Emes Ve-Emunah

The next President?

Liar in Chief. That may very well be Hillary Clinton’s legacy after she serves her term as President of the United States. If she wins the election in November. Which is by no means certain.

What a terrible choice we have in the presumptive Presidential nominees of the two mainstream political parties. They are the most disliked candidates in American history – at least during my lifetime. And for good reason. One is a narcissistic megalomaniac and the other a practiced liar who now appears to be unqualified to be President.

Needless to say, a Trump Presidency would be unprecedented on many levels. None of them good. He is incompetent and inexperienced. His knowledge of government is nil. His knowledge of world events is shallow at best. His stated policies – both domestic and foreign are unrealistic to say the least.

He attracts racists and bigots to his cause and does little to disavow them or their ideology. He has a knack for insulting everyone that he disagrees with even slightly. And that includes world leaders. There is almost a daily flow of racist or misogynistic comments by him or his campaign. Some of his rhetoric tends to foment violent behavior on the part of his supporters - and his detractors.

He also has a penchant for revenge against his political opponents. Like making some not so veiled threats of political revenge against House Speaker Paul Ryan when Ryan said he did not yet support a Trump Presidency - even after all of Trump’s competition dropped out. (Ryan has since announced his qualified support). This is a man truly in love with himself. Everyone else comes second. A distant second!

And then there’s Hillary Clinton, whom FBI Director James Comey called extremely careless. From the New York Times:

F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said Tuesday that the bureau would not recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for her handling of classified information while she was secretary of state…

But (he) rebuked Mrs. Clinton as being “extremely careless” in using a personal email address for sensitive communications. He raised questions about her judgment that will reverberate through her campaign and said that a person still employed by the government — Mrs. Clinton left the State Department in 2013 — could face administrative punishment for such conduct.

To warrant a criminal charge, Mr. Comey said, there had to be evidence that Mrs. Clinton intentionally transmitted or willfully mishandled classified information. The F.B.I. found neither…”

■ Of 30,000 emails Mrs. Clinton handed over to the State Department, 110 contained information that was classified at the time she sent or received them. Of those, Mr. Comey said, “a very small number” were marked as classified. This finding contradicts her repeated assertions that none of the emails were classified at the time Mrs. Clinton saw them…

■ The F.B.I. discovered “several thousand” work-related emails that were not in the original trove of 30,000 turned over by Mrs. Clinton to the State Department. Three of those contained information that agencies have concluded was classified…

■ It is “possible,” Mr. Comey said, that hostile foreign governments may have gained access to Mrs. Clinton’s personal account. He noted that she used her mobile device extensively while traveling outside the United States, including trips “in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.”

■ Mrs. Clinton used multiple private servers for her personal and government business, not just a single server at her home in New York that has been the focus of news reports for more than a year. Her use of these servers — some of which were taken out of service and stored — made the F.B.I.’s job enormously complicated as it sought to put together a puzzle with “millions of email fragments” in it, Mr. Comey said.

A person in Mrs. Clinton’s position, he declared, “should have known that an unclassified system was no place” for the emails she was sending and receiving.

Breathtaking! That is my reaction to this non indictment. Her actions do not appear to have risen to the level of warranting a criminal charge, according to Comey. But many are questioning that. And what about all those e-mail deletions? Sounds like obstruction of justice to me. But what do I know.

In any case her actions may not have warranted a criminal charge but it certainly calls into question her qualifications for President. At the very least someone as careless with classified material as Mrs. Clinton should lose their security clearance - forget about being President of the United States! I don’t know how anyone - friend or foe - can ever trust a proven liar who has in the past publicly stated that she never told a lie in her life! Or someone who places convenience over national security.

In my view the most important quality a President should have is integrity. To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King - what is important about any human being is ‘the content of their character.’ Everything else should flow from that. We should be able to trust that a President will not lie to us. We cannot do that with Mrs. Clinton. It is the very content of her character that is in doubt. How can we trust her? How can our allies trust her?

As we get closer to the election it appears more than ever that the choices come down to who is least objectionable. There is little doubt in my mind that Mrs. Clinton would have lost to any decent Republican candidate. But the presumptive Republican nominee is anything but decent. And yet, he may gain politically from this. I wonder what the next poll will show… What a mess.

by Rabbi Dov Fischer - Guest Contributor

Rabbi Dov Fischer

A few days ago Cross Currents featured an article by Rabbi Dov Fischer that was critical of survey about the reasons for the OTD phenomenon. I discussed his views here. That was followed by a response from survey author, Mark Trencher who defended it against Rabbi Fischer’s criticism. Rabbi Dov Fischer has submitted his response to that. It follows in its entirety.

I find the discussion here absolutely fascinating. Anyone interested in reading my actual thoughts is welcome to view the original piece on Cross-Currents along with my several responses to many who commented there. Here I am fascinated by the need for some to construct straw-person arguments and then to clobber down those straw-person arguments piñata-style.

As I note in many responsive iterations on the Cross-Currents site, the survey fails by presenting self-reporting as though it were scientifically validated or otherwise validated factual data. For example, to offer an unrelated subject, when you meet an Israeli family who have moved their household to America and you ask them why they abandoned for America, they may explain they abandoned because of Israel's religious climate, political tensions, cultural factors, and the like. And maybe those actually are the real reasons. Maybe.

Then you see that the family has arrived with a 17-year-old son and a 16-year-old son, and you begin to realize that the family may have come to America for a less high-falutin' reason. Not surprisingly, though, the family has internalized that the reason they came to America is the nobler and sophisticated reason they have learned to self-report.

When you ask someone why she or he has left the practice of law, she or he may respond that the law firm was disreputable, the legal system was dishonorable, that the clients were despicable, that she or he wanted instead to devote a life to contemplation or to charitable deeds. And that may indeed be the reason the person left. Absolutely maybe.

Or it may be that the person left because she or he could not bear the 2,200-billable-hours requirement or proved to be a poor writer or could not argue cogently in court or was facing state bar discipline or simply had been told by the firm that she or he never would make partner and would be well advised to leave.

