I am no fan of ArtScroll’s historical and hashkafic perspective, but in my opinion, their Machzorim and Siddurim have enabled more Jews to fulfill the mitzvah of Tefilah properly and with some hashkafic perspectives than at any time in Jewish history.No other Sidddur or Machzor contained a halachically proper text, halachic instructions ( i.e. HaMelech HaKadosh, Musaf on Yom Tov) than ever before.
Their Chumash, Mishnah and Talmud have opened the world of learning for many Jews who either use it as a means to get to real Jewish texts or as a reintroduction to Limud HaTorah. ArtScroll deserves a major Yasher Koach for its work on the Mesoras HaRav Machzorim. Instead, we now see where the far LW MO stands on Jewish literacy. Unless it meets that sector’s PC feminist POV and includes POVs of scholars whose views are not part of the Mesorah , they are concerned that ArtScroll is too frum for them. Click here for the Jewish Week’s article. There is also a companion article on a Feminist friendly Bentcher authored by Susan Aranoff and Rivka Haut.
IMO, the choice is easy. A publishing company whose Siddur, Machzor, Mishnah and Talmud enables one to daven and learn, even with its Charedi learning Hashkafa, deserves our communal patronage far more than anything published by two feminists whose POV is simply beyond any reasonable definition of MO. Unfortunately their idea of Halacha is every imaginable Daas Yachid opinion, plus the implementation of R’ Rackman’s proposals, which clearly do nothing except be Marbeh Mamzerim B’Yisrael.
Rabbi Herschel Schacter once quoted R Y Gorelick ZTL, that every Adam Gadol has his mishegas, but a mishegunah is someone whose pastime is collecting the mishegas of every Adam Gadol. The nentcher in question clearly fits that description aptly.
The article on ArtScroll almost made it look like ArtScoll was engaged in some conspiratorial or criminal act in its fund raising. It should only be that every mossad and publisher of Jewish works was so successful. Of course, neither article mentioned the Machzorim based on the teachings of RYBS-but I have unfortunately come to expect nothing but the worst about Torah Judaism from the Jewish Week.
I don’t necessarily agree with the oft-stated idea (Ora, you did not say it!)that if you’re not interested in adhering to halacha, don’t ask about it; I myself remember needing to satisfied about important aspects of the Jewish Weltanschauung before I could come to grips with accepting the concept of halachic observance — even if I was still far from observing, or observing properly, regarding the subject of my inquiries. I suspect Jaded is not, as some of our more assertive visitors clearly are, here merely to be pugnacious. I suspect, reading between the (most unparallel) lines, she is instead wrestling with very big questions, and sincerely, in a way all of us should appreciate.
Having said that, gosh, worrying about the Sotah, Jaded, is the biggest ever red herring you will ever reel in in your life. I deduce that the sugya of Sotah caught your attention initially because of it is a key halachic source for a married woman covering her hair, but this, too, is a bit of a ruddy fish if perhaps you are struggling with keeping kosher and Shabbos and, please God, finding a serious and brilliant Jewish man who is up to the task of satiating your remarkably and uniquely inquiring mind and spirit. Most guys really don’t mind bakery challah, by he way!
Jaded, about the sotah:
“But, if it was the upper body that was uncovered”
It was the head and shoulders. A string was tied under her shoulders to ensure that her garment wouldn’t fall any further than that.
“I’m not sure why rosh can’t be read to mean upper body as in the beginning of the body. Think rosh hashana…….”
Probably because the verb “lifroa” doesn’t make sense in that context.
“Also how does the supposed importance of female modesty leave room for situations like this ? Are there looholes for modest must do’s, embarrassing others, judging favorably, that I don’t know of.”
There’s a time and a place for everything. Usually we can’t kill, but if it’s to save someone from a pursuer, then we must kill. Usually a woman should be modest, but some of our heroes are women who acted immodestly when the circumstances called for it (among other things). In the case of a sotah, it is appropriate to do things that otherwise wouldn’t be done.
“Is the kohen so certain of her guilt that he thinks its ok to tire her out and embarrass her into confessing ?”
The kohen doesn’t know if she cheated on her husband, but she did something. A woman is only brought in as a sotah if she was in yichud with a man other than her husband after her husband had explicitly warned her not to be with that particular man. It’s not like any random woman could be forced to go through the ritual just because her husband suspected.
