[Part 1 here.]
There are two ways to look at traditions.
Way 1
A tradition arises according to hashgacha protis (obviously, we are talking about the Jewish traditions). For example, there is a concept in Judaism of not following the customs of non-Jews (to the point of not tying shoelaces the way they do it). We do find, however, many Jewish customs which were adopted from non-Jewish ones. For example, the custom of dressing up on Purim. It has been borrowed from Italians and their Venitian carnivals. But, since it remained in Jewish community (worldwide) and withstood the test of time, there must be some kedusha associated with it.
The same way, even if one finds no halachic problems with using electricity on Shabbos (which may or may not be true), since it has become a minhog of klal Yisroel not to use electricity on Shabbos, there must be something wrong with doing it spiritually.
Like someone said on a ChabadTalk post (regarding going to a baseball game):
Even assuming there are no clearcut halachik issues, there are some things that chassidishe frumme yeshiva bochurim just don't do (and haven't done in the past). Not everything has to have an exact cite in Kittzur SA. There are some actions that, plainly put, past nisht. If someone feels otherwise, there is nothing that I can say to convince you otherwise. You either have the hergesh or you don't. [Someone mentioned parshas Kedoshim — there is the famous Ramban there...].See part 1 for a deeper inspection of this idea from a lecture by a local shliach, in connection with a parsha.
Way 2
There was an experiment done once. Ten monkeys were placed in a cage. In the middle of the cage there was a box, above which was hanging a banana. One monkey saw this, put two and two together and tried to climb on top of the box to get the banana. The experimenters immediately sprayed the monkey with cold water from a hose. The monkey, screaming, fell of the box.
Not only that monkey got sprayed, however. The other nine monkeys got sprayed too. Soon, another monkey attempted to get the banana, with similar consequences. After a while, the monkeys in the cage realized: "When one of our buddies climbs the box, all of us get sprayed." As a result, when the next smart ass tried to climb the box, it was pulled down by the majority of the monkeys.
Now, the devious experimenters took one of the monkeys from the cage and replaced it with a rookie. The rookie knew nothing about the story with the banana and the cold water, so, naturally, it attempted to climb the box. All the monkey quickly pulled it down and beat it up. It tried again: same result. After a while, it learned its lesson.
Next, another monkey was replaced. Same thing. The remaining nine monkeys (including the former rookie) were pulling down the tenth monkey and beating it up. The interesting part is: the former rookie monkey had no idea why it was doing it — it just knew that this is something that you do when a monkey tries to climb the box.
Well, I assume most of you see where this is going. Gradually, all old monkeys (who experienced the cold water) were replaced with new monkeys. And eventually, ten monkeys were sitting in a cage and pulling down and beating up any monkey that tried to climb the box to get the banana — but for no reason known to them except that this was a behavior they learned from their "elders".
The authors of this cynical story (based on real-life experiment) argue that the same might be true for many traditions existing amongst humans: they arose for absolutely valid reasons in specific circumstances, but today they are kept simply because they were inherited from the older generation. This is what you do, and this is what you don't do. Blindly. Past and past nisht. Even though, perhaps, the original reason and value of the tradition is no longer here.
19 comments:
Why is there an assumption that chassidishe people don't go to baseball games? Some of the most chassidishe people I know are big baseball fans, and frequent ballparks on a regular basis!
Perhaps going and spending time with goyim at big goyishe events is something that hasn’t been done traditionally by frum, chassidic Jews.
Both my mashpiim think there is nothing more wrong with theater than with a baseball game (assuming the play is clean), and that prejudice against theater comes from the same place as preference for black hats and long jackets — that’s how it was done in Russia (while organized sport outings did not happened there).
Why are the two perspectives neccessarily contradictory? In the Moshol of the monkeys, it was fortunate that they retained the tradition, because it kept them from getting sprayed with water.
A more accurate framing of the baseball/ theater question is that there is nothing mystical about theater that makes it worse than baseball, it is just that theater was around in Russia, so it became anathema, and baseball was not around, so it did not. But, baseball is just as poisonous as theater, and should also be avoided.
What you seem to be doing is using this logic as a Heter for theater, when you should be using it as a source to Assur baseball.
What happened is that we lost the sensitivity to not participating in Kol Hamoina Shel Roimi, and we were left only with the tradition that theater is evil.
Od Yesh Lomar, that there is a difference, in that theater attempts to engage a person intellectually, culturally, etc, while baseball does not, so it is a little less poisonous. Al Derech the end of Ch. 8 in Tanya.
Re: monkeys — well, we don’t know that. Maybe the sprayers had left by this time (i.e., conditions of the world changed).
