Emes Ve-Emunah

YCT Talmud Chair, Rabbi Ysoscher Katz

“Kedusha is fragile, the smallest breach will eventually cause havoc to the community's spiritual wellbeing.”

Words like these illustrate why there is such an obsession with modesty by the right. Rashi tells us (Vayikra 19:2) that where-ever one guards against Erva (sexual immodesty), one will find Kedusha – holiness. But the above quote was not written by a Charedi Rabbi. It was penned by Yeshiva Chovevei Torah - Talmud Department Chair, Rabbi Ysoscher Katz, a champion of Open Orthodoxy. Which is somewhat ironic. I am reminded of a series of public lectures by their Rosh HaYeshiva, Rabbi Dov Linzer participating in a ‘sexy podcast’ calling it the ‘Joy of Text’. I think this may qualify at least as a ‘small breach.’ But I digress.

Rabbi Katz made this comment as part of a smear against Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer. He did so on his Facebook page for public consumption. Anyone can go there and read it. But it is Rabbi Katz that breaches a line. That of distorting the truth. He borders on being Motzi Shem Ra (deliberately besmirching the reputation of a fellow Jew) by innuendo - using imagery of sexual deviants to make his point. I take strong issue with the way he characterized OO’s best known nemesis. It was breathtakingly insulting. Here in part is what he said:

“To take the information gleaned from peering into people’s virtual homes and impulsively run to gleefully share it in the public sphere is obscene. To offer your blog to enable such behavior makes you an accomplice to the purveyance of immodesty… The image of an older man sitting alone in front of a computer, with no accountability or oversight, and constantly stalking on the web young male and female graduates from liberal institutions, reading, dissecting and mass distributing their every utterance is too disturbing to behold.”

I said it was breathtaking. But that is really an understatement. Although I generally agree with Rabbi Gordimer’s critique of Open Orthodoxy - one can quibble with him. Indeed there can be respectful even strong disagreement. One can even say that Rabbi Gordimer is a zealous opponent of Open Orthodoxy - determined to undermine it. But to call someone who opposes your views an obscene voyeur and an accomplice to the purveyance of immodesty and then paint a picture of a ‘dirty old man viewing porn alone in his home’ is so over the top that it defies any rational explanation.

Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer

As Rabbi Gordimer indicated in his brief response on Cross Currents, he is no more a voyeur than anyone reading this blog. Rabbi Katz’s public Facebook page is not his home where he is entitled to privacy. It is in fact no more private than the front page of the New York Times. This is an insult that requires a major apology in my humble opinion. And a personal request for Mechila. And a withdrawal of those comments!

Even-though I strongly disagreed with Rabbi Katz, I believed him to be sincere in his convictions and respected him for that. But this smear has caused me to re-think my opinion of him.It is as low as I have ever seen anyone involved with OO sink. Personal attacks have no place in public discussion of the issues affecting our lives. Legitimate criticism? Yes. Absolutely. Each side can debate and discuss the issues on their merits. The discussion can be and often is passionate. But passion is not excuse for besmirching and denigrating your opponent with smears and lies. As Rabbi Gordimer points out in his brief response on Cross Currents:

Making it personal stifles debate about the merit of the issues and innovations under discussion in these articles, for the merit appears to be quite lacking.

‘Where’s the Beef?!’ Where is the substantive response on that Facebook page that deals with the issues Rabbi Gordimer addresses? Why the smear? What has he gained other than making himself look like an immature teenager lashing out?

Just to be clear, this is not a post attacking OO or defending the views of Rabbi Gordimer. This is a post condemning the use of gutter imagery to smear your opponent. I am disgusted by it!

I realize of course that here are a lot of sincere people that support OO, YCT, and Rabbi Katz. And they too are upset by the constant attacks against that denomination and institution. I have seen comments along the lines Rabbi Katz made about Rabbi Gordimer right here in the comments section of my blog. And when I see them it bothers me that emotion can so easily color the reaction of so many normally thoughtful people. Although I admit failing in that department occasionally, when it is pointed out to me, I try to correct it.

Reasonable people can disagree. But being disagreeable does not belong in any debate among sincere people committed to their ideals. Once you start with the name calling, then in my view, you’ve lost the argument.

Dr. Harold Goldmeier

I know this man. Dr. Harold Goldmeier is someone I knew from Chicago. I consider him a friend and I think he would say the same about me. Dr. Goldmeier is retired and along with his wife made Aliyah a few year ago. I also know two of his children. One is Rafi Goldmeier, owner and operator of the popular blog, Life in Israel. The other is Shaya who lives in Chicago and was an active participant on this blog a while back. I do not know his other children at all. One of which is the subject of a poignant article by her father in the Times of Israel.

Harold’s daughter is no longer observant. The description of how that happened is both sad and enlightening. It tells a story of grief, sorrow, and love. A love that overcomes the grief over a child going what has come to be called ‘Off the Derech’ (OTD).

The process was slow but complete, Reading the reaction by her parents to the slow process of slipping away from their religious values was gut-wrenching. What is unique in this particular case about this unfortunately increasing phenomenon is that the Goldmeiers did not throw her to the wolves. They did not expel her from the home. They did not sit Shiva on her - or in any other way reject her. Their doors remained open. That was the advice they had gotten from a therapist they were seeing in order to better deal with this problem emotionally.

I know this is speculation on my part. And by no means should this be seen as a criticism. I hope the Goldmeiers do not take it this way. Hopefully, based on how this story is told, I think they might even agree with me. If not. Im sure I will find out real quick.

The trek their daughter took should be seen in the context of the trek her parents took. They had gone from being Modern Orthodox to becoming what Dr. Goldmeier calls Charedi-Lite. Which he describes as sending their children to Charedi schools but keeping the television. I guess they felt Charedi Hashkafos are Emes. But at the same time did not feel the need to throw out the TV.

If I had to guess the Goldmeiers did not give up all the values of Modern Orthodoxy either. So the values their children saw in the home combined with what they knew about the ‘outside’ world were in conflict with the ones taught in their Charedi schools. Values that I assume the Goldmeiers wanted for their children, even if they were not completely into them at home. The result was rebellion in at least one child. As Dr. Goldmeier puts it:

As adults, they now tell us they chafed at school rules and regulations, imposed to cloister them (and protect them) from the poisonous secular world.

Without saying so explicitly the message seems clear to me. You cannot have a set of values at home only to have them disparaged by your teachers in school. Not that the parents disagreed with the Charedi values their children were being taught. I’m sure they mostly respected and accepted them -wanting them for their children. But their children were obviously exposed to a modern world that was not like that which was acceptable in their schools. A world they very likely knew their parents had come from. That is never a good recipe for success.

Dr. Goldmeier continues by comparing his daughter to Chaya Deitsch the OTD author of Here and There: Leaving Hasidism, Keeping My Family. Dr. Goldmeier describes Chaya’s excursion away from observant Judaism:

Chaya recounts the small awakenings, like how impressed as a youngster she was with her Modern Orthodox relatives seemingly so comfortable in their religious skins. Each transgression takes her deeper into the secular world: wearing pants (a very cute story about fit and style), having coffee in a non-kosher shop, forsaking the kosher cafeteria in college, first for breakfast and then for other meals.

Deitsch grew up a voracious reader and keen observer of the world outside her bubble. Her parents worked with her recognizing early that Chaya was different. They did not go nuts when she wanted to apply for college, but negotiated with her. I think it is why she is healthy, a survivor, and productive citizen. She loves her Manhattan life and visiting her family in the old neighborhood.

He concludes with the fact that his daughter – although still not observant is very close with them and now - among other interactions - comes around for Friday night dinners.

There are many things that can be learned from this story. One is that when a child goes OTD, it is a far better choice to remain close with them than to alienate them. What other people think about you or your OTD child is not important.

Another lesson is that insisting on your own Hashkafa to the exclusion of other Hashkafos can do great damage. Coming from a Lubavitch background Chaya marveled at how comfortable Modern Orthodox Jews were in their religious skins. Had Modern Orthodoxy been an option for her early in her education, she may still be observant today.

The most important lesson is in the area if prevention. I think it is vital to send your children to the schools that most closely reflect your Hashkafos. The less contradictions one sees between the two, the less like they will rebel against the values of the home. Or the school. Or both.

Contrast this story with those told by fellow travelers on the OTD road whose parents, teachers, and communities literally expunged them from their worlds. These are the ones that all too often end up in the street abusing drugs and alcohol. In the more extreme cases - they are ill prepared to deal with the outside world not having any experience with it - and not enough of an education to find a decent job. These rejected Jews can and often do develop serious emotional problems that sometimes end in suicide. No chance to return when that happens.

We religious Jews want all of our children to follow in our religious footsteps. But the path of those footsteps needs to be as broad as possible so that every child can find a religious niche in which they can feel comfortable. Because if you raise your kids with a ‘my way or the highway’ attitude then in far too many cases they will choose the highway. One that is very dangerous.

Graduates of Yeshivat Maharat

Although we are coming from polar opposite positions with respect to the ordination of women - in an odd sort of way, I agree with Rachel Rosenthal. She proposes in a Forward article that we dispense with titles and judge people on merit. That would be ‘utopian’, as she puts it. But as she indicates, this will never happen in the real world. This was a reality that Ms. Rosenthal was forced to face. She does however make a reasonable argument for eliminating titles.

To paraphrase a great Jewish philosopher of 20^thcentury who once commented on the antisemitism that excluded Jews from memberships in certain country clubs: ‘I don’t think much of any club that would have me as a member.’ By this I mean that once I have achieved a certain status, the value of that status becomes diminished in my eyes. If I can do this, it’s no big deal. That is kind of the way I feel about my own Semicha. If I have it, Semicha ain’t worth all that much.

The truth is that Ms. Rosenblum is right. Semicha is granted to men rather casually in a great number of cases. Not everyone goes through the rigors of the required years of Talmud study after which they study the relevant portions of the Shulchan Aruch, take tests, pass them; and then receive a document called Yoreh, Yoreh in Hebrew. Accompanied with an English counterpart document (as HTC gives) stating they have a right to be called ‘Rabbi, Preacher, and Teacher in Israel’ (…meaning the Jewish people – not the Jewish State).

Not everyone that calls themselves rabbi has done that. And even among those that have, not everyone is equal in Torah knowledge or Halacha. Not everyone ‘aced’ their Bechinos (exams). I know a few people that can barely read Hebrew and yet have managed to somehow pass their Bechinos and get Semicha.

There are some Yeshivos that will give you Semicha (if you need it for a job) just by having learned enough years in their institution – without taking a single test. In fact my alma mater, HTC, will give someone what is called a ‘Rav U’Manhig’ (rabbi and leader) allowing them to be called rabbi for purposes of being hired for a rabbinic position - as long as they were in a high enough Shiur. Again without taking a single Bechina. (I don’t know if HTC still does that. But that was the case in my time there.)

There are people that get training to be a Mashgiach at various food establishments or catering facilities that are nowhere near having studied the requisite material for Semicha. They are referred to as ‘rabbi’ all the time by their employers or their staff. (Some actually do have Semicha, but certainly not all.)

There are also the ‘quicky’ Semichas that can be easily be achieved in Israel from private individuals for a small fee. And as Ms. Rosenthal points out, you can get Semicha on the internet!