Also, if she did cheat, it’s much much better for her to confess and save her own life and that of her lover. Hence the need to wear her out and try to convince her to confess. If she didn’t cheat, she proves her innocence and can go back to her marriage (clearly what she wants if she’s going through the ritual) having removed her husband’s feelings of suspicion and betrayal.
“What if she never strayed from her husband ? ”
Then her husband is not allowed to divorce her for the rest of her life. Also, she receives a divine blessing for children (either to have children, to have more children, to have healthy children, etc, whatever she needs).
Jaded–
“Who said anything about “supporting empowerment for womenâ€.”
You’ve complained in other posts that women tend to be pushed towards one particular spiritual path that doesn’t necessarily suit you. As you would want others to respect your spiritual needs, you should respect theirs.
“If you personally believe that challah baking/wiggy wig wearing/ birthing babies and minimal spiritual/ intellectual requirements,”
See, this is my problem. What’s wrong with just saying “Challah baking isn’t for me, thanks.” Why the snobbish remarks about “minimal spiritual requirements”? IMO there is no such thing as “minimal spiritual requirements”–we all face spiritual challenges, and the level to which we experience spiritual growth is determined by inner choice, not outer lifestyle. Also, as someone who has both learned gemara and given birth, I can promise you that the latter is not the easier of the two. Again, I’m not saying you have to give birth, but try some basic respect. The lifestyle you seem to look on as simple and unchallenging is often anything but.
“Also, while we are on the topic of “allowing women to make their own choices†are the must cover hair after marriage directives included in this fantastic fantasy or are these directives “sold separately†under a different slogan or name.”
Women are not forced to cover their hair. As with other aspects of Torah law, they can choose to follow it or not. However, not following the law is breaking Torah. There is a difference between choosing between a number of options that are all legitimate paths to serve Hashem (ie doctor, housewife, gemara teacher) and choosing between kosher pizza and pepperoni.
FWIW, it is quite prevalent here in Israel for women to bench gomel in shul. It’s standard at almost every Bris I’ve been too. My wife once had to bench gomel after a car accident and that was done at quite a Chareidi Shteibel in Telz Stone.
Charlie, your logic!
First off — you did not use the term “shuls,” you said “communities” — ya got me!
I wonder, though — you say you’ve seen, when “visiting” MO shuls, “many women” fulfill this mitzvah. How many is “many”? I am asking for an order of magnitude. Because I would say that if you have seen it 100 times over ten years, why, yes, that’s a lot of brochos — but considering the number of babies born in such communities, you have probably seen a minority of women taking part in this mitzvah! But I could be wrong, so tell me your best sense of the number.
Your point about the headcovering would be valid if Artscroll said, “don’t do it.” But they didn’t pasken. They merely stated, accurately, that the according – to – some – authorities mitzvah (d’rabbanan) of zimun for women (actually I have learned this sugyah and it may actually be a majority of authorities!) is mostly not observed, so don’t be surprised if, at the meal you attend, it doesn’t happen.
The siddur should give practical guidance. It’s hard where to draw the line. Frankly it says a lot of things that sound funny, like where it says in some shuls, everyone says birkas hashachar for everyone else to say amen. Really? Where? Everyone seems to have heard of this, but who has seen it? There are a lot of things like that. But undoubtedly BT’s rely on the siddur as a first-line source of information, and if there is an halachic practice that is by and large not customary in our time today, it is not Artscroll’s fault for delivering the sad news.
You’re shooting the messenger, Charlie!
“bench gomel in any orthodox shul”
My experience is that it seems to be a universal custom in modern orthodox shuls I have visited that the mother of a child recites birkat hagomel shortly after a brit either in the beit knesset itself or at the seudah. The people at Artscroll must certainly know this; do they really want to exclude modern orthodox communities from the torah world? Even in charedi communities I’ve seen many women fulfil the mitzvah, although not usually during the main tefillah. Instead, I’ve seen it fulfilled in the beit knesset after the tefillah after a girl was named (with ten men gathering on the opposite side of the mechitzah to respond), at the seuda, and at home in front of guests. Note that I deliberately did not use the term “shuls” but instead used the term “communities”.
‘a “prevalent practice†cannot be “a misleading halacha.‒
Would you agree regarding womens’ haircovering? It was clearly the prevalent practice for married women in Lithuania and America not to cover their hair! Should we use “prevalent practice” as an excuse for people not to fulfil mitzvot like birkat hagomel? If so, why not haircovering?