People self-report reasons for why they do things. Sometimes those reasons are accurate and sometimes self-serving. That seems pretty self-evident. In my experience as a rav of 35 years, overlapped during 15 of those years as a litigation attorney at some major law firms, I have offered many wonderful people my share of pastoral care and legal protection. In the course of my work, not to mention depositions, I have learned that when people state their reasons for doing or saying or believing things, sometimes they self-report accurately, and sometimes not. This just seems pretty self-evident.

Mark Trencher

In terms of why some people may have abandoned Torah observance, there can be many reasons. Perhaps contempt for those in the Orthodox world who are hypocritical; I certainly have met my share of such people, and I sadly am certain that some have driven good souls away from frumkeit.

Or perhaps driven out of Orthodoxy by vicious abusers -- sex abusers, mental abusers; again, very tragically, I have met my share of those, too, as well as their victims. Indeed, I know first-hand and have counseled several victims of abuse in the Orthodox community, and I very unfortunately know those among them who have left frumkeit because of the abuse.

Or perhaps because of an exposure to certain ideas that led to a re-thinking of belief. I have met such people, too.

Nevertheless, it is my experience of 35 years that, beneath the initially proffered reasons for abandoning, many individuals' cases ultimately prove to be those where people abandoned simply because of intense social pressures and the Groupthink impact of being in certain high-intensity social settings that demand conformity to the values of the New Age, the Spirit of our Times. The zeitgesit.

As an example -- but only as an example, because this particular finite example does not include those outside the campus world -- the environment of the American secular campus sees an extraordinary tendency towards social-pressure-induced Groupthink as a variation on Political Correctness (the latter a separate and distinct, but socially similar phenomenon. Where behavior-speech-belief are dictated by accepted norms).

Thus, during the Democrat primaries, the Millennial generation on campuses has been solidly locked in for Bernie Sanders, while the Quadragenarian Democrats have been rather locked in for Hillary. Indeed, the New York Times did a story on the social isolation and loneliness of Hillary supporters at today's Columbia University amid a sea of Sanders backers. Yet those who attended the same Columbia only fifteen years earlier lock in for Hillary. How explain the generational dissonance?

If one asks a Millennial, "Why do you support Bernie?" the response will be along the lines of "Bernie will work for equality. He will break the banks. He will battle Wall Street. He will fight for social justice. He will end the monopoly of the One Percent." Yet, it is striking that Democrat-aligned Quadragenarians who also care passionately about those same values tend to line up instead for Hillary. (Of course there are exceptions. Of course there are.) Thus, one wonders: How is it that people self-report the reasons that they are acting, yet fall into lockstep with their surroundings?

Sociology teaches that Groupthink is a powerful tool. Yet, people never self-report that "I support Bernie Sanders because I want to be liked by my peers and be invited to parties. I support Bernie because all my social-sciences professors do. I support Bernie because everyone else in my dorm does. I support Bernie because my Significant Other and his/her peers do." Rather, they offer more noble explanations like those listed above -- which also are reasons that Democrats of a different decade prefer Hillary.

A second factor that profoundly influences behavior, speech, beliefs and values is the impact of the Significant Other. The Significant Other may be a boyfriend, a lady friend, a spouse — and their peers. In so many cases, when a Significant Other believes deeply in something, the other half of the partner-couple will follow. Not always. But quite often. Then, when you ask that other person, whether presently or years later, "What made you change?" that person often will self-report noble reasons: "I came to this conclusion. I resented this factor. I re-thought this equation or axiom." However, when a disinterested third party explores deeply enough, one concludes that, in fact, the change in course for many people stems not from such noble-sounding self-reported reasons but from the impact of the Significant Other.

The impact of the Significant Other evidences not only in terms of those who abandon Torah but even the other way -- when people come to Torah or even to Judaism from a non-Jewish starting point. Often, one meets a non-observant Jewish person (most often male) who has civilly married a non-Jewish person (most often female) and whose non-Jewish spouse now wants to convert to Judaism according to halakha. As part of her halakhic conversion, her male spouse necessarily must accompany her on the journey and join her in observing Torah law.

A year or two -- or five or ten -- later, when one speaks to that formerly non-observant Jewish man who now dons tefillin every morning, attends minyan, keeps Shabbat, and never eats in non-kosher restaurant "Why the change?" it is rare that the man says "Because my wife made me do it. You see, she decided that she wanted to be Orthodox-converted, and the rav said that I would have to do it also -- "or else" -- and she made me do it because, if I said no, she said the relationship would end." Rather, he says: "I reevaluated my life. I contemplated the vacuous society around me. I came to the conclusion that . . ."

So it goes both ways. Sometimes a Significant Other brings someone closer to Torah and sometimes a Significant Other plays a role in a person's journey away from Torah.

Therefore, a survey that actually gets to the actual, real, supportable, validated facts as to why individuals actually have abandoned would be powerful and would be fabulous for people in our community -- and especially for rabbonim like me, who do lots of campus and non-campus kiruv, who work with people in their twenties and thirties, with others in mid-life, and even with those more senior who are exploring religion in their lives. It would be fantastic to get validated hard data as to why people who have abandoned in fact have abandoned.

However, a study that relies on respondents' self-reporting does not offer that value. Where it gives binary options based solely on "push-pull" factors, without exploring wider ranges of factors that run the fuller gamut including personal emotional, social, external-pressure, and related "non-intellectual" reasons -- and where those data all stem purely from self-reporting -- then a reader of the survey would be well situated to recognize that the data are anecdotally interesting but not factually validated.

That's all. That's the whole big "radical" notion being proffered here. I am absolutely fascinated by the defensive reactions, the personalized vituperation, and the projections by others onto me -- projecting what others think are my motives, my thoughts, my goals in writing. So much of what has been written in the comments about me and about who I probably am and what my motives probably are just underscores the underlying observation with which I began:

That this is a very touchy and emotional subject, and thus a survey that relies solely on self-reporting offers a good insight into what self-reporting people will tell an interviewer as to why she or he abandoned. Some of those responses will be spot-on accurate. And many other responses will be self-serving and not accurate, even though the responding person may sincerely have come to believe, a year or two or five or ten years after having abandoned, that that is the reason she or he abandoned a year or two or five or ten years earlier.

