Emes Ve-Emunah

Rav Uren Reich, Rosh HaYeshiva of Yeshiva of Woodlake Village (YWN)

I am sometimes surprised by some of the prominent Charedim that read my blog and express approval. I have heard many times that even though they don’t agree with everything I say, they agree with most of it.

Just yesterday I received a short note telling me how much one prominent Charedi Rav respects my blog. I was truly humbled by his words. And it was not the first time I have been humbled that way by prominent members of the Charedi world. Names that are widely recognized. Occasionally I get a heartfelt message from someone like that about an issue that I touched upon. Some of those are worthy of publishing so that as many people will get that message as possible.

I received a message like that yesterday which I want to share. It speaks to an issue that I often address. It was generated by a response to the recent speech by mega philanthropist, Shlomo Yehuda Rechnitz where he rebuked the educational system in Lakewood for rejecting students for reasons of elitism. R’ Shlomo Yehuda’s words were very strong. They were based on the gut wrenching cries he received from parents whose sons or daughters had not been accepted – and hung out to dry without recourse!

While there are many reasons why a child will not be accepted to a school, many of them legitimate (like an actual lack of space – or a special needs child that a school does not have the means to address) there is no question in my mind that an elitist attitude is a major contributor to the problem.

That was made obvious to me recently by an invitation to a Lakewood Beis Yaakov banquet someone showed me. It promoted itself by referring to its ‘carefully selected student body’ from the ‘finest families in Lakewood’. This invitation was sent out at about the same time R’ Shlomo Yehuda made that speech. If that doesn’t demonstrate the kind of elitism that exists there, then I don’t know what would. How many children are not accepted to that school because they are not from the ‘finest families in Lakewood’?!

What’s worse is when a prominent Charedi Rosh Hayeshiva feels he must ‘kill the messenger’ by way of strong rebuke - in the name of Kavod HaTorah. How dare anyone point out a problem that makes Lakewood Ir HaKodesh look bad? Even if it were true, which he claimed it isn’t! People - even if they are sincere -who speak with rhetoric like this about the Charedi world are no better than the common blogger who smears Charedim on a daily basis.

While he recognized R’ Shlomo for all his charitable work in the Charedi world, and recognized that his motives were pure - spoken forcefully with pain in his heart, Rav Uren Reich Rosh HaYeshiva of Yeshiva of Woodlake Village nevertheless called it a Chilul Hashem! We do not advertise our problems to the world so that they can bash us.

I listened to recording of it forwarded to me by the above mentioned Charedi individual. An individual who otherwise places Lakewood in very high esteem. His words were heartfelt as well. Is his reaction a Chilul HaShem too? Or is it the Kiddush HaShem I believe it to be- because one must first recognize a problem in order to address it. And sometimes it takes a public rebuke so that those responsible won’t be able to ignore it. His sentiments – which I share follow:

I received this yesterday, and listened to the whole thing. Nice guy, such a shame.

This shiur highlights one issue only. Kavod. That’s the overriding matter that we face today. No one dare utter a word of question, no one can point out a failure, mistake, or imperfection. That’s the same mentality that led to a self-driven heter to fabricate in order to ban the Making of a Gadol.

I’m sickened by the current mentality of straw men, images, only chitzoniyus to admire, to deify, to view as something other than human. I peruse the galleries of photos that fall into my inbox, with photo shoots of the latest Rebbe who traveled, went on vacation, recited tashlich, davened on Hoshanah Raboh, burned the chometz, recited birchas ilanos, danced at a wedding, etc.

There are some instances of bekeshes containing some really good Jews on their inside, but we will never know. These figureheads have armies of gabo’im surrounding them so that no one can approach them with anything mundane and human.

Nothing like the stories we were nurtured with about poshute Yidden, the mesiras nefesh of tzaddikim who sought to bring true Yir’as Hashem to the masses. Nothing like the tzaddikim of yesteryear who did more for their following than just public performances.

Kavod?! That’s all it is?! Someone finally said the truth, pointed out where Lakewood has failed, drew attention to the inconsistency of this with its identity as the Ir Hatorah, and all they can protest is about kavod?!

I am grossly disappointed. The recovering alcoholic lives by the 12 steps of AA. Step 10 includes the phrase, “and when we wrong, promptly admitted it”.

There is no doubt that the problem there, as well as in other communities is complex. Highlighting one factor is a great step forward. Don’t kill the messenger just because someone points out the fatal flaw of chasing after kavod. This mecho’oh stuff is not just smelly, but indicates a serious resistance to confront issues. It’s a disgrace.

Failed Messiah creator, Shmarya Rosenberg

There has been a lot of discussion about the departure from blogging world of Failed Messiah creator, Shmarya Rosenberg. He announced that departure in a lengthy farewell post earlier this week. The news was greeted with a variety of responses ranging from glee to sadness. My reaction was somewhere in between those two extremes (...one of my Centrist traits, I guess). On the one hand I strongly objected to the vulgarity he allowed on his blog. I felt that using profanity detracted from the serious issues he often reported on. On the other hand those issues needed to be reported so that they could be corrected.

Two of the issues that I think he covered most was sex abuse and white collar criminal activity in the Orthodox world. Although he did not limit his reportage to the Charedi world, I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of it was about Charedi misdeeds. He both reported on them and often said some very nasty things about them.

For this he was treated with angry resentment by the Charedi world. He was seen as someone whose agenda was to smear the world of Charedim as much as possible. And that he would go far and wide to find negative stories about them looking under every rock, in every nook and in every cranny (Whats a cranny anyway?) to find dirt and heap it on them - to the glee of all the Charedi haters that frequented his blog.

He did not disappoint. He took every opportunity to smear that world. Though he denied it, saying he was just the messenger… and the real villains were the miscreants he wrote about, I tended to agree with his critics about having an anti religious agenda. That his reports were true, does mean he didn’t find a sense of satisfaction in sticking it to them.

I once had an offline conversation with him during the early years of my blogging ‘career’. I found that the real Shmarya Rosenberg was a complex individual who believed he was fighting for justice. But whose view of religious Jews turned sour based on an experience he had when he was a Lubavitcher Chasid (having become one from a formerly secular life). As an idealist, he was disappointed that a just cause which he strongly believed in was not taken up by Chabad. That left him disillusioned and he left Lubavitch. And I believe that’s why he named his blog Failed Messiah. He is now completely secular.

I will speculate and say that this experience explains his antipathy towards Orthodox Jewry – and why he focused so negatively on it. I don’t think Shmarya is a bad man. I think he is fact still idealistic. But his views have been tainted by life’s experiences and perhaps (again - I admit speculating here) without even being conscious of it, he focused on the negative parts of the Charedi world – and to a lesser extent – on Orthodoxy in general as a sort of unconscious vendetta.

Shmarya became the poster child for what’s wrong with the internet. At least the blogging portions of it. He was reviled by the Charedi world for his muckraking. Understandably so.Some of his posts were really ugly. But some were simply reporting what was in the media, exposing the abuse and corruption in the world of Orthodoxy that exists at levels far beyond what we would like them to be.

On the other hand the Charedi world needed some muckraking. That’s how we all achieve consciousness about the wrongdoings. Some of it by various religious leaders. These people had to be exposed, lest what they did would go unnoticed and unpunished – being swept under the rug for the sake of image.

Hiding misdeeds from the public by covering them up or explaining them away with faulty rationalizations and excuses always makes things worse - when they are ultimtely uncovered. Exposing them to the public and the consequences to the miscreants and the community from which they come can have a salutary effect that will lead to change. And if that change is not forthcoming or coming too slow, publicizing that can help expedite it.

So at the end of the day, Shmarya performed a service – despite what I believe was at least in part, a smear campaign based on a subconscious anti Orthodox agenda. Truth – even if spoken by people with bad intentions, is still truth.

The stuff Shmarya dealt with is some of the same stuff I deal with. I have been accused of some of the same things Shmarya has, including being a Chared hater and basher with same agenda as him, only with a more polite way of saying it. I have been threatened by one prominent Charedi (obviously not one of my fans – but a reader of my blog) with his own public smear campaign against me. He never ended up doing that. But he still believes that I am no better than Shmarya in that regard.

In the sense that I want to expose and publicly condemn bad behavior, I am the same. But to say that I am a Charedi basher is just plain wrong. When I write about these subjects, I have no agenda other than to ‘clean up shop’ and to let the world know that there are Orthodox Jews that condemn bad behavior no less that any ethical person would. It is to make people aware that not every Jew is crook or deviant. Those images fuel all of the antisemitic canards against us.

Not only am I not a Charedi hater or basher - I have often said that the vast majority of Charedim are fine people with the same values that any ethical individual has. That the miscreants are a tiny minority of the whole. But that the miscreants - because of the high profile media coverage – make us all look bad. So I report and protest as an Orthodox rabbi to make the point that just like these acts are seen as bad by all good people, so too do religious Jews like me see them that way.

Interestingly, many people consider me Charedi based on some of my recent posts. I am not Charedi. But I am not insulted by being thought of that way. I am flattered. Because I have nothing but respect for the vast majority of these idealistic Jews even though I have some Hashakafic differences with them. Much of their behavior actually inspires me.

Some people say they will miss the hard core muckraking that Shmarya was so good at. But I am not one of them. Because I will not let go of my own determination to shout out wrong doings in the religious world. It may not come in the same form as Shmarya’s. But it will come - when I feel it warrants public condemnation.

I will however say that Shmarya’s blog did some good despite the fact that he was so reviled by the Charedi world. He exposed things that needed exposure so that they would be properly dealt with rather than being swept under the rug in a business as usual fashion.

I believe that despite his obsession with the misdeeds of the Orthodox world - deep down Shmarya Rosenberg has a Jewish soul. And now that he’s leaving the blogging world to help the poor, I wish him success in the new endeavor.

His blog will continue under new ownership. Based on their first post, the new owners sound more like me than Shmarya. If that is the case, I obviously wish them much success.

“I cannot imagine a greater expression of Christianity than to say, I, too, am a Jew.” This line was uttered by someone many people think is not a friend of the Jewish people. But I contend now as I have in the past that the person who made this statement is a true friend of the Jewish people, despite my profound differences with him on some of his policies, especially as it relates to Iran.

President Barack Obama made this comment in an address given in the Israeli embassy, the first American President to do so. It was to honor Roddie Edmonds, a righteous gentile – a Tzadik who laid his life on the line to save the Jewish members of his platoon in a prisoner of war camp during the Holocaust. When asked to identify the Jewish members, he answered, ‘We are all Jews’.

It is this kind of righteousness that personifies the American spirit of equality ensconced in the Declaration of Independence which says, ‘All men are created equal’. This is the kind of thing that represents what’s right about America. It represents values that we should all strive to live by.

