage and polygamy. I am not sure one can derive the ideal model from the sources without choosing among them selectively. Again, I would say that in my opinion the ideal model is, for us, formed from various sources (including foreign sources—see again here. Don’t tell Rabbi Levinstein), and only afterward do we choose how to show this from our own sources and explain that "the Torah says" or teaches such and such.
Therefore I prefer to put the cards on the table and say that I support the values of the traditional family because they seem to me worthy and correct. I am entirely in favor of stable, heterosexual, couple-based families (not single individuals and not quintets). I incline toward this approach even if it were not the approach of the "Torah," and even if I am not certain that no other model could work. In this respect I am fairly conservative. On the other hand, I also support people’s rights to live as they see fit, even if, heaven forfend, they do not think like me, or if, in their sins, their sexual inclinations differ from mine.
This does not mean that I favor indifference to everything done around us. There is certainly room for explanation and education, for fighting the preaching and brainwashing of the liberal missionary movement, and perhaps even for guidance through funding and investment (in reasonable measure) in conservative directions. Although I must say that specifically regarding the last point I am quite hesitant (in general, I am not inclined to place the education of citizens in the hands of the state).
A Logical-Methodological Introduction
Let me say at the outset that I agree with most of Rabbi Levinstein’s conclusions, but not with a large part of his arguments. It is very tempting to explain claim X, which is correct, by means of explanation Y, which is mistaken. People do not notice that the argument is faulty because its conclusion seems correct to them.[1] This of course is also related to the distinction I made in Column 52 between derush and pilpul. I explained there that derush is a faulty inference that ends in a correct conclusion, whereas pilpul is a sound inference that leads to an erroneous conclusion. As I will show here, most of Rabbi Levinstein’s remarks fall into the category of derush. He explains phenomena that indeed exist by means of faulty theoretical explanations.
It is very easy not to notice this when the writer uses learned descriptions of general phenomena in the world (history, philosophy, and culture) and ostensibly displays expertise and mastery regarding them. In such a situation, the ordinary reader tends not to notice that these descriptions are sometimes inaccurate, or that at times they do not substantiate the writer’s conclusions.
Now we can turn to the booklet itself.
Postmodernism and Egoism
Under the heading "Characteristics of Western Culture," Rabbi Levinstein prefaces his remarks with a description of the emergence of postmodernism and its consequences. He begins with a description of the modern period, which brought in its wake many positive values and outcomes, and then from it postmodernity was born, shattering all modern values. His main claim is that values create collectivism, since a person acts for values and in their name, and collectivities are formed that are defined by those values. Hence, once values are shattered, selfishness necessarily emerges.
It seems to me that there is an inaccuracy here: from the shattering of values there arises individualism, but not necessarily selfishness. That is really not the same thing. It is important to understand that this is not hair-splitting, but the focus of my critique of his remarks. An individualistic person wants to realize himself, and there is nothing wrong with that. On the contrary, it is a worthy and positive tendency. He does not necessarily do so at the expense of others. An egoist advocates advancing his own interests at the expense of others. Incidentally, I am also far from certain that he is factually correct in claiming that people today are more selfish than they were in previous generations.
His conclusion that this process contributes to the disintegration of social institutions is perhaps correct (see below), but even if so, what causes this is not selfishness but individualism. People do not want to bind themselves with unnecessary chains and prefer a state of maximum freedom. But this is not selfishness, since most of them do not want to harm anyone. They are simply unwilling to pay for existing social institutions in the currency of self-realization.
Under the heading "The Influence of Postmodernism on Family Values," Rabbi Levinstein points to three very fundamental challenges facing a couple when they come to establish a family: the different backgrounds from which they come; the differences in character, inclinations, talents, and interests that exist between any two people; and all this exists all the more so between a man and a woman. To bridge those gaps, the partners must conduct themselves with humility and attentiveness, together with a willingness to give way, and such modes of conduct contradict postmodern selfishness (or individualism). This, he claims, is the root of the crisis of the family institution.
But this is a problematic argument. A willingness to give way will indeed appear less among individualists. But attentiveness and humility actually characterize the postmodern age very strongly. It was precisely the previous age, that of the great ideologies—not to mention religious societies—that had very little attentiveness and willingness to yield, and to a large extent postmodernism appeared as a reaction to all these. In order not to be too cruel, I will only remark briefly that hearing Rabbi Levinstein speak about attentiveness, humility, and willingness to accept other arguments and conceptions is about like hearing a sermon on integrity and making do with little from Bibi, or a call for an uncompromising war on terror from Haneen Zoabi. The rigid conceptions that repeatedly emerge from Rabbi Levinstein’s school with respect to women and the family are the exact opposite of a willingness to listen and understand what is happening around you. Almost all of them reflect severe mental rigidity and dogmatic adherence to rigid, essentialist models that are not open to change.
Rav Kook wrote more than once that in every phenomenon in the world there are positive elements that one can and should learn from and adopt into our midst, but his students from that same school are careful to learn from each and every phenomenon exactly the… same part that suits their collection of dogmas, and to throw out the rest.[2] This is rather disturbingly similar to the pluralism of the "liberal" left.
From here on, Rabbi Levinstein moves to three principles that underlie postmodernism, all three of which, he claims, interfere with the existence of the family institution.
A. Self-Realization versus the Image of God
Here Rabbi Levinstein points out that a man and a woman are not complete each on his or her own, and the couple relationship is meant to create together a more complete whole, and also to complete each of them separately. But from here he leaps, in a way I do not understand, to the image of God, and claims that this conception is necessarily based on the fact that the human being was created in the image of God. I did not really understand how he reached that conclusion. Can an atheist, or even a materialist, not understand that there are advantages and disadvantages in men and women that the creation of a couple can complement? Why is the image of God a condition for this conception? I assume he means the famous midrash of splitting apart (the midrash according to which man and woman were created as one entity and then split from one another, and their pairing is their reconnection). But that is a charming midrash and no more. There is nothing to prevent such a conception from appearing in an entirely secular worldview, including a postmodern one. On the contrary, a person who believes that we were all created in the image of God may very well conclude that we are all identical and that the differences between us are the result of social constructions. And in fact someone who does not believe in creation may infer from this that the differences are innate and cannot be altered. In short, this has nothing to do with the question of belief in creation and in God.