We await a survey that gets to the nub, beyond the self-reporting, because that survey will have great value.

Dallas Police respond after shots were fired at a Black Lives Matter rally (NYT)

I am going off script. I rarely comment on current events that do not impact the Jewish community directly. But I can’t help thinking about what happened last night in Dallas, Texas; the cause; and the repercussions of it.

Five police officers were murdered by a sniper. This happened during a peaceful demonstration by people from all walks of life that realize that there is bias in our society when it comes to black people. Even among those of us that profess to not have any. Racial prejudice is a fact of life in America whether we like it or not. And I don’t like it.

It is a fact that law enforcement and our judicial system are both harder on black people than they are on white people. I’m not so sure it is conscious. (Although I’m sure it is in some cases.) But I truly believe that when a black man stands before a judge or jury accused of a crime, he will often be seen differently by the people (black or white) judging him than if he were white.

When it comes to law enforcement, the consequences of such prejudice can be deadly. Because they have guns. We have seen this all too often. Police officers tend to treat black suspects like dangerous criminals far more frequently than white suspects. Thus applying more violent force to them when confronting them.

Black people will get stopped more often than white people for traffic offenses – even minor ones – because they are black. It’s a phenomenon a black comedian once called being 'guilty of driving while black'. It got him a laugh. But it should have also made us think more about why our fellow human beings are being treated unfairly just because of their skin color.

I understand the slogan and cry of ‘Black Lives Matter’. Black people justifiably see themselves as not mattering to the police or to society. They are too often targeted by police which results in the kind of tragedies we’ve experienced in recent times. Twice just this week black suspects were captured on video being shot and killed by police!

There are many people who might object to this slogan by insisting ‘All lives matter’. Well, of course all lives matter. But black lives are the ones being targeted because of the biases we all carry. So I reject replacing that slogan with this one. And I fully understand all the anger and protests.

However, there has been an unexpected consequence of all this anger and protest against the police. Or maybe not so unexpected. We saw that consequence last night in Dallas.

There is not a soul in the world that would justify what those vicious criminals did last night. They killed 5 innocent people that were there for one reason only – to serve and protect the public. They were not racist. They were just cops doing their job. They had families. Wives, children, mothers fathers, aunts and uncles… all grieving now! For what? Because some people inflamed by all of the black carnage by police needed revenge?! Because they wanted to send a message that if black lives don’t matter, neither do the lives of police?!

That is so sick! It is hardly any different than what ISIS does or inspires other to do.

I had been worried about the result of all these protests – even while I understood the justifiable motivations for them. I worried that police all over the country would be negatively impacted and reticent to do their jobs, fearing that they might get caught is a situation like that. Which means criminals would be given an advantage they did not heretofore have.

When the police start second guessing themselves for fear they might go too far in handling a criminal, going the other way is no solution. It will (and I believe already has in some communities) only increase the incidence of crime.

Let’s face it. Many of the unjust deaths of black suspects at the hands of the police were not innocent bystanders. In almost every case the victim had a criminal record. Or was a suspect in a crime just carried out – often carrying a weapon. Yes - there were some exceptions where totally innocent black people were killed by police. But in most cases they were not upstanding citizens (to say the least). They had criminal records.

That in no way justified the killings. Any cop that kills someone unjustly must pay a price. But it puts into perspective what a cop now thinks about when apprehending suspects. And now because of some overzealous trigger happy cops - they will hesitate. Thus giving a criminal better chance to escape arrest and commit more crimes.

But I never expected the kind of reaction that happened in Dallas.

Why is all this happening? What are the causes?

What is lacking here in my view is education. Many common criminals - both black and white - have been raised in cultures that do not respect the law. These are young people that live in poverty and see the criminal element driving the big cars and leading the good life. They want a piece of that too and think criminal activity will get it for them..

Their environments provide substandard educations. And the youth are not motivated in any case to study and learn. So they end up on the street with no tools to support themselves other then very low paying jobs – if that.

They live in neighborhoods where drugs, violence, and shootings an every day occurrence. Criminal activity is the norm. Ask anyone that lives on the West Side of Chicago. It’s a wonder that anyone raised in a culture like this ends up normal.

It takes a lot to pull yourself out of a life like that. Those that have been able to do that are amazing people. Role models of determination and hard work. But the impoverished youth of those neighborhoods do not see that as a realistic option. Unfortunately a lot of those neighborhoods are black. The chances of someone from that kind of neighborhood becoming a Condoleza or Susan Rice, or a Colin Powell, or a Barack Obama are pretty slim for most black ghetto children. The much easier alternative ends up being a life of crime. Or drugs. Or both. The heroes they see are not the Colin Powells. They are the street gangs that sell drugs and make big money. In other words the successful criminals.

I don’t know how we change the paradigm. Pouring money into the school system will not motivate their youth to learn in a culture that does not value education. But something needs to be done. Because if it isn’t black lives will continue to not matter and we all pay a price for that.

That’s only step one. Step two is to disabuse all of us of our racial biases, both hidden and overt. We need to understand that all of humanity was created in the image of God. Not only white people. We need to understand the underlying problems that contribute to this bias and learn how to correct them.

Step three is to make sure that the police have the ability to do their jobs right and not fear being assassinated by a sniper’s bullet because of racial grievances. At the same time they too must be disabused of the racial prejudices of society reflected in overly zealous and unfair treatment of black people. The key is balance.

The police have to be demoralized now. I think we have an obligation to show them how much we respect them and appreciate what they do for us. There is no better time than now. So the next time you see a cop, show him - or her - your appreciation. That is the least we can do. In fact I’d like to see massive rallies in cities all across America with signs that say 'Police Lives Matter.'