The question is, what about us? What about Orthodox Jews? Are we proud of who we are? Or do we wish to diminish or dilute our differences? Should we try to ‘blend in’? Or should we wear our religion on our sleeves? ...or more correctly, on our heads?

I must be honest, I had once thought that identifying as a Jew, especially an Orthodox Jew by wearing a Kipa was at best a questionable exercise. Why advertise you are Jew? Is the Kipa what Judaism is all about? Is it looking Jewish that counts in God’s eyes? Shouldn’t Judaism be judged by our behavior, our ethics - not by what we wear on our heads?

Adding to my misgivings is the possibility that as human beings, we Jews are not always on our best behavior. Often far from it. When we have a bad moment - when our guard is down we night say or do something that we will later regret… and do so as an identifiable religious Jew. Why not avoid that kind of possibility by taking off our Kipot in public and blending in? It would be win/win. If in any given moment we don’t ‘behave’ in public as we should, we will not embarrass our people - and in the process create a possible Chilul HaShem. And if we do something praiseworthy we can make sure that we identify ourselves as religious Jews.

And yet the wearing a Kipa (or more correctly covering one’s head) has evolved into a Halachic requirement in our day. (It was not Halacha in Talmudic times although there were many Jews that did cover their heads). The question is why? I think the answer might be that it is a statement of pride. Pride in who we are. Wearing a covering on your head is done as a sign that there is a God above us. It is supposed to remind of that and to realize that the whole world is watching us. And that we should always act in ways that reflect our standing as God’s chosen people.

But it is a two sided coin. On the one hand you have the burden of trying to make a Kiddush HaShem – sanctifying God’s name in every act you do. And on the other hand - as human nature will sometimes have it - you have the potential to make a Chilul HaShem. Being a Jew is not easy. But the level of difficulty does not relieve us our obligation to sanctify God’s name.

What about identifying as a Jew when that poses a danger to us? Well, Pikuach Nefesh trumps all Halachos except for murder, idol worship, and biblically defined adultery. (However, B’Shas HaShmad, in times of forced conversion, we are not allowed to violate even the most minor Halacha.)

This question came up in France recently where Jews were advised to remove their Kipot in light of the frequent attacks against them there. I do not have an issue with those who decided to do so for fear of harm. Jews are being targeted for being Jews. Not a single one is asked to convert before they are attacked. At the same time, since not every Jew is involved in imminent attack, is that enough of a reason to remove your Kipa? Is the potential to be attacked, even if it is less than 50% enough to justify hiding your Judaism?

I was in this predicament once. I had to walk through some of the most dangerous neighborhoods in Chicago on a Friday night exactly 24 years ago. Through a series of delays my wife ended up landing at Midway Airport before Shabbos began. Midway is 18 miles away from my house.

I thought I had made up to meet with her and we would drive back until the last minute before Shabbos and then walk the rest of the way. My wife told me not to bother – that she would deal with the problem herself. Although I thought she understood that I would come, she thought she made it clear that I shouldn’t.

We missed each other, she landed and started walking herself, eventually accepting an offer by a very kind black lady who went way out of her way to take her home on a cold Friday night.

By the time I realized I missed her, it was Shabbos. Since I did not want to spend Shabbos in a hotel all by myself, I was determined to walk home, despite the dangerous neighborhoods I would have to walk through.

Those neighborhoods had three kinds of buildings on the street I traversed: bars, churches, and abandoned ‘bombed out’ buildings. People were in the streets, making a lot of noise, getting drunk or buying drugs.

I thought for a moment that I might have a better chance of surviving that walk if I wasn’t wearing a Kipa. But then I thought that this was not the best time to abandon my faith in God. So I wore it all the way through. No one touched me, although I did get a couple of looks. I must have made quite a sight as the only white person openly displaying his faith on a Friday night walking quickly through a neighborhood famous for gang murders to this day.

I came home tired and in pain from walking at such a quick pace. I was sore for about a week. And then life went back to normal.

I now wear my Kipa proudly in public and no longer think I would be better off not wearing one. I try my best not to make a Chilul HaShem although, I must admit that I don’t always succeed. But I try to be conscious of how others see me as a Kipa wearing Jew. And I hope that most of the time, I succeed.

I believe that pride in expressing who we are has paid off. Despite all of the negative news that individual religious Jews are responsible, we are largely an admired people. And It is why the President said that in times of crisis for the Jewish people, we are all Jews. It is the verbal equivalent of putting on a Kipa. That the President of the most powerful nation on earth has said that in spite of all the criticsm he gets is something we Jews – and all of the American people - can all feel good about. I am truly proud to be a Jew and proud to be an American.

Senator Marco Rubio and Governor Chris Christie (New York Post)

He had a bad day. Despite his insistence to the contrary, Marco Rubio did not do well in the recent Republican debate. Which disappoints me. I still believe he is the best candidate running for President right now.

I was surprised that he did not answer challenges from his competitors about his lack of governing experience and instead went into a tirade against the President. He is not the first candidate to avoid a question by substituting a prepared message – desiring to embed it into the minds of the viewing audience. But he oversold it. He repeated it over and over again. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie called him on it several times - referring to that comment as a memorized 25 second sound-bite speech. Thus painting Rubio as - although very bright - nothing more than an experienced politician that doesn’t respond to questions – and will carry that inexperience into the White House, if he wins.

That was his first mistake. His second mistake was that he should have acknowledged his error. An error so obvious that if you support him, it is cringe worthy watching it repeated over and over again in the news media. It would not have hurt his message to acknowledge he made a mistake during the debate. It would have instead helped, by showing humility.

But instead he kept insisting that he is glad that message is being replayed in the media so often because that is the anti Obama message he wants to get out. But he totally ignores the negative commentary that accompanies those clips. And the way the negative way audience at the debate reacted to it.

Two very big mistakes. Which is too bad since he had so much momentum going into tomorrow’s New Hampshire Primary. Nonetheless, I still believe he is the best candidate for the job even after his dismal performance at the debate - and how he’s handling afterward. I do not believe those mistakes are fatal. He can and hopefully will turn things around and have a much better debate next week before the South Carolina primary. Besides, I’m not so sure debates win elections.

For me support for Israel is the dciding factor in who I will vote for. This does not mean I have dual loyalties. No one should challenge my love for this country. I am a proud American; support the ideals upon which this country was founded; and am grateful to be living here in the 21^stcentury.

But Israel has only one true friend in the world, and since I care deeply about the Jewish people, that is the number one issue for me. Among those running for President there is no who supports Israel more than Marco Rubio. If he is elected, the relationship between our two countries will improve substantially. There will no more be any personal enmity between the leaders of our two countries. I believe our ties will be closer than ever. Not that they are bad now. But forgive me if I think they could be better in a more positive political climate that shares conservative values. As does Likud and the Republican party. And whose leaders views are far more in line with each other – sharing mutual views on existential issues facing both countries. Like the nuclear deal that grants Iran the right to move full speed ahead towards nuclear weapons in a decade or so. With a promise to annihilate Israel - while already having the ballistic missile capacity that can carry an eventual nuclear payload right into its heart.

While all candidates (Republicans and Democrats) swear that support Israel is ‘unshakeable (to use an Obama term) Forgive me if I think relations will improve under a Republican. And we need one that is electable, like Rubio.

Not that I agree with Rubio on all things. For example I support bettering relations with Cuba, something Rubio adamantly opposes. I am also in favor of more gun control, which I believe he isn’t. But overall, his views are the closest to mine. Especially where they count the most, support for Israel.

Rubio has the best chance of winning against Clinton, who will no doubt be the Democratic candidate, despite the problems she’s having. Sanders, and avowed socialist, will in the end lose. I don’t think the majority of the Amercian people – even Democrats - will support a socialist. And no one else opposes her.

What about Hillary Clinton? Would she be so bad? Truthfully I don’t know. But my guess is that she would more or less continue the President’s agenda in all areas, including the bad deal with Iran. And continue harping about the settlement issue being the biggest obstacle to peace in between Israel and the Palestinians when we all know that the real obstacle to peace is a long history of Palestinian violence against Israelis. Which has not subsided!

In a recent blogpost, I said that if Mrs. Clinton was elected she would not only be the first woman President, she would be the first feminist President. There should be no mistake about that. In just about every appearance she mentions that fact that she is a woman and how important that is. That feminism is high on her agenda was made clear once again by a weekend campaign appearance by former Secreatry of State, Madeline Albright. She said there is a special place in hell is reserved for any woman that votes for Bernie Sanders. That practically received a standing ovation. There’s more. Renowned feminist pioneer, Gloria Steinem who has much use for men as a fish has for a bicycle just added her prestigious feminist credentials to the Clinton campaign. If you feel about men the way Gloria Steinem does, then Clinton is your 'man'.

Back to Rubio. I would not count him out yet. One glitch – even a big one like this, is not enough to count him out. Even if he does not do as well in the New Hampshire primary as expected because of his debate performance, he will have ample opportunity to redeem himself in future primaries. I do not see any of the other Republican candidates winning in a general election against Clinton, despite her possible legal problems. Which surround her use of a private e-mail account to send classified messages when she was Secretary of State. That will make her vulnerable. But not unelectable - if there is a strong mainstream Republican candidate like Rubio opposing her.

I don’t know who will end up winning between the two if they end up running against each other in a general election. It may end up being very close. But in my view Rubio has the best chance of beating her from among all the other Republicans running. Stay tuned.

------------------------------------Adverstisement------------------------------------

The David Shappel z'l, Memorial Married Couples Fellowship

Yeshivat Darche Noam/Shapell's

Shapel’s/Darche Noam is excited to announce the establishment of the David Shapell z”l Memorial Married Couples Fellowship. The Fellowship will provide a married couple with outstanding academic and leadership potential a full scholarship, room and half board during the 5777 academic year.

The fellowship includes full time learning in the regular programs for the husband at Yeshivat Darche Noam/Shapell’s and for the wife at Midreshet Rachel v’Chaya, in Jerusalem. In addition, the couple will benefit from special programs and classes throughout the year designed for couples seeking to build stronger marriages and homes, on the foundation of Torah.

We encourage observant young couples who are committed to Torah study, spiritual growth, and service to the Jewish community, to apply for this fellowship. Prior Yeshiva/Midrasha background is not a prerequisite, but previous learning experience is an advantage.

Midreshet Rachel V'Chaya

Shapell’s/Darché Noam enjoys renown for its structured approach to teaching how to access Jewish texts, its integration of different approaches in Torah Judaism, its diverse staff, and its high quality student body. With an emphasis on derech eretz and teaching a love of Israel, students are instilled with an appreciation of their uniqueness as individuals and responsibility as Jews.