In the next paragraph he sets up the antithesis: he writes that the Western conception is the exact opposite, since according to it every person constitutes an independent and complete unit (?) and therefore has no need for completion by a partner. On the contrary, the partner only interferes with self-realization. This claim seems utterly bizarre to me. Individualism can indeed provide a natural basis for viewing each person as an independent entity (though I see no philosophical obstacle to seeing specifically the couple or the quintet as the social atom), but where does he derive the warped notion that in a postmodern conception this entity is necessarily complete and requires no completion? Are there no basketball teams in a postmodern world? Or does he think basketball teams are composed of five point guards or centers with the same role? Is it not possible that there be human beings with different talents who complement one another? This argument is not even a cute homily. It is simply baseless nonsense. One can of course argue that in postmodern society partners tend to divorce, or see one another as an impediment, but what has that to do with the postmodern idea, or with secularity? Rabbi Levinstein is trying here to explain and not merely describe, and postmodernity is here offered as an explanation for the disintegration of the family. In the terminology I mentioned above, this is mere derush.
The odd transition he makes between postmodernity and secularity is also wholly unjustified. Western modernism was no less secular than postmodernism, and in fact much more so. Yet there, people did hold to truths and did believe in collectivity. This is again derush, since the claim that the family is disintegrating in our generation is correct, but the reasoning does not hold water. It seems to me that at the root of his mistake lies an interesting semantic-logical fallacy, which I will now discuss.
Self-realization does indeed interfere with the family institution, though even there not necessarily. People who understand that they need a family for the sake of self-realization may actually strengthen that institution. But, as I will explain immediately, this does not follow from the postmodern idea of the absence of great values.
It seems to me that his argument here is based on transitivity: postmodernity generates individualism and self-realization, and this interferes with the family institution. Therefore, the conclusion follows: postmodernism disintegrates the family institution. But on second thought it is fairly easy to see that this is only apparent transitivity. The term ‘individualism’ appears in this argument in two different senses: the individualism referred to in the first premise, the product of postmodernism (or its basis), is the opposite of collective values and ideas such as socialism, fascism, and nationalism (that is, grounding society in a smaller unit, not necessarily a lone individual). By contrast, the individualism that appears in the second premise, the one that disintegrates the family, is the opposite of the family collective (that is, the lone individual person). As I already mentioned, in principle postmodernity could also lead people to strengthen the family institution as the individual unit from which society is built. A person may think that the family is the unit that serves his self-realization and not necessarily the isolated individual. Again, one can argue that in practice this is not what happens, but the theoretical explanation proposed here for that claim fails on the logical level. Therefore this too is mere derush.
Moreover, his assumption that if a person wants to realize himself this leads to the dissolution of the family contradicts his claim that the person is lacking and can complete himself only through building a couple-unit. For if the person is indeed lacking, then his full completion can be achieved only through someone who complements him. That is the road to optimal self-realization. If so, the family is actually the way to self-realization, so why does the postmodern person not use it? True, this institution poses difficulties, but an athlete’s training also poses difficulties, and if he wants to realize himself and reach his goals he must meet them. I do not understand why a person who wants to realize himself and encounters the difficulties of family life must necessarily conclude that he should give it up.
One might perhaps argue that people in Western culture do not understand the fact that they have deficiencies and that others can complement them (above I already pointed out the lack of basis for this claim), but then Rabbi Levinstein’s criticism of them is not on the value plane but on the factual plane. The problem is that these people are blind to reality, not that they have distorted and failed values.
B. Permissiveness versus Commitment
Here too, in a section with which I agree for the most part, there is a basic failure: he confuses inclinations with conceptions. One claim is that even if it is important that there be a family in the classical sense, it is still not proper to violate the right of a person who does not want that to live as he wishes. This is a claim about human rights. Another claim is that a person who believes in permissiveness does not want a family. This is a value claim (and in fact an empirical claim about permissive people). It seems to me that the heart of postmodernity is the first claim, not the second. A postmodern person may certainly be non-permissive and support the family institution, but he will not permit himself to dictate to his fellow, who thinks differently, that fellow’s way of life. Whether he is permissive or not is a personal question. True, on the social plane it is plausible that postmodernity will indeed give rise to permissiveness. If one does not place restraints on people’s desires, a permissive society naturally emerges. Even so, the distinction between the two claims is important for our purposes. As I explained above, I support the traditional family model (what he calls here "commitment." I even wrote about this in an article in the book "The Family," which has just appeared), but at the same time I also support a person’s right to live according to his own understanding. Therefore I do not accept his criticism of the first claim, even if in practice it leads to permissiveness. Denying people their rights may perhaps lead to a less permissive society, but it itself involves a moral failure, and therefore, even if I oppose permissiveness, I will not necessarily support the violation of rights.
Later in this section he speaks about a mixed society and standards of modesty in relations between men and women that interfere with the existence of the family institution. But here too it is important to distinguish between the causal question and the essential one. Even if a mixed society interferes with the existence of the family institution, that does not necessarily mean that a mixed society is a bad thing. The balance between modesty, on the one hand, and freedom and the opening of channels of advancement for women, on the other, is determined by balancing values. Pointing to problematic results is not enough to support the thesis of a separate society and/or keeping women at home, because such a state is itself morally problematic. To sharpen the point, think of the fact that people’s social lives usually lead to a great deal of gossip. Does Rabbi Levinstein propose that we each live separately so that we do not stumble in the sin of gossip? Traveling by car leads to danger to life. Does Rabbi Levinstein propose avoiding that? Our lives are built on balances among values and interests. The question of degree is important, but it has no unequivocal answer, and the balance is a complex function of values and social norms. A sweeping critique of lack of modesty by way of its consequences (permissiveness) is a faulty argument.
C. Family versus Career
Here Rabbi Levinstein determines that postmodern Western culture has placed material fulfillment at the center, that is, the aspiration for money, career, and social status. Again, in my view this is derush. Since time immemorial, the status of the wealthy has been lofty and exalted. We have mass media that amplify these phenomena, but certainly do not invent or generate them. In every Jewish community throughout history, the wealthy and the career-minded enjoyed high status. The idealization of traditional Jewish society as though values were the main thing there has nothing to stand on. I believe that at the pre-military academy in Eli they indeed value principled and wise people very highly, and wealthy people less so. But that is also true in every value-driven segment of any society whatsoever. When one looks at society as a whole and does not focus specifically on one particular part of it, the phenomena of the status of the wealthy and the powerful are almost universal.
Beyond that, it is indeed true that in our society achievements are highly dominant, but it is not true that this necessarily means money and career. One can build a career in contributing to society, in artistic and cultural creation, in science, and more. Again, there is here a confusion between egoism and individualism.