One may rightfully ask, if I don’t think that much of Semicha, why do I make such a big deal about women getting it? I have stated my reasons several times before and am not going to do so again here. It is beyond the scope of this post. The purpose of which is to agree with Ms. Rosenthal about the ideal of doing away with all titles. Because as anyone can readily see, titles don’t really tell you all that much about the actual ability to do what those titles say you can.

I would prefer a world where people are judged strictly on the merit of their accomplishments. And no less a Gadol that Rabbi Yisroel Meir Kagan, the Chaftez Chaim, might actually agree with that. It is rather well known that perhaps this greatest ‘rabbi ’of the 20^th century never bothered getting Semicha until very late in life for utilitarian reasons.

A lot of angst would be avoided if this were the case today. If a woman studies enough to teach Torah or serve as pastoral counselors, or to give a Dvar Torah in the Shul, or serve as Halachic advisers on a variety of issues, I doubt we would be having these often rancorous public debates.

I know many instances of these things taking place now in Orthodox synagogues without a peep from the right. Although there might be some on the right that are not happy about some of these things it is basically ignored. No one would say they are violating tradition to the point of being ostracized from Orthodoxy by doing any of those things. It is the title of ‘Rabbi’ or any other name implying it which is the problem. That is when it becomes infringement upon tradition. Because the title puts you in a category that by tradition was populated only by men and where certain things traditionally done by a rabbi cannot Halachcily be done by a woman.

So at the end of the day, it’s a fight over the right to bear a title. A title that in my view doesn’t mean much… but at the same time is seen by society as worth a lot. Perception becomes reality. It is a fact of life that people with titles are viewed differently than people without them.

Credentials in a particular field are interpreted to mean expertise in that field. Even in cases where there is hardly even competence in it. If someone is an expert but doesn’t have the requisite title they are ignored and see as not equipped to handle a position they might be better qualified for than someone with a title! Can anyone imagine if the Chafetz Chaim’s expertise in Halahca would have been ignored because he didn’t have Semicha?

It would be ideal if reality would triumph over the false perception of expertise that a title always implies. Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn’t. The fact is that there are probably women that have become ‘rabbis’ that know a lot more, and are more competent then a lot of male rabbis I know. But living in reality also means living in a world where Orthodoxy rejects that title for a woman.

If one wants acceptance into the ‘club’ of Orthodoxy by the people who define Orthodoxy - my advice would be too not seek controversial titles. Just seek knowledge and expertise. You will surely be recognized for that when you do. That men who are incompetent get them without any controversy may not be fair. But it is reality.

Incompetence will eventually be exposed. As will be exposed the high degree of knowledge on the part of anyone that has achieved it. And that is a reality we can all live with.

Open Orthodox Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky

Many people think that a woman serving as a rabbi in Orthodoxy is a relatively recent idea. But the fact is that it is not new. Over 45 years ago when I was in the process of studying for Semicha, I actually penned an article in favor of female rabbis in Chicago’s now defunct Sentinel. It was my response to a highly critical article of that concept by a Charedi Rosh Yeshiva in a previous issue of that same magazine.

I made the following argument. Since the word rabbi really just means teacher, why couldn’t a woman do that? I have obviously changed my view on this subject because I have gotten older and wiser. There is a lot more to consider than whether a woman can be a rabbi because it just means ‘teacher’.

The truth is that – as I have said many times in the past, the title ‘rabbi’ in our day has no Halachic significance. It is nothing more that a Heter Hora’ah – granting an individual the right to inform people what the Halacha is when asked a question about it. A right gained by having studied the relevant portions of the Shulchan Aruch. The rabbis of today are not a masoretic continuation of the rabbis of old who received Semicha in a direct chain - one rabbi to another - all the way back to the time of Moshe. Moshe literally placed his hands upon Yehoshua in transferring rabbinic authority to him by the order of God. That ended many centuries ago.

Those people who argue that there is no Halachic reason not to grant today’s version of Semicha to a woman have a point. That’s why - although there are some Halachic issues with it - the debate is mostly about how important it is to follow Mesorah – tradition. And Open Orthodox rabbis have decided on their own that tradition is basically worthless in our day. As did Open Orthodox Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky at a panel discussion between 4 rabbis each representing a different denomination (post denominational, Conservative, OO and O). From the Jewish Journal :

(T)he whole concept of “tradition” has become problematic. “It’s become a polemical word. It has no meaning, it has no substance, it has no content, and if we want to have an intelligent conversation, we have to stop using it,” he said.

The debate over whether Orthodox women should serve in clergy positions, the refrain that has come out of the [Rabbinical Council of America] is that it is a violation of our sacred masorah [tradition],” Kanefsky said. “It is code: ‘I cannot think of a single reason why it is not halachically permissible but I know I don’t like it.’ ”

This was followed by Conservative Rabbi Adam Kligfield and ‘Social Justice’ Rabbi Sharon Brous agreeing with him.

Orthodox Rabbi Pini Dunner disagreed and argued that tradition should not be discarded and continues to offer guidance in our time.

I don’t think there is any question that OO has more in common with heterodoxy than it does with Modern Orthodoxy. How ironic that that the 3 rabbis in favor of female rabbis essentially make the same argument which was best expressed by Rabbi Brous:

‘There is a fundamental lack of creativity and lack of moral courage in engaging the tradition, so what we have seen, particularly [recently], are a number of emerging leaders and rabbis, lay leaders, individuals and communities throughout the country who are forming a non-Orthodox approach to Judaism and [who] say, ‘We will not engage in a perfunctory run through of the tradition…’

Is there any real doubt anymore whether OO is really Orthodox if they think along the same lines that Conservative and ‘social justice’rabbis do? Yes, OO follows Halacha. But so too did the Conservative Movement in its founding days. And still claim to!

The fact is that tradition has always informed each generation how to proceed. Tosephos (Menachos 20b) says Minhag Avosienu B'Yadenu. The customs of our fathers is our hands (to follow). There is even a Yiddish expression that says the following: A Minhag Brecht a Din – custom is so strong that it can override Halacha. How to apply that is outside the purview of this post. But this clearly shows that tradition has a very high place in Judaism and should certainly not be discarded just because you live in an era that no longer respects it.

That Judaism places a high value on traditions means that rabbis who do not have the vast depth and breadth of Jewish knowledge necessary to break tradition don't have the right to reject any tradition. Let alone all of it. Knowledgeable though they may be, they are not knowledgeable enough. Breaking tradition is reserved for Rabbis of high stature and recognized as such. And those rabbis have historically never changed tradition unless they believed there were existential reasons to do so.

But none of this really matters. Even if one were to agree with Rabbi Kanefsky that tradition doesn’t mean anything anymore - what really matters is what Orthodox rabbinic leaders will accept and what they won’t. As I have said many times, based on the vehement opposition by all Charedi rabbis and Centrist (RWMO) rabbis - I think I can safely say that female rabbis do not have a chance of being accepted in mainstream Orthodoxy in my lifetime - or even the lifetime of my children and grandchildren.

If Open Orthodoxy flourishes on its own (and it may) it will be outside of Orthodoxy. There may be many Orthodox Jews who agree with the OO argument saying that the right has not made its case. It may grow on that basis. But since Charedi and Centrist rabbis do not and accept them as Orthodox and likely never will (even the young ones) - they will not grow in an Orthodox context. Furthermore since Charedim and Centrists comprise the largest and fastest growing segment of Orthodoxy they cannot be ignored or written out of Orthodoxy by the left. Anyone that thinks that just isn’t being realistic.

As I have said many times - I can’t predict the future. I concede it is very possible that OO may grow in huge numbers someday. ...that many modern young Jews will be attracted by its claim to Halachic fealty, its egalitarian spirit; and its willingness to engage in theological dialogue with heterodox rabbis and clergy form other religions. Many new ‘facts on the ground’ may well arise - and arise quickly. Just as was case with the Conservative movement in its heyday. But numbers do not define Orthodoxy nor do they determine acceptance by the mainstream. I find it amusing that so many people think this will change.

Holocaust Historian, Dr. Rafael Medoff

How disappointing it is to me that there has to be a declaration made about Jewish ethics in Jewish leadership. This should be self understood in Judaism. We shouldn’t need to make statements like this. Alas, the time has arrived for such a statement. We have fallen short of our lofty mission to be a light unto the nations. Instead we are in danger of doing the opposite by the constant reports of one Chilul HaShem after another.

A recent editorial by Gary Rosenblatt in the Jewish Week informs us of just such a declaration. Mentioning just a few of the ethical and moral lapses made by prominent rabbis and lay leaders over the last few years, (many of whom were Orthodox) we have no choice but to make a statement that reflects the high moral ethics that the Jewish people are supposed to live by and promote.

I am not going to mention any of those moral or ethical lapses here. I have done so many times declaring them all to be a Chilul HaShem. Besides – the list would be way to long for a typical post. I can’t even count the number of times financial fraud or sexual misconduct of varying degrees of severity that so many former Jewish leaders have been found guilty of. And the accompanying number of times my stomach turned upon finding out about them through the media.

It is one thing for a lone blogger to cry out in disgust about these people and say that these things were all a Chilul HaShem. But it is another when many Jewish leaders cry out about the need to do something about it. I therefore applaud Holocaust historian, Dr. Rafael Medoff, an Orthodox Jew, for initiating this project and getting ‘more than 350 scholars, authors, rabbis, cantors and Jewish community activists’ to sign onto it.

The opening couple of paragraphs are sobering:

Unethical behavior among Jewish leaders has reached crisis levels in the American Jewish community. It seems hardly a week passes without news of yet another scandal involving rabbis, Jewish organizational professionals, or other individuals in leadership positions. These disturbing developments make a mockery of Jewish values, shatter the trust that we have placed in our community’s leaders, and alienate young people from Judaism.

Whether the offenses involve interpersonal relations, employer-employee relations, or Jewish governance of institutions and organizations, and whether the victims are Jews or non-Jews, the result is the same: individuals in positions of power exploiting their power to disadvantage and, in many cases, traumatize others.

With so many instances of the behavior described in the 2^nd paragraph it truly does make a mockery of Jewish values. Although as percentage of the whole the number is small, the constant flow of such stories make it seem like all of our Jewish leaders - both lay and rabbinic - are a bunch of unethical and immoral people whose primary concerns are servicing themselves.

It’s easy to say, ‘Don’t paint us all with a broad brush’. While that is an accurate statement it is hard not to make that generalization when there are so many instances of it reported. But media are just the messengers. Don’t blame the media. Blame the subjects of their stories.

Judaism ‘if used as directed’ is a highly moral and ethical religion. But when misused it can cause Chilul HaShem and calamity for various combinations of individuals, families, groups, and all of Klal Yisroel.

So as sad as it is that we need a declaration like this, I applaud it. Although I might have a quibble or two about the ten core principles listed, I generally agree with them. I am happy to see a recent past resident of the RCA, Rabbi Shmuel Goldin sign on to it. As well as many heterodox rabbis and lay leaders (who I think form the vast majority of signatories).

There are those who would be opposed to signing a document of any kind with heterodox rabbis. They believe that any public interaction at all with them legitimizes them.This is the Charedi view of things. Their Daas Torah strictly forbids it, no matter how beneficial it may be to the Jewish people. But this is not the view of Rav Yoesef Dov Soloveitchik. He allowed Orthodox rabbis to join heterodox rabbis in non religious matters of public concern. I can think of no greater public concern for the Jewish people at this point in time than to eradicate the image of Jewish leaders being either bunch of crooks or a bunch of sexual predators.