As you point out, zimun for women is not required by the majority of poskim. However, to fail to mention it as an option is misleading, for as my friend Zach has pointed out, Artscroll comments are used as authoritative halachic sources. I”ve even seen amei haaretzim argue with a shul rabbi on the basis of a one line comment in the Artscroll siddur! IN this case, what is wrong with simply stating the actual accepted halachah: It is permitted and not required. (I should also add that I have heard firsthand of chasidic women forming a zimun at an all female seudah shlishit.)
Charlie, I have been davening in all kinds of shuls for over two decades now, though in the last three-quarters of that almost exclusively in yeshivish minyanim. If I have ever seen or heard a woman bench gomel in any orthodox shul, I can hardly remember it; it can’t have happened too often — in any of them. So “prevalent custom” seems not too unreasonable. How many Lakewood-type minyanim have you been at where women have benched gomel? How many hasidic minyanim? How many baalebatish shtiblech?
Similarly, describing something — here, quite accurately — as a “prevalent practice” cannot be “a misleading halacha.” You may disagree, again, with the empirical observation of its prevalence, but that is not a “halachic” statement either way. (You acknowledge that it is a requirement “according to some opinions” only.) I have, for my part, observed women’s zimunim also only one or two times, and have almost never heard of anyone doing it outside of “very modern” communities. Thus the “prevalent practice” label seems accurate here, too.
Glad to see someone else (Areyeh from Baltimore) finds the bios somewhat too perfect to be relevant. A gripe I’ve had in other places on this blog, including a different, recent thread.
While the issue I’m about to bring up is not directly what Steve is referring to I think it should be discussed especially on a blog dedicated to BTs. Steve says, “A publishing company whose Siddur, Machzor, Mishnah and Talmud enables one to daven and learn, even with its Charedi learning Hashkafa, deserves our communal patronage…†Let’s concentrate on the learning point and in this regard I (as devil’s advocate) ask Steve – Steve, why should English enable one to learn? Should we not be learning in the original language of our forefathers? While perhaps at the beginning one needs some basic seforim in their mother tongue to get started, shouldn’t we be encouraging people to learn Hebrew/Aramaic by effectively saying – you want to learn more, learn the language and work at it? Isn’t that what Hillel tells the potential convert – go and learn?
First of all not all of us have enough of a mastery of Hebrew to learn in hebrew. If you put any Hebrew only text in front of me (With the possible exception of a bentcher) I would be totally lost. Having Artscroll and similar texts around has enabled me to do much more than I could otherwise. If a good hebrew/english siddur was not around I would be totally lost in shul. (For the record I mostly use the Artscroll interlinear)
I accept that Artscroll may have an agenda, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t like their books. For what its worth when I was in College (Brandies) many members of the minyan lovingly called Artscroll “Rabbi Scroll” or the like
In the previous post I should have said many *communities* of varying hashgafa. I apologize for the additional post and I regret the error.
“bemoaning the move to the right without being able to substantiate that allegation”
Ok, two examples directly from the Artscroll Women’s Siddur: One is that it incorrectly states that the “prevalent custom” is that a woman does not recite birkat hagomeil. That is a flat out false statement; I’ve seen women recite that bracha in many, many of varying hashgafa. It is a miztvah aseh that is not time bound and the reasons for the mitzvah apply equally to men and women. A second example is that the “prevalent practice” is that women do not form a zimun in the absence of three men. In fact, it is mutar for women to do so and it is a requirement according to some opinions. This is not just a move to the right, it is misleading halachah. By contrast, Ms. Berkowitz and Ms. Haut in their birkon cite a total of 11 sources from talmud, rishonim, and acharonim on this particular subject.
Steve,
Here are the people credited in the acknowledgements for substantive contributions to the Berkowitz/Haut bentcher:
Rabbi Prof. Daniel Sperber
Dina Najman
Rabbi Dov Linzer
Susanna Levin
Rabbi Dr. Sol Cohen
Dr. Aliza Berger Cooper
Dr. Devorah Steinmetz
Blu Greenberg
Dr. Norma Baumel Joseph
Dr. Yael Levine Katz
Dr. Ruth Langer
Rabbi Adam Mintz
Ms. Smadar Seinfeld
Rabbi David Silber
Rabbi Mark Angel
Rabbi Saul Berman
I don’t know everyone on the list, but I do know that some of them are prominent contemporary modern orthodox rabbis of impeccable credentials.