I think there are quite a few people who very much support Western values and postmodernity and devote considerable effort and money to advancing values they believe in (such as veganism and animal welfare, environmental protection, peace, civil and human rights, and more), and it seems to me that this is done in no lesser measure than value-driven efforts in religious societies (though secular society does have fewer values). In every society there is a value-oriented avant-garde around which wider circles live their lives at different levels of value commitment and value-driven activity. I do not accept the thesis that in religious society this always happens to a much greater degree.
The Differences Between Man and Woman
In the final part of the booklet Rabbi Levinstein turns to the differences between man and woman. Here the sweeping essentialism comes to expression (apropos attentiveness, yielding, and humility) that characterizes the members of his circle. From here on we encounter the usual stock of stereotypes (some of which may contain something), from which Rabbi Levinstein derives sharply defined roles for man and woman, without any willingness to recognize differences between one man and another and between one woman and another. Even if you do not accept that all differences between men and women are social constructions, it is still clear that some of them are the product of such constructions. Beyond that, it is clear that there are women who are suited to masculine roles and possess more masculine inclinations, and vice versa.
And again, beyond the factual question whether these generalizations are correct, and to what extent, there is also the value question: a woman who is not suited to Torah study or to pursuing some career, and nevertheless wants to engage in it. Does the (dubious) fact that she is not suited to it mean that she should not be allowed to realize her wishes and aspirations? This is a value question, not a factual one. What does that have to do with the differences between women and men?
Rabbi Levinstein of course does not refrain from the typical paragraph of qualification that almost always appears in the writings of members of his circle on these subjects. On p. 21 he explains that there are cases in which a woman will succeed in "male" activity or vice versa, but immediately comes the qualification that empties this of content: we are speaking about the "primary calling" of the man and the woman, and from this of course a rigid picture is derived regarding the roles of all women (those who fit and those who do not). Those who do not fit have to pay the price in order to preserve the ideal model (even if it exists only in someone’s fevered mind). Interestingly, unlike in other similar works, in this booklet there is not even a word about women with different character, interests, and abilities; rather, the only claim is that in every woman there is also a little man, but have no fear, this changes nothing because it is not her "primary calling." Again, a small leap and constructive ambiguity whose role is to conceal an annoying logical gap.
In the next paragraph he explains that the division of roles between husband and wife does not indicate a separation of powers. The husband and wife jointly manage a common household, and therefore each of their tasks is not private. In my innocence, I would actually derive from this a more flexible conception, according to which a certain set of tasks must be filled and the division between husband and wife is according to the people involved. There are homes in which specifically the husband is suited to task X and the wife to task Y, and there are homes where the opposite is true. After all, if there is no separation of powers and they are jointly managing a household, why divide the tasks according to a rigid, preordained model rather than according to the circumstances? It is precisely separation of powers that should lead to rigid distinctions of role.
General Critique
This booklet focuses on family values, and therefore one should not expect it to grapple with postmodernism on the normative-philosophical-logical plane. Even so, it is important to understand that description is not explanation. Factually, in a postmodern world the family is indeed disintegrating, but I tried to explain that this is not necessarily a logical result of postmodernism. Reality is something more complex. Moreover, I argued that the fact that postmodernism has one consequence or another does not mean that it is not correct or not justified. Even if we assume that postmodernism is indeed the cause of the breakup of the family institution, and even if we assume that this is bad, the question whether postmodernism is right or not is a different question and should be addressed on its own merits. Without that, this is pragmatism in its worst sense (a confusion between the desirable and the actual).
I have written more than once that in a postmodern world, as in a materialist or atheist world, one cannot really ground the validity of values. But that is a philosophical assertion, or a philosophical attack on postmodernism. On the practical plane, one cannot deny that such societies sometimes conduct themselves in an ethical and principled way (which, as I said, in my view does not differ significantly from conservative societies. And of course there is an inconsistency here). Therefore it is important to distinguish between the theoretical plane and the practical one. Criticism of the postmodern idea belongs to the philosophical sphere, whereas criticism of postmodern culture and conduct in practice belongs to the practical plane. In this booklet Rabbi Levinstein tries to connect the planes, and to explain the conduct on the basis of the philosophy. To the best of my understanding, he fails in this.
[1] At the end of my response to Rabbi Yoel Bin Nun’s article in Akdamot 11, I pointed out that the fact that the conclusion is correct does not necessarily mean that the argument grounding it is correct.
[2] At the beginning of the booklet Rabbi Levinstein points to the advantages and added values of Western culture, and he is careful to say that it contributed equality, science, culture, and the like to the world, but none of this really constitutes a value or idea that he himself takes from there. The wicked gentiles have benefited from Western culture, but we find everything in the Torah. For us everything was perfect from the outset. This is a discourse very characteristic of Rav Kook’s students from the "Kav" camp, who understand their deviation from their teacher’s path, and try to whitewash it with external and empty words of appreciation for the idea they immediately afterward criticize absolutely, as though the children of light were speaking about the children of darkness.
Discussion
In two of your references in the post, you point to Levinstein’s nature in that he does not allow grappling with things that pose difficulties, but rather presents a dogmatic model.
In my opinion, this reflects the dogmatism of military men, and in his case also that of a baal teshuva.
Maybe you’re right, but that is criticism of the person rather than of the matter itself. In my view, that is not important to the discussion.
I’ll note something about the picture that accompanied the booklet: a house is perched over an abyss, tilted and about to fall. Ropes behind it are holding it up and preventing its fall. First, it doesn’t seem to me that if a house is leaning like that, such thin ropes could prevent it from falling, but what do I know. I’m not a physicist. What I do have, though, is somewhat literary eyes (sorry), and with those eyes I look at the house and identify in it the cliché of the “small house with a red roof,” a thoroughly European house, with its red tiles slanted so they can serve as a slide for snow (European snow, of course) so it won’t accumulate on the flat roof. Did Abraham our father live in such a house? King David? Rabbi Judah the Prince? I don’t think so. By the way, just as the common family model of one man and one woman (who merit, etc.) doesn’t fit so well with Jacob’s family or Abraham’s. Or King David’s. In any case, it’s amusing that the booklet that comes out against Western postmodernism uses its very distinctive icon.
Nice.
Indeed. It’s a midrash on the picture that expresses my claim that our models are drawn, at least in part, from outside.
At the evening held at Beit Avi Chai, Ze’ev Biedeil made an interesting claim, about an entire party that was established only in order to argue with (a reality in which people accept) LGBT people. He brought this דווקא as an example of the strengthening of their acceptance.
