I also loved David Linn’s comment, “You have to be a mentsch but you don’t have to be a shmata.” Perfect.

That would defeat the structure of the argument. Pascal’s Wager is a pragmatic answer that has the subject deciding between two beliefs based on the consequences of being wrong.

But there are more than two beliefs with a consequence for being wrong.

What if the Christians are right? What if the Muslims are right? Personally, if I’m wrong, I’m hoping the Mormons are right, because you get the chance to change your mind after death.

The argument you just gave is more commonly known as Pascal’s Wager, and occurs often in Christian apologetics.

In both cases, it is inherently flawed, because it assumes that there is only one theology to consider.

I think Rav Swartz had his cheshbon of why he answered you as such. Sometimes in public shiurim (and I would consider your impromptu follow up as public) a Rav does not want to dilute his point, so he makes a Lo Plug (he doesn’t differentiate between situations). That is very possible what was happening here.

I still maintain the rush to judgment, “I am right” approach is not in the arsenal of good/great Rabbanim.

“I approached him afterward to ask him a personal question…This Rav had never met me before, didn’t know about my family, parnassa, etc., spoke to me in Hebrew which I don’t speak that well. Yet he was confident to give me a very major life eitzah in a one minute conversation.”

Michoel asked his personal question sincerely, and the Rav answered him sincerely. Nevertheless, it would have been more productive in this case for Michoel to have asked a different Rav who already knew him and his overall situation. All else being equal, advice works best when the parties understand each other on a personal level. Hardly anyone has the level of ruach hakodesh to intuit the needs of someone he just met.

In NO WAY did I intend my words to be a criticism, chalila v’chalila of Rav Shcwartz. Chas v’shalom. I loved the drasha and felt very drawn to him personally. I was only trying to present another view of the idea that the circumspect approach is always the one used by big people.

There are family issues etc. that I am sure Rav Schwartz, given the time, would advise me to consider carefully.

Michoel, if you would like to discuss your experience with the meeting from the driver who took Rav Shwartz from NY to Baltimore & back, to discuss the issue, please call Benyomin Wolf at 516-668-6397.

-Dixie Yid

As I mentioned, the author of Bilvavi spoke recently in Baltimore. He is known as a deep baal mussar and clearly is a person that is in touch with subtleties and complexities of personality. He got up in front of 100 people of various flavors of Orthodoxy and told then that before we begin to speak about t’shuvah, we first need to talk about the basics. The basics means that we should move to Eretz Yisrael, stop speaking a gentile language, and grow beards and peyos. I am not exaggerating and the lecture is recorded.

I approached him afterward to ask him a personal question and he told me again directly that I should move to Eretz Yisrael. My question was about another aspect of the drasha but his point was that if I made aliyah, the question would be resolved on its own.

This Rav had never met me before, didn’t know about my family, parnassa, etc., spoke to me in Hebrew which I don’t speak that well. Yet he was confident to give me a very major life eitzah in a one minute conversation between a lecture and getting into a car.

The Gemarra says that a person should get married at 18. How can Chazal make a general rule about such a thing? What if he wants to learn more? What if he wants to build up his career? So in truth, the common understanding these days is that Chazal meant that if one has the emotional maturity, they should get married at 18. But they still said a general rule. And for most Chasidim, they stick to the simple meaning and get married at 18. And for Litvaks also, this statement does not leave a lot of room for what “I” want and feel.

If I wanted to grow a long beard and peyos, that would certainly be something that I would want to discuss with a wise, circumspect rav that could help me understand how the decision was likely to affect my self-perception etc. But the Torah says that one should not “destroy their peyos” and the Zohar says that one should not even trim their beard, so Chasidim all go with a long beard and peyos. And they don’t seem to be bothered by how it affects their self perception. “We are Yidden. This is how we do things. Period.”

I once had a discussion with someone that was saying that his mother could never be Israeli charedi because she was an accomplished scientist and had to study for years. His larger point was to criticize a society that was too black and white about topics that need subtlety. He had a point. But I pointed out to him that for nearly all of Jewish History, there were no female scientists and exceedingly few male scientists of any sort. People did what they needed to do to live. They were born, got married, struggled and went to next world. Has the Human psyche changed fundamentally since 100 years ago in Poland? I don’t believe it has. So why do we feel that we “need” to be doctors or graphic artists when our predecessors lived deep spiritual lives without any of these options?

We have grown complicated. So one approach is to go into the depths of a person and try to help them. The other approach (for Rabbanim) is the Lighthouse approach. To live like a person worthy of emulating and to say clearly what the Torah says (according to their daas), and let the people come up to it, to grow out of their complications and over-analysis and strive for something big.

I happen to think that sometimes we (baalei t’shuvah) kvetch too much.