Bob Miller-Mainstream MO today in the US consists of RIETS, YU, SCW and the OU. Noone has ever confused the authors of the Birchon that Charliehall mentioned or their “halachic advisors” of being within that framework-either halachically or hashkafically. They represent the far LW of MO that is fixated on feminism and its related issues. Their fellow travellers generally can be heard bemoaning the move to the right without being able to substantiate that allegation.
Artscroll does a tremendous service for klal yisrael, and I have no problem with their publishing style, fundraising, or hashgafic bent. Look at Rabbi Slifkin… Feldheim (like Artscroll) had trouble publishing a book that said the rabbonon might have sometimes spoken in allegory, or not always known modern biology, and he went and found a publisher who would print it (Yashar). If you have a point to make, and you make it eloquently, somebody will publish you (even Barry Chamish has 5 books out!).
That being said, my one bone with Artscroll is their sanitized biographies. I think they do a disservice by pretending gadolim who had secular educations or read secular books had done none of these things, and just learned gemara from the time they were 3. The gadolim of the past generation of whom Artscroll had depth to their lives well beyond the average kollel-nik today, and Artscroll always hides it. Makes you wonder if these “imperfections” are what made them great, and tells us why we lack for gadolim today.
Steve Brizel,
On the whole, what distinguishes mainstream MO from other forms of MO?
Charelie Hall_WADR, I would hesitate before classifying anything written by Ms. Haut and Ms. Berkowitz as mainstream MO. Since when did Mrs. Halivni Weiss become recognized as a Baalas Samcha on any halachic or hashkafic issue?
After a brief glance, so far as I can see, the Artscroll Woman’s Siddur is not all that different then the standard Artscroll Siddur, but does have many insighful comments and has been made to be a bit more helpful to woman in its arrangement.
Was it the publisher’s intention to change the standard text or simply just add commentary and instructions that woman would find helpful?
Probably the latter. Be that as it may, who’s siddur will get distribution in sefarim stores catering to the frum community? Yep, that’s what I think, too.
Unfortunately, the criticisms directed towards the Artscroll Women’s Siddur in the article are accurate. My wife bought the Artscroll Women’s siddur. The very first word, “Modeh”, showed that it was not really a siddur for women. There are also a number of instances where the commentary is not consistent with current halachic rulings and minhagim.
Here is the article about the supposedly “feminist” bentcher:
http://www.jewishweek.org/news/newscontent.php3?artid=14586&print=yes
It is also a Zionist bentcher, with harachamans for the Medinat Yisrael and the IDF (like the Bnei Akiva bentcher) as well as for Agunot. The authors are Adena Berkowitz and Rivka Haut, and the publisher is Ktav. Unlike the Artscroll Women’s siddur, it gets the Hebrew grammar right, which ought to be a minimum standard for any prayer book! Ms. Haut (who lives in my neighborhood — we have hosted each other for Shabat numerous times and I just saw her in shul tonight) shared with me before publication the care she took in making many consultations she made with Hebrew scholars and rabbinic authorities to make sure that both the text and the halachic commentaries were correct.
Ron, speaking of learning leshmah or not (not sure what you mean by lishmah , protection ?)
Flipping non-flippantly through the dark blue sapphire colored sapirstein edition of the artscroll chumash I came up with definitions and more questions to clarify my sketchiness with.
Thank you artscroll.
Why is the kohen allowed to see a married womans hair if he’s in fact removing a headcovering. Noone other than her husband is allowed to look at her hair.
According to artscroll the definition of “upharah es rosh haisha ” is uncover the woman’s head “.
So does Rashi understand pharah to mean unbraid and uncover. Its not clear how Rashi sees two actions taking place under the guise of one action verb-pharah. Unless the headcovering was braided into her hair.
Reading the headcovering assuming commentary section of the artscroll, I came across some tidbits from gemara. The sentences in quotes are taken from the artscroll chumash.
Punctuation errors , and whining are mine.