That seems perfectly obvious to me. The smaller the idea, the harsher and more extreme the reaction to it. Nobody launches a jihad over esoteric ideas.
Thank you for the distinction between egoism and individualism. This is a topic that is common in rabbis’ sermons, and I needed to hear precise definitions. Thank you.
Regarding the logical fallacies – could it be that he is not arguing them on the philosophical level but on the level of social influence? Like philosophy leading to heresy. It’s not that philosophy leads to heresy – it’s that a poor philosopher may think heretical thoughts. But if there is a society that encourages philosophy, there will be people who do it badly, and some of them will arrive at heretical conclusions. Therefore there were rabbis who warned against engaging in philosophy (for example, the Rashba’s ban setting an age restriction for the study of philosophy).
In the same way, not every person is capable of distinguishing between egoism and individualism, and therefore an individualistic education will cause many people to become egoists. And so too regarding the other points mentioned here (I still haven’t read the booklet itself).
A valid comment. It is easier to speak about influences. But it is important to distinguish, because if it is only an influence, then the obvious conclusion is not necessarily a rejection of postmodernism but perhaps corrections and refinements.
Chayota,
Regarding the family model in the Bible, I’ll attach an article by Nir Menussi – https://nirmenussi.com/2019/06/30/monogamy-ideal-in-judaism/amp/
Rabbi Levinstein means that the woman needs to be more humble, more attentive (to her husband). There is no such demand of the man, since in any case that is not his nature. A man can be humble and attentive, but only if he wants to; his male nature is to be arrogant and obtuse toward his wife and toward women in general.
That is Rabbi Levinstein’s Torah in a nutshell, and the rest go and learn.
Glad to help!
And one more small point, both to Rabbi Levinstein and to Rabbi Abraham: the whole thing that threatens the wholeness of the traditional family is not “anti-family-ness,” as perhaps you believe, but rather the non-traditional family. And most non-traditional families דווקא do believe (in their own way) in those same family values (as testified by their struggles for recognition as a family, custody battles over children, etc.). So I would not fear for family values at all.
Hello Karen. I hope you don’t charge and that the diagnosis of what bothers me was done pro bono.
Ah, and by the way, at least in my case you completely missed it.
It seems to me that the picture was “borrowed” from Charlie Chaplin’s film “The Gold Rush.” (Or another one of his films; who can remember after so many years?…).
I agree with most of the things, and I will comment only regarding one point on which we (apparently, if I understood you) disagree.
I do not accept your “right” to live differently, but rather my duty to respect the free choice every person has. But the fact that every person has free choice does not mean that all possibilities are morally equivalent and that I must always respect another person’s free choice. For example (a somewhat extreme one) – every person has the free choice to murder someone who yells at him in a parking lot. But it does not seem to me that I must respect every person’s right to choose this option.
The question, then, is what the boundary of coercion is. It seems there is a social consensus that every person has the free choice to murder, but whoever actualizes it will spend the rest of his days in prison. I have often heard people infer from this that the boundary of coercion is the social consensus. We coerce regarding what there is consensus about, and leave every person his sphere of free choice in areas where there is no consensus (such as: eating carcasses and torn animals, desecrating Shabbat, and the like). I’m not sure this is correct. In every law book of every state we find laws imposing severe criminal sanctions on certain acts that were passed by a narrow majority (sometimes by a single vote). A current example – I am not sure there is a consensus today regarding the criminalization of cannabis consumers. Even so, it seems to me there is a consensus on the rule of law – that is, that the cannabis prohibition must be enforced as long as the existing law remains in force.
Presumably there is much more to elaborate on, except that I have no time. (That is the main reason I do not comment on every column).
Rabbi Michi,
I did not diagnose what bothers you. On the contrary, I gave an interpretation of Rabbi Levinstein’s understatement.
I only made the point that it is too early to eulogize family values. Maybe only the traditional version of the family.
You noted, in passing, throughout the article that you
“that I support traditional family values because they seem worthy and correct to me. I am entirely in favor of stable, heterosexual, couple-based families.”
Maybe I misunderstood that you are concerned about the status of these values nowadays? Because that is what I wanted to clarify. These values are still at peak popularity.
This discussion about family values and their eternity reminds me of a wonderful passage in Yehoshua Sobol’s ‘The Night of the Twentieth.’ The play is about the group, one of the first groups of the Second Aliyah, that founded the various kibbutzim with all the adventures and with voices against the outdated institutionalism of family and couplehood (it is based on real archival material), and there is a marvelous monologue there by one of the protagonists about the power of the couple, which survived history. I was reminded of it both because it is beautiful, and because it confirms the idea that the family unit will not disappear from here so quickly.
Good evening,
In the paragraph “Family versus Career,” you argued that this reality has always existed and that no essential changes have taken place today as compared to the past. Nevertheless, it seems to me that Rabbi Levinstein was justified in claiming that today the division is different from before, and because of this a crack has formed in the family unit. In the past, the division was clear – the man aspired to a career, whereas the woman’s place was in raising the family. So in practice there is no contradiction between the aspirations, and the cooperation is supposed to function smoothly. By contrast, today, when both spouses aspire to self-fulfillment in the sphere of career, the contradiction and the difficulty are created, and the “need” to delay and postpone family life increases.
Beyond that, it is worth noting that at the base of your words and your claims against Rabbi Yigal stands an individualistic assumption that unusually respects the desire and opinion of the individual. By contrast, and perhaps justifiably, at the base of Rabbi Yigal’s words stands the opposite assumption, according to which when we conclude that the welfare of the many is harmed directly or indirectly by the desire or even the welfare of the individual – the individual is set aside for the sake of the many. Therefore, even if we conclude that for a certain woman a “masculine” form of conduct or position is fitting and proper, the damage this may cause to the rest of the “community of women,” at least in his view, is more severe and more important.
This whole campaign was worth it just to see Rabbi Michi defending postmodernism, even if only a little.
With God’s help, 7 Av 5779
Rabbi Yigal Levinstein rightly pointed to a woman’s ability to place her family at the center of her life. All the more so with a man – who is obligated toward his wife not only in “I will support, provide for, and cover [you],” to bring income into the home, but also in “I will honor and sustain [you],” to honor his wife more than himself; and he is also obligated toward his children in the commandment of education and in the commandment of Torah study, “And you shall teach them diligently to your children” – his family should stand at the center of his life, his wife should be the “strength” of his life, and the education of his children should be foremost in his thoughts. Is there any greater “career” and “self-fulfillment” than building a strong Jewish home, a beacon of faith and values, illuminating generation after generation?