Mishpacha editor, Rabbi Moshe Grylak

Rabbi Moshe Grylak, is someone with whom I agree most of the time. I have great respect and admiration for this Charedi editor of Mishpacha Magazine. He has his finger on the pulse of the Orthodox Jewish community and does not shy away from telling it like it is. Even if it goes against the conventional wisdom of his religious peers. His series of editorials on young people going OTD in the Charedi world a couple of years ago was a great example of that. He was one of the few Charedi journalists willing to admit and discuss the problem that was happening right before eveyone’s eyes in cities like Bnei Brak.

As I said in a post about it a couple of years ago:

When a child is rejected by parents and community for whatever reason, that will be devastating to them. They feel a tremendous amount of pain and guilt. What kind of rejection? The kind where a parent actually asks a rabbinic leader to pray for their child’s death. Lest anyone think this is extreme and doesn’t happen, here is the pertinent quote from Rabbi Grylak’s 2nd Mishpacha editorial:
Rav Steinman (was) asked… if anyone had come to him yet to ask him to daven that their son should die. The rav was taken aback by the question, naturally, and then Rav Steinman told him, ‘This week, 15 fathers came to me with this request regarding their sons who had gone completely off the derech.’

With such insight, compassion, and understanding about the kind of rejection many of those that go OTD get from their families in the Charedi world, I was surprised at the approach he took in a more recent case of someone that went OTD. His latest editorial had an almost opposite reaction to the saga of Esti Weinstein, a 50 year old formerly Charedi woman who - after going OTD about 8 years ago - committed suicide.

Rabbi Grylak was upset by the media coverage, which he termed sensationalist. Characterizing her family as heartless examples of Charedim that are ‘cruel, inhuman and entirely apathetic’ to those from their community that have gone OTD. Which at the end of the day, he noted, was not true as reported by a secular journalist who did a little research about what really happened including an interview with Etsi’s father.

Instead of rejection, what was seen at the funeral was a compassionate, loving, and grieving father. A family that acceded to the requests of their daughter who had communicated her wishes to the the one daughter she had a relationship with. Which was to have music and flowers at her funeral. Which are not Jewish customs. They had music. And flowers.

I agree that sometimes the media gets it wrong. But I’m not so sure that was the case here. At least not entirely. Yes the family grieved the loss of Esti. And they did love her. But the fact is that Esti left the fold, and they were not accepting of her that way.

In his eulogy for Esti, her father said that he would always remember her as she was during the first 43 years of her life ‘when (she was) pure’.

The pure daughter. Not the ‘defiled’ one at the end of her life.

One of her 6 daughters (out of 7) that remained observant spoke and said she would ‘forever remember the bitter day (her mother, Esti) left the house’. This does not sound like the words of a forgiving daughter – even after her mother took her life because of their alienation from her and sisters. Only only daughter that spoke about the loving mother she had. - was the one that went OTD with her.

Rabbi Grylak also rejected the Takanos (strict and oppressive rules governing sex in Ger Chasidus) as having any part in this. But this is exactly why Esti left her community. Those rigid takanos! She spelled it all out in a book she wrote before she died. And then there was gut wretching suicide note she wrote before she died explaining that the estrangement from her daughters caused her so much anguish that she could no longer go on with her life.

I don’t know why Rabbi Gryalak shows so much understanding about how parents in the Charedi world deal with children that go OTD in his original series of editorials - and then turns right around and takes umbrage at the fact that the secular media assumed the very same thing about Esti’s Charedi family. Was it really bias, as Rabbi Grylak suggested? Or do they see the same thing Rabbi Grylak saw a couple of years ago?

Perhaps Rabbi Grylak would be wise to review his own series of editorials on OTD before accusing the media of making biased and unfair negative assumptions about his community. Since he had those very same assumptions himself.

Image for illustration purposes only (Forward)

Why is so difficult for some people to accept that there are more than physical differences between men and women? Why must they do their level best to minimize or even eliminate those differences? Especially in the realm of religion.

True, men and women have a lot of overlap in the Mitzvos they are required to keep. But it is also true that each gender has its own Mitzvos they are obligated to do which the other is not. Invariably the only women that I hear expressing a desire to serve God with the modalities of men, are feminists. There is no other segment I am aware of that expresses such a desire - as a group.

As I have said many times, I am an old fashioned feminist. But feminism has evolved into something beyond what I believed was its noble purpose. Which was to see women treated with the same dignity as men. And to assure that they are given equal pay for equal work. We still have a long way to go in that department. I only wish that modern day feminists would focus on that rather than on trying to extinguish all but the most obvious physical differences between us. I would be right there with them – as I have always been. I have 3 daughters. 2 of which work in Chinuch and are clearly underpaid for what they do compared with men.

But now it’s about more than equal pay and dignity. It’s about egalitarianism. Feminism has morphed into a movement that wants to eliminate all differences - even in the religious sphere.

I realize of course that many women can and do participate in many of Miztvos in which they are not obligated. With the full blessing of virtually all rabbis from all circles.

I also understand the desire to explore more avenues to express devotion to God. And that the best place to find them is in areas that are already Mitzvos - such as those Mitzvos that are for men. However, that women may choose to do Mitzvos that they are not required to do - does not mean they are free to choose whatever they want. Tradition plays a role.

There are some Mitzvos that with rare exception women have historically never participated in. Those are the ones being sought by the egalitarian spirit of the new feminist. It has become a cause. A last frontier. A last barrier to break down.

Leah Bieler, author of a Forward article on this subject seems to be one such woman. Of course she does not couch her desires in feminist terms. On the other hand she is very frank about identifying herself as a feminist. It’s hard not to attribute her motives to egalitarian goals.

She has chosen a Talis and Tefillin as her way to serve God. She goes on to explain why the ‘obligation’ to wear a Talis is so meaningful to her (albeit with some reservations). Even though there is no such obligation for women at all. Here is how she puts it:

I’ve prayed with a Jewish prayer shawl, or tallit, for so long that it should be entirely second nature for me, a soft old bathrobe that embraces me and feels like home. And sometimes that’s exactly the sensation I get. But other days, maybe it’s a glance shot my way, maybe it’s something more. Most likely it’s the image floating in my head of what a ‘religious’ Jew looks like. Those days my decidedly feminist self feels masculinized when wrapped in a prayer shawl.