Built on the philosophy of Deracheha Darché Noam, “the ways of the Torah are ways of harmony”, the Yeshiva and Seminary have facilitated the spiritual and personal growth of thousands of men and women.

Over the years, our married couples program has proven to have a powerful long-term impact on the lives of its participants in building those families.

The Fellowship was established in memory of our benefactor, David Shapell z'l. Mr. Shapell (along with his wife Fela, tb'l) was particularly proud of the Torah families built by our alumni. We are proud to honor Mr. Shapell’s memory by making this extraordinary opportunity available to a deserving couple.

Couples who wish to apply for the Fellowship should contact Rabbi Shimshon Nadel (Director of Recruitment) atrsn@darchenoam.org to receive application information.

For more information about the programs at Shapell’s/Darche Noam please visit www.darchenoam.org .

This is an incredible opportunity for a young, married couple. Please spread the word to those who can benefit!

Professor Marc Shapiro

There has been a lot of buzz about a blog-post written by Professor Marc Shapiro entitled Open Orthodoxy and Its Main Critic. One might suspect from the title that Professor Shapiro was defending Open Orthodoxy (OO). But a careful reading will show that he was not so much defending Open Orthodoxy as he was sharply criticizing ‘its main critic’, Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer. Nor was he even challenging Rabbi Gordimer’s opposition to OO, granting that he has every right to criticize them.

In fact in response to a comment made on his blog, Professor Shapiro said, ‘I probably am much closer in some ways to Rabbi Gordimer than to the Open Orthodox’.

His main objection is the way Rabbi Gordimer criticized them. Among that criticism is his perception that Rabbi Gordimer is so obsessed with destruction of OO, that he refused to recognize the good they have done. Of which he provides some examples.

Another criticism is Rabbi Gordimer’s alleged obsession with OO, to the exclusion of serious problems in the Charedi world. And though he acknowledges that Rabbi Gordimer himself tries to stick to the issues, comments to his posts‘which have to be approved before being posted, sometimes do contain derogatory and insulting remarks about individuals’.

There are other issues that Professor Shapiro has with Rabbi Gordimer, but I think this is the main thrust of his complaint.

Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer

Rabbi Gordimer has responded in a Cross Currents post. But I have my own take on all of this.

First let me say that I generally agree with Rabbi Gordimer’s views on Open Orthodoxy. Although I am not as strident as he is, I do believe that his views on OO’s lack of legitimacy as an Orthodox movement reflect the mainstream views of the entire Orthodox rabbinate. In both the Charedi (Agudah) and Modern Orthodox (RCA) world. As well as the Chief Rabbinate and Charedi world in Israel.

This is not an opinion. It is just a reality. An unpleasant one no doubt for the leaders of OO.

I completely understand why Professor Shapiro feels this way about Rabbi Gordimer. He explained that well. But I accept Rabbi Gordimer’s defense of his position. That although he sees the wrongdoing to his right, it is by individuals acting irresponsibly and not the Movement itself that is unacceptable. Or just evil interpretations by some individuals. Or simply the crooks and deviants among them. Which every movement has. Professor Shapiro actually alludes to that. But there are problems with the Charedi world as a group. And he cites some example of that too.

While I think Professor Shapiro is correct about problems in the Charedi world, I don’t necessarily fault Rabbi Gordimer for not dealing with those issues. He might even agree that such problems exist. But he believes as I do that OO as a religious movement has to be identified as unaccepted by Orthodoxy. So that people who seek to be Orthodox know that they are not an option. Joining the Charedi world on the other hand – even with all of its problems – will still make you a member in good standing of Orthodoxy. Is he a zealot? Perhaps. But he believes that issue so important that it is something one must be zealous about.

And yet while I defend Rabbi Gordimer, I am also an admirer of Professor Shapiro. I applaud his work on researching and publishing works on the truth of history. If we are to know where we are going, I think we first need to know from where we came. We have to be honest about that. Omitting the truth of history when it is inconvenient to one’s agenda is the quickest way to turn people away from that agenda, when the truth becomes known. Lies of omission are still lies, no matter how noble the intent.

I understand why he felt the need to criticize Rabbi Gordimer. He sees ihm as unfairly attacking only one side – hurting good people and their families in the process. So while I agree with Rabbi Gordimer, I know where Professor Shapiro is coming from. He is not only a brilliant scholar, he is a good man with a good heart.

I’m not sure how Professor Shapiro feels about my own criticism of OO. Which has been very strong. But no one can accuse me of ignoring Charedi misdeeds. My goal is seeking Emes as I understand it wherever I find it.

I have no pleasure in OO’s departure from Orthodoxy. They have a lot to offer. For example OO’s Yeshiva Chovevei Torah has a superb practical rabbinics program, where rabbis are trained how to be rabbis. Most rabbis in the Charedi world have little practical training. The vast majority of Charedi rabbis had no ‘programs’. They simply studied the pertinent texts of the Shulchan Aruch after having spent many years learning Gemara in depth, and if the pass the exams, they get Semicha.

Modern Orthodoxy is a bit better. HTC and especially YU have Semicha programs that involve some practical rabbinics. But I think YCT probably does a more thorough job of it. It’s too bad they have gone off the reservation in so many areas. YU and HTC would do well to look at YCT’s practical rabbinics programs and incorporate their own version of them into their Semicha programs.

On a tangential but significant note, one of the biggest issues I have with YCT is their tolerance of Kofrim in their midst. Deniers of Torah MiSinai that have bought into the bible critics argument that the Torah was written by man at various different times in history. And that the events at Sinai never actually took place. Nor that the Torah reflects any historical facts at all.

Even though they do not teach that, YCT has not done enough to make clear that they reject that notion as Apikurisus.

A couple of days ago I had a discussion with YCT President, the very talented Rabbi Asher Lopatin. It included among other things this very issue. Here is what he said - an exact quote:

I don't agree with those who reject a traditional understanding of Torah MiSinai. They haven't figured how to properly interpret academic source criticism in light of our emunah in Torah Misinai [which is non-negotiable].

YCT President, Rabbi Asher Lopatin

Non-negotiable! I’m glad to hear that. Unfortunately that is not enough to get back into the good graces of the rest of the Orthodox rabbinate. They have rejected OO and its Yeshivos (YCT and Yeshivat Maharat); their ordainees; and much of their agenda as an unacceptable break from tradition. Nonetheless it is a step in the right direction, away from Apkirsus.

I have been very clear that I lament this whole development. There is a need for a left wing that can appeal to a type of Jew that would be lost in the Charedi world. A type of Jew that values egalitarianism and seeks an Orthodox way of practicing it.

My view is the same as Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik. As much as he opposed left wing innovations like Women’s Tefillah Groups, he realized that – right or wrong - there are Orthodox women to which that has an appeal. And that they might leave Orthodoxy for the more egalitarian Conservative Movement without it. So when Rabbi Shlomo Riskin asked him for guidance in how to create one that was within the framework of Halacha, Rav Soloveitchik told him how to do it.

That option has now been compromised by the way the left has evolved. A way that was clearly rejected by Rav Soloveitchik – by their founder’s own admission. Now that OO is not recognized these sincere but in my opinion misguided Jews are left without a recognized Orthodoxy to find what they are looking for. This is a huge loss that should trouble us all.

Chasidic children. What does their future hold? (Image fromVIN)

People who belong to Chasidic communities like Satmar and Skvere are known to have some of the happiest lifestyles in the world. Family life is relatively stable. People there not only get along, but are like one big family. Their lives surround serving God in joyous ways. They are led by a Chasidic Rebbe who sees them all as his children. They see him as the ultimate caring parent that will go to superhuman lengths for his ‘family’ of Chasidim.

Some of the benefits include being relieved of major life decisions, most of which are decided by the Rebbe. People get married very young - with minimal effort. No dating takes place. One or two meetings in the home of one of their parents who have put this young couple together – and that’s it. They get married, have a family and live happily ever after. There are few communities where the divorce rate is so low. (Although I’m told it is increasing.)

Even those that have left these communities angry - and under less than ideal conditions - will tell you about the beauty of that lifestyle. So why in heaven’s name would I have any problem with a community like this?

Well, we’ve been down this road before. But when I see a video like the one below, it really makes me angry. Because to whatever extent they are successful, it comes with a price. One that shows a less than flattering picture of what is really going on there. A material price for many of the families. And an actual cost to federal and state governments distributing funds they could not live without.

With all of that legitimate joy experienced by these families, that is one other thing they have in common. Poverty. Now they will probably say that they are happy to live in poverty because of the trade-off of in satisfaction and happiness they get. But at the same time I have to wonder if they could survive even at a poverty level without government aid in various forms of welfare. Or even if they are all telling the truth about how they really feel about the level of poverty they live under.

Are they as happy as they say they are? Are they perhaps afraid to say anything negative for fear of communal consequences? I know that there are some in that community that complain about it and blame their circumstances on the lack of preparation they get to help them help themselves. That was made clear in that video by a Chasid that is still a part of that community. The only question is how many of them are like him but fear the consequences of dissent?

Not that I would deprive anyone in need of legal government assistance. Certainly they have the same right as anyone else to take advantage of our government’s generosity. But when their needs are based on a purposeful failing, I begin to question the morality and ethics of it. Their poverty is real. But the reason for their poverty is due to (among other things) a lack of a decent secular education in a culture that extols ignorance and isolation. A community that rightfully places a high value of religious studies, but wrongfully ignores the basic elements of an education that will allow their members to function in a 21^st century world.

The requirement of Judaism to study Torah does not mean that studying other basics of living in the 21^st century should be discarded. And yet they not only do they not offer such studies (to anyone over the age of 13) they discourage it. They even discourage speaking English properly, learning it as a second language. Seeing it as a necessary evil so that one can function at a rudimentary level in the world.

If one listens to a typical Satmar or Skvere Chasid born in the USA, they speak a grammatically incorrect broken version of English that sounds like they just immigrated from Europe. They do this on purpose as a means of isolating themselves from the outside culture. All of which they see as bad - the antithesis of a Torah lifestyle.

Since they are so ill equipped to deal with the outside culture – where most of the jobs are they end up menial jobs that are very low paying. And because most of them have such low incomes and large families they qualify for welfare at maximum levels. Which they are encouraged to take full advantage of. So in essence you have a community where people are raised to be poor and to depend of the government for their basic sustenance.

At this point I should mention that there are exceptions. There are some Chasidim of this type that are multi millionaires that have somehow found success in business. And to their credit most of them are very generous to their fellow Chasidim – providing financial aid to them in a variety of ways. Like funding free loan societies. But these multi millionaires are tiny in number compared to the vast majority.