With blessings, S. Tz.
You’ve gone completely overboard. Of course one need not respect a person’s right to do harmful things, but one should respect his right to do what he wants if it does not affect others. There is no point dragging legal matters or halakhic ones in here either, because the discussion is principled and moral.
I didn’t understand the claim. Obviously changes have occurred. Where did you see that I said there were no changes in this matter (as far as I remember, I said that only about the status of the wealthy). But that is not a reason to make the sweeping determination that women should always focus on the home. I explained this well in my remarks.
I understand the difference in assumptions. I presented my position, not his. But as I explained, in my opinion his arguments fail (and not only because some of his assumptions are unacceptable to me).
You will not find in my words even a shred of such a defense. I only criticized the arguments Rabbi Levinstein raised. That’s all.
And let us say amen.
They are far from being at peak popularity.
But the diagnosis you made of me, that I am mainly troubled by homosexuality, was incorrect. I am really not troubled by it, if only because someone who is such cannot conduct a heterosexual family, and therefore I cannot tell him to live according to another model. The main thrust of my words was directed against non-family lives (without commitment and without a stable family unit).
To Rabbi Michi: a shred of defense – you gave the postmodern age credit for listening and humility.
Everything is relative. More listening than among the hardliners. As I argued, on the philosophical plane there is no real listening there. But on the practical plane there is. And in general I attack them mainly on the theoretical plane, not the practical one.
On the practical plane, there is value in the difference in character between man and woman, which creates opposites that complement one another, somewhat like Rabbi Judah the Prince’s description (in the Mekhilta on the verse “Honor your father and your mother”) that the father “teaches him Torah,” while the mother “persuades him with words.”
And Rabbi Joseph Dov Soloveitchik explained (Ish U-Beito – Essays on the Family, p. 148) that the father’s education emphasizes discipline and authority, whereas the mother’s education emphasizes the development of the desire for goodness.
This is not a dichotomous distinction, for there are situations in which the mother is more authoritative and the father tends toward “service out of love” (and one can cite Abraham and Sarah, where Abraham tended toward the drawing-near approach, while Sarah adopted a firm stance), and there are various intermediate situations. But for education it is important that there be a fruitful tension between fear and love, with each parent emphasizing one side of the “coin.”
And so there is room for one spouse to incline toward the role of “minister of defense and economy,” and the other to incline toward the role of “minister of the interior and education,” and here too the difference leads to mutual complementarity (in my response “To Cultivate the Nuclear Family” on the “Kolech” website I also proposed the model in which the woman develops a demanding career, while the man works in a less lucrative position but one that allows him to devote more time to the home and family).
Nir Menussi explains in his article “To Love the Different” (published in Hashiloach and on his blog “Reflections of Return”), that this is the mission of the family: creating unity and mutual complementarity דווקא מתוך the differences in character between man and woman. To get along with someone who is similar to you is no great “trick.”
With blessings, S. Tz.
Israel is a nation founded on the institution of the family: Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and his wives. And not just any families, but God-fearing families of shepherds and tillers of the soil, rural families effecting repair from the individual to the collective: “Happy is everyone who fears the Lord, who walks in His ways. You shall enjoy the fruit of your labor; you shall be happy, and it shall be well with you. Your wife shall be like a fruitful vine in the recesses of your house; your children like olive shoots around your table. Behold, thus shall the man who fears the Lord be blessed. The Lord bless you from Zion, and may you see the good of Jerusalem all the days of your life, and see your children’s children. Peace be upon Israel.”
Western culture is based on an urban society, in which the collective precedes the individual, and therefore from the beginning of its path it has struggled to preserve the institution of the family. Homer’s epics, Shakespeare’s tragedies and romances, whose main theme is the struggle between the preservers of the framework of marriage and its destroyers. In Homer, Odysseus, his wife Penelope, and their son Telemachus are called people of virtue. In Shakespeare, Miranda and Ferdinand represent the future corrected humanity based on innocent love between man and woman within marriage.
Modern urban society arose after the bourgeois class grew disgusted with the corrupt general institutions of monarchy and the church and replaced them with legislatures and the press. Gradually these institutions came to be places of expression for ignorant masses. Religion was replaced by capitalism, monarchy by democracy, philosophy by Epicurean science, intellectuals by movie and television stars, women of valor by models, values by products, books by smartphones, and concepts by pseudo-concepts. Building children contradiction.
Then those who feared the Lord spoke one to another, and the Lord listened.
You wrote that self-fulfillment does not necessitate selfishness. Correct. But it can serve as a catalyst. “If one does not put restraints on people’s desires,” there is a good chance that the restraint of “provided he does not harm others” will also be thinner.
I really did not go overboard. This is the heart of the matter.
The “New Family” people certainly demand recognition of their “right” to establish various “families” in a way that very much does affect others. If they were satisfied with demanding that the state not enter their bedrooms, just as others demand that we not look into their plates, fine, though even that can be debated. Recognizing a person’s free choice to live an abominable life within his own four cubits does not mean recognizing his “right” to demand a change in discourse and recognition of every abominable perversion as legitimate. I recognize the free choice of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, but certainly not their “right” to actualize their distorted choice.
In the case at hand, the people of abomination demand recognition as families in every respect, including child allowances, full funding of artificial insemination treatments, state participation in the expenses of surrogacy (and turning a blind eye to trafficking in women, because it is done far from the eye and far from the heart in “underdeveloped” countries), funding of “survivor” benefits, “widowers” and “widows” benefits, and blocking roads on major thoroughfares for a whole month for parades of abomination (which of course is understandable, just not for bridge-laying works – those absolutely have to be done on Shabbat because saving life overrides, etc.), and more and more. No one enters their private lives, but they trample and crush the public domain, take over the social discourse, and cast greedy eyes at the state treasury. Whoever dares to wonder why I should finance all these perversions with my tax money is denounced as a “benighted homophobe” and other gems. I am absolutely not willing to recognize their “right” to all this.
Begging your pardon, this is a collection of muddled generalizations.
Yosef, thanks for the link. I know the article, and also tend to agree with the direction described in it.
Mordechai, I don’t know the picture, and if it’s from Charlie Chaplin, that makes it doubly amusing. The truth is that it doesn’t seem likely to me; as far as I know, Charlie Chaplin’s family is very strict about copyright use.