Sotah 8a ” The gemarah derives from the word ishah that the sotahs entire upper body was uncovered.The gemarah goes on to say that implicit in this is the fact that the kohen exposes the womens head. Why then does the verse state explicitly the womans head ? To teach us that he exposed it fully,even to the extent of undoing any braiding (see sotah 8a and Rashi there)”
But, if it was the upper body that was uncovered I’m not sure why rosh can’t be read to mean upper body as in the beginning of the body. Think rosh hashana……. Also how does the supposed importance of female modesty leave room for situations like this ? Are there looholes for modest must do’s, embarrassing others, judging favorably, that I don’t know of. Is the kohen so certain of her guilt that he thinks its ok to tire her out and embarrass her into confessing ? What if she never strayed from her husband ?
Kesubos 72a expounds on the braiding and says that “if merely undoing the braiding after it has been uncovered is considered degrading , all the more so is baring the head in the first place”.
Anyway, I’m still not clear on the previous headcovering proof and source everyone seems to be reading and expounding further on. Maybe the embarrasement is caused by the messing up of the sotahs hair and ruining her braided hairstyle and letting her hair hang loose and messy.
How does braiding imply a previous headcovering.
Why is the degrading on the unbraiding applied and or compared to the supposed previous headcovering in various sage suggestions and venues. From Rashi to gemarah.
Depends, Jaded. A better illustration of lishmo and lo lishmo could hardly be imagined!
Another thing Shabbos helps with!;-)
Ron,
I omitted the word atoned in error in my how the sotah atoned / and how the sinner was stoned chapter title suggestion rhyme. I apologize for any misconstruings I may have caused.
As for sages providing translation which you take as halacha ? I believe it was Rashi (not sure don’t quote me on the name ) said it was unbraiding. How does unbraiding imply or even suggest a previous headcovering.
Another sage suggested the undoing of the hair. As in making it longer. I forget his name. I believe he was a sage.
I’m not sure how these definitions prove that our ancient ancestors being tried as sotahs covered their hair. It would good to know the exact definition of pharah. Don’t you think ?
Jaded, it does not matter what dictionaries, web pages good for cutting and pasting, any of us or even rabbis with flowing beards think pharah means, except in a purely academic sense. Halachically speaking, the Sages of the Talmud have, as you are correct in saying, taught us what the Torah means by it. And yes, “one” considers that halacha!
By the way, your conception of being visited by kidney stones as an analog for stoning-worthy capital crimes is inspired, and in and of itself very hashkoficaly “sound” from my point of view! But remember that a Sotah (who is herself a married, head-covered woman) is not punished by stoning — she is punished by the effects of the “Sotah Water” she drinks, as is her paramour.
Stoning (which as you know is not even really stoning — there goes that Talmud again — but more akin, in a word, to defenestration than anything else) is, however, the punishment for many other less glamorous transgressions — most famously Sabbath desecration.
Have a good Shabbos!
Yaakov,
There are already published translations of the Zohar, complete or partial.
Here’s one:
http://www.judaicapress.com/product_info.php?products_id=177
I wasn’t advocating translation of works like the Zohar, but rest assured that somebody will translate anything of interest.
Sephardi Lady – there’s a big difference between writing in a language and writing a translation. R’ Moshe Feinstein explicitly writes that no one can translate his t’shuvos…
Bob – well, should there be an Artscroll translated Zohar? Why not? Zohar would be hard for many people without translation!
There is always a loss in translation. The Zohar should not be translated simply because it’s impossible to recreate it true meaning. But where do you draw the line? At what point do you say – if you cannot read this in the original you should be learning something else?
Two points: In Europe those not trained in yeshivos (ie 99% of Jews) learned Ein Yaakov – not the full gmara. Chazal considered the order to tranlate the Torah into Greek as a tragedy…
One more quick thing on headcovering,
I believe the actual source for hair covering can be found in a fun story about a sotah on judgement day (Bamidbar 5:18) pharah es rosh ha-isha – (and the from here we learn that married women covered their hair back then ….) there are too many translations for “pharah”, which is kind of disconcerting.
I’ve read translations like “letting the womans hair go loose” “unbraiding” “uncover” “reveal” are any of these a better translation than the other ?
If you let your hair loose this doesnt necessarily imply any previous headcovering.
Unbraiding, definitely doesnt imply a previous cover.
Uncover = according to the merriam webster dictionary:
1: to make known : bring to light : disclose, reveal
2: to expose to view by removing some covering
3 a: to take the cover from b: to remove the hat from
4: to deprive of protectionintransitive verb1: to remove a cover or covering2: to take off the hat as a token of respect
So using #4 to deprive of protection (when being harshly judged) in a figuretive sense with the sotah in question one could also do away with the notion that everyone covered their hair back then.