Thank you, Dr. Medoff.

2014 Mishpacha Magazine cover story illustrates the angst

I was sent a recent article from a Charedi magazine (not the one on the left) that discussed their community’s solution to the so-called Shidduch crisis. The crisis of the huge number of young Charedi women being passed over for marriage. The solution is now in the form of a proclamation signed by a number of Charedi rabbinic leaders stating that young men should consider getting married at the age of 21. It is based on what they say the reason for the crisis is: The age gap between men and women that begin dating in the Charedi world. Women are ready at about age 19. But men generally don’t start dating until about age 23.

That gap creates a pool of women far greater in number than men looking to get married since there are 4 years of women accumulating until a man is ready to date. And those men prefer dating the younger women. By reducing the age gap, they believe more women will get married instead of being left behind.

I have always argued that this doesn’t add up. The fact is that there are approximately the same number of boys born per year as girls. In theory therefore if every man gets married, so should every woman. And yet we know there is a crisis. It appears that many women do get left behind. And the older they get, the less likely they are to get married. Perhaps there is some merit to the argument that there are so many more girls dating than boys in any given year. On the other hand since there are equal numbers of boys and girls being born - I should think that there are as many unmarried men as there are unmarried women. If there is a crisis it should therefore exist for both sexes.

I have my own theory as to why there is this problem in the Charedi world (which I have expressed in the past). It basically boils down to how these young Charedi women are indoctrinated about who to date. They are taught from the moment the issue becomes relevant in their lives that they should seek young men that study Torah full time - and will be doing so after they get married. These same young women then seek top level students that do that.

The problem is that top students are rare. The same is not true for young women seeking them. It is a lot easier to want a guy that learns at a high level than it is to actually learn at a high level. That diminishes the pool of men significantly. The reputations of the young men studying Torah full time are easy to find out.

It is true that there are a lot of young men that are not at the ‘top of the class’ but are decent Torah students. But even they are relatively low in number compared to the number of ‘top girls’ that by definition are the ones looking for top guys. What about those young men that have decided to work for a living and are Koveah Itim – set aside time daily for Torah study? That is not what these young women are taught to look for.

I recall one young Charedi fellow telling me a while back he could not find a girl willing to date him because he decided to go to work instead of going into Kollel. And this young man was a ‘great catch’ in every respect. He was bright and of refined character. He loved learning Torah. He just felt that this wasn’t his niche – his destiny. So he went out and got educated in a field that would provide a good living for him and his future family – while studying Torah daily at night with a Chavrusa (study partner) in a local Beis Hamedrash. Nobody wanted to date him

When he spoke to his former Rosh Yeshiva (or Rebbe) about his Shidduch predicament, he was told that he should not be surprised about it because he is a second class citizen. Young women today want first class citizens – namely those who study Torah full time.

So again - the pool of ‘good’ marriage prospects for young Charedi women is relatively small. I think this is the real reason for the crisis. The men are there. The women just don’t want ‘those’ men. They don’t want the ‘workers’ and they don’t even really want the second tier students in those Yeshivos. So they get left behind.

But even if there is merit to the age gap claim, is getting married at a younger age the answer? How mature is a 21 year old man? Should we be advising young people to get married even before they are ready? With the divorce rate so high, will this not add to the problem?

The response to the fear of failed marriages is that other cultures among Charedim do get married at younger ages and there is no evidence that divorce is any more of a problem for them. I suppose that’s true. Chasidic men typically get married as young as 19 years of age. And they marry young women they have barely met – spending only a few hours together before they actually get married many months later. And yes, their divorce rate is probably no different than the rest of Orthodox Jewry. Perhaps even lower.

The problem with that argument is that Chasidism is a culture radically different than the rest of the Charedi world. You cannot compare the two worlds and say. ‘It works for them so it can work for us’. Besides, why wait until 21? Let them get married at 19 like their Chasidic counterparts! Or even 18? Shemonah Esreh L’Chupah the sages tell us. Wouldn’t that be an even better equalizer? And yet they choose 21 as the right age. Why wait until 21?

Frankly in our day - I don’t see 18,19 or even 21 as typically mature enough to get married. (Yes, there are exceptions.)

What really needs to be done is to stop indoctrinating all young Charedi women to seek only those who study Torah full time – and study it at top tier levels. Let these young women be diverse in who they seek. Let us broaden the pool of eligible young men instead of narrowing it to unrealistic levels by placing value only on the few. If that happens, I’ll bet it will help a lot more – and not potentially increase the occurrence of divorce that getting married to young might lead to.

But... I am not Charedi. So the Charedi world might just tell me to shut up. It’s none of my business. And I don’t know what I am talking about anyway. Perhaps. But I can’t help but believe that attitude instilled in Charedi young women about who to marry is as much a source of the problem as anything else. So what if I am not Charedi? The Rambam tells us to accept truth from whoever says it. I think that is good advice.

by Guest Contributor

Once again I received some words of wisdom form a Charedi mental health professional. I know his identity but I honor his wish to remain anonymous.I asked for and got permission to post his comments as a guest contributor. It is unique and important in the sense that it was written from the perspective of both of the above credentials.Which I think gives it far more legitimacy than if only one of either of those credentials were present.It follows here in full, unedited.

I see a new post about an old subject. Aside from articles in the major forum media outlets, with dramatic statements and suggestions, it's ho-hum. Nothing new, same debates, same digging of heels, statistical arguments, etc.

I take a perspective here, hinted in some comments, but I'm a tad more emphatic. I am busy with the ballooning rate of failed marriages, that explode within the first 1-2 years. There are many issues, the greatest being the absence of maturity, adequate role models, and proper training prior to undertaking one of life's greatest responsibilities.

But I highlight something else. The pure unadulterated idiocy of making the mythical "learning boy" into a criterion for marriage. For the potential klai kodesh, the kollel lifestyle is great, critical, and not replaceable. For someone lacking that potential, it is a disservice to the individual and the community at all levels to fabricate an identity as a "learning boy". Our girls schools also must stop pushing this myth.

What's my point? I am sick and tired of consulting to couples who are now stuck in dead marriages based on this myth. The pain and suffering that is almost universal to divorce today is mostly unnecessary. And as long as our yeshivas and girls schools are purveyors of this stupidity, we will continue to watch many avoid the "shidduch crisis" by resorting to either a lie or delusion, and end up patronizing toanim, lawyers, and dayanim. It is great for their parnosoh, but so many people suffer needlessly and in vain. Torah, Torah, chigri sack. Aside from people suffering, the Torah itself is being shamed by this foolishness.

Republican candidate for President, Senator Ted Cruz (Reuters)

New York liberals. That is sometimes used as a pejorative euphemism for Jews by the political right wing. And in my view it is a thinly disguised borderline antisemitic slur in many cases. Which brings up a recent comment by Republican candidate for President, Senator Ted Cruz. He spoke negatively about New York values. That immediately brought out the PC police suggesting he might be a closet antisemite.

New York City is where most American Jews live. I believe Jews make up about 10% percent of the population there compared to less the 2% of the population nationwide. While a 90% non Jewish population hardly makes New York a Jewish city - that is how it seen by many people. One may recall a comment made by the Reverend Jesse Jackson referring to New York as Hymie-town. (He has since apologized for that comment.)

The problem is that Ted Cruz is anything but an antisemite. He is just a politcally conservative politician who rightly suggests that the values expressed by most New Yorkers are highly liberal and anathema to conservatives. I personally think he should not have used that term. Not because he is an antisemite. But because it enables false charges of antisemitism to be hurled against him.

That said, Cruz is not wrong about New York’s liberal values. Nor is it even incorrect to say that the vast majority of Jews are politically liberal. The only Jews that are generally not liberal are Orthodox Jews. Most of us tend to be politically conservative.

Although there are many exceptions. Rav Ahron Soloveichik was a New York liberal. I recall him defending FDR’s lack of action in saving European Jewry during the Holocaust. He blamed it on FDR’s Jewish advisor who for example told FDR that over 100 Orthodox rabbis requesting a meeting with him about it were an ancient relic of a dead past (or something like that).

Why are non Orthodox Jews liberal? And why are so many Orthodox Jews conservative? I think that in the case of the former, they see Tikun Olam as the way to practice their Judaism. And since Halacha is otherwise meaningless to so many of them (since they generally do not follow it), they tend to support humanistic causes seeing it as Tikun Olam.

They are also far more tolerant of socially liberal values since Halacha does no play into their thinking. Orthodox Jews do care about Halacha. So that issues that are generally supported by political conservatives that tend to be more religious (like Evangelical Christians) are the same ones that are supported by Orthodox Jews. For example gay marriage, abortion rights, and feminism are 3 humanistic values that sans the religious component are seen as a human rights issue in a country founded on the principle that ‘All men are created equal’.

Orthodox Jews on the other hand see abortion rights, gay marriage and feminism in Halachic terms first. And tend to side with the conservative perspective on those issues. So it isn’t all that unreasonable to say that Jews are New York liberals. That’s because most of them are.

If it is true that most Jews in New York are liberals, why is calling someone a New York liberal considered an anti-Semitic slur? And if it is, how do I know Cruz wasn’t using it as ‘code’ for antisemitism, too? To a conservative, calling someone a liberal is a pejorative. Because they believe that liberals who in most cases do not see biblical values as their guide are destroying the country. And since they see a a liberal New York filled with Jews - then they are the ones destroying the country. And that is pure antisemitism.

Is this what Ted Cruz thinks? I highly doubt that. For one thing his support for Israel is total. Especially with a conservative Prime Minister in office. But more importantly one of his top political advisers is Nick Muzin. He is a senior adviser and deputy chief of staff for Senator Cruz. It should be no surprise that this Jew is a political conservative. He is Orthodox.

If Ted Cruz is an antisemite this is a very strange way of showing it. Unlike the real antisemites among some conservatives that see all Jews as New York liberals, Cruz understands that liberalism is not a Jewish trait. and that Orthodox Jews are the ones that use the bible to inform their values. Much he does and like most Evangelicals do.

This of course does not mean that all Orthodox Jews are politically conservative. Nor does it mean that all non Orthodox Jews are liberal. There are a lot of exceptions, like the one I quoted above. And then again there are people like me that tend to be liberal on somethings and conservative on others. For example I am for abortions rights whereas most Orthodox Jews are opposed to it. My reasons for being in favor are Halachic - same as the reason most Orthodox Jews oppose it.

I am not a supporter of Cruz. I still support Senator Marco Rubio and hope he gets the nomination and wins the election. But I do consider Cruz an honorable and principled human being and though I may not agree with him on everything, I certainly agree with him on Israel. And if he should by some miracle become President of the United States, we could do a lot worse.

Rav Chaim Kanievsky

The public discourse over Open Orthodoxy has driven home a very important point to me. The gap between Israeli and American Charedim is pretty wide. One may dispute that. But I believe that the differences are huge. And even though the American right wing looks up to right wing Israeli leadership in Israel and in some cases tries to emulate their Hashakfos, I don’t think they will ever catch up.

After speaking to some Modern Orthodox American expatriates living in Israel that support Open Orthodoxy that was made clear to me. It is only in America where the right is taking such a strong public stance against them. In Israel things like Open Orthodoxy hardly make a blip on anybody’s radar screen. They say Open Orthodox innovations like ordaining women is happening a lot more frequently there – and nobody says a thing. People just seem to accept it. Life goes on.