It’s one thing to be poor because of circumstances beyond your control. No one would deny government aid to people like that. But when an isolationist Hashkafa discourages people from gaining the means to help themselves, that is a horse of an entirely different color. Do such people have a moral right to these funds – even if they have the legal right?

As upsetting as this is to me, it is only half of the story. According to statistics cited in this video, government funding for their schools are in the 10s of millions of dollars every year. Remember, we are talking about parochial schools, not public schools. Just to cite one statistic -in 2014 Satmar received $20 million in federal funds for its Brooklyn schools. That is $1800 per student. Contrast that with the $9 million in federal aid to the Catholic schools. That’s $112 per student.

It would be one thing if that money was used as intended. Much of which is supposed to be for government mandated secular studies programs. But the fact is that not a dime of it is used for that. How could it be if a secular studies program does not even exist past age 13. What does exist before that age is minimal - consisting of rudimentary English and basic math. Hoe basic? During the course of an interview with an expatriate Satmar Chasid in this video, he tells us about a bright young Chasid who desires to learn more than he is given and when he tells him that he is studying advanced math he that thinks that means studying fractions!

The defenders of these communities will argue that they have a right to live the way they choose. Freedom of religion assures that. Their happy and successful lifestyles should be something to admire and even emulate. Avoiding the evils of the outside world fills their lives with pure Kedusha - holiness of the type the rest of us can only dream about! Why would we want to do anything to undermine that?

If they are happy despite their poverty who are we to challenge their way of life? Who are we to take away the legal welfare resources they need to in order to just survive at very basic levels? Who are we to take away funding from their schools which could destroy them? We should not only not undermine them, we should help support them!

I’m sorry, but I see this as an abuse of the system at so many levels that as a coreligionist - it embarrasses me.

Why should we care? Because they are our brothers. We should care about how the fastest growing demographic in all of Jewry operates in this world. A demographic that touts itself as the most devout among us. What they do, how they live, affects all of us.

Alas, nothing will change. They will continue to get funding because the politicians that get elected and make the laws, need their block vote. There is no way they are going to mess up their chances of getting re-elected by taking away or reducing funding

So why am I writing about this? Because it is the truth as I understand it. And because I needed to vent.

The new Conservative Siddur (Forward)

Yet another attempt by the Conservative Movement at reversing the trend of diminishing numbers can be seen in the publication of its new prayer book. And a huge trend it is. There has been fully a one third drop in its membership according to a Forward article. They have published this new ‘Siddur’ with that in mind.

What it basically boils down to is how to be relevant to the masses. There has been a lot of talk about how to do that which has included things like rebranding the movement. An idea put forward by Rabbi Steven Wernick, head of the Conservative movement’s organizational arm, the Rabbinic Assembly. And now there is this new Siddur. They are changing the liturgy to fit the spirit of the times. From the Forward:

In the new siddur, editors made an effort to include “women and women’s experiences,” Feld said. Miriam is evoked alongside with Moses; Sarah, Rachel and Leah revered with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—and not just in the Amidah, but throughout the siddur.

The Rabbinical Assembly group also sought to appeal to families with non-Jewish parents and same-sex couples, said Feld. “We take into account the various family situations that exist in the Jewish community these days.”

As my mother used to say about the Don Quixotes of the world. “S’vet Zei Gornisht Helfin”. That is Yiddish for “It ain’t gonna help them”. They are tilting at windmills. Most people that have any affiliation at all with the Conservative movement these days don’t really care that much about what is going on in the Shul their parents used to take them to.

They are mostly focused on the here and now; their careers, their relationships, the internet, and their smartphones. And raising their families if they are married and have children. We live in an era that has little patience for prayer at all, traditional or otherwise. Even if it is updated to conform with modern sensibilities.

Having been educated in public or private schools without religion why would they have any interest is a Judaism they have no clue about? It is meaningless to them. That’s why so many of them have dropped out in recent years. Writing a new prayer book is not going to change that. They can’t even get them into their synagogues. How are they going to get them to read a new prayer book? Even one as progressive as their new one?

There is something they can do, though. The solution is staring them right in the face. It was even alluded to in this article:

Years ago, when Blank was teaching rabbinical students at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York, she noticed many of them used ArtScroll prayer books—an Orthodox siddur with staunchly traditionalist commentary and explanation—rather than Siddur Sim Shalom; and this, in Conservative Judaism’s flagship seminary. The students were drawn to ArtScroll’s literal translation, expanded commentary and “halachic stage directions,” Blank said.

If the Conservative Movement has any hope of staying alive, they need to note that the truly motivated among them seek tradition. Not innovation. That is what the ArtScroll Siddur gives them.

To an extent, they have noticed it and have included an ArtScroll like commentary in their New Siddur. But while they are trying to appeal to the traditionalist mind, at the same time they are trying to appeal to the modern anti-traditionalist mind . You cannot be all things to all people. You cannot mix fire and water. Structure and tradition is what inspires the devout. But the progressive spirit of the times rejects tradition as archaic and regressive. Oppressive even!

A while ago, DePaul University Professor Roberta Rosenthal Kwall wrote an article that I believe to be the truth about the trajectory of Conservative Movement and what to do about it. She suggested that the only real way to survive:

… is for the Conservative movement to narrow its audience by refining its mission. A tribute to Conservative Judaism is that it has produced a core group of Jews whose daily lives revolve around Jewish law in a way closer to modern Orthodox Jews.

The new Siddur will not do that. What they need to do is what Professor Kwall recommended. And she is not the only one who feels that tradition is the way to go. It is what some of the Conservative Movement’s leading lights have been suggesting for some time now.

And the best (perhaps the only) way to assure that traditional practice is followed is via a good Jewish education of the type that does not water it down by mixing in fashionable trends. Tradition, like fine wine should rarely if ever be diluted. Doing so will only ruin it. Hear that, Open Orthodoxy?

Justices of the Supreme Court. Antonin Scalia is seated second from left

The sudden passing of Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia got me to thinking about why it is that so many Orthodox Jews tend to identify more with conservative principles than they do with liberal ones.

How a politically conservative Justice like Scalia sees the Constitution versus how a liberal Justice like Ginsburg or Breyer sees it can help explain this phenomenon.

Liberals on the bench see the Constitution as a living breathing document that was never meant to be interpreted based on the conditions extant at the time it was written. They claim that what the framers of constitution had in mind was that it should be a relative document. One that would adjust with the spirit of the times. So that an amendment like the right to bear arms had a different meaning then than it does now. The framers never intended the second amendment to be rigidly applied if conditions changed. Which is the case today where handguns are so frequently used to commit crimes. That right is – after all - prefaced with the words, ‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…’

Conservatives are strict constructionists or ‘Originalists’ (as Scalia called them). They see the constitution to be followed as the framers originally intended. They see interpretation based on current circumstances as a virtual elimination of the founders intent. Once you start factoring modern sensibilities, you can turn the constitution on its head. For example the recent Obergfell decision by the court declaring same sex marriage protected by the equal protection clause - a right that surely was not extended to this circumstance by the framers the 14^th Amendment.

It is this mindset that Orthodox Jews see when they evaluate who they support for the three branches of government. (Only two of which are directly in their hands. The members of the Supreme Court are in the hands of the President along with the advice and consent of the congress. But indirectly the voters do have a say in whom they elect that make those decisions.)

For Orthodox Jews the decisions that follow the conservative political perspective are usually the ones that fall in line with their religious perspective.

The liberal and conservative view of the constitution as being rigid or fluid is similar to the way Orthodox Jews and heterodox Jews see the Torah. For example the Torah is clear about the nature of homosexual sexual relationships being a serious violation of Halacha. Heterodoxy has gone to great lengths to re-interpret the Torah to practically praise that kind of relationship.

The views of the founding fathers were surely more attentive to traditional biblical values than are today’s liberals. So it is easy to understand why so many Orthodox Jews are politically conservative as well. This is true not only about Orthodox Jews but other faiths as well. At least those that see the fundamental dictates of the bible as something not to be tampered with.

How do I see it? Although I tend towards the more conservative perspective I am neither strict constructionist nor a liberal constructionist. I do not consider every word in the constitution inviolable the way I see the Torah. But I do believe that if we are going to have orderly society of any longevity we must have a set of guiding principles that with rare exception should not be reinterpreted because they don’t fit popular notions of acceptability.

Although I tend more conservative, on some issues I am more liberal. I am for example in favor of stricter gun control. I am also in favor of abortion rights. I am opposed to putting any restriction on abortion since there are instances where an abortion is permitted Halachcly. I do not want the government dictating when a Jewish woman may or may not have an abortion. I want Halacha to do that. To quote former President Bill Clinton, I think abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

That said, I understand the opposition by some Orthodox advocacy groups like Agudah. They want to prevent abortion from becoming a means or birth control. While abortion is permitted under some circumstances it should not be treated as a mere medical procedure affecting only the woman it is performed upon.

The fetus is not given any value at all today except as possible body parts to be used by other patients. In my view it is immoral to see a fetus in this way. While Judaism does not see abortion as murder it does consider it sinful to destroy a potential human life. Abortion is only allowed under very specific circumstances mostly having to do with health of the mother. But because of that contingency we ought to support abortion rights despite the way it is so commonly used.

I am therefore somewhere between a strict constructionist and a liberal constructionist. (There it is again… my Centrist penchant for seeing things in grey tones rather than in black and white ones.)

I for one am going to miss Scalia. He was a brilliant jurist even according to his ideological opponent. I hope his replacement will have the same judicial philosophy. If the Supreme Court is going to err, I would prefer it erred on the side of strict construction. Because even in those rare cases where I might disagree with a particular decision, the majority of them will align with my views.

The courts remaining members of the Supreme Court are equally divided: 4 conservatives and 4 liberals. The President will no doubt nominate a liberal to fill the vacancy. But that nominee will no doubt be blocked by a Republican congress that will not confirm the nomination. That means the next President will ultimately make that decision. When voting for the next President, that ought to be foremost in everyone’s mind.

It's that time of year again. If you enjoy this blog in any way and would like to see it continue, then a monetary contribution* via Paypal (located in the right margin) would go a long way towards doing that. Or you can place an ad. (Details: here)

This will show me that my efforts here are worth more than nothing. Any amount you can afford will be appreciated. If you cannot afford it, do not in any feel way obligated. This is a free blog. Anyone can access it and participate by commenting at any time. But if you can, it would be nice to be appreciated in this way.

Why am I asking for contributions? Unlike professional journalists and columnists, I do not get paid for writing. I do it for free as a labor of love. But it takes a lot of time and hard work. Who wouldn't want to be paid for working hard?