I didn’t say the two perspectives are necessarily contradictory. Sometimes they are complimentary. I mean, one way to answer this is that Jews are government by h"p, while monkeys are not, and that’s the difference between Jewish and, lehavdil, goyish customs. (Well, according to Baal Shem Tov, monkeys are also governed by h"p, but it’s more achorayim-type h"p.)
Re: baseball — I agree that both are equally ossur, not both are equally muttar. In fact, since I was answering TRS’s question as to what’s wrong with baseball (or any organized sport outing), that would be the assumption.
I agree that we lost the sensitivity. But another problem is that rules are declared according to hergesh. “I have a hergesh that X is past nisht, and therefore, it’s past nisht. Now, if you don’t have this hergesh, there is nothing I can tell you [since it’s a hergesh after all].” Meaning, I am more chassidish than you, and if you don’t have the same intuition as me, well, what can I do? We’ll speak when you’re on my level.
Re: theater — I was actually thinking about this after answering TRS. Perhaps you’re right. There is something more eidel about theater (provided, again, that the play is kosher — not just b’chitzoinius, i.e., no kol isha, people are tzniusdike dressed — but also b’pnimiyus), and also it tends to refine a person, while a sports game probably does not have the same effect (if anything, quite the opposite). But, I am biased in this area, since, ironically, I come from Russian intelligentsia family and went to high school in Louisiana, observing drunken rednecks going to football/baseball games on their pickup trucks. So, perhaps, by me it’s a hergesh too.
Another point about theater. I guess, there was a bit of a hetter-shopping aspect of my comment. I think if a person is already reading secular literature (for fun and relaxation, not for parnoso, which is obviously different) and he is going to sports games — i.e., that is his madreiga that he uses these things for relaxation, and it’s his way of keeping himself sane — then not to go to a theater just because “it became anathema in Russia” is a little silly.
Yet, this is what seems to be happening nowadays.
How sad for the monkeys. Poor buggers, left bereft of their banana because no revolutionary stood up among them and said, "Borthers! Let not the bourgeois monkeys oppress us with their silly rules. Stand up for what is rightfully yours!"
It’s even more sad that the monkey did not stand up against the higher forces with the cold water hose.
But what can you expect? They're monkeys!
Dude! That’s not very nice, is it?
(This reminds me of a story about e’s uncle. To be followed in e-mail.)
Since when do I have to be nice to monkeys?
It’s this kind of remarks that results in antisemitism.
Or at least anti-monkeyism.
All I can say is: “Alle mentshn zaynen brider”.
Key word being "mentschen".
Key word being “brider”. Or “zaynen” (unless Bill Clinton objects.)
snort
My point about theater was that it is worse because it engages you intellectualy and culturally, not that it is better.
The monkey story really makes the opposing point: in real life, behaviors that cause you to get sprayed with water don't magically turn into behaviors that are only beneficial. If theater is bad for you, spiritually, then it is bad for you. It is fortunate for you to have a residual avoidance to theater, because theater is bad.
Unless you are taking your previous posts idea and extending even further by saying that, if a person is on the "madreiga" where he "needs" baseball, then he is failing to carry out his mission if he doesn't bring Eloikus into that need. And, since baseball is not >theater, he also needs theater, and is failing his mission if he doesn't indulge in this as well.
I would hope that even people that believe in the "bring Eloikus into your world" theory, would disagree with this extension of it.
I agree with theater being worse than baseball in that you need your faculties of Chabad to appreciate it. But it is seemingly better, because it refines your character and seichel.
(I am not saying that if you "need" baseball, you might as well need theater. Nor do I necessarily think that if you need something and are not doing it, you're not bringing Elokus into it and are therefore doing something bad. I think the only problem is when you are breaking yourself and are unable to serve Hashem with joy and chayus, like in the example of Rebbetzin Rivka. But at the same time, I think it's a good idea to set as a goal for yourself to eventually get rid of such addictions.)
My point about traditions is that sometimes people are holding on to something which was created by a specific context. The context has disappeared, but people are still holding on to it, because it's a tradition. I would be very wary to apply this principle directly and indiscriminately to anything in Yiddishkeit. This is just a caution about tradition in general that I think is important to consider sometimes.
If anything, I think it's important for a person to "own" his decisions in life. Not "own" in the sense of responsibility, but in the sense of knowing why he is doing them — not just do them stam azoy. Even if he is making them because he is bottul to someone's authority, it should make sense for him to be bottul to that authority.
But the Rebbe always gave the analogy of a person going to the doctor - that he does not insist on understanding how the medicine will work, he relies on the doctor's expertise.
You can see the concept of tradition in a similar vein. In most cases, if Jews are doing something in a specific way for a long time, you should assume that there is a good reason for it, and not insist on understanding the reason.
I would agree with you that those Chassidishe Chevra that revile theater but think that baseball is hunky dory have probably lost sight of the reason that theater was so reviled back in the day.
Post a Comment