I think she’s right to feel awkward. I guess her sense of being uplifted spiritually by it overcomes her sense of awkwardness. But is it really right to desire overcoming something that is socially and traditionally not accepted?

In what is more evidence of feminist influences on her Mitzvah choices - she blames societal sexism and misogyny as the reason women have been denied this Mitzvah! And says that her discomfort in pursuing these Mitzvos is the fact that the image of a person wearing a Talis has always been a man.

She noted that because of that kind of societal pressure she abandoned the practice of wearing Tefillin that she began at age 13. But kept the practice of wearing a Talis. Now she wants to return to wearing Tefillin too. Times have changed, she says. Her daughter enthusiastically awaits putting on Tefilin. That has moved her to try it again.

One may ask, what is the big deal? Let her do what she wants. Who is she hurting? Didn’t some truly great women in Jewish history wear Tefilin? Yes. They did. But they were individuals unique in history taking upon themselves a custom that was never accepted by Jewish women throughout history. I can’t explain why those great women did it. But I have to question why anyone today would want to do something that is so unaccepted instead of focusing more on those thing which are.

We used to call this the Fruma Yetzer Hara – the ‘religious’ evil inclination. That meant that some people do things that seem to be sourced in religious devotion but in reality it is something entirely different. In this case I believe it is an unconscious desire to break through yet another ceiling - for the sake of egalitarianism.

I can’t read what is in the heart of women like Leah that sincerely want to do these kinds of things. But at the same time it’s hard not to generalize when you see that the vast majority of people that are clamoring for this – are feminists who characterize Jewish tradition as sexist and misogynistic.

Why the need to seek things which are traditionally practiced only by men? Why not try and find meaning in the things women are already required to do – or at least those things which they are not required to do but have traditionally been acceptable for them to do?

Sure, we can look the other way as modern day feminists continue to use male modalities because they say it makes them feel more spiritual. One might even argue that it is better to ‘rebel’ by doing Mitzvos than it is by doing Averios. That may be true. But that doesn’t make it OK. It is not OK to flout tradition just because it makes you feel better to wear a piece of clothing religiously mandated for men.

If one feels more spiritual by trampling on tradition, there is something wrong with that. If one is to be honest - feminism is all about obliterating all differences between men and women except for the obvious physical ones. But in Judaism some of those differences are important. Men and women each have their own religious roles to fill. Blurring lines can impede that. That makes the very idea of egalitarianism with respect to doing God’s will - questionable at best.

What kind of education do these children really get?

My disagreement with Satmar on many issues – should not be construed as hating them or wishing them ill. I do not God forbid hate fellow Jews. On the contrary I love all Jews regardless of their level of religiosity to the right or left. Which is why I so often criticize Satmar. Especially in educational matters. I criticize them because I want them to do better. To be able to live materially better lives… and be better citizens.

As much as I would love to see them become more assimilated into the real world, that is not my goal. I generally believe in ‘live and let live’. If Chasidus fulfills them spiritually, they should be allowed to continue to lead their lives that way. But at the same I still think they could vastly improve their lives materially with a little bit of tweaking. Or a little bit of prodding if necessary.

Which is why I have been harping so much about the lack of treating Limudei Chol (secular studies) seriously. As I’ve noted in the past, I support a bill in the New York State legislature that would enforce a law (already on the books for decades) that requires private schools to provide a curriculum of secular studies equivalent to what is required in public schools. There is not a doubt in my mind that studying those subjects has the potential for greatly enhancing the material welfare and improved attitude toward the outside world.

There is also evidence that a lot of Satmar Chasidim feel the same way privately about the lack of serious Limudei Chol in their schools. But they fear expressing those thoughts publicly. I don’t know what percentage of them feel that way. But I’ll bet there are a lot more than most people believe. Not only that but even prominent like Ezra Freidlander who are opposed to that bill, admit that that Satmar’s educational curriculum needs to be vastly improved, and have said so publicly . They just oppose the government getting involved. And accuse the people pushing for it having an anti religious agenda.

Two significant articles have been published on this subject that are worth noting. One of them, (by Rabbis Yitzchok Adlerstein and Michael Broyde) is in opposition to the bill. But only on technical legal (or constitutional) grounds. Not on the goals that bill represents.

A more recent article in the Forward by Yitzhak Bronstein - a teacher of secular studies in their elementary schools - has a different take. Mr. Bronstien is speaking from experience and not speculating. He makes a strong case that an enforced secular curriculum is even more urgent than I ever suspected. Here are some excerpts that - even if only half true - paints a shocking picture of how Satmar indoctrinates their Chasidim:

The secular education of my sixth-grade students this year consisted of one hour and 20 minutes at the end of the day, four times a week, dedicated to math and literacy through the federal Title 1 program for low-income children. Needless to say, after a full day of an intense Judaic studies curriculum, little attention remained in their young brains for secular subjects. Problems of focus were exacerbated by the widely shared sentiment that secular subjects represent “tum’ah,” or impurity, and “bittul Torah,” time that could and should be spent learning Torah. These feelings, shared openly by their rabbis and reinforced in various communal contexts, directly undermined my ability to teach in the little time we had together...

On days that my students were tired and disinterested in learning, they would bluntly reassure me that my presence was needed only so that the school would meet its obligations to receive state funding, and I shouldn’t be misled into thinking that I actually have to teach...

One especially disturbing attitude is their utter sense of disregard for individuals outside their community, such as the custodian who had to clean up the messes they left in the classroom on a near-daily basis. One afternoon I told my class a story about Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv of Kelm, who insisted that the yeshiva he founded in 19th-century Lithuania not employ a custodian, in order to instill a sense of discipline in his students. Their response was that there was no need for that in their school, since the government was willing to pay a “goy,” whom they made clear to me was considered subhuman as a non-Jew and had nothing better to do with his time.

Shocking! But I’ve heard this attitude expressed many years ago by the religious principal of a well known Charedi Yeshiva. One that has a decent Limudei Chol program through high school.