I would love to be hired as a paid columnist in any Jewish publication. I think it would increase their readership. This is a popular blog that has generated thousands of readers. My column would very likely do the same for them. But as of yet I have not been offered a paid position.

I am grateful to the Jewish Press, the Times of Israel, and the Jerusalem Post for publishing so many of my posts online. Even though they don't pay me I appreciate the exposure. But I would appreciate the financial support even more... and it will motivate me to continue this blog and write even better posts.

Good Jewish blogs are getting harder to find. I hope that mine is one of them. My blog is still here and going strong. If you would like to see it continue, a donation in any amount will go a long way toward that end.

I hope that my blog has contributed positively to the public discourse of the issues that matter to the Jewish world.

Last but not least, thank you to all of my readers. Especially those who take the time to comment. Without you, this blog would not be the success that it is.

Harry Maryles

*Contributions are not tax deductible.

Great Britain's Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis (TOI)

One of the more positive developments in Modern Orthodoxy is the advent of Yoatzot. These are the very bright and dedicated female Halachic advisers that fill a real need in Klal Yisroel. They have been educated in the Hilchos Niddah – the laws governing menstrual cycles pertaining to intimacy between a husband and wife (…often referred to as Taharas HaMishpacha – family purity laws).These laws are very complicated. And if purposely violated on a biblical level the consequences are Kareis – a severe penalty mentioned by the Torah that augers an untimely death at the hands of Heaven with souls being cut-off from the Jewish people.

As one can imagine that when questions arise about intimate matters, a woman may find it awkward to ask them of a male rabbi – even if he is an expert on these matters. So a lot of questions don’t get asked. The result of that can have negative consequences even if one rules strictly for themselves. It can cause unnecessary hardships on a marriage that will lead to marital disharmony. Which could often be avoided with a simple question to a rabbi.

Rabbi Yehuda Herzl Henkin

Yoatzot have helped reduce that problem. They are trained to answer common Shailos - questions about these laws. And for the more difficult questions – they have Poskim to rely upon. It’s kind of like what the old time Rebbetzin of a Posek used to do when women came to them with Shailos - embarrassed to ask the Rebbetzin’s husband themselves. Only these women are formally trained to do it.

Yoatzot are not without controversy. Charedi rabbinic leaders do not approve of them. They consider it a form of rabbinic leadership as well as the beginning of a slippery slope towards rabbinic ordination. The Posek for this program, Rabbi Yehuda Herzl Henkin has, however, required it to be made clear to any woman who enters this program that Yoatzot are not rabbis or Poskim. When asked for a Psak on a difficult issue, they ask a Posek.

What most people may not be aware of is that even though Charedi Poskim are opposed to this phenomenon, they have not condemned it. They have not ‘thrown these women out of Orthodoxy’. I think that’s because they realize that at the end of the day it enhances observance of a very important Halacha. So even though they don’t like it – they seem to be looking the other way.

I am very much in favor of this program. I believe that it should be expanded to every single community, Charedi and Modern Orthodox alike. Embarrassment is not the sole province of Modern Orthodox women. It is human nature to be embarrassed asking about Shailos of an intimate nature to a member of the opposite sex.

YU Rosh Kollel Rabbi Reuven Brand

While Yoatzot are becoming a bit more common, we have a long way to go before it is widespread. In furtherance of this goal, Chicago’s Rabbi Reuven Brand, Rosh Kollel of the Yeshiva University Kollel Torah Mitzion has created and established the NILI Hotline. A group of women already trained as Kallah teachers have been given additional training to answer common questions. They are available by phone to any woman from any segment of Judaism. And like Yoatzot, they have Poskim -one of them Charedi - that deal with the more difficult questions. (Rabbi Brand wisely was careful not to call them Yoatzot, realizing that the controversial nature of the term would discourage some people from using this service.)

It is indeed a beautiful thing to see a Charedi Posek and a YU Rosh Kollel working together in harmony for the common goal of enhancing this very important Miztvah. But like Yoatzot, NILI has its own controversy. It is not endorsed or recommended by most of the Charedi Rabbis in town. Probably for the same reasons that Yoatzot are not recommended. Which is a shame since there are many women that would benefit from this hotline who may not even be aware of it. (Although I am told that there are some Charedi women that use it.)

And now Great Britain’s Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis has set up Ma’ayin - a program of his own in England. From the Times of Israel:

A year in the planning, “Ma’ayan” – which means “spring” or “fountain” – will consist of three components: study of the Jewish laws of family purity, taught by Dayan Shmuel Simons of the London Beth Din; academic study about women’s health and related medical issues, to be taught by senior lecturers from University College, London; and pedagogical training focusing on adult education, so that the Ma’ayanot will be able to run community education projects.

I could not be happier about this news. This phenomenon is spreading and will hopefully catch on even in the Charedi world.

I am often asked why I am so supportive of Yoatzot and so opposed to female rabbis. One very significant difference is that the goal of the Yoatzot is not to empower women - the siren call of 21^st century feminism.Their goal is to enhance a Mitzvah that God has mandated for them. They are trying to help people do the will of God. Which is what Judaism is all about.

Yeshiva University Beis HaMedrash

I think he’s on to something. Rabbi David S. Farkas has written a thoughtful essay in Cross-Currents that echos some of my own thoughts. In a recent essay, Professor Marc Shapiro had warned that Modern Orthodoxy (MO) and their flagship institution, Yeshiva University (YU) might become the next target of the right (Agudah) after it finishes off Open Orthodoxy (OO). Rabbi Farkas disagreed and came up with his own assessment about where MO stands with the right. The relationship has improved. Significantly.

Ironically this is corroborated by a recent criticism of Modern Orthodoxy by Agudah Moetzes member, Rabbi Aharon Feldman. In addressing the RCA statement rejecting female rabbis (with which he obviously agreed) he said they were missing the point and should have condemned Open Orthodoxy – the source of that problem and of many other ones, including the acquiescence by them to the heretical views by one of their top ordainees*.

But in the same breath Rabbi Feldman said that his differences with Modern Orthodoxy – while significant – do not (and never did) place them outside the pale (as it does OO). MO he concluded is well within Orthodoxy’s orbit.

As Rabbi Farkas indicates, strident differences are hardly ever mentioned any more by the right. He mentions many reasons why that is. All of which are true. The primary among them in my view is the realization that the views of the YU Roshei Yeshiva are not all that different from theirs.

That was tangibly demonstrated by Torah VoDaath’s Rav Yisroel Belsky who until his death worked side by side with YU’s Rav Hershel Shachter at the OU. They spoke very highly of each other.

Added to this is the fact that OO’s chief critic is a right wing MO rabbi ordained by YU, Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer. The past is therefore not prologue. Past strident criticism by the right of MO and YU will not be restored. Certainly not to the same vitriolic level it had been in the past. It will be more like the criticism offered by Rabbi Feldman mentioned above.

Aside from all the reasons Rabbi Farkas mentions, there is also the fact that both the moderate right and Modern Orthodoxy (in the form of Centrists) has moved towards each other. This has been noted by Rabbi Berel Wein in his writings. The right has adopted some of MO’s modalities. Like getting a professional degrees from a university (for purposes of supporting one’s family.) The lifestyle of a right wing Modern Orthodox Jew (Centrist) is virtually the same as that of a moderate Charedi. They live in the same neighborhoods in many cases. They Daven in the same Shuls. They are Kovei Itim (set aside fixed times for Torah study) - often studying together. Their children might attend the same moderate Charedi schools that offer a decent secular education for their children.

I have long ago concluded that there is little difference in lifestyle and values between the moderate Charedi and the Centrist.

There are Hashkafic differences, but they do not factor into the relationship. None of this is new. I have discussed it here more than once.

As Rabbi Farkas pointed out - all of this has been facilitated by the virtual elimination of the strident right wing criticism of Modern Orthodoxy which was a staple of the not so distant past. The question is why? Why has that criticism died down? There too Rabbi Farkas has a reasonable answer. There are bigger fish to fry.

As western culture has seen a revolution in recent years in which it has defined deviancy down (to quote the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan) countering it has become more important than fighting each other. The cultural challenges today threaten the values of both religious Christians and religious Jews. There is an old Arab saying that I’m sure everyone has heard: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. This has created strange bedfellows. You will for example see amicus briefs being filed jointly in a court by the Catholic Church and the Agudah on the issues that affect them both.

In my view, the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back is Open Orthodoxy. While Rabbi Farkas does not downplay its significance, I don’t think he gives this phenomenon enough credit. This issue has created the precipitous moment where the Agudah and the RCA are virtually on the same page. Never have the two organizations been closer. While there are still differecnes, Open Orthodoxy seems to have united the right and the ‘middle’ like never before.

This is not the first time that a serious fight has been abandoned - and former antagonists became united in common cause. One may recall the great fight against Chasidim by Misnagdim led by Rabbi Eliyahu Kramer (...better known as the Gra or the Vilna Goan). He considered them to be heretical. The antagonism was fierce. My own great grandfather (7 generations back) was practically disowned by his father when he decided to become a Chasid.

But after the enlightenment freed the Jewish people from the ghetto, the attraction of the forbidden fruit of Haskala (the Jewish enlightenment) threatened to destroy them. After a few adjustments to the philosophy of Chasidus, Misnagdim and Chasidim became partners in the fight against the draw away from observant Judaism brought on by Haskala.

I think that the right might see Centrist Modern Orthodoxy in the way they eventually saw Chasidim - joining in oppostion to a movement that they see as dangerous in attracting serious Jews away from what they consider the legitimate form of Orthodoxy.

Is this a good thing? I think it is. I have always been for unity. This is a step in that direction.

One more thing. Those critics who say that Centrists are not really Modern Orthodox but are instead Charedi - is simply not true on an ideological level. There are significant differences. Just to mention a few, MO’s positive view of the State of Israel; the view of secular studies as more than just a means of achieving a decent living; and a more positive view of the general culture when it does not contradict the Torah.

I will admit however that we have become sociologically very similar. That is a good thing and I am happy about it. Now if only OO will pull back a bit from pushing the envelope so far to the left, maybe we can finally have some across the board unity once and for all.

*The head of their flagship Yeshiva , Rabbi Asher Lopatin, has since repudiated that view saying that the events at Sinai are ‘non negotiable’ and that the ordainee in question has not yet developed the skills to be able to properly deal with the questions raised by the bible critics.)