Even those on the extreme right aren’t saying anything. And certainly don’t come out with condemnations like the Agudah Moetzes. Or the rejection of Orthodox female rabbis by the RCA. No comparable condemnations have been made in Israel - except by a Chief Rabbinate which they claim has become irrelevant to any segment of Jewry in Israel

Furthermore, Israel’s population of Jews has grown and now has more Jews living there than any other country, including America. They are now the center of gravity. Case closed.

But therein lies the error. Can anyone seriously make the claim that Israels right wing is more tolerant of deviation from the norm than America’s right wing as represented by the Agudah Moetzes? That is hardly the case. So why no public condemnation or even protests?

In my view the reason the Israeli leadership is so silent about it is because the divisions between the right and MO/DL are so great, that they have virtually nothing to do with each other. The Religious Zionism that is so pervasive in Israel’s DL community is anathema to them. They consider Religious Zionism to be a bastardization of Judaism. It doesn’t even matter to them how observant the DL crowd is. They can wear the largest size Kippot; wear their Tzitzis out; have long Peyos and long beards; Daven the longest Shemonah Esrei; learn 24/7 in a Yeshiva… it doesn’t matter. The right barely acknowledges their existence - if at all!

I recall the massacre that occurred at their flagship Yeshiva - Merkaz Harav a few years ago. R’ Elyashiv attended the funeral saying that after all…. they study the same Torah that the Charedi world studies. The hidden message there was that if not for that massacre, they would have nothing to do with anyone that studies Torah at Merkaz Harav. They are religious Zionists. End of discussion.

This is why they don’t respond to Open Orthodoxy or the ordination of women. For them these rabbis may as well be Conservative or Reform. No need to comment on their current deviations ever since they made their major one of combining their Judaism with the ‘Avodah Zara’ of Zionism.

American rabbinic leadership does not think that way about Modern Orthodox Jews. As divided as Modern Orthodoxy is from the Charedi world (and the divide is increasing) there has never been the complete rejection by the right of MO as there is in Israel. There is a degree of integration here. We eat by each other. We trust the same Hashgachos. We even intermarry with each other occasionally.

But to an native Israeli Charedi, even American Charedi immigrants - although accepted and fully integrated - are considered modern; never to catch up. Integration between Charedim and MO/DLs in Israel is nonexistent and relationships with them are as contentious as they are with secular Zionists. Possibly even more so!

It isn’t only religious Zionsim that is the issue. The right wing in Israel doesn’t even trust the Kashrus of the MO/DL crowd because they rely on Heterim that are completely rejected by the right. Like the Heter Mechira that allows farmers to work their fields during Shmitah. The right will not trust many Hechsherim that MO/DLs use because of these issues.

There are Hashkafic issues that re extremely divisive like serving in the army. Or about how a Jew should spend his life. As an example of that I was sent me an e-mail stating recent comments made by Rav Chaim Kanievsky about how to best prepare for a Parnassa – Here in part is what he said:

1. The best hishtadlus (preparation) for parnassa is to sit and learn
2. If you really learn with hasmada then you will be blessed with everything including parnassa

This of course fits well with the Charedi value in Israel that every male should pursue a life of full time Torah study without the distraction of preparing for the work place.

In America even the most right wing Charedi leader here knows that preparation for Parnassa means learning a skill or trade or getting an education in a field that will enable a good salary.

This doesn’t mean that they think you should leave Kollel. They don’t think that. But they recognize that parnassa is not assured just by staying in Kollel. They recognize that Hishtdlus means learning a trade or profession. Because if they believed that learning with great Hasmada was enough, they wouldn’t be selling their best and brightest young men to the highest bidding father in law.

It is somewhat ironic that some people think right wing silence on the issue has means they tolerate it. The Charedi world in Israel is so segregated from the MO/DL world, that if they decided to stop being observant, the right would hardly notice. That is why they don’t protest it. But to think that the Israeli right wing is more tolerant of it because they don’t say anything is the height of naiveté, in my view.

One may then ask, why should anyone care what the right thinks? The answer is quite simple. Like it or not, they are outgrowing DL/MOs by leaps and bounds. They will eventually be the majority if they aren’t yet. And you cannot ignore them. They will not go away. And the more they grow the more power they will have. It is that simple.

Police in Chevron buildings (Jewish Press - screenshot)

The Jewish Press has been a home for my blog for some time now. I am grateful to them for publishing so many of my posts on their website. I have more posts published there than any other blogger. I am also grateful to them for having published a few of my articles in their print edition.

I truly appreciate how much they value my words, even when they don’t agree with them. I am not sure they will feel about me after this, though. I have to express what I believe to be Emes without considering the consequences to myself.

There has always been something about their editorial position with respect to Israel that has troubled me. That policy goes beyond their written editorial. It biases the way they report the news.They have a strong bias in favor of West bank settlements. Not just those in large and long established border cities like Ma’aleh Adumim. I too support those cities. They will no doubt remain in Israel’s hands in any kind of peace agreement with Palestinians. (Not that I think it is possible at this point in time.) But Jewish Press support goes way beyond that. They support settlers in places like Chevron, a city populated by Palestinians.

Those settlers are there for only one reason – to assure that not a single inch of Eretz Yisroel is ever turned over to the Palestinians. Especially not Chevron. So wrapped up are they in this goal that they are not beneath committing criminal acts. And in one of the more extreme cases, mass murder was committed by one of their more esteemed members, Dr. Baurch Goldstein.

The settlers of Chevron are the same people that worship Baruch Goldstein as icon and martyr for the Jewish cause. How different is that from the Palestinians that worship a suicide bomber that successfully blew himself up and took some Jews along with him?!

The latest article in the Jewish Press presents a sympathetic spin about the eviction by police of settlers in Chevron that have occupied 2 buildings there. The settler claim is that Chevron is holy, it is ours, and has been ours since Matan Torah. It was the home of Avrohom, and it contains the holy burial grounds of our patriarchs and matriarchs. They therefore will do whatever it takes to keep Chevron in Jewish hands. The Jewish Press seems to agree with that. So they report the eviction of Jewish settlers there with an immoral and unjust spin.

I don’t know if those settlers did or didn’t have a legal right to occupy those buildings. But in my view they endanger the welfare of their people. Their presence in or near that city is an incitement that is unnecessary and a source of anger to Palestinians. Which increases the chances of more Jews being harmed of killed.

Please do not misunderstand. I fully understand Palestinian terrorists don’t need much to terrorize us. They have been doing that in a piecemeal fashion for months now. Most Palestinians probably feel we deserve it. So that even if there was not a single Jewish soul living in or near Chevron, not much would change. But as I have said many times, pouring gasoline onto a fire does not help. Doing Yishuv Ha’aretz - settling the land in this way is irresponsible and has consequences. To which they seem oblivious.

This is also not to say that we don’t have a right to Chevron. Of course we do. But rights do not trump safety. When one exercises their rights under conditions that cause harm to others, one has to question the priorities. Jewish life is sacred. Exercising a right that can bring more death and destruction - is wrong.

That’s why I agree with Rav Shach on this issue. If I recall correctly, he said he would even give up the Kotel if it would bring genuine peace. I agree with him. My motivation is simple. Whatever saves Jewish life is what I favor. Pikuach Nefesh is not something that should be taken lightly. It should not be ignored by people with agendas – even legitimate ones. Saving Jewish life has the highest of value in Judaism. V’Chai Bahem the Torah tells us about the laws dictated by the Torah. The sages interpret this to mean that one may violate any and all Halachos to save a Jewish life – except for idol worship, murder, and adultery. Certainly settling the land of Israel is not any of those three.

I therefore find an editorial position that sympathizes with the settlers of Chevron repulsive no matter who has it. It is one thing to feel that the settler view is the right one. It is another to write in sympathetic tones about actions that exacerbate the enmity of our enemy.

The Jewish Press is not alone in praising such deeds. I have read more than once about the ‘courage’ of those who risk their lives by settling in and around Chevron. In my view this ‘courage’ is pure foolishness. They risk their lives for an ideal that is over-ridden by the ideal of saving Jewish lives.

If it were up to me, I would evacuate all of Chevron’s Jews. And I would consider doing the same thing to Kiryat Araba, the Israel town right next to it. I see no value to having a town there – even though it has been there since shortly after the 6 day war of 1967.

I realize that a lot of readers that generally support my views here, will be appalled at this post. I’m sure I will be accused of Nazi-like attitudes of making parts of biblical Israel Judenrein (free of any Jews). That’s OK. I will take my lumps. But I feel very strongly about Pikuach Nefesh and I oppose any activities that endanger the lives of fellow Jews. And this doesn’t even take into account the danger Israeli soldiers face that are there to protect them.

I understand the sincerity of these people. They are committed to their ideals and are willing to risk their lives for them. That is admirable under normal circumstances. But when they risk the lives of others along with their own that idealism turns into a callous disregard for the welfare of their fellow Jew.

They may claim that activities in Chevron does not endanger the Jewish people any more than they already are. But that makes about as much sense as saying that pouring gasoline on a fire will not increase the flame. These people are wrong. And the Jewish Press would do well to recognize that instead of constantly sympathizing with them.

Chasidim of Stamford Hill (Independant)

Update
As noted by an astute reader, this post is based on an article dated September 2015. I had actually written a post on it then - similar to the one I wrote here.

Someone sent me an e-mail with a link to that article and I did not notice the date. In my haste to write today's post I forgot to check the date - although I did have a vague recollection of such a story from the recent past (noted in this post). My recollection was of this exact article.

I apologize for this error. And I will try not to do it again. There are no excuses for an error like this. But there is an explanation. I am out of town this week on a brief vacation with my wife. And I'm trying not to ruin the vacation by spending too much time on my blog. Hence the rush to publish.

I have decided to leave this post up since ot does differ slightly from the original - and becuause there are people that responded to it. Once again, I apologize.

I don’t understand how people who think like this can live with themselves. The Charedi world in London, which is located in a neighborhood called Stamford Hill want to make sure their children understand the fundamentals of Judaism. So of course they begin teaching them at a very early age.

One of those fundamental apparently is that Goyim - non Jews are evil people. Three year old children are taught about the holocaust at this very tender age. First I question the wisdom of teaching the Holocaust to 3 year olds. A 3 year old does not have any where near the maturity to understand what the Holocaust was all about. But one thing they do understand is the word, ‘Goy”. And the immediate association they make with that word is ‘evil’.

These young children are taught that the Goyim caused the Holocaust. The Goyim tried to exterminate us. The Goyim mercilessly slaughtered 6 million people. The Goyim killed your Bubie and Zaydie. Not the Nazis. The Goyim!

They make no distinctions. Is it any wonder that so many of them grow up thinking that they can cheat the ‘Goyim’ as much as they want – as long as they can get away with it? After all if they are that evil stealing from them is nothing! …A lot less that they deserve!

How do they deal with the fact that they are treated well by the ‘Goyim’ in all respects? They probably think that they are just nice to us that on the outside. But deep down they want to kill us. And if they could, they would.

How do they function with all that hate? They are taught to behave in front of the Goyim. And not let on about what they are taught. They may even go around flattering them in public in some cases. But privately? To these people the Goy is a worthless piece of ‘Nazi’ slime to be taken advantage of whenever possible – as long at they don’t get caught.