Reveal, has a whole set of fun definitions to twist around to suit the stance in question
according to the merriam webster dictionary :
1 : to make known through divine inspiration
2 : to make (something secret or hidden) publicly or generally known
3 : to open up to view : display
#3 could work nicely in a figuretive way with the sotah in question without implying any previous headcovering going ons. I’m pretty sure I could figure something out with #1.
So is this the only source for the hair covering halacha ? Assuming one considers it a halacha….And what is the exact literal translation of “pharah”.
Ora,
Who said anything about “supporting empowerment for women”.
Other than using Simone de Beauvoir’s “There is something in the New York air that makes sleep useless” quote often, I havent been quoting any famous feminists recently.
If you personally believe that challah baking/wiggy wig wearing/ birthing babies and minimal spiritual/ intellectual requirements, are part of a sound mission statement for female living in 2007, then i’m not sure why ure even questioning my spiritually sound advice to the abridged women’s prayer book promoters over at Artscroll ?
The sarcastic connotations are an optional feature, feel free to turn it off when reading my points.
Whatever floats your spiritual raft right past that which does not bring on the buoyant waves of spiritual bliss.
For me its the tangled wiggy reeds , I cant get my paddles past, among other things.
I’m sure your way higher on the spiritual o dometer…….
Its all about the proper focus and not fallin in.
As for babies, I actually love babies and believe they are g-ds holiday bonus gift to Aunts.
Also, while we are on the topic of “allowing women to make their own choices” are the must cover hair after marriage directives included in this fantastic fantasy or are these directives “sold separately” under a different slogan or name.
A chapter in this newer version of the abridged womans prayer book could be devoted to quaint concepts like “how the married hair was covered and why” right after “How the sotah and or sinner was stoned in 2007” (kidney stones).
Maybe they could merge some of the more profound quotes in the gemara sects of kesubah/keddushin & sotah and provide an abridged siddur/sotah/kesubah/kiddushin/iggeres haramban combination special.
That would be quite the prayer book.
As far as ArtScroll’s hashkafic bent, one can argue that its’ views on RZ, MO and the spiritual significance of the State of Israel fall within the POV enunciated by the Charedi world. As far as its choice of halachic practices, its views are mainstream.
As far as the issues in the JW article,the fact that the Talmud has sugyos and Rishonim discuss the feasibility of women and zimun and other issues does not necessarily mean that these often theoretical disucssions reflected the social reality or more importantly were the practice of most women within the Jewish community. A Siddur, Machzor or Birchon that posed women’s Zimun as a halachic option without acknowledging that this was a halachic issue as opposed to a common practice would IMO be verging on intellectual dishonesty. I also found the tone of the article re ArtScroll’s fund raising inappropriate. Anyone who has ever opened one volume of the ArtScroll Talmud will see that the donors are from both the MO and Charedi worlds. One wonders why the MO world never printed its own Siddur, Machzor, Chumash or other basic Jewish texts. In any event, ArtScroll’s Siddur and Machzor have enabled more Jews to fullfil the mitzvah of Tefilah properly than any other Siddur or Machzor, even if one has hashkafic qualms of some of ArtScroll’s other publications.
Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky seemed to say very much the opposite a few weeks ago in a quote in what I believe was HaModia, along the lines that the language of the Machzor is so obscure that virtually no one interested in the allusions, etc. can afford not to use one. I found this rather stunning.
I agree that Artscroll is a business, but it is not a “big business” in any possible sense of what that word means other than “a business whose success I envy.” It has changed the world immensely for the better, notwithstanding that many intelligent people will — as is inevitable, given their scope and ambition — cavil over many points (as I have and do).
The existence of the Artscroll siddur put the possibility of being able to “really daven right,” which I once despaired of as being hopelessly complex, well within reach. I can never repay Artscroll for this.
Most American Jews who came here pre-war (and I’m talking pre-WWI and earlier)
abandoned their mesorah or only kept whatever was convenient for them and didn’t make them stand out in a crowd. Inside of 75 years, their children and grandchildren gave up on everything except matzoh on Pesach and the rare visit to the “templeâ€. They boarded the Reform and Conservative band wagons in one way or another just to ease their minds and have a place to refer to when the children inquired about why we don’t do Xmas or go to church.”