Arie Crown Hebrew Day School in Chicago (Skokie)

Every time I see an article like this, I want to just throw up my hands in despair. Someone once said ‘S’iz Shver Tzu Zein a Yid’. That's Yiddish for It is difficult to be a Jew. If one looks at the tuition crisis, one can surely sympathize with that statement. The Huffington Post has a story about this problem. It is from 2011. But nothing has changed. And it offered little in the way of a solution. Here is the reality:

Rabbi Saul Zucker of the Orthodox Union explains that "the average price of Jewish day school tuition for grades K-12 is $15,000 per year (as compared to the average Catholic school tuition of $3,383, according to NCEA). For four children that would mean $60,000 per year post taxes, which indicates that one would have to earn approximately $200,000 per year (the top 3 percent of earners in this country) just to support their children's education."

I don’t know how many of my readers that have children in the day schools make $200,000. But my guess is that it more or less reflects the national average of about 3%. This is a crisis that is not going away and is only going to get worse if something isn’t done about it.

I have in the past offered some suggestions that if implemented would go a long way to solving this crisis. I have thought about it some more and may have something to add. But first let us examine why the costs are so high; and if there is anything we can do to reduce those costs.

A good Jewish education first and foremost requires good teachers in religious studies. There was a time where a day school teacher was not a profession that good and talented people wanted to pursue. Because the pay that was offered at that time was pretty much starvation wages. Rebbeim could seek additional employment as afternoon Hebrew school teachers and in summer jobs. Secular subjects were taught by public school teachers looking to supplement their own low public school pay..

That was basically it back then. Tuition was relatively low. And scholarships were more freely given. I recall a lot of strikes by rebbeim in my day school when I was there back in the 50s. Rebbeim sometimes didn’t get paid their very meager salaries for months!

That scenario is now gone. We can no longer expect truly talented and gifted people to seek careers as rebbeim for starvation wages. If we want to attract good teachers we are going to have to pay them. Good teachers are now making a living wage. That has obviously bumped up the cost of educating our children considerably.

Day schools now include a variety of additional staff members like school psychologists and guidance counselors, additional faculty, teacher’s aids, administrators, secretaries, assistant principles, secular studies principles, fund raisers and all their support staff. Not to mention enrichment and other programs, requiring more space and materials. And then there is the cost of a decent building to house the school and its maintenance costs.

Needless to say, that is why tuition is sky high. It is not because of waste, an accusation often hurled at schools by a few parents unhappy with their high tuition costs. Although there may be some, it is probably not enough to significantly reduce the cost per child.

So what is a typical day school parent of 4 children supposed to do? $60,000 for tuition (based on the above numbers) is more than many people make! Obviously there is financial assistance. But that doesn’t address anywhere near the scope of the problem. And this doesn’t even factor in post high school expenses. Like the gap year in Israel. Financial assistance is limited but fair in most cases.

All of this means that the single biggest portion of a family budget is probably the money paid to educate their children. So while parents are breaking their back to meet their children’s educational expenses, the school does not get anywhere near enough money to meet their own budget. How does a school make up the money they need to meet it?

In Chicago, the Jewish Federation allocates a substantial amount of money to all of the religious schools. The rest is raised in a variety of ways. Which include banquets, concerts and raffles. But even with all that, most schools run deficits. Big ones in some cases.

This seems like an insurmountable problem as costs increase yearly. But here are some suggestions, some of which I have made in the past.

The multi millionaires in our communities that are so generous with their philanthropy - should be even more generous. Let them take the ‘pledge’. This is an idea Bill Gates and Warren Buffet had - inviting all fellow billionaires to give away half of their wealth to charity while they are still alive.

It might be that Orthodox Jewish philanthropists already do that. But I would make one additional stipulation. That they direct those dollars to schools in their cities until their budgets are met.

Another idea is what we have here in Chicago, the Kehilla Fund. This is a project where every Jewish member of the community pledges a fixed monthly sum to a fund that is distributed regularly to the schools. Usually automatically charged to a credit card. It can be as low as $5 or as high as anyone chooses. That has generated significant funds that would otherwise never have happened.

Another idea would be to go back to basics and reduce the number of - or even eliminate - the enrichment programs. Nobody wants to do that. But it’s better than not having a school at all if it goes bankrupt

I would suggest yet another idea. It would be a painless way to reduce costs and increase the value of the education in both religious and secular studies. A talented teacher is a talented teacher. I would suggest that all religious studies teachers become certified in the full variety of secular studies offered at a given school so that they can teach an entire day.

They would get paid more for their additional time, but the overall cost would be less than hiring an entirely separate faculty. For example the benefits package alone would be reduced by approximately one half. The added benefit is that the influence of the ‘rebbe’ and ‘morah’ would be there all day, instead of just the morning.

These are some of the ideas that come to mind. However, even if they are all implemented - they may not solve the problem. But I think they will help.

Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump

I really can’t get over it. Never in my wildest dreams could have I ever have imagined the possibility that a narcissistic vulgar showman and a dyed in the wool socialist would have the slightest chance of becoming the President of the United States. And yet Donald Trump who is the epitome of the former and Bernie Sanders, the epitome of the latter are both seriously in the running to do just that.

It seems that Trump can do or say no wrong. The more outrageous, bigoted, and insulting his comments become the stronger his support seems to get. It seems that Sanders socialist ideas about redistributing the wealth of this country does not disturb anyone either. If anything it inspires support. I have to wonder where all this is coming from. Are the American people that stupid? Or is it me? Am I so dense that I can’t see why the support of these two opposites is so appealing? I hope not. At least I don’t think so. Let’s see if we can figure this out.

For the record, I still believe that neither of these two individuals will become President. Common sense has to prevail at some point. On the Democratic side Hillary Clinton will be the nominee. On the Republican side, well - it’s too early to tell. (Although the candidate I support, Marco Rubio still has a good chance. It all boils down to where the votes of lesser candidates Bush, Kasich, and Carson will go after they drop out.)

But still, what is going on here? I think what is being reflected here is a ‘Throw the bums out’ mentality. People are just fed up with politics as usual and are probably unhappy with their lot in life. They see a shrinking middle class and a growing upper and lower class and blame the establishment politicians. It seems like it almost doesn’t matter what a candidate says. They are going with anti establishment candidates. As long as they are ‘ballpark’ Democrat or Republican they are going to get their respective support. Democrats leaning left will support anti establishment Bernie. And Republicans leaning right will support anti establishment Donald.

As someone that leans right, given the choice between the two, I would still have a hard time supporting Trump. But supporting a socialist is a non starter for me. Especially someone like Sanders who gets part of his foreign policy advice from J-Street. He would make the current President look like Meir Kahane by comparison. There is not a doubt in my mind that he would do a lot more to pressure Israel into making life threatening decisions.

Trump, on the other hand is an unknown entity. It’s hard to tell what he would do. But based on his rhetoric, his views seem to be a 1000 times more favorable to Israel than Sanders’ views. Not to mention the fact that he seems to be a lot friendlier with Israel’s current prime minister than the current President is.

So how can our politically divided country vote for these two guys? With respect to Trump it must be that most people do not take his rhetoric literally. He is probably a lot more rational than his big mouth indicates. Once in office, he would hire the best people to advise him on the issues. I believe those people would be very strongly pro Israel and pro business.

Bernie Sanders appeal is his personal charm. You’ve got to like this guy. Even though I obviously do not agree with his politics, he exudes honesty and integrity. He is a true believer in the redistribution of wealth. He wants to ‘even the playing field’ by taking money from the rich in the form of confiscatory taxes – and give it to the poor in the form of a lot of free entitlements.

He constantly compares the United States negatively to European democracies saying they are far more progressive than we are. Europeans provide all of their citizens with free health care, free college, better pensions, longer family leave, and a shorter work week (for the same pay).

The ‘Robin Hood’ approach that socialism is - is attractive to the hard working middle. Especially the young. They see hard working people barely making enough money to live a middle class lifestyle, while the rich hardly work at all and live like kings, using the ethics of a Bernie Madoff to get them there. It’s time to take some of their money away and give it to ourselves - the hard working middle class.

If I was going to vote charm and integrity; if I was going to vote for the appealing message of sticking it to the rich, thinking that would get me more, I would vote for Bernie. His message is so very seductive. He wants to give away lots of goodies and have the rich pay for it.

But the reality is that aside from what in my view would be a disastrous foreign policy, his domestic policies would turn America’s prosperity into a European socialist disaster whose economies are barely treading water.

You can’t give away the store. All of Bernie’s goodies have to be paid for. Which means substantially higher income taxes; higher sales taxes; and a variety of new taxes that don’t even exist yet. Either that or devaluing our currency substantially. Which would eventually cause an inflation that hurts everyone. Including the poor.

We do not want to become another Europe. Instead of spending ever more on social programs, we ought to be reducing the deficit by spending less. Not by giving away the store to the masses. Socialist Greece tried that. They almost went bankrupt.

We ought to instead incentivize business by lowering their taxes and invest in their own growth. Incentivize them to produce more which would mean more jobs and more money to buy the things they produce. And reduce or eliminate a some of the wasteful government programs and some of the ridiculous projects funded by the government (Bill Proxmire, where are you?!) to compensate for the lost revenue in the short term. In the long term government revenue would increase because there would be more jobs, meaning more people paying taxes

What if this worst case scenario actually happens where Trump and Sanders actually win their party’s respective nomination? Who would I vote for? Much as I like Bernie and hate Donald, I would hold my nose and vote for Donald. And hope that his disgusting rhetoric does not reflect his ultimate actions as President. Because if it does, it would be an unmitigated disaster for this country.

But all this is speculation about what I still believe is an unlikely scenario. I still think it’s going to be Clinton and (hopefully) Rubio. In the mean time it will be a fun (if scary) to watch. So I am going to enjoy the show.

Dr. Roni Grosz, head of the Albert Einstein Archives at Hebrew University

A billion light-years. That is a phrase I would never expect a Charedi magazine to use. Unless it was to dispute the very concept of something being a billion Light years away from the planet Earth. That phrase was used matter of factly in a Mishpacha Magazine article about scientist Roni Grosz, a Kopycznitzer Chosid who is in charge of the Albert Einstein Archives at Israel’s Hebrew University. It described newly discovered evidence of gravitational waves - a key component of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. A theory that challenged previous widely accepted understandings of the nature of gravity. Dr. Grosz described it as ‘music to his ears’ calling it a ‘smile from heaven’.

The article goes on to describe Dr. Grosz’s unlikely trek to his current position as well as how he came to be observant as a Kopycznitzer Chasid. An interesting read, but not the focus of this post. Which is how the Charedi world sees scientific evidence about the age of the universe.

Until the controversy over Rabbi Natan Slifkin’s books broke, there were two legitimate schools of thought about that. One was that the universe was less than 6000 years old. And that all evidence to the contrary was just planted in order to test our beliefs. A second and more rational approach was that the first verses in the Torah that describes a six days of creation are not literal days. And that therefore the actual age of the universe is much older, but that time was measured after the 6 day creation process.