This is not the first time I heard about their ‘Chinuch’ in this regard. When challenged about it the last time I heard about it, they explained that they had no Yiddish word for Nazi. And since the Nazis were Goyim - they just called them Goyim. They said that of course they knew that the Goyim in England weren’t Nazis. Problem is they don’t teach it that way to their children. They just use the word ‘Goy’ in instead of Nazi. Because that is the real message they want to instill in their children.

To say that this is an embarrassment to the Jewish people is an understatement. Especially in places where the government actually pays for their education. Like England does.

You would think that after living in a country for many decades – one that is so welcoming to the Jewish people as is England (especially after the Holocaust); where the Chief Rabbi is knighted and made a member of the House of Lords, where Prime Ministers and princes have heaped so much praise on the man they see as the leader of the Jewish people - that would modify that message. But if you would think that – you would apparently be wrong.

Let them use the word Nazi to teach their children what the Nazis did to us. And no substitute the word ‘Goy’. And not let little children start their lives out by hating innocent people. Because that can and has led to a lot of people from this community committing all kinds of fraud against the Goyim and their government. Because that is immoral and a Chilul HaShem.

I have my differences with Chasidim. I love them as fellow Jews. But not those Chasidim who can do this to their children. Teaching hate of innocent people is not a Mitzvah and most certainly not not a Jewish trait.

Jewish children at play in Chevron (Jewish Press)

The Jewish Press has honored me with a rebuttal. I should first thank them for publishing a highly critical essay about their strong support for the settler movement. In my essay I found that those settlers that insert themselves into the heart of Palestinian areas like Chevron is the height of irresponsibility. As is the support the Jewish Press gives to them. I think it is safe to say that Chevron is where one can find more hostility towards us than any other place inside of Israel. Chevron, one might recall is where Jewish students of the Chevron Yeshiva along with other Jews were massacred in 1929.

One may notice on the page where my essay was published that there is an advertisement for the works of Rabbi Meir Kahane on the Parsha. Rabbi Kahane was a columnist for the Jewish Press until his death by assassination. Not that every settler is a Kahanist. But it is his views or those very similar that seem to be at the core of the settler movement. That should tell you right away where Jewish Press sympathies lie. (I’m sure the Jewish Press does not support those extremists but they support the man who these extremists base their actions upon).

Bearing this in mind, it is not a surprise to have been responded to so strongly in an attempt to both marginalize my views and refute them. I was offered an opportunity to respond to that ‘rebuttal’ and after thinking about it for a few minutes; I have decided to do so. If only to clear up the misrepresentation of my views. I fully expect though - that the Jewish Press will have the last word. Can’t blame them. It’s their paper.

The rebuttal was written by David Israel. The gist of which can be reduced to one word: Galutiut, a new Hebrew word he says defies translation, And yet he blames it for my views. I don’t think it’s so hard to ascribe meaning to it. I have heard a version of that word used many times: Galus mentality. The idea being that those of us that do not live in Israel do not understand what it means to live there. By ‘there’ I mean Eretz Yisrael – the land of Israel. Biblical Israel. The ‘Promised Land’. All of it. The love of country that these settlers have for Eretz Yisrael is so strong that they cannot fathom not trying to settle it all.

They believe they are following Halacha by doing that. We are after all commanded in the Torah to inhabit the land. And once we have it, we are supposed to keep it even if it means going to war to do so.

Those of us who are opposed for reasons of safety are therefore said to have a Galus mentality. Meaning that Pikuach Nefesh is trumped by the positive commandment to settle the land. ‘Where is your faith in God?’ …they might ask. They will often cite biblical sources (as did David) to show how wrong we are.

David compared us the biblical Meraglim - the spies who went out to survey the land of Israel before inhabiting it. They returned from that mission convinced they could not win a war with the indigenous population. So they agitated for a return to Egypt. The Meraglim were killed for their insubordination and lack of faith in God. The ancient Israelites that were convinced by the Mergalim were punished with 40 years in the desert - with all Jews over the age of 20 dying out before reaching the Promised Land.

But is it fair to compare the Jewish people of today with the Meraglim of biblical times? We are not the Dor HaMidbar (the generation of the Exodus from Egypt) to whom God performed open miracles. We are not now in a time of prophecy whereby God tells us through His prophets what to do - and which we are rebelling against.

We are now in fact living in Galus. All of us. Including those of us living in Eretz Yisroel. We have not yet been redeemed. There is no evidence at all that we are anywhere near messianic times. And we certainly have not been told by God or one of His prophets to put aside our safety and the safety of our families and fellow Jews to settle all the land of Israel.

Furthermore, David’s comparison of America to the pre Holocaust Germany of Hitler is insulting in the extreme. I can’t think of a more odious comparison.

(I should also mention that accusing me of spelling Chevron like the name if a gas station is truly a cheap shot. I spell it phonetically the way I do all transliterated Hebrew - using the letters ‘ch’ to mean the Hebrew letter Ches or Chaf, which has no English equivalent. But that is besides the point.)

As part of his rebuttal, David cites another biblical passage to show Jewish ownership of the land. Something I never disputed. Of course the Promised Land belongs to the people God promised it to!

He then criticizes my citation of Rav Shach who said that he would give up the Kotel if it meant a true peace. It is obvious that he respects Rav Shach. But he does not refute him at all. He only makes an irrelevant comment about the fact that the entire Temple Mount is not in our hands anyway. I agree with that. But the Kotel is in our hands.

After mentioning my reason for opposing the settler movement, Pikuach Nefesh, he doesn’t bother refuting that either. He only mentions my using it in order to malign ‘fellow Jews, libeling them, dubbing them murderers and thieves’.

And finally he reminds us of the virulent antisemitism on some university campuses in America and about the psychopaths who were randomly punching innocent people in the face a while back – implying that they were targeting only Jews. He ends by telling me in so many words to stay out of Israel.

There is one thing I wish to make clear. I am 100% opposed to giving up a single inch of Eretz Yisrael at this point in time. But in theory I still believe in ‘land for peace’. This is in opposition to my own Rebbe, Rav Ahron Soloveichik. When I told him this, he asked me why? I answered that I felt like Rav Shach and many other rabbinic leaders who held that Pikuach Nefesh trumps Yishuv Ha’aretz (the Mitzvah of settling the land).

He did not disagree with me. But he said that giving land to the Arabs was the greater danger. Israel would be safer if we hold on to what we captured. In the end, he proved to be right. We gave them Gaza and look what happened. Giving Palestinians the West Bank now would make Gaza look like Disneyland.

But that doesn’t mean we should support actions that exacerbate Arab hatred against us with acts like taking over buildings in a hotbed of animosity. To the settler the danger of doing that doesn’t matter. Because they believe they are doing the will of God. And that in the end, He will protect us. Unlike those of us with the Galus mentality who see the danger as real.

One more thing. I was accused of smearing the entire settler community by calling them murderers and thieves. I did not do that. If that is how I was read, I apologize for not being clear. I still strongly oppose the movement. But only a few actually end up being aggressive like those taking over buildings in Chevron. And fewer still become mass murderers like Baruch Goldstein. But it is also true that a lot of settler types especially in Chevron worship at his grave site. Or make up scenarios that justify what he did.

I do not have a Galus mentality unless it means believing that we are not yet in the era of redemption. I know what Ertetz Yisroel means to the Jewish people. I am just someone that sees clear and present danger inherent in the philosophy of a group of people like the settlers of Chevron who are determined to carry out what they believe to be the word of God. And I am therefore opposed to them. We do not live in biblical times. Using the biblical passages to make your point is irrelevant. We are required by Halacha to put Pikuach Nefesh ahead of all other considerations. And I will always oppose anything that endangers the Jewish people.

Guila Benchimol

We were living in the dark ages. This was an astonishing admission I heard not long ago from a prominent Charedi Posek. He now believes we should report suspicions of sex abuse directly to the police. If only all Poskim would feel that way. That would be a start to solving a problem that is very likely under-reported in massive numbers. I mention this now in light of an article by Guila Benchimol in the Jewish Week. More about this later.

I first want to mention an eye opening movie I saw while vacationing this week. I generally don’t go to movies because frankly there are few made these days that are worth my time. But when on vacation, I allow myself the luxury. So I try and find movies that have been critically acclaimed. One such move is Spotlight. Although it contains a lot of profanity, it is a movie I highly recommend.

It is based on the true story about the huge amount of sex abuse in Boston by priests in the Catholic Church. Spotlightis the name of a team of the Boston Globe investigative reporters that, at the urging of its new Jewish editor, Marty Baron, discovered it and exposed it. That series of reports won the Pulitzer Prize and caused the highly regarded Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Bernard Francis Law to resign because of his proven attempts to cover it up.

Originally thought to be a relative small number of abuse cases, the Spotlight team ended up with proof of abuse by 87 priests in the Boston on area. Ultimately 250 priests were accused of molesting minors. One priest allegedly molested 130 children over the course of his ministry. The scale of abuse victims in the Catholic Church was suspected to be in the thousands over several decades.

One of the interesting points made in this movie was how some of the priests viewed their own behavior. In one case, a priest actually thought that he did nothing wrong!

Even though this movie is about the Catholic Church, there are parallels in our own Orthodox Jewish community. Of course the numbers are not the same. But the percentages may very well be. Jews, no matter how religious, are not immune to deviant sexual impulses and the behavior that often follows . We know that until recently cover-ups have been the order of the day. In many cases it still is. As is denial by the perpetrators themselves. Sometimes they are lying. But sometimes, like that priest in Boston, they don’t believe that what they do is abuse. Which brings me to the article by Mrs. Benchimol.

What she describes in the Jewish community is what I saw in the movie Spotlight. Rabbinic leadership has a history of covering up abuse. Not because they are evil. But because they did not believe that prominent and apparently ethical people - rabbis in many cases that were model citizens in so many other ways - could ever do what they were accused of. Just like priests were once thought of thought of by the hierarchy of the Chruch as well as by the laity. These perpetrators then rise above suspicion. This is what Mrs. Benchimol calls cognitive dissonance.

In the minds of these religious leaders the only explanation was that the victim was the guilty party. In the Orthodox Jewish world, the accusers were the suspects and the victims were the accused! The accusers were just out to ‘get’ a prominent rabbi or lay leader because of some personal grudge or vendetta. Or because they were going OTD and wanted to besmirch Orthodoxy. Above all else, these rabbis believed (and in some case still believe) that Torah world needed to be protected from the ‘false’ image that sex abuse existed at all in any significant number, let alone that it is as common as we now know it to be.

Victims have felt demoralized by this attitude. And- as I have mentioned many times - they suffer lifelong depression to one degree or another because of it. In some cases attempting suicide.

Mrs.Benchimol cites a study about delinquents. I agree with her that it parallels the circumstances with sex abusers:

In the 1950s, Gresham Sykes and David Matza named five strategies delinquents use to neutralize their crimes. Their framework sheds light on how the way we speak about sex crimes can neutralize and deflect blame from the perpetrators to the victims. The five techniques include denial of responsibility (it’s not the perpetrator’s fault), denial of injury (Gafni called his actions an “outrageous act of love”), denial of the victim (Rabbi Eric Siroka suggested he was having an affair with his victims), condemnation of the condemners (Gafni says his detractors are committing “sexual McCarthyism”), and appealing to higher loyalties (Gafni’s supporters explain his actions as part of his special energy used to counsel and teach).