So in your opinion, why was Torah Judaism so unappealing that the moment they could escape and get away with just matzoh and High Holiday attendance, they did?
Jaded Topaz–
Why all the sarcasm for “pointedly pedestrian” challah baking and baby birthing, both on this thread and elsewhere? Do you think challah baking is unnecessary? Or perhaps the Jewish people have had enough babies for now, and we should just take a break for a couple of decades? Or do you have a problem with the fact that baby birthing and raising is clearly simple and unimportant compared to a “man’s mitzvah” like learning Talmud? Seriously, what’s the problem?
Part of supporting empowerment for women is allowing women to make their own choices. Without criticizing them or accusing them of giving in to “stifling concepts and blatant limits.” If you wanted a respectful debate that would be one thing, but that doesn’t seem to be what you’re after.
DK wrote…”And again, most of us in the pre-war American Jewish community DO NOT descend from haredim — and Artscroll presents such hashkafas as OUR Mesorah.”
DK…Where does the “pre-war American Jewish community’s mesorah originate? Cleveland? I think not. Most American Jews who came here pre-war (and I’m talking pre-WWI and earlier)
abandoned their mesorah or only kept whatever was convenient for them and didn’t make them stand out in a crowd. Inside of 75 years, their children and grandchildren gave up on everything except matzoh on Pesach and the rare visit to the “temple”. They boarded the Reform and Conservative band wagons in one way or another just to ease their minds and have a place to refer to when the children inquired about why we don’t do Xmas or go to church. American Mesorah? Those who were already deep in the trap of the Haskalah movement in Europe brought with them what became the legacy of American Mesorah. We’re living amongst the last remnants of this mesorah, watching them disapear by the thousands each day. Trying to establish one’s mesorah to an American source is pointless. Whether one likes Artscroll or not, you cannot argue with tangible results. Untold numbers of Jews, both BT’s-from-scratch or BT’s from FFB backgrounds have been, literally, saved by Mesorah Publication’s efforts to distribute Torah to the masses of English (and French and Russian) speaking Jews. They have been an ivaluable tool to so many, it will be hard for future generations to discuss this generation without mentioning this company. Let the JOFA make there own siddur and go about their business…soon enough, they will suffer the same fate as the Reform and Conservative movements. Just watch and mark my words…it is
happening right in front of our eyes.
Bob Miller,
I am talking about a historical paradigm.
DK, do you accept any “tradition” other than a secular one? Do you believe your ancestors stood at Sinai?
The ArtScroll Transliterated Siddur gave me a jumpstart in davening in Hebrew, and now the Interlinear Siddur is helping me more fully understand while davening. Before these, I would either follow what I knew by rote, but not understand the Hebrew, or read the English to myself, and feel like I was left out when everyone else was davening verbally. Granted I’m not all there yet, but these Siddurs are really helping me to get there. Do any other publishers try to use different/innovative techniques to help people to get to where they want to be?
My colleague Steve Brizel is accepting a flase straw man in his embracement of Artscroll.
First of all, I happen to agree with Brizel that much of JOFA may be beyond the pale of Modern Orthodoxy, and is really, an outgrowth of the right-wing of dissatisfied JTS. And I absolutely agree with him that the Jewish Week is irresponsible when it comes to gender issues, assigning all such stories either to the author of this article, or another one quite similar.
However, this does not make Artscroll appropriate for non-haredi Jews, as it present haredi Hashkafas as our true heritage.
And again, most of us in the pre-war American Jewish community DO NOT descend from haredim — and Artscroll presents such hashkafas as OUR Mesorah.
And it is so not.
So both sides in this fight have merit — in what they say about each other.
While perhaps at the beginning one needs some basic seforim in their mother tongue to get started, shouldn’t we be encouraging people to learn Hebrew/Aramaic by effectively saying – you want to learn more, learn the language and work at it? Isn’t that what Hillel tells the potential convert – go and learn?
Artscroll does provide a method for students to go and learn. Even if one gains proficiency in Chumash or Tefillah, what about broad literacy.
Feldheim, Artscroll, and other publishing houses have helped promote such literacy.
Sefarim in the language of the community is not an anathema. The MeAm Loez was written in Ladino, the Tzenu URena in Yiddish, and the Ben Ish Hai and others wrote some works in Arabic (especially those geared towards women). Even the Sephardi publishing houses are starting to put out English translations.