There are great people (or small ones) who devoted themselves to what they saw as their mission in the world, and preferred it over family as the center of their world. There are such models. In Judaism too (Moses our teacher, Ben Zoma) and outside it (great artists, military men, and the like).
Those whom you call “people of abomination” (a selective label that presumably you do not use for other transgressors) actually prefer that surrogacy be permitted for them in Israel so that they will not have to travel to the Third World and pay a fortune in order to build a family through surrogacy (the deed of Sarah and Hagar, Rachel and Bilhah, etc.). This desire of theirs testifies, believe it or not, to their desire for family!
The question is whether Rabbi Levinstein is strict about copyright.
See the Gauguin dilemma. It seems to me I wrote about it in one of the columns.
A speech moving to tears.
Its only problem is – that it is unrelated to anything said here, and also argues nothing.
It may be a selective label; the Holy One, blessed be He, has the right to use selective labels for transgressors of a certain type (see Leviticus 18:22). I have not yet received the appointment as His senior adviser on matters of selective labels, so I do not interfere.
What “they” want is really unimportant. I’ll tell you about something that happened. Once I asked permission from the “Helsinki Committee” of the institution where I work (this is a committee whose role is to permit experiments on human beings) for an experiment I had planned with a few colleagues. The experiment was a contribution game for a public good. The details of the experiment are tedious and not important here, but the committee “made our lives miserable,” literally, lest heaven forbid the planned game harm the delicate souls of the subjects (students in an institution of higher education, not little children), and it disqualified the experiment. (In the end we got approval from a less deranged Helsinki Committee at another institution where one of my colleagues worked. According to the rules, if the committee of one institution approves, the approval is valid for all partners in the research even if they work at other institutions).
The people of abomination demand to conduct an experiment on human beings without supervision, without a Helsinki Committee, without studies and sufficient knowledge about the effects of these “families” on the not-yet-born children, their mothers, and society as a whole – and all this is “sacred” because of their desire, believe it or not, for “family.” If that is not enough, they demand that the whole public finance these reckless experiments. I suggest you read about the social experiment of the communal showers and communal sleeping arrangements in the kibbutzim of the Kibbutz HaArtzi movement (most of my mother’s family lives in them). The chief rabbis at the time (Herzog and Uziel) begged Meir Yaari to stop this abomination, and he replied to them with characteristic arrogance that he “refuses on principle” to accept advice from them on matters of education. At the end of his life he fully admitted that he had erred and that the “experiment” brought bitter results. Who pays the price?
And one more thing – comparing surrogacy and trafficking in women to the case of Hagar, Bilhah, etc. is a foolish and insolent comparison. Did someone take their children from them? Were they required to sign a contract relinquishing them and never seeing them again? Was the identity of the biological mother hidden from the children? This was not surrogacy at all, but marriage to a second wife (or third, etc.). What does this have to do with people of abomination? How low can one sink in distorting the Torah because of a delusional agenda?
As a reminder, “abomination” is also written regarding cheating in measures and weights, and also regarding interest in Ezekiel, and regarding various sexual prohibitions.
And see: Abomination
Weinberg, Zvi, 1913-2012 ;
Beit Mikra 22 (1977)
With God’s help, ערב שבת קודש, “small and great alike shall you hear,” 5779
To Chayota – greetings,
Regarding Moses our Teacher – the command he was commanded, “But as for you, stand here with Me,” is a unique exception for him by divine command. All Israel were commanded after the revelation at Mount Sinai, “Return to your tents,” while Moses remained all his life in a continuous state of an ongoing “revelation at Sinai.” This state of “separating from his wife” would have been worthy of the criticism Aaron and Miriam directed at him, were it not for the fact that it was by explicit divine command.
Regarding the education of sons: surely Moses our Teacher, who commanded the people, “And you shall teach them diligently to your children,” was one who practiced what he preached and set a personal example by investing in the education of his two sons. Moses makes clear to the tribes of Gad and Reuben that one must give priority to thinking about “cities for our little ones” before engaging in “pens for our livestock.”
Moses came to a revelation of God that would lead him to redeem the entire people דווקא when he gave personal attention to a single lamb that had strayed from the flock, and when he went out to save that lone lamb he passed the test of fitness to lead the community (and similarly Saul was chosen for kingship when he stuck to the task of finding the lost donkeys). A true leader sees every one of his people as his own “only son,” and all the more so he will not neglect his own children.
Even God’s unique love for Abraham is explained by “For I have known him, so that he will command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice.” One who comes to repair all of humanity begins the path from his own home, and from there love radiates outward in ever-widening circles.
Abraham does not forget his son’s education when he comes to do kindness for his guests. On the contrary, he makes his son his chief assistant in the act of kindness, instructing his son to prepare for the guests “a tender and good calf,” and thereby he instilled in the son and in his descendants the practice of kindness and hospitality.
With blessings, S. Tz.
Ben Azzai himself spoke at length about the importance of engaging in procreation, and even tried to marry Rabbi Akiva’s daughter, but when he asked his bride for a cup of water, his thoughts soared into the mysteries of the upper waters, and it became clear that he was incapable of diverting his mind for even a moment from his cleaving to the Torah, and in such a situation he is exempt from procreation due to compulsion and constraint.
Just to be precise: Moses our Teacher derived it by an a fortiori inference on his own and separated from his wife, and the Holy One, blessed be He, agreed with him (Shabbat 87a).
^And still, the meaning of “abomination” is something hated and loathsome.
For example – “They hate him that reproves in the gate, and they abhor him that speaks uprightly” (Amos 5:10), “These six things the Lord hates, yea, seven are an abomination unto Him” (Proverbs 6:16).
I don’t think this justifies homophobia, but still this is not an ordinary prohibition.
Mordechai, your comparison is really demagogic and foolish. Those people are not conducting experiments except on themselves (and their children). Every person does that without government supervision, and it is good that way.
Rabbi Michi,
I am no less libertarian than you, and I advocate as small a government as possible, one that does not supervise the citizens and does not get into their veins. But, and apparently this is where the difference between us lies, I nevertheless support government supervision when the “experiments” a person conducts on himself also affect others, and especially if they may (or are liable to) affect society as a whole (“externalities” in economic jargon). In particular, I support government supervision when it comes to experiments on the helpless, and especially especially on the helpless who have not yet been born but may suffer from the “experiment” all their lives.