I could not agree more with Mrs. Benchimol’s conclusion:

Once I understood the techniques, they leaped out at me from the news stories reporting the sexual crimes and abuses of power of our leaders, and I understood how we were failing their victims. These strategies dilute accountability and make it less likely that perpetrators will engage in the introspection necessary to address the problem. They ensure that perpetrators remain free of guilt. They focus our attention on the actions of individual perpetrators rather than on dysfunctional structures in our communities that allow sexual violence and abuse to occur and remain concealed for many years. One is the practice of allowing rabbis to investigate one another; another is not publicizing the reasons for their expulsions from their organizations.

Do we need our own Spotlight investigation before we do what’s necessary? Our rabbinic leaders would be wise to admit to themselves what that Posek I spoke to admitted: We were living in the dark ages. I think Mrs. Benchimol got it right. Here are her suggestions with which this post will conclude.

While rumors do not indicate outright criminality, they must be investigated. The cost of ignoring them is too high. But investigating allegations after they occur is too little too late. We must implement clear policies and action plans in our institutions to deal with problematic behaviors before they arise rather than rely on the current reactionary responses. We need to make definitions of prohibited behaviors explicit so that we can recognize when we need to blow the whistle or turn to the police. Victims need our assurance that it is safe for them to report crimes, that we will protect them and stand by their side. Our community needs to wake up to the reality of how predators operate, and not rationalize away their behavior. Otherwise, we are all responsible for contributing to the walls of silence around the sexual crimes of the powerful.

Shlomo Yehuda Rehcnitz speaking at a Lakewood event (YWN)

Being right on this issue doesn’t give me any pleasure. But the consequences have now passed the threshold of being barely noticeable to the point of crisis. A crisis in a city some people call Lakewood, Ir HaKodesh. (Half seriously. Half mockingly.)

The crisis is not new. It has been going on for some time now. It is not limited to Lakewood. But Lakewood seems to be the epicenter – where the most damage is being done. Many children in Lakewood are being denied an education being rejected admission to a school.

The reason is apparently not what I had thought it was. It is not because of the exponential growth of the Charedi population, there. I believed that the continuous massive yearly increase in the child population just meant that there simply was not enough room for everybody. No matter how many news schools were built, they could not contain the increased numbers. But if that is a reason, it is apparently not the primary one. The issue behind this problem is a much bigger one.

The city fathers there know that children are being left out. Rabbi Matisyahu Salomon had spoken about it years earlier – strongly criticizing those schools that had become so elitist that good students could not get in. But it seems that Rabbi Salomon’s word have fallen on deaf ears.

And now an outsider (…although he is Charedi, he lives in Los Angeles) has spoken out on this issue. Mega philanthropist, Shlomo Yehuda Rechnitz spoke at an event that included many of Lakewood’s rabbinic leaders and told it like it is. Mr. Rechnitz is like E.F. Hutton. When he speaks people listen.

I suppose it takes someone who has a major financial impact on Torah institutions to take a serious issue off the back burner. His speech was described in great detail by Rabbi Yair Hoffman in a YWN article that is accompanied by a video of that speech.

The brutal truth was spelled out. Which is that children being left out is a symptom of a far bigger problem. This is not to minimize the symptom. Shlomo Yehuda describes one instance of it very poignantly:

He spoke of a 13 year old girl, who clearly sees that nobody wants her. She’s the town’s Pesoles. “Can you imagine,” Mr. Rechnitz asked, “an innocent Bas Yisroel, putting on a face for her friends, claiming she hasn’t had enough time to decide which school to go to, only to lay her head down on her pillow at night, the pillow which is still wet from the tears of the night before?”

So what is the problem if this is only a symptom? Here is how Shlomo Yehuda put it:

“… we have a Machla (plague) in Lakewood. No other out of town community would ever allow a child to be left without a school. In Los Angeles, if a child wouldn’t have a school the first day, the whole community would be all over it. The same thing would happen in Baltimore, Chicago and Toronto or anywhere else.

This is basically a Lakewood Machla. Yes, there’s a few kids in Monsey, more than a few kids in Brooklyn, but nowhere else and in no other time in history was this problem close to the magnitude it is in Lakewood..Even the children that get in, how many of them and their parents shvitz for months, making phone calls, waiting for phone calls?”

And then after a brief description about the beauty of a city that is Kulo Torah, he said the following:

“Many of us have created for ourselves a new Torah, a new Yiddishkeit, that makes us feel good about ourselves, but has little to do with Hashem’s Torah that He gave us 3300 years ago. We turned our Frumkeit into an idol, and we have forgotten some of the basic tenets of Yiddishkeit.”

“I am heartbroken for one particular conversation that occurs nonstop in Lakewood. Parents call up a school and say: if you take in so and so, I am not sending my child. The school buckles under and rejects that child.

This is a churban (holocaust) for klal yisroel! How dare you destroy another child’s life because if your opinions of the other child?! How dare you become a murderer like that? How dare you face Hashem by davening when you snuffed out a Yiddishe Neshama? How DARE you?”

He exhorted the listeners, “This is mammash(actually) shefechus damim (murder!).

If the school isn’t good enough for your child, shut your mouth and go find him a school that does work, or create your own school just for your child. Make a yeshiva just for him. He presented a list of five very false Ani Maamins:

1. I believe that “I am better than you.

2. I believe that I have to show all my chumros, so everyone can see how frum I am.

3. I believe that “your children are not good enough for my children.”

4. I believe that the Torah was given to perfect children and perfect families.

5. I believe there is no room for individuality; we must all fit into the same perfect model.

Shlomo Yehuda’s condemnation of how Chinuch in Lakewood operates, is breathtaking. If I had said anything like that, I would have been called a Charedi basher. In fact I have said many of these things in softer tones and called exactly that – a Charedi basher. Which I completely reject since my goal was not to bash but to inform and raise consciousness about a malaise in the Jewish world. That was always countered with something like, ‘No one that I was addressing reads my blog and therefore my words were worthless!’

But now, one of their own has said it. In far stronger terms that I ever cold have! And Shlomo Yehuda Rechnitz will not be ignored. He is someone that garners tremendous respect for all the charitable work he does; all the financial support he gives to institutions like Lakewood; and the constant Kidush HaShem he makes in the world. I believe they don’t only respect the man’s money. I believe they respect the man.

Sholmo Yehudah Rechnitz is a Talmid of Telshe Yeshiva in Chicago. And he has remained very close with his Rosh HaYeshiva, Rav Avrohom Chaim Levine. So his approach to this came as no surprise to me. Rav Levine spoke out about this very issue at a Torah U’Mesorah convention, a few years ago saying something to the effect that if Jewish day schools would have been as elitist in his day as they are today, half the people sitting in that room wouldn’t be there. And probably wouldn’t even be observant.

My proverbial hat is off to Mr. Rechnitz. He is a Gibor - great man. An individual, with a big heart and an even bigger sense of responsibility to the Jewish community that extends far beyond Lakewood. He doesn’t just talk the talk. He walks the walk.

But will his rebuke help? I’m not so sure. The ‘holier than thou’ Frumkeit that R’ Shlomo Wolbe so forcefully condemned in his masterwork of Mussar, Alei Shur, is alive and well in Lakewood. Thriving beyond anything R’ Wolbe could have ever imagined.

United Torah Judaism MK Eliezer Moses

According to a government statistic cited in this news website (Hebrew) one out of ten Charedim in Israel drop out of observance. If true - that is an astonishing number.

These numbers are backed up by a survey taken by the Central Bureau of Statistics . Approximately 157,000 respondents said they were Orthodox at home at the age of 15 , more than 12 thousand define themselves as non Charedi.

Add to this fact is another astonishing statistic: more Charedim in Israel leave observant Judaism than come into it as Baalei Teshuva. Now I doubt that this means that the Charedi world is shrinking. Their very high birth rate more than compensates for the loss. If you have 10 children and one goes OTD, you have still added 9 people to your group. And those nine children will no doubt have 10 each of their own.

But still, the dropout rate is shocking. Yehuda Moses, son of Charedi MK, Eliezer Moses sees this as a revolution comparable to the Arab Spring. There is no Charedi home that is no affected by it. One has to wonder if the rate of dropping is increasing, will it ever catch up and surpass the internal growth rate and actually shrink the population?

The question is why? Why are unprecedented numbers of Charedi young people rejecting the teachings of their parents and teachers? What makes this question even more compelling is the fact these communities go to extraordinary lengths to shelter their children from the outside world for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is this one. They live lives in virtual isolation from the rest of society – entering it only as absolutely necessary. And even then they try and do so with as little interaction as possible.

The problem causing this high dropout rate is obvious. Charedi leaders know what it is. And they have tried mightily to deal with it. But by now it should be clear that their solution to it isn’t working.

The problem is that their insular ways are not working for 10% of their population. The things they forbid become the objects of obsession for the masses. The ‘information highway’ is now accessible at your fingertips. Telling people not to use it, just makes it all the more desirable. The Gemarah in Nedarim 91B (quoting Mishlei 9:17) tells us ‘Mayim Genuvim Yimtaku’ - stolen waters, are sweeter. The more forbidden something is - the more desirable it becomes.

Smartphones are everywhere and are easy to hide. An as anyone who owns one knows, they are the fastest and easiest way to get information. Questions that a young Charedi student wouldn’t dare ask a parent, let alone a Rebbe in a Yeshiva or Beis Yaakov can easily be researched online – on your phone.

You want to know about the origins of the universe? Just ask Siri. (…an I-Phone application that has a name and responds verbally to your questions - or searches the web for answers.) Very few of those answers will say God created it. Add to this the ubiquitous pornography that shows up on your screen often unsolicited because of the way you searched for something... and all the temptations of the world suddenly become very accessible.

The Charedim interviewed in this article seem to be conceding that isolationism is not working and express fears that this trend will only get worse. Although there is still a lot of denial about this by rabbinic leaders - just as there is about the fact that there are so many dropouts.

For those of us that use the internet responsibly and allow our children controlled access with proper filters, the dangers are considerably reduced, albeit not eliminated. I doubt that moderate Charedim, Centrists, and even the far left are dropping out of observance because of that kind of exposure to the internet. (Although I’m sure it does happen.) Nor does it mean that they are spared from huge dropout numbers. But to whatever extent it exists it probably won’t be because of stealthy use of internet devices.

There is another interesting statistic quoted. One that is more surprising than the one quoted above. According to some estimates, 1 in 4 Dati Leumi (National Religious) Jews drop out of observance! It seems to me that – by far - they have a much bigger problem.

I have no clue why that percentage is so high. But if I had to guess it might be the fact that there are a lot of DL-Lite families whose commitment to observance is tenuous at best. When their children enter army service many will end up just going with the flow of an army that is populated with a majority of recruits whose lifestyles are a lot more hedonistic.

I doubt that this percentage applies to the many DLs that are committed to their Judaism and serve in the army with distinction while being fully committed to observance. Nor does it include those DLs that are in Hesder Yeshivas that combine their army service with Torah study. These young people are the cream of the Israel crop. I doubt that too many of them leave religious life. If anything their religious commitment is probably strengthened by it.

One thing seems certain, however. The inevitable exponential growth of observant Jews in Israel does not seem so inevitable anymore. And by observant I include all Orthodox Jews. Not just Charedim.

I don’t know what to do about the 25% DLs that are leaving the fold (if that is indeed the percentage). But I think I do know what can help the Charedi world prevent more of their people from leaving. It would be to reconsider their insular ways and allow a little bit of the outside world in. Not only by allowing controlled intent use. But by allowing them to get an education in addition to Torah study that will enable them achieve financial security without reliance on charity. It won’t hurt them. It will instead help them thrive well into the future.