If this is the attitude instilled in the minds of young impressionable students, is it any wonder that even the non Chasdic Yeshiva world is moving away from decent Limudei Chol programs? Yeshiva high schools (non Chasidic) have arisen that openly brag about not having any secular studies programs. It is my understanding that some of these schools are held in the highest esteem by the Charedi rabbinic establishment since they teach only Torah all day long!

So it shouldn’t be all that much of a surprise that no establishment Charedi Rav supports that bill. Because that would go against a Hashkafa that considers Limudei Chol to be Bitul Torah at best! Which breeds contempt by Satmar Chasidim – not only for secular studies but for non Jews as well. As described by Mr. Bronstein.

As I said at the outset, I have no issue with Charedim of any stripe. Let them live and be well to pursue their goals. Provided that they do not abandon common sense with respect to what it takes for an individual to support their families in the 21^st century without resorting to welfare. And provided they teach their students to see other people as human beings created in the image of God. But common sense seems to have gone on hiatus.

Crown Heights Eruv (Crown Heights Info)

I do not use city-wide Eruvin. More on that later.

An Eruv (Eruvin is plural for Eruv) is a Halachic device that permits Jews to carry on Shabbos in locations that they are otherwise forbidden from doing. It converts a public domain into a private domain by using partitions of various designs to encompass a specific area. The area encircled by these partitions becomes a private domain where one is Halachicly permitted to carry on Shabbos. As long as that area is not deemed public domain D’Oraisa (on a biblical level) our sages permitted such a conversion.

Needless to say a there are many considerations that factor into constructing an Eruv. One of which is the cost. That often means that Kulos (leniencies) that are not accepted by all Poskim are utilized. And that causes conflict between those that want to use that Eruv and those that believe it is not Halachicly viable.

An example of such a controversy is Chicago’s West Rogers Park Eruv. In order to save money on construction a pre existing structure was utilized as a partition on one of its boundaries. The problem was that it encompassed part of the longest continuous street in Chicago. Which many Poskim said turned that area into a biblical level public domain which cannot be converted into a private one by means of an Eruv.

The controversy was in how to count the number of people encompassed by this long road. There are Poskim counting it one way that determined it was populated by 600 thousand and other Poskim counted it in a way that said it was less them that number. The Poskim of this Eruv used the latter method and have given it their seal of approval. But there are many people that do not use it.

I do not use the Eruv. But I acknowledge that there are serious Poskim that do approve of it. So I do not criticize those that do. 2 of my children use it and 2 don’t. Rav Ahron Soloveichik famously condemned the Eruv - saying that the proper way to count people within that Eruv makes it a biblical level public domain. Although I respect my Rebbe’s view on this – and personally follow his recommendation not to use it, I also respect those Poskim that permit it and have no issue with those that do use it.

There are cities that construct Eruvin utilizing Kulos that are sometimes controversial. This is true in Israel where the Chief Rabbinate has erected Eruvin in just about every city. Charedim that do not want to rely on those Kulos will sometimes build their own Eruv (An Eruv Mehudar).

As far as I am concerned this should cause no problems for anyone. Those that want to continue to rely on the Rabbanut Eruv (which usually encompasses a greater area) may continue to do so. Those that want to rely on an Eruv Mehudar, God bless them as well. Shalom Al Yisroel.

I wish.

Unfortunately there are the Kanoim – zealots on both sides of the Eruv issue. There are those that resent the rejection of the Rabbanut Eruvin and give Charedim a hard time about ‘adding more poles to their city’ - resenting the fact that they reject a ‘perfectly good Eruv’ that has been approved by the Chief Rabbinate.

On the other hand there are Kanoim that vandalize Eruvin they do not consider valid. In my view this is the opposite of righteousness and justice. No one has a right to tell others how to conduct their lives or to make it hard on people that want to utilize Kulos – or don’t want to use Kulos.

Protesting a few extra poles in a city that are hardly noticeable is nothing more than an expression of contempt for Charedi needs.

And what happened recently in Crown Heights is even worse. From the Forward:

A controversial new eruv designed to serve Modern Orthodox Jews in the traditionally Hasidic Brooklyn neighborhood of Crown Heights was allegedly vandalized — days after rabbis from the Chabad-Lubavitcher group said the ritual barrier was not approved by rabbinic authorities.

The wire… was cut and torn down twice in the last week, members of the growing Modern Orthodox community in the neighborhood said. “It was broken in 20 places,” said Naftali Hanau, a Crown Heights resident who advocated for the new eruv.

One of the characteristics of Chabad (Lubavitch) is their Ahavas Yisroel – love of fellow Jews. They constantly tout this fact - and for the most part practice it. They reach out to all Jews regardless of how religious they are – all over the world. But their Avavas Yisroel does not seem to extend to the Jews of their own neighborhood.

I understand that Lubavitch does not approve of the new Eruv erected by Modern Orthodox Jews that have moved into their neighborhood. They have that right. But their members have no right to vandalize it.

They don’t have to use it. And they can promote the fact that is is unapproved by Chabad for their members. But to vandalize it shows a side of Chabad that is uncharacteristic of them.

I hasten to add that to the best of my knowledge the vandalism was not done in any official capacity. Nor do I think it was sanctioned at any level. But there are those in Chabad that are moved to act this way because statements like the following. From the Forward:

“It’s self-understood that the Rebbe’s decision is final, and it is forbidden for anyone to help or support… the building of an eruv in our neighborhood,” read an earlier letter from Rabbi Avrohom Osdoba, a senior member of the Crown Heights rabbinical court…

Osdoba and another beit din member, Rabbi Shlomo Yehuda Halevy Segal, said the eruv was not kosher and called the erection of the eruv “the devastation of the Shabbat in our honorable neighborhood.”