The people of abomination are conducting experiments in “new family” (a sanitized name for perverse families) on children who are doomed even before they are conceived to be born into families without a father/mother figure, as merchandise purchased in the market after bargaining over their mother’s womb, whose identity will be hidden from them forever. If a Helsinki Committee is needed for experiments on human beings – this is the classic case! If it is not needed here – then it is not needed at all.
My comparison to the social experiment conducted in the kibbutzim is entirely apt, not demagogic and not foolish (apparently fasting does not do you good). Kibbutz HaArtzi conducted an uncontrolled experiment on children and forced them to sleep in children’s houses where mixed showers were practiced up to age 12. All this solely on the basis of radical socialist ideology and Meir Yaari’s belief that this would have a positive effect on education for “healthy sexuality.” When the chief rabbis at the time protested to him, he replied to them with insolent defiance: “We refuse on principle to accept advice from you on matters of morality and education.”
This experiment had terrible consequences. There are endless stories about graduates of the children’s houses of Kibbutz HaArtzi who had difficulty establishing families and developing “healthy sexuality” as Yaari had hoped, and in his later years he admitted it openly. In recent years many lawsuits have been filed by graduates of the children’s houses against the Kibbutz HaArtzi movement and the state (which, to the best of my knowledge, are still being litigated in the courts).
There are many studies on children who grew up without a father/mother figure for various reasons (death of one of the parents, divorce, prostitution, and the like). To the best of my knowledge there is not a single study recommending such a family ab initio. There are also many studies indicating that the suicide rate among various abomination communities is as much as five times the suicide rate in the general population. Can anyone guarantee that this has no negative effect on the children who will be born into such families? Is there a critical mass of studies (not agenda-driven) that can reassure us? And I haven’t even said a word about the trafficking in handmaids involved in establishing such families.
Again I emphasize that I am no less libertarian than you (perhaps more so), but if in this matter there is no room for government supervision, we may as well dismantle the state! There is no need for it at all.
Hello Rdchi.
As I wrote, these are experiments that people conducted on themselves and their children. By your method, the state should also intervene in parents’ methods of education, not allow single-parent families, or perhaps parents without adequate education or with mild retardation, and so on. I want no part in such an extreme approach, and I do not see how it is consistent with libertarianism.
The examples of those harmed by kibbutz education do not say much. There are no fewer examples of people harmed by Haredi or religious education. Anyone who leaves any society tends to see his past in an extreme and unrepresentative way. But even if there were victims, that is the price of freedom. There are victims of many other forms of education and of different types of parents as well.
The issue of trafficking in handmaids is irrelevant, because that can be controlled and not allowed. There is also “trafficking in handmaids” in surrogacy for ordinary parents.
Terms like perversity and the like only reflect that your approach to the matter is ideologically biased, and this is evident from your writing and affects your judgment.
With God’s help, 11 Av 5779
To M-80 – greetings,
It seems that in the biblical period there was a difference in attitude toward family values between the descendants of Shem and the descendants of Ham. Sexual immorality in its various forms characterizes “the practice of the land of Egypt and the land of Canaan.”
Taking an unmarried woman by force by rulers was considered a perfectly just act, so much so that Abimelech claims before God, “Will You slay even a righteous nation?” After all, he innocently thought Sarah was unmarried and saw nothing wrong in taking her without her consent. And even with a married woman it was accepted to eliminate the husband in order to take his wife, and therefore the patriarchs needed to present their wives as their sisters so that they would not be killed. It seems that permissiveness in sexual immorality also tends not to be exacting about obtaining the consent of the “object”…
By contrast, among Nahor’s family, even though they were idol worshipers, it was accepted that “We shall call the girl and ask for her answer”; and even the father cannot do with his daughters as he pleases. The bride-price he receives is intended to serve as economic security for the married daughter, and therefore Rachel and Leah complain to their father that he appropriated the bride-price for himself: “For he has sold us and has indeed consumed our money” (and perhaps for this reason Rachel allows herself to steal the teraphim, which were purchased from the money of the bride-price intended for the daughters’ economic security).
The husband is not permitted to take his wives to another place “like captives of the sword,” but needs their consent; thus Jacob, even though commanded by an angel to return to his homeland, calls his wives and seeks their consent. And Laban demands of him, “If you afflict my daughters, or if you take wives besides my daughters”; and thus we see that all the patriarchs initially married one wife, and only because they did not merit children did they marry an additional wife, at the initiative of the mistress of the house who hoped to be built up through “bringing her rival into her house.”
The descendants of Shem, who expect the Divine Presence to dwell in their homes, as it is written “May He dwell in the tents of Shem,” see the basis for this in a stable family, whose children are educated by a father and mother who share the lofty goal of raising their children “to keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice.”
With blessings, S. Tz.
And the sexual prohibitions are called “abomination” in accordance with Bar Kappara’s explanation: “you go astray in it” – sexuality whose whole purpose is the satisfaction of urges, and not as something that arouses love in order to establish a family, leads to wandering in a wilderness path without reaching an “inhabited city.”
In paragraph 1, line 1
… between the descendants of Shem and the descendants of Ham. Sexual immorality…
In paragraph 5, line 1
… “may He dwell in the tents of Shem” – they see the basis…
S.Tz., hello,
Before the giving of the Torah, if a man encountered a woman in the market, if he and she wished to marry, he would bring her into his house and have relations with her privately, and she would thereby become his wife. Once the Torah was given, Israel was commanded that if a man wishes to marry a woman, he must first acquire her before witnesses, and afterward she becomes his wife (Maimonides, Laws of Forbidden Relations 1:1). And Malbim on Genesis 20:2: for it was among the laws of kings then that he could take unmarried women by force. This implies that until the giving of the Torah, the framework of marriage by mutual consent was accepted among all humanity (as descendants of Adam and Eve), except for kings who could take unmarried women by force. After the giving of the Torah, Israel was commanded regarding betrothal before witnesses.
Just as Israel is a Semitic nation, which is supposed to walk in the ways of Shem and fulfill “may He dwell in the tents of Shem,” so too it is a Hebrew nation that is supposed to walk in the ways of Eber and separate itself from the idolatrous cities for which Babylon was the prototype. Jerusalem Talmud Yoma: We find that the First Temple was destroyed only because they were worshippers of idols, sexually immoral, and shedders of blood; but in the Second Temple we know them to have labored in Torah, been careful in commandments and tithes, and possessed every good quality, except that they loved money and hated one another with baseless hatred, and baseless hatred is severe, for it is equal to idolatry, sexual immorality, and bloodshed.