Shlomo Yehuda Rechnitz

A few days ago, the Orthodox Jewish websites were abuzz with what some might have called groundbreaking news. I was one of those who expressed effusive praise of a hard hitting speech given by Shlomo Yehuda Rechnitz.

He expressed the empathetic pain he experienced from parents in Lakewood who could not get their children registered in one of that town’s Charedi schools. And R’ Shlomo excoriated the town’s educational system which was exclusionary based on what can only be labeled ‘Frumkeit’. Which is practiced in Lakewood by far too many of its citizens in the form of a ‘holier then thou’ attitude.

He was not gentle in his words. He said what had to be said. This seemed to be the view of most people who heard him say it, ether live or in an online video, or who - like me – read a lengthy description of it. This was about as hard hitting a rebuke as I have ever heard from someone that is

otherwise an ardent supporter of Lakewood type institutions.

The bottom line was that the town’s Frumkeit was an ugly character trait that was hurting a tremendous Makom Torah. As I said in post, had I written tose words, I would have been accused of overly harsh Charedi bashing.

Interestingly there was a rebuttal to his speech published on The Lakewood Scoop website. But it was removed very quickly because that rebuttal was apparently bombarded with a lot of Lakewood bashing. That’s too bad. The debate should be out in the open.

I should add that I was contacted by a lay leader here in Chicago that told me that the problem of kids being ‘left out’ existed across all Hashkafic lines. And that in some cases the lack of acceptance by a school is for legitimate reasons. But I don’t think that detracts from R’ Shlomo’s rebuke and his explanation as to why this is the case in Lakewood.

It turns out that R’ Shlomo was apparently ‘taken to he woodshed’. And he very quickly came out with an apology. Which he distributed to Charedi websites. He wanted to make sure that people understood that in no way was he bashing Lakewood or their Roshei Yeshiva; that he considered it to be a beacon of Torah shining forth upon Klal Yisroel and that he would continue supporting Lakewood and like minded Torah institutions at the current levels if not more. He added that if anything, the Roshei Yeshiva actually tried to fix the problems he spoke about.

A lot of people were disappointed by his apology. But I was not one of them. Because he did not retract one word of criticism about the ‘Frumkeit’ problem there. He just wanted to make sure the blame lay where it belonged: on the people who believed themselves to be holier than thou and wanted to make sure that the schools that they sent their children too had those same standards.

This has not changed. And I hope that does not get lost in his apology.

Why these people are that way…and what percentage of them are like that? That is a question I can’t really answer. But I have my suspicions. Which has to do with the Chinuch the parents themselves got. A Chinuch that constantly bombarded them with lavish praise about how wonderful it is to always be Choshesh for the Daas HaMachir. That was after all what Chareid L’Dvar Hahem means. You fear that the strictest rabbinic opinon is the one that God actually requires. So that when you adopt those strictures you feel superior to those that are Mekil – relying on more lenient opinions. That gives you an ego boost. The hardships caused by being strict on just about everything makes them feel superior in their Avodas HaShem - serving God.

There are other factors that play into this too, but that are beyond the scope of this post.

Be that as it may, I felt that there was some clarity missing from R’ Shlomo’s apology. He didn’t say it. But I will. There was absolutely no retraction of what he sees as the cause of the problem. And I still think he’s right.

Chasidim siting at the Rebbe's Tisch (table), - a joyous Chasidic custom

The lack of a decent secular education among many of my coreligionists is one of the most troubling issues facing Orthodoxy today. Outside of the Charedi world in Israel, nowhere is that a bigger problem than in the insular world of Chasidim. Not all Chasidim. But those that live as large independent homogeneous communities like Satmar’s Kiryas Joel, Skvere’s New Square, and to a somewhat lesser extent, the Willimsburg section of Brooklyn.

Getting a Jewish education is of paramount importance if one wants to perpetuate Judaism. That is why we send our children to religious schools. Without a Jewish education the chances or a child retaining his Judaism is severely reduced. One can see that in the tragic level of assimilation and intermarriage taking place in heterodoxy that has the Conservative movement scrambling for solutions and has Reform movement changing how it defines Judaism. While there are exceptions to all this, I think it’s fair to say that it is the rule.

That said, the importance of a secular education is increasingly becoming marginalized – and in some cases virtually eliminated. A situation I have decried countless numbers of times. As noted however, the insular Chasidic communities are the ones where this is most prevalent in this country. (Israel is a separate discussion)

It wasn’t always this way. Back in the 50s and early 60s Orthodox Jews of all stripes attended the same schools - which all had secular studies programs. After a while, as the post Holocaust immigrant Chasidim found their bearings and became more organized they created an insular society and built schools that all but eliminated secular studies before age 13 - and have no secular studies at all past that age.

The question is why? Why do Chasidim avoid secular studies? What is about that they find so offensive? I think the answer can be seen in a video produced by Menachem Daum for PBS. Even though the video doesn’t say exactly why they oppose it, one can ‘read between the lines’ to understand what is really going on. It is about keeping people in the fold.

I don’t think there is any other way to look at the communities than cult-like. It is not a cult that forces its people to stay in it in any threatening way. But it does force them to stay in subtle psychological ways by both positive and negative reinforcement.

On the one hand the world of Chasidim is one where there is a tremendous sense of family and community. The camaraderie; the kindness and the warmth in these enclaves is palpable and immediately felt by visitors that spend any time there. People do actually look out for each other. No one is left out. The entire community is sensitive to the welfare of its individual members. One would be hard pressed to find this kind of camaraderie and universal compassion in any other segment of Judaism. Even expatriate Chasidim like Shulem Deen recognizes this - despite his expulsion from that world and attendant loss of his wife and children. He has said that he still sometimes misses it.

Then there is the way they see their Rebbe. He is seen by his Chasidim as larger than life. He is accorded a level of honor reserved for kings. He is seen the man closest to God by orders of magnitude over anyone else. The opening scene in the video demonstrates the kind of worship he gets as almost every passerby bows and kisses his hand! He is a beloved figure seen as dedicated to the welfare of every single individual - going out of is way beyond all reason to help a Chasid in need. If there were saints in Judaism, to his Chasidim he would be one. He is the man that sets the rules. These rules are designed to promote a higher level of Kedusha - a holier and more pristine Jewish existence as defined by the Chasidism of their Rebbe. This is the positive reinforcement.

Then there is the negative reinforcement. Part of that holiness means concentration on religious studies to the exclusion of secular studies. It means instituting customs that will keep them insulated and isolated from the world outside. They learn English as a second language.barely being able to speak it properly let alone write it. They dress the way they do in service to their overly broad interpretation of the Chukas HaGoy – the prohibition against following non Jewish customs.

Their dedication to and dependence upon the Rebbe - combined with their sense of community as extended family and their insularity assures that these rules are followed. It also assures that they stay there and with rare exception - stay poor! That's what a lack of a decent secular education will do for you. And there is precious little they can do about it. And yet they vehemently deny that they are a cult saying they are free to leave anytime they choose. No one will stop them.

Indeed, most of these people say they are happy, even ecstatic - living this lifestyle. I have no doubt that many do feel like this most of the time. It’s almost like a summer camp atmosphere. But I have to believe that they are not so happy being poor – even as they might deny it publicly. I think that there may be more unhappiness than many of them are willing admit.

Why? As noted in the video there is fear about the consequences of coming out publicly with their true feelings. How it will affect their peer relationships. And their community standings. If one wants to be a member in good standing in that world, one does not express unhappiness about their material circumstances. Especially since they have no place else to go and no skills to better their lot. So that those who are not happy - bite the bullet and feign happiness and contentment. Which after all does still exists at some level.

I don’t know what future lies ahead for these people. Yes, they seem to be happy in their current condition. But in my humble opinion, their future does not look very bright.

Daniel B. Schwartz

Daniel B. Schwartz is an Orthodox Jew and an attorney from Monsey, New York, who like me, calls himself a Centrist. This is how we both define our religious ideals. He has however written an article in the Times of Israel where he spells out what he calls his redefinition of it. Do we define Centrism the same way? Well, yes and no.

For me Centrism is a Hashkfa, which itself is a term we need to define. A Hashaka as I have always understood it, is an approach to Judaism. One that stems from how one best understands the essential truths of the Torah.

Centrism is about what we think God requires of us and what He does not require;. A Centrist strives to understand the Torah’s philosophical underpinnings and how to apply them in our daily lives. It is way of living that best accords with what we understand to be God’s design for us - His Chosen people. In short we seek truth. We choose which ever path leads to it. In seeking that path we do not necessarily choose stringency or leniency. We just seek truth.

Of course all Hashkafos in Orthodoxy might be defined the same way. So what’s the difference? It is in where each segment ends up after finding what they believe to be the truth of Torah.

Centrism is not a Hashkafa which as Daniel points out (as did Dr. Norman Lamm before him) is defined as the midpoint between two extremes. Each of which can shift one way or the other over time. That would make Centrism nothing more a mathematical determination - that would change with the wind irrespective of any ideals. A Centrist has ideals, just like those to his Hashkafic right or left. The differences being in what those ideals are and how we arrive at them.

Even though Centrism has ideals irrespective of where the fall on the Hashkafic spectrum - they do happen to end up in a wide ranging center between right and left.

The term Centrism was coined by Dr. Norman Lamm, President emeritus of Yeshiva University. It is a term he quickly rejected after hearing complaints from the Conservative Movement claiming that they are the true Centrists in Judaism. But he never replaced the term with another one that would truly describe the Hashkafa he delineated. But I disagree with him. The term Centrist when applied to Orthodoxy fits. Because there is a right, a left, and a center. And via our ideals, we fall in the Center.

What are those ideals? This is the subject of Daniel’s essay. He happens to link to a few essays I have written on the subject which explain my views. These are principles I derived from my mentors and other influences (which can be seen in my bio on the right.) After studying with these mentors and supplementing their ideas with some independent studies of my own I arrived at my conclusion that Centrism is the essence of what Judaism should be.

Essentially Centrism is the following. The idea that the God’s Torah has primacy over everything else in life. And it is within that context, that the study of Mada has a high value in Judaism. There are various approaches to the study of Mada - or worldly knowledge. The two most prevalent are Torah Im Derech Eretz (TIDE) which sees the study of Mada as a means of better understanding God’s will – and Torah U‘Madda (TuM) as illustrated by Dr. Lamm’s various models; or as described by Rav Ahron Soloveichik in his 5 perspectives of it.

There is also a cultural component that allows and even encourages participation in the permissible parts of the general culture as a means relaxation so that we can better rededicate ourselves to God. And finally Centrism includes a deference for - and adherence to centuries of tradition that should not be abandoned because of a non Torah based spirit of the times..

(There is also another centrism that is sociological rather than Hashkafic. Which includes moderate Charedim and Centrists whose lifestyles differ little from each other and which comprise the vast majority of Orthodox Jews. But this is not the Centrism of which Daniel and I speak.)

While I don’t believe that Daniel disagrees with the components of Centrism that I outlined, he does not see it as a worldview or Hashkafa alone. In fact he says that Charedim and Open Orthodox Jews can be Centrists too.