Statements like these lead to zealots acting on it. And that’s just plain wrong. Lubavitch does not own Crown Heights. While there is no evidence that a Lubavitcher did this, I think it’s a reasonable assumption. At the very least Chabad should condemn this and any future vandalism. They need to realize and accept that there are a growing number of observant Jews moving into their neighborhood that are not Lubavitch. And have needs and Poskim of their own. It would be a great gesture showing that their Ahavas Yisroel extend to Jews of their own neighborhood. They need to just let it go and welcome them into the neighborhood. Because at the end of the day vandalism in the cause of sectarian stringencies is a Chilul HaShem.

Naftuli Moster of YAFFED demonstrating outside city hall (WSJ)

I have one word for all the naysayers: PEARLS. The Wall Street Journal reports that the educational paradigm of Satmar and a number of other schools that have weak or no secular studies curricula – is about to change. Big time. Here is an excerpt:

A new coalition in the Hasidic community is pledging to improve instruction for their children, following complaints that dozens of New York City yeshivas fail to provide enough secular education.

The coalition, Parents for Educational and Religious Liberty in Schools, or PEARLS, hired a team to create lessons in math and English that they believe will meet state standards.

This push comes after a group called Young Advocates for Fair Education sent the city Department of Education a letter a year ago saying 39 yeshivas, mostly in Brooklyn, fell far short of state mandates. The letter from former yeshiva students and current parents said these schools typically taught secular subjects for an average of 90 minutes a day, with boys age 13 and older being taught only Judaic studies.

Young Advocates for Fair Education demanded the city enforce a state law that requires private schools to provide an education “substantially equivalent” to public schools.

It appears that this is a serious attempt to satisfy state requirements. Experts have been hired to accomplish that and have promised to do so. Many hours have already been devoted to this project. And they have been in and consultation with publishers of educational materials to help devise curricula that respect the religious sensibilities of Satmar and other Chasidic schools.

This all sounds very exciting to me. If this effort bears the fruit it promises to bear, then young Satmar Chasidim going through the system will indeed be better prepared to meet the challenges of the 21^stcentury. At least as far as earning a living is concerned. Hopefully along with the curriculum changes will come a change in attitude about the value of those studies and those that teach it. I doubt that Satmar will go to the time, expense, and trouble to meet state standards while still bashing what they implement.

Avi Schick, an attorney that represents 39 schools that being investigated by the state for failing to meet their educational standards has been advising PEARLS. ‘He said the group has embarked on “a serious, comprehensive and professional effort” to improve academics.’

I am a huge fan of Avi Schick having had a few e-mail discussions on various issues that I deal with. We agree on some issues and disagree on others. Bottom line is that he is an honorable man with sincere convictions that believes in doing the right thing. And then he goes about doing it - as is the case here. But I disagree with his characterization of Naftuli Moster. From the WSJ:

Naftuli Moster, executive director of Young Advocates for Fair Education, said he hoped the new coalition was sincerely striving for change but was “very skeptical.” He said he had heard about PEARLS being developed months ago as a “PR stunt…basically designed to mislead the DOE and the public” and to evade enforcement.

Mr. Schick, of PEARLS, said the curriculum overhaul took thousands of hours of work from many professionals, and Mr. Moster’s comments “demonstrate a greater interest in bashing Hasidim than in enhancing education.

I understand why Avi took offense at this statement. As an adviser to PEARLS - he knows that this is more than a PR stunt. But unless Avi has personal knowledge of nefarious intent, I can’t blame Naftuli for being skeptical about this. It would not be the first time that Satmar skirted the educational rules while pretending to follow them. It is also quite clear that Satmar’s opinion of secular studies is quite low… considering them “tum’ah,” or impurity, and “bittul Torah,”

Furthermore. judging from their reactions to the current ‘government interference’ and referring to Moster as a Moser (informant against fellow Jews) it seemed highly unlikely that Satmar would ever capitulate to such demands.

So a healthy dose of skepticism by Moster does not prove that his intent is to bash his old community. It only shows that as an expatriate Satmar Chasdi - experience has taught him to be skeptical of them about these things. So I don’t blame him at all. I am willing to bet that if PEARLS is successful along the lines it promises to be, that Moster will be the first one to cheer. And the loudest! I know I will.

Instead of thinking of Moster as a Charedi basher, I see him as the ultimate hero here. Had he not brought pressure to bear, I doubt that there would have been any serious or substantial change forthcoming. There may have been some cosmetic changes or at best a bit more time given to secular studies to satisfy the quiet grumblings of unsatisfied parents. But surely the attitude would remain the same.

Which is substantiated by Richard Altabe. He is a former headmaster of a yeshiva where students take state Regents exams and Advanced Placement courses, was hired by PEARLS to help create lesson plans and teaching guides. He said he believed these yeshivas would have made changes even without YAAFED. But...

“The microscope they have been put under has pushed them to do it on a grander scale,” he said. The attention “brought them together and as a collective they could get much more done than as individual schools.”

Indeed! If anyone deserves credit for this, it is Naftuli Moster who founded YAFFED. If he has an anti religious agenda, he has a strange way of trying to implement it.

Terrorist attacks - a weekly event

Well, it’s beginning to happen. It seems that my unwelcome (even by me) prediction that Donald Trump will be the next President of the United States is not as remote as many people believe.

Conventional wisdom has long ago ‘left the building.’ The idea that a self centered, erratic, megalomaniac like Trump would have even the remotest chance of being nominated by a major political party for President of the United States is now the reality of our time.

His comments on a whole host of issues are so repugnant that at any other time in history he would have been laughed out of contention in very short order. The media and just about every political pundit has been relentless. He has been ridiculed extensively by comedians on late night TV. He has been condemned by prominent politicians in his own party. He managed to alienate past Presidents and Presidential candidates of his own political party. Many of whom will be boycotting the Republican National Convention. And even those that have reluctantly endorsed him have vehemently disagreed and even condemned many of his statements and proposed policies. Including Mike Pence, the man he has ostensibly chosen as his running mate.

I do not recall anything like this even remotely happening in my lifetime. And yet the latest poll shows Donald Trump in a dead heat with Hillary Clinton in the general election with 40% of the electorate saying they will vote for Trump and 40% saying they will vote for Clinton. With Trump leading among independents!