After Rabbi Slifkin’s books were banned for espousing such notions, that belief was deemed to be heretical in some circles. I remember speaking to one of the Roshei Kollel of the Chicago Community Kolllel (Lakewood) about this sudden turn of events. He shrugged and said he sympathized. He said he was surprised at the ban. Mentioning that Rabbi Sholom Kamenetsky had recently spoken at the Kollel about the legitimacy of an ‘ancient universe’ approach.

That ban caused a change in how some of the Charedi rabbinic leadership viewed an ancient universe - having once accepted it as a legitimate Orthodox view. Rabbi Aharon Feldman was among those who now repudiated the idea.

At first incredulous about the ban he flew to Israel to consult with the respected Gadol in whose name the ban was issued - to see if it was so. He came back convinced that it was, and then proceeded to try and explain why we must follow the ban, to no one’s satisfaction, least of all my own. This was followed by a variety of American rabbinic leaders who fell in lockstep with that view - severely criticizing dissenters both past and present.

One of the more famous past dissenters was Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan. Who died well before the ban. He was a brilliant physicist who was very popular in the Charedi world. He had once addressed a meeting of the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists and presented an argument in favor of an ancient universe – using sources in the Gemarah, Kabbalah, Rishonim, and Achronim to make the case that the universe was approximately 15 billion years old. Which is what scientists have determined based on evidence. I recall reading a published version of that presentation wherein he ridiculed those who in ignorance tried to deny it.

There was at least one attempt to refute all the evidence of an ancient universe. Telshe Rosh Hayehiva, Rabbi Chaim Dov Keller wrote an article in the now defunct Jewish Observer on the subject. What struck me is how he addressed the comments made by the Tifferes Yisrael, an Achron whose commentary is prominently featured in standard editions of the Mishnayos.

The Tifferes Yisrael said that the 6 days of creation were not counted in human days but in Godly days where one day equals a 1000 years (If I recall correctly). While Rabbi Keller was correct in saying that the Tifferes Yisroel’s timeline did not prove anywhere near 15 billion years, I think he missed the primary point. That a highly respected Achron did not believe that the 6 days of creation were literal days as we understand them. Once you admit that the opening verses in Genesis are not to be taken literally, you open up the possibility of an ancient universe. He did not succeed in refuting that at all.

One of the things that has always convinced me that the universe is ancient is the idea of ‘light years’. That is the distance it takes light to travel over the period of a year. Which means we can measure how far a star is from earth. A few years ago scientists announced that they saw an exploding star. But in measuring the distance of that star from earth they determined that it actually exploded over a million years ago. We only saw it now because now is when the light of that explosion finally reached earth.

How is that possible if the universe is under 6000 years old? One cannot say (as some who deny an ancient universe do) that the light from that explosion was created ‘midstream’ so to speak. That makes absolutely no sense to me. It’s like saying that dinosaur bones were created as bones buried in earth to test our faith - and that dinosaurs never really existed. Really?

It seems that there has now been a quiet reversal of policy about the age of the universe in the Charedi world. A well respected Charedi Magazine that has a rabbinic board censoring what they consider objectionable material – has allowed a reference to a universe existing a billion years ago. Without any disclaimer. If this continues to go unchallenged, I think we have made progress.

Science may not be the ultimate arbiter of truth. But one cannot deny evidence found that supports its theories. Some of that evidence might strongly support one scientific theory while evidence about other scientific theories might not support those theories as much. But evidence it is - and should never be discarded just because it doesn’t fit neatly into one’s preconceived notions. In my view only a scientist who believes in the truth of Judaism as well as the truth of science (like Roni Grosz or Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan) can ever begin to reconcile these two truths.

An Ethiopian child in Israel. What will her future look like?

One of the things that really upsets me is racial discrimination. And it seems to have reared its ugly head in the Israeli town of Petach Tikvah. From the Jerusalem Post (reprinted at VIN):

The marriage registrar of the religious council of Petah Tikva, Aryeh Sapir, allegedly refused to wed an Ethiopian couple based on an “order from on high.”

According to the article, the woman who applied to this religious council was harassed about her conversion. One that was granted to her by the Israeli Chief Rabbinate (the Rabbanut). The ‘on high’ person seems to be Benjamin Attias,the Sephardi Rabbi of the city. How ironic it is for a Sephardi Rav whose people suffer from their own form of discrimination to be so bigoted!

Aren’t there enough problems with conversions in Israel already? The Rabbanut has been accused of requiring unreasonable standards for conversion by a wide variety of critics. They have also been accused of bias ad unfair tactics. They have been accused of being an intransigent and divisive force in Israel. And have played hardball with conversion courts all over the world – approving only conversions where courts have agreed to their conversion standards.

I am not going to discuss whether the Rabbanut’s tactics are fair or just. Or whether standards for conversions should changed to make it easier to convert for a variety of reasons – some of which might be essential to the Jewish character of the state. Or whether I think it should exist or be dismantled. Although I have my own views, they are beyond the scope of this post.

But the fact that an individual who has passed the Rabbanut’s scrutiny and was converted by them should make them a full fledged Jew without any additional investigation. I can only conclude that the Rav of a city that doesn’t accept a Rabbanut conversion is doing it only for one reason. He is a racist bigot.

Now if he has a legitimate reason for not accepting a Rabbanut certified convert, I will listen to it. But as of now, none has been forthcoming. The circumstances strongly indicate racism and bigotry.

Assuming the Sephardi Rabbi of the city responsible for this shameful behavior is a member of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate, I believe they ought to fire him. On the spot. And I would severely reprimand his subordinate that did not stand up to him and do the right thing. There is no room for racism and bigotry in Judaism.

If the Rabbanut doesn’t do something soon to correct the situation and apologize to the individual this happened to - it wouldn’t hurt to picket them until they did.

H/T Jerry Gottheil

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan

There has been some dispute about whether the brilliant Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan actually believed in an ancient universe even as he made an argument in favor of it using science, and sources in Chazal, Kabbalah, Rishonim and Achronim. I believe that it is clear that he not only beleived it - but ridiculed those who dispute it. (He even made a veiled reference to the Theory of Evolution - ridiculing those who dismiss scientific evidence of that!)

Marty Bluke has taken the trouble to post in the comment section of the post dealing with this subject - excerpts of Rabbi Kaplan's address to the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists on February 18, 1979. This is an important excerpt because it shows a widely respected and much published Charedi Rabbi respecting the validity of scientific inquiry and the conclusions drawn therefrom. I don't want this excerpt to be buried in what is to date 534 comments to the post. I am republishing it here for maximum exposure. His view on this subject echos mine. It follows.

Another approach is that which many Chassidim have. They say, “What do scientists know? Do they know what’s happening? Do they know what’s going on? They’re a bunch of phonies, a bunch of bluffers, a bunch of stupidniks! Do they really have a way of finding out the truth? They find a bone and they think it’s from a monkey.” But, I think to somebody who knows what science is, this is a very unsatisfactory approach. We have some idea of what is involved in paleontology. We have some idea what is involved in geology and in radioactive dating. We have some idea of what is involved in astronomy. We can casually speak about a star being a million light years away, and we do not stop to think, “Well, that’s a bit too much!” So I would say that if someone feels that science is ignorant and false, all well and good. Many people refer not to accept science as a worthy challenge. But I think that for many of us here, such an approach would be totally unsatisfying.

Once again, Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer has written a critical essay in Cross Currents about Open Orthodoxy which is difficult to disagree with. The thrust of his critique is based primarily on the words of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (hereafter called the Rav). If one adheres to the Rav’s words one cannot possibly accept the ‘credo’ Rabbi Gordimer attributes to them. Which is as follows:

Technical compliance, but attitudinal disagreement.

As the Open Orthodox movement further develops its theology, it is increasingly evident that the above is a principal credo. One should comply with the letter of the Law, but one need not agree with the attitude of the Law, or with the attitude of Chazal and primary rabbinic authorities.

As Rabbi Gordimer makes abundantly clear later in his article, this is something that is fully rejected by the Rav. Going so far as to say the following:

Even those who admit the truthfulness of the Torah Shebe’al Peh (the Oral Law) but who are critical of Chachmei Chazal (the Talmudic Sages) as personalities, who find fault with Chachmei Chazal, fault in their character, their behavior, or their conduct, who say that Chachmei Chazal were prejudiced, which actually has no impact upon the Halacha; nevertheless, he is to be considered as a kofer (denier).

Based on some of the examples cited in that article (and many of the views I have seen espoused by some of them), I believe it safe safe to say that Open Orthodox rabbis adhere to the credo Rabbi Gordimer ascribes to them. Just as it appears that the Rav would have considered that credo kefira (heresy).

That said, there is one point that I think needs clarification. It is something mentioned in Rabbi Gordimer’s article and something I have written about in the past, but bears repeating in this context. It is the bracha I say every day of shelo asani isha – thanking God for not making me a woman.

Unlike those in Open Orthodoxy who want to either dispense with this brahca entirely – or even if they don’t - imply that chazal were guilty of misogyny, I don’t do that. I believe that chazal had a good reason for composing this bracha. These were great people whose compassion, integrity, and sense of justice and fairness had few is any peers. Not then, and not now. I just never understood what that reason was. I have never heard a satisfying explanation of it. Not that there aren’t answers available. There are.

One of the more common answers given is that men are thanking God for giving them more mitzvos to do than women. If one looks at the order of the first brachos, it starts with thanking God for not making me a gentile. That is followed with the bracha thanking God for not making me a slave. And that is flowed by thanking God for not making me a woman. In each successive bracha, more mitzvos are required of its subject, yet not as many as a Jewish man.

That partially explains it. But in the case of women, I have to ask, since both men and women are a part of God’s chosen people, why are women given less opportunity then men to do mitzvos? Does that God gave men an unfair advantage over women?

The answer is of course, no.

One explanation I've heard is that is men and women are considered equal in the eyes of God. But men have to work harder to get where women already are spiritually. By their more spiritual nature women don’t need as many Mitzvos as men to rise to the same level of spirituality.

But that in and of itself creates a God given inequity between men and women – placing women above men. And even if I were to accept that inequity, why would I thank God for not making me a woman which would place me on a higher spiritual plane? I would think the opposite would be the case. Women should make the bracha ‘shelo asani ish’ - thanking God for not making them a man!

The response I have heard to that question is that automatically being on a higher spiritual level is not necessarily a good thing. It is much better to earn it through mitzvah observance than to have it given to you automatically.