Personally, I’d love to have time to really concentrate on mastering language to be able to learn at a higher level. But, I’m lucky to sit down sometimes at all (like today).
Bob,
All I’m saying is that this “tendency” is based on dollars not conviction.
Menachem,
They are not 100% haskafically “pure” in their output, but we both know their overall tendency, which is exactly the thing that has been drawing fire from the peanut gallery.
From Bob Miller:
“Anyway, what’s this nonsense of telling a commercial publisher to submerge or compromise its hashkafah?”
Does Artscroll really have a “hashkafah”? I’m not privy to the inner workings of the company, but it seems to me that the “commercial” aspect of this statement is much more relevant.
Artscroll is a business, a big business. They want their product purchased by as many people as possible so they go for the least common denominator. I feel the right-wing slant but I couldn’t provide specifics. And let’s face it, in general, a sefer with a right-wing slant is more likely to be used in a more left-wing environment than visa-versa.
I think the RCA version of the Artscroll Siddur supports what I’m saying. If Artscroll were truly Chareidi they never would have produced to a siddur with the Tefilah for the Medina.
I agree with Steve that the benefit of the Artscroll publications (leaving aside the issue of the biographies for now) outweighs whatever bias may have seeped in, in their effort to capture the largest market possible.
Yaakov, did you write the above in English because you don’t value Hebrew more highly or because most of your readers won’t get it otherwise?
The real question is “at what point does the learner need to take off the training wheels”?
This varies with the person! ArtScroll texts are not meant as permanently necessary for everybody.
While the issue I’m about to bring up is not directly what Steve is referring to I think it should be discussed especially on a blog dedicated to BTs. Steve says, “A publishing company whose Siddur, Machzor, Mishnah and Talmud enables one to daven and learn, even with its Charedi learning Hashkafa, deserves our communal patronage…” Let’s concentrate on the learning point and in this regard I (as devil’s advocate) ask Steve – Steve, why should English enable one to learn? Should we not be learning in the original language of our forefathers? While perhaps at the beginning one needs some basic seforim in their mother tongue to get started, shouldn’t we be encouraging people to learn Hebrew/Aramaic by effectively saying – you want to learn more, learn the language and work at it? Isn’t that what Hillel tells the potential convert – go and learn?
I have liked and bought many ArtScroll products. Many of the objections I see in print to this or that ArtScroll characteristic are way too general and exaggerated.
I’m not put off by their overall perspective, either, because I share it! Anyway, what’s this nonsense of telling a commercial publisher to submerge or compromise its hashkafah? MO or feminist objectors are free to use their own money to get their own publishing ventures off the ground expressing their own views.
ArtScroll also helped get our marriage started in 1976. We picked up a nicely done ArtScroll kesubah (with blanks for the names, etc.) on the Lower East Side. Not quite hand calligraphy, but it looked great and we could afford it.
I hear so much negativity about Artscroll books/seforim – but without any real details. And I, try as i might, cannot see it. Maybe I’m so far gone, and so brainwashed by my years of devouring their books amongst many others… that I need someone to explain to me what they see as a problem…
So I would very much appreciate a quick overview of what one may see as a problem with Artscrolls hashkafic/historical perspective – especially from someone who appreciates some of their, ie – Siddurim.
TIA
I don’t at all see what your objection is to the JOFA’s critique of the Artscroll women’s Siddur. The article listed several substantive issues that were the basis of JOFA’s criticism. I thought they made a good point. Why are you so hostile to them? Do you object to their argument or to something else?
The article made it sound like Artscroll has been a phenomenally successful publisher. Where did you get the idea that “The article on ArtScroll almost made it look like ArtScoll was engaged in some conspiratorial or criminal act in its fund raising.” ?
I think artscroll should come out with a whole new dedicated special edition of this fantastic woman’s prayer book with some added profound and fun features, like challah bake n swap recipes complete with cut out cards / wiggy wig tips and coupons / mesmerizing modesty must do highlights / and some creative baby birthing techniques.
You can never be too specific when expounding on the pointedly pedestrian and simply special intellectual place many religious women call home.And ignoring the stifling concepts and blatant limits has never been more fun and spiritual !
This versatile special edition prayer book will then be perfect to use for those weeknight hearwarming down to earth shuirim with stories for women.
And for this holiday season, the womans prayer book should hook up with all those material modesty authors for the perfect all encompassing gift, for that hard to buy for enlightened spiritual woman.