This is where I part company with him. The ideals in which we each believe differ substantially from one another. Charedim believe in Torah only, They do not believe in studying Mada for any reason other than a utilitarian one.. For example as a means toward Paranasa. And participation in the general culture is frowned upon – to be done only when absolutely necessary... and otherwise avoided. Open Orthodoxy on the other hand embraces the spirit of the times to the point of reinterpreting the Torah so that non Torah ideals can be accommodated.

Centrism is not - as Daniel suggest - a balance between 2 conflicting ideologies. It is about seeking truth in Judaism wherever one can find it and following its path. A path that happens to lead to a broad ranging center between the extremes of the right and left.

Here is something else I have the trouble with:

For the true Centrist, a robust free marketplace of ideas is crucial to success. Only when one is presented with the opportunity to encounter and consider wide and varied opinions on the pressing issues can s/he determine which approach, which school of thought, enables him/her to achieve self actualization.

To say that Judaism invites a robust free marketplace of ideas counters the very notion of Torah as a system of God’s laws. You cannot entertain a great deal of those marketplace ideas without denying the Torah itself. Just to make an obvious point, a Jew cannot accept the ideas of Christianity, no matter how compelling those ideas may be. Because accepting them takes you out of Judaism entirely and makes you a Christian.

That said, I agree that there are a variety of ideas that can be explored and accepted as truth. Just not a free marketplace. This is the danger of Open Orthodoxy which has stretched some Torah truths into near heresy as did Open Orthodox Rabbi ShmulyYanklowitz recently did with an essay on Spinoza. Whose heretical ideas about God got him excommunicated from Judaism. Rabbi Yanklowitz wants to restore Spinoza as a member in good standing. Which is impossible since his ideas about God are heretical!

In order for ideas to be debated at all they have to be within the parameters of our fundamental belief system. Only in that context can we have a discussion, and decide which ones come closest to God’s truth. But I do agree with Daniel’s following comment:

In religious sense for the Centrist to arrive at the path that leads him/her most directly to service of the Divine.

This is true - and what I said at the outset. But Judaism believes in certain truths. To ‘ ponder all available options’ is to entertain a denial of the those truths which can hasten a path to heresy.

Lakewood Rosh HaYeshiva, Rav Malkiel Kotler

I had a discussion earlier this week with a prominent Charedi Talmid Chacham. We were debating the merits of the kind of religious education that takes place in Lakewood these days. It was in the context of the recent rebuke by Shlomo Yehuda Rechnitz about the elitism in religious schools there which leaves too many children out in the cold.

He told me that Lakewood Rosh HaYehiva, Rav Aryeh Malkiel Kotler went to Betzalel Hebrew Day School. There was no "cheder" in his days! Betzalel was a Modern Orthodox coed day school. Point being that one does not need an elitist school to become the Rosh Yeshiva of Lakewood.

Nor does one need to be the son of the previous Rosh HaYeshiva. One may recall that the late Rosh Yeshiva of Mir, Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel, graduated from a coed high school. He was a distant cousin of the previous Rosh HaYeshiva. I believe that experience helped him better understand the broader Orthodox world and better relate to the American Bachurim that went to the Mir.

That reminded me of a belief I have always had about Jewish education in Chicago. If the coed Ida Crown Jewish Academy were the only game in town, and everyone - right to left - had sent their children there for lack of an alternative - the academy would be a far different and far better school than it is today. Its products would be more unified having gained by experiencing peers from homes with a broad range of Hashkafos.

He disagreed saying that we benefit from different derachim by having different schools as long as they respect each other. The strongest case would be that Yeshivas should be more open like they used to be.

Citing views I have expressed here in the past, I responded by saying that the problem with diversification is that with rare exception schools with different Hashkafos don't respect each other.

I'm not so sure we gain by each Hashkafa having its own niche. We have become exclusionary instead of inclusive. Which is the source of the problem in Lakewood. By not integrating we don't learn from each other anymore. Instead we each learn about our own Hashkafa - and the Mechachim of each segment extol the virtues of their own Hashkafos while disparaging the hashkafos of others. Sometimes indirectly. And sometimes directly.

I miss the old days where we were all in the same boat. We might have joked about each others different Minhagim, but we were all friends and nobody looked down upon the other.

That generated the following response. It is one that if implemented, would make Orthodoxy a far better society - integrated in an Achdus that respects differences – as long as they do not cross heretical lines. It follows:

I think it is fundamental hashkafa that there should be different derachim in service of Hashem and all (legitimate) derachim be respected and that we learn from each other. And not withstanding the problems you raise, Chicago has also benefited tremendously from the various mosdos that reflect different derachim.

As someone that learned in Lakewood and knew the attitude of many Gedolim in my era, I am uncomfortable with the prevalent chinuch approach, which is not dealing with things in a nuanced way because black and white is easier.
Some examples that come to mind.

There are issues with tznius in girl's high schools, so institute uniforms! So instead of dealing with the issue by giving the girls a deeper appreciation of tznius, just make uniforms . Its easier.
The price we pay is that there is no room for self expression, a cardinal sin to a Gadol like Rav Hutner and his Slabodka Hashkafos.

Having opportunities for secular education and preparation for parnosa present challenges for some students, or may lead some who are destined for greatness in learning to pursue a career instead. (I think all would agree that being a doctor or a lawyer is fine but it would have been tragic had Rav Noson Tzvi Finkel become a lawyer!)

So instead of being a true machanech like Rav Hutner and guiding talmidim in their career choices, we just declare it taboo!

... I agree with many of the issues you raise, but the (very small!) piece of Rav Hutner within me says that the way to address them is not to lower the bar and discourage different derachim and mosdos, but rather to rise to the challenge and learn to respect each other.

It's hard for me to see Moshiach coming until we do!

He added a story that was published in Parsha Encounters, a weekly publication of the Chicago Community Kollel. It demonstrates what it means to respect different derachim.

The highly respected Holocaust survivor Yosef Freidenson had a brother Shamshon Raphael, a name not very common among Polish Chassidim! He explained what prompted his father to name a son after Rav Hirsch ZTL.

“My father would visit Frankfurt on business. There, for the first time in his life, he saw Jewish women who were accomplished doctors and lawyers and, at the same time, were meticulous in covering their hair. He said to himself that if Rav Hirsch could build such a community, he wanted the merit of having a son named after him!”

It’s important to keep in mind that what he saw was very different thanhis own approach in avodas Hashem. He would not want his daughter to be a doctor or a lawyer. Nevertheless, not only was he able to respect that derech, he was able to be inspired by it and to admire it!

What a lesson in ahavas Yisroel, love of fellow Jews, did Eliezer Gershon Freidenson teach his family! And what a lesson he teaches us!

A man and a woman praying together at the Kotel in 1936 (Getty Images)

There has been a lot of talk about a decision made by the Israeli government approving a section of the Kotel for ‘mixed gender’ prayer. The comments range from outright condemnation by Agudath Israel to almost giddy approval by heterodox movements.

The Agudah calls it ‘profaning’ the holy site. Those in favor of it called it ‘historic’ and a huge victory for egalitarianism.

I have long opposed the push by groups like Women of the Wall for egalitarian services at the Kotel (for reasons that will soon become apparent). But I do not see the actual act of men and women praying together at the Kotel as a violation of Halacha.

The only place where separation of the sexes is required is in a Shul. One may otherwise pray with a Minyan with women present. One will for example see ad hoc Minyanim for Mincha and Maariv taking place at wedding halls where women are present in the same room. Even right wing Roshei Yeshiva will participate in them without any reservation.

So why is there a Mechtiza at the Kotel? Good question. When one looks at archival photos of pre State Palestine that feature the Kotel, one might come across images of devout men and women praying there together. The Mechitza came much later. My guess is that the reason for that is that when the Kotel Plaza becomes crowded during peak periods (like Birchas Kohanim) people are practically glomming all over each other. When men and women are together in situations like that it becomes difficult if not impossible to pray. I think a Mechitza was probably installed to prevent that kind of scenario.

Some might argue that in effect the Kotel is a Shul. After all Minyanim are constantly forming there. Hence in effect it becomes a Shul and requires a Mechitza. Perhaps. It is possible I suppose that the Kotel Plaza area has evolved into a Shul.

But this is not true for the Kotel area being assigned for egalitarian purposes. That area was never a Shul. And I don’t think a group of heterodox Jewish men and women praying together there will make it one.

So why am I opposed to it? Because of the motives behind it. It gives a victory to egalitarian ideal that inserts itself into a religious area where it does not belong. Insisting that egalitarianism trumps religion means (among other things) Shuls without Mechitzos; counting women as part of a Minyan; or female cantors leading a prayer service… are all things that are forbidden by Halacha. A true egalitarian ideal rejects those Halachos since they contradict egalitarian ideals.

Egalitarianism is sourced in the kind of feminism that does not allow for any exceptions. Including religious ones. Any treatment of women that is different from the treatment men is seen as misogynistic. Even if it for religious reasons. There is no such thing as separate roles for men and women. Whatever a man can do, a woman should be able to do. This is the kind of feminism that has been agitating for this an egalitarian Minyan at the Kotel .

So I don’t blame the Agudah and other Orthodox instructions for condemning it. But I kind of feel the way the Kotel Rabbi does:

Rabbi Shmuel Rabinowitz, rabbi of the Western Wall and Holy Sites, said he heard the decision approving the agreement “with a heavy heart and a sigh of relief,”

I too have a sigh of relief. I hope this will end the constant fighting over this issue. No longer will there be a disruptive distraction by a group of women at the beginning of every month on the Jewish calendar - each wearing talis and tefillin praying and reading from the Torah as though they were a legitimate Minyan. Now they will have their own place to do so out of sight. The women that have been praying at the traditional site - each on their own side of the Mechtiza - will be able to continue that practice in peace.

There will be no more shouting matches or people getting arrested. The traditional Kotel Palza area will remain as is. I believe that the vast majority of people that go there for prayer prefer it that way. They should have the same right to preserve that tradition as those who clamor for egalitarianism.

What I do not approve is what the following:

Moshe Gafni, a haredi Orthodox lawmaker who chairs the Israeli Knesset’s powerful Finance Committee, said he would not recognize the decision and called Reform Jews “a group of clowns who stab the holy Torah.”

There is no benefit to calling Reform Jews clowns. You can disagree with them. You can say that their views are anti Torah. You can oppose what they are doing. But name calling is not the way to do that. Whatever one says about Reform Jews, they are anything but clowns. They are sincere in their beliefs and are acting upon them. One might even say that they are religious in their own way. Much the same as one might say the devout of other religions are religious.

It is therefore insulting in the extreme to call sincere Jews who were raised in the Reform Movement clowns. They are not clowns. Being wrong about Judaism as we Orthodox Jews believe them to be - does not make them clowns. It just makes them misguided. So too is someone one calling them that.

Where's the Beef?

Because You’re Our Daughter

Do Titles Really Mean That Much?

Open Orthodoxy’s Utter Rejection of Tradition

Restoring Our Image as a Light unto Nations

Is Getting Married Younger the Answer?

Marriages Based on Myth

New York Liberals

Is Open Orthodoxy More Tolerated in Israel?

The Settlers of Chevron

Substituting the Word ‘Goy’ for Nazi

The Galus Mentality

Spotlight on Sex Abuse

The Frumkeit Plague of Lakewood

Do Ten Percent of Charedim in Israel Go OTD?

Taken to the Woodshed

Happy Campers?

Centrism - What it Means and Doesn’t Mean

Respect - Not Elitism

A Peaceful if not Ideal Resolution at the Wall