With the blessing “may coins disappear from the purse” (that is, that the building of cities be based on kindness, justice, and righteousness and not on love of money),
M.
Apparently somewhere between us runs the boundary between freedom and anarchy.
Not everything people do with themselves and with their children is legitimate, and the state certainly has the right (and even the duty) to intervene when the “experiments” a person does with himself harm others. But if you are consistent in your views – are you against compulsory education law? Why prevent a person’s “right” to educate his children to ignorance and illiteracy according to his worldview and faith?
Similarly, would you support the “right” of parents to refrain from conventional medicine and to “heal” their children exclusively through alternative medicine? Former neighbors of mine were like that. Their daughter got cancer and they entrusted her to a homeopathic witch doctor. The girl kept deteriorating, and only at the last moment did the parents break and transfer the girl to a conventional hospital that saved her life. About 20 years earlier, other neighbors of mine (also former ones) opposed taking their daughter, who had suffered an attack on Shabbat, to the hospital because her condition did not seem serious enough to them. My late father (who was a police officer) took the girl by force and transferred her to the hospital in a police jeep while all the neighbors shouted “shkoyetz.” He saved her life. But perhaps he should have respected the parents’ judgment regarding their daughter?
The first and foremost role of a state is to provide protection to its citizens (through the army, the law-enforcement system, and additional civil systems, such as the health system against biological threats, etc.). A state that does not fulfill its role as protector of the individual loses its right to exist. All the more so, the state is supposed to intervene when a person harms his children either by act or by omission. They are not his private property. The question is, as I wrote in an earlier comment, where the boundary of enforcement runs. It may be that there is no schoolbook solution and that any line you draw will necessarily be arbitrary. But one must not infer from this that freedom has no boundary, because freedom without boundary is, as stated, anarchy.
I did not write that I am against single-parent families (I grew up in one since the Yom Kippur War). But there is a difference between a single-parent family as a decree of fate and a single-parent family by choice at the expense of children not yet born. Maybe there is no possibility of forbidding this (I am not even sure of that), but certainly the state should not encourage it through allowances and transfer payments from the taxpayer’s money. In what libertarian Torah is it written that the taxpayer is supposed to subsidize from his own money single-parent families by choice?
Regarding parents with retardation, certainly the state should supervise to ensure that the children receive an adequate response to their needs. Is that not obvious? I really would not want my relative (who suffers from mild retardation) to establish a family with someone similar to him and raise his children without any supervision at all. True, the supervision does not have to be at the governmental level; it can be familial, communal, etc. (each case according to its circumstances). But to let a pair of retarded people raise a child with no supervision whatsoever in the name of libertarian freedom? What are you talking about?
As for those harmed by Haredi education (I am one of them…), indeed! I definitely support compulsory core curriculum studies in all Haredi educational institutions, for the same reason. It is the state’s right and duty to ensure that every citizen has minimal life skills and does not become a burden on the welfare systems, and it must protect him from those who decree upon him from the outset a life of poverty and dependence. As stated, children are not the private property of their parents. For the same reason I also support compulsory vaccinations against epidemic diseases. Libertarian freedom does not require acquiescing to every whim, especially not to endangering children and their surroundings. Incidentally, governments in Europe (England or Belgium, or both, I do not remember now) forced core curriculum studies on the Haredi communities and even threatened to remove children from families that would not provide core studies to their children and transfer them to foster families (not necessarily Jewish!). The Haredim delivered several fiery speeches against the “education decree,” but in the end they folded. As among the enlightened of the nations, so it was done!
As for ideological bias – every person “suffers” from it. But there are those who are aware of it and admit it, and there are those who convince themselves that they are “objective.” (There is no such animal!).
Indeed, the question of the boundary is not simple, and that is what lies at the center of the debate. I am definitely in favor of allowing parents to educate their children without dictating to them what that education must contain. By the way, I do not see the great successes of those who study the core curriculum. As an intermediate model, one might perhaps collect taxes from every parent for his child’s education and not fund institutions that do not teach the core curriculum, and then insofar as the child, when grown, seeks supplementary education for the sake of earning a livelihood (as is common today, and has even reached the High Court), make available to him the funding that was not given to him in childhood.
In addition, one should distinguish between a position held by a considerable part of the public and the whim of a particular pair of parents. In my opinion it is unreasonable to impose on an entire broad public an education it does not want. But I agree that the question of the boundary is not simple.
Regarding the examples from alternative medicine, I am entirely with you. But here this is proven harm and not your ideologically biased conjectures (regarding the harms of being raised by same-sex parents). If your intention is to prove that for me too there is a boundary line, there is no need for that. I agree from the outset. The question is where it passes.
By the way, I certainly agree that it is not right to subsidize single-parent families (although it is not appropriate to forbid it), but I do think same-sex families should be subsidized until it is proven that there is harm in the matter.
When I wrote that your arguments are biased by ideology, I did not mean that a person is supposed to be without ideology or that it is preferable not to be aware of it. My claim was that your arguments not only assume an ideology (which is legitimate) but also drag it into other arguments where it is not relevant. You see homosexuality as a perversion, but it does not necessarily follow from that that there will be harm to children who grow up in such a family unit. If you were to say, “I support forbidding homosexuality because it is a perversion,” that would be a legitimate insertion of ideology (which I do not agree with, but it is relevant).
Maybe it isn’t politically correct to say so, but the greatest experiment on human beings is taking place in recent generations: mixed education of boys and girls in schools and universities, an experiment that has brought corruption and confusion into relations between the sexes throughout the world.
With God’s help, 12 Av 5779
The “liba” in “limudei liba” (“core studies”) is not an acronym requiring quotation marks. The intention is to studies such as mathematics and English, which those demanding them see as the “core” of basic education.
The “LIBA” of the “LIBA Center” is an acronym: “A Jewish Core in Israeli Public Life,” and among other things it demands that every Jewish child have basic knowledge of his people’s heritage.
With blessings, S. Tz. Liebinger
The word leivah (spelled defective as liba) means heart, and in the plural levavot. “And in His Torah he meditates day and night” – Rashi explained: every expression of meditation is in the heart. This is the Jewish logic that unites all Israel through the generations to walk in the ways of God. About any attempt to educate the children of Israel on the basis of another core, the Gemara says: “Keep your children away from higgayon.”
All child-rearing is an experiment on human beings; there is no method whose results are fully tested (except, perhaps, things proven to bring extreme ruin), if only because every method will operate differently in a different society.
More power to you for breaking it.