The example I was given about those whose mitzvah requirements are less thus placing them on a higher spiritual level is that a mentally impaired Jew. That Jew is exempt from doing many of the Mitzvos. He is therefore automatically on a higher spiritual level than those of us that are not mentally impaired. I have been told that when mentally impaired person walked into a room, Rav Shach used to stand up for him.

But that too is not satisfying to me. Are women to be compared to the mentally impaired with respect to mitzvah observance?

Besides even if were to accept that explanation - doesn’t that restore the question? Why is it fair to women to not have the same opportunity as men to earn a high spiritual level instead of just being granted one automatically be virtue of their gender?

So even as I respect chazal’s motives as being altruistic, I still cannot understand this bracha. Does this make me Open Orthodox – at least on this one issue? I don’t’ think so. The difference is that Open Orthodox rabbis have implied negative motives to chazal calling it ‘a terrible offense to women’. I am simply asking a question. One that has bothered me for a long time. And still does.

A burning dumpster at a past Charedi protest in Jerusalem

One of the problems with living your life in isolation from the rest of the world is that it cannot possibly teach you how to behave in the outside world. That’s because you would have no clue what the outside world is like. Except for the biased way it is presented to you.

In enclaves like Meah Shearim and other ultra Charedi sections of Israel like Ramat Bet Shemesh Bet, the outside world is presented as a den of iniquity to be avoided at all costs. It is presented as so evil and so likely to entrap you that it should only be entered when it is absolutely necessary.

And even then to try and avoid contact with anyone in that world. Including religious Jews that do not share their values - having been influenced by being immersed in that culture. Religious though they might be – they are damaged goods. And certainly secular Jews and non Jews are completely discounted as having little if any value at all. They therefore could not care less how the outside world sees them. Apparently.

By living isolated lives that are free of any outside influences they see themselves as the crème de la crème of the Jewish people. Striving to live their lives exactly as they believe God wants them to - and sacrificing much in the process. Doing whatever it takes to live their lives by the high standards they define for themselves.

If one understands this, one can understand much of their behavior, like the common practice in certain of their circles to squeeze out as much money from government financial aid as possible. Mostly by legal means. Sometimes by trying to stretch the definition of what is legal. Sometimes crossing that line. Sometimes in error. Sometimes on purpose.

Just to be clear, such shenanigans are not limited to ultra fanatic extremist Charedim. There has certainly been a fair share of this kind of behavior on the part of non Charedi religious Jews, secular Jews, and non Jews. But all too frequently it is extremist fanatic Charedim that are the subject of such reportage, which as recognizably religious Jews – touting themselves as the most religious among us – is an unavoidable Chilul HaShem.

And when they are jailed for such crimes, they are treated like captives by their community - to be redeemed as required by Jewish law. In one very high profile case a Chasidic Rebbe actually met with the President of the United States and asked for clemency and a reduction in their sentence to time served on behalf of his jailed Chasidim (convicted of fraud) - and he got it!

I have witnessed some of this type of behavior more than once. I recall one particular time when on a flight to Israel from New York - a group of Chasidim came aboard and acted like royalty to the flight attendants, treating them like they were their personal servants. As a Kipa wearing religious Jew, I was embarrassed by their behavior. So I went over to one of the flight attendants and apologized for my coreligionists. I assured her that as a religious Jew these people did not represent us all. They were truly an exception. Religious Jews do not normally act like this. To my surprise she thanked me and said she knew that not all religious Jews acted this way. And that she was used to these people acting that way.

My God, I thought. This particular flight attendant was understanding. But what about other flight attendants that have had this experience? Do they think all religious Jews are like this? What a Chilul HaShem, I thought. And there was nothing I could do about it. Those Chasidim had no clue that they were doing anything wrong.

And it just happened again. From an article in the New York Post:

An Israeli man on an El Al flight to Israel went on a rampage on the plane because he objected to an “immodest” in-flight movie, according to reports.

The 36-year-old passenger, a resident of the city of Beit Shemesh, was on the Israeli national carrier’s aircraft on its flight from Poland on Wednesday when he reacted violently, Channel 2 of Israel reported…
.
The man, who lives in an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood, was arrested upon landing at Ben Gurion International Airport.

“In the course of an El Al flight from Warsaw to Tel Aviv, the passenger ran wild and damaged the plane’s equipment,” El Al told Arutz 7 in a statement.

Many people have asked me if I consider people like this more acceptable that Open Orthodox Jews. The answer is no. I do not. Not because of their theological beliefs. Their theology is not any different than my own. But because of a behavior based on a Hashkafa that does not teach any understanding of what it means to interact with others in the civilized world.

They therefore react to certain things in ways that lead some of them to have an occasional outburst like this far too often. You cannot chalk this up to exception. True, most of these people would not react this way. But too many of them do for it to be an exception. Not to mention the almost immediate defense of these people by their peers and rabbinic leaders. Saying something like: ‘OK. They shouldn’t have done it. But their heart was in the right place.’

In my view this kind of behavior puts into question their entire Hashkafa of isolationism and vilification of the ‘other’.

How many women have to be beaten up on a bus? …or little children yelled at? …or clothing stores burned down? Or merchants selling smart phones beaten up? …or dumpsters being set fire, …or reporters spat upon... before the rest of the religious world stands up and sees this Hashkafa for what it is and rejects it as in any way legitimate?

So how do I compare Open Orthodox Jews with these extremists? They are gold compared to these fanatic extremists. Sure Open Orthodox Hashkafa is seriously problematic for me. But a Hashkafa that results in the kind of occasional behavior like that of this Ramat Bet Shemesh Jew - which is a major Chilul Hashem - is far worse in my view. And it ought to once and for all be rejected by all of us.

Is this the end of the Republican Party? I never thought I would be discussing politics as much as I have this year. But there has never been anything like this political season in my memory, which goes back at least 50 years. The candidates that seem to be the most inspiring are a Socialist on the Democratic side and Megalomaniac showman whose experience in governing at any level is about the same Donald Duck’s.

This is unprecedented. On the Democratic side, sanity will prevail. Socialist Bernie Sanders is unlikely to be the candidate despite his unexpected popularity and win in the New Hampshire primary. The polls strongly indicate that Hillary Clinton will eventually get the nomination.

On the Republican side, I am beginning to wonder if the host of the TV reality series, ‘The Apprentice, is unstoppable”. Donald Trump is on a roll. He has won almost every primary so far except one over his chief rivals, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. The polls indicate that he will win most of the 12 Super Tuesday states in next week’s primary. He is ahead in a national poll among all Republicans as well. Trump is even ahead of Rubio in his home state, Florida.

What in the heck is going on?! This makes absolutely no sense to me. I realize that people are ‘mad as hell and are not going to take it anymore’. But is voting for a megalomaniac like Trump going to make them any better off if he becomes President? I don’t see how any sane person could believe that, if judged by the way he has behaved in this campaign thus far. Is it possible that Trump will insult his way into office?

And yet to a large number of Republican voters, he can do or say no wrong. Every time I think he is toast after some outrageous comment or insult, I am proven wrong by a strong win in a primary.

No matter how I have tried to explain his popularity as a reaction to the way the government is being run, at the end of the day, I still don’t get it. The man is unqualified to be the leader of the free world. His rhetoric may sound great: He will destroy ISIS. He will restore prosperity. He will end Obamacare. He will tear up the nuclear deal with Iran. He will make peace between Israel and the Arabs. He says he going to be the deal maker of the century.

Do the people voting for him in the primaries really think his expertise in making real estate deals qualifies him to be the Commander in Chief? Will that real estate acumen enable him to make a deal between Israel and the Palestinians? Deal maker of the century? What a Joke! He has zero experience in foreign policy; zero experience dealing with terrorism; zero experience in dealing with the military; zero experience in economics; and zero experience in health care policy. ZERO!

He is however good at insulting minorities. He is good at throwing insults at his opponents when they point out his failings. He is good at making inappropriate and insulting remarks about a reporter that asks him a question he doesn’t like. Can anyone imagine a foreign policy based on that kind of mentality? Should a man like that to be trusted to have his finger on the nuclear button?!

This all seems like no brainier to me. The man is so unqualified, that if he is elected, it would setback US standing in the world to unprecedented levels. And who knows what kind of danger he would bring to this nation. I do not think I am exaggerating.

Which brings me back to the Republicans that support him. I cannot figure out why they are letting their emotions overcome their intelligence. It's one thing to send a message in a primary or two. But it is way beyond sending messages at this point.

Even if the Republicans supporting Trump actually believe that he is the best man running to be President, they have to understand that he cannot win the general election. Mrs. Clinton must be thrilled that Trump is in the lead.

I am going to make a prediction. If he is her opponent, he will lose badly. He will very likely lose every single state. I don’t see any Democrat voting for him. Nor will many Republicans other than those that voted for him in the primaries. He will lose badly.

Republicans that would normally vote for a conservative Republican like Rubio and realize how truly unqualified Donald Trump is, will run to Clinton if Trump is the nominee. I will surely vote for her if he is. I have not met too many people whose political views are like mine (center-right) that would even consider voting for Trump.

Do those Republicans voting for Trump in the primaries not realize that to vote for Trump is to vote for Clinton? Do they actually think he has a chance against her – even with all of her negatives? I guess so.

If this happens. It will be the end of the Republican party as we know it. I don’t think it can survive a Trump nomination that will lead to what I believe will be the biggest drubbing of any Presidential candidate in my lifetime. And I include George McGovern in 1972 who lost every state (including his own) except for Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.

However, it is not too late for Republicans to think this through. Even those who actually like Trump and think he will make a great President, have to know that he will not win in the general election. If they want someone that has a real chance to do so, they should think ‘Rubio’. He may not be their ideal candidate. He may be the ‘establishment’ candidate. But that does not make him bad. And compared to Mrs. Clinton, he is gold. I hope cooler heads prevail. Because if they don’t, mark my words. There will be another Clinton in the White House. And Democrats will be filling that office for a long time.

From last night's CNN debate:

Kavod HaTorah? A Misplaced Rebuke

Farewell Shmarya Rosenberg

Wearing a Kipa

A Woman Needs a Man Like a Fish Needs a Bicycle

Incredible Opportunity!

Avrohom, Marc, Asher, and Me

Dependency and Isolationism as a Way of Life

Learning the Lessons of a Failing Movement

Why Orthodox Jews Tend to be Politically Conservative

A Little Help From My Friends

Sexual Intimacy and Halacha

Orthodoxy's New Reality

The Biggest Expense of Being a Jew

What if it’s Trump Versus Sanders?

A Charedi Concession to an Ancient Universe

Black Lives Matter!

What Do Scientists Know?

Does This Make Me Open Orthodox?

Isolation and Chilul HaShem

A Vote for Trump is a Vote for Clinton