When I made this prediction I said then that it didn’t seem to matter what Trump said or did. Republican voters voted for him anyway… as if he never said or did anything wrong. This is the mood of the country, or at least a majority of it.

The counter to that was along the lines that it is only unenlightened Neanderthal Republicans that voted for Trump. The general election will include a much smarter electorate that will overcome that voting element.

Well, that is not what is happening. Trump started out well below Clinton in initial polls just after his nomination was assured. But now that Clinton has been proven to be a careless and sloppy liar she is deemed less trustworthy the Trump. Which I believe is the reason for Trump’s recent bump in the polls.

Now many people will say that this bump is temporary. Perhaps. But I wouldn’t bet the farm on it. Sure, Trump will continue to be his unpredictable boorish self. But as I have been saying, that doesn’t seem to matter in this strange political year. What does matter is the impact of radical Islam on the world. And what happened yesterday helps Trump. He does not speak softly and carry a big stick. He roars! His ideas may not be realistic. But this is what a lot of people want to hear right now. They want to hear tougher talk about terrorism – and its Islamic source. A lot tougher than what has been coming out of the administration and the Democratic candidate.

Yesterday in what seems to have become a weekly affair, over 80 people were killed in Nice, France while they were celebrating Bastille Day (France’s equivalent of our Independence Day). Mohmaed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, a Muslim citizen of France drove a huge truck at high speed into a crowd watching fireworks at a beach. The truck mowed people down in its path. He then exited the truck and started firing a gun at people until he was shot and killed by the police.

Islamic terrorists have managed to murder masses of innocent people in Nice, Paris, Belgium, San Bernardino, Pakistan, Orlando, and Netanya. All in a relatively short span of time.

The response of the administration and Mrs. Clinton is to ignore the ideology and combat the terrorists. As though terrorism is the problem and killing terrorists is the goal. But terrorism is not the problem. It is the means of a radical religious ideology that wants to take over the world by any means necessary. You don’t fight an ideology by killing their adherents that commit these attacks. You have to devise a way to fight the ideology. And the first order of doing business is to identify the source of that ideology. You have to identify the enemy, not only the means they use.

Clearly Islam is what motivates them, even as it is being called a perversion of Islam by many Islamic clerics. It is not a perversion. It is a version. An ancient version that is militant in pursuit of its goals. And more than a few Muslims believe in it. It has been resurrected in our time by radical Muslim clerics. These are religious ideologues that are willing to die for what they believe is a ‘Kiddush HaShem’ screaming Alahu Achbar! They are not perverted lone wolves but a theological movement where terror is a legitimate tool in seeking a world Islamic Caliphate. Which is the ideology of ISIS, Al Qaida, and every other Islamic Jihadist group.

This is why people like hearing things like banning all Muslims. Even-though most Muslims are not terrorists and in many cases themselves victims of Islamic terror. And even though it is racist and unconstitutional to ban people because of their religion… the American electorate sees Muslim religious fanatics perpetrating violence all over the world inspired by an ideology being promoted worldwide via the web. And they like hearing what Trump is saying – even if they will not publicly say so.

Among the collateral damage from terrorist attacks like this is the boost in Trump’s poll numbers. There is little doubt in my mind that Trump is seen as tougher on terror than Clinton, whose policies are more or less the same as Obama’s. Which is not surprising since she was his Secretary of State.

People want change. The more terrorist attacks we have like this in the world… the more impotence the world seems to have. This then makes Trump – with all of his flaws - very attractive. What about all that erratic shoot from the hip behavior? What about his diarrhea of the brain? I don’t think the majority of the electorate cares about that anymore. They simply want change and Trump is unquestionably change. An unprecedented one.

Which is why the selection of a Vice Presidential running mate is so important. Because in Trump’s case, he knows deep down that he has no clue about how to govern. He is going to rely more on his VP than George W. Bush did on his VP, Dick Cheney. Which makes his choice of Governor Mike Pence an important one. As a religious Evangelical Christian Pence will solidify the support from the social conservative base of the Republican Party. He also was known as a consensus builder when he was a member of the House of Representatives. He was well liked among his peers and has an even keeled temperament, which is something that Trump doesn’t know the meaning of.

My prediction is that in the next poll, Trump will take the lead. Especially if he can shut up for five minutes! Which he needs to do. He’s already established his bonafides as an attack dog who does not care where the chips may fall. Now it’s time to win over the more level headed voter that is turned off by such disgusting rhetoric. Maybe the soft spoken Pence can accomplish that.

Clinton on the other hand does not have all of Bernie Sanders supporters on board yet. All the enthusiasm he generated during the primaries has dissipated. I’m not sure all the support Bernie got will now accrue to Clinton. She may get most of it. But she needs all of it - and the enthusiasm that goes along with it. I don’t think she will get it. And her negatives are higher than Trump’s!

As far as I am concerned, I will still hold my nose and vote for Hillary. I prefer a continuation of the status quo – as bad as it is - over the uncertainty and possible chaos that will ensue from a Trump Presidency. Either way, God help us all.

Prof. Waxman (left) addressing a group of possible future leaders at CKG (YWN)

It seems that I am not the only one that has predicted the future of Orthodoxy lies in the Charedi world. Based on data he saw, Rutgers Professor Emeritus, Dr. Chaim Waxman made the same prediction recently. It was made during a presentation at the Center for Kehillah Development (CKD). He claimed that studies now show that the rate of growth in Orthodoxy now exceeds the dropout rate. “Increasingly, Orthodox Jews are choosing to remain Orthodox” says Professor Waxman.

Not that any of this surprises me. I never believed that the dropout rate outpaced the growth rate - if only by virtue of the exponentially higher birth rate in the Orthodox world than in the rest of world Jewry. And as you go up o the ‘Charedi’ ladder so too does the birth rate. From Yeshiva World News (YWN):

(Professor Waxman’s) research indicates that Chassidishe Jew have 12 times as many children as the non-Orthodox, and even the Modern Orthodox have 4 times the number of children as the non-Orthodox.

This is not an insignificant difference to say the least. The implications of which are profound. It will surely change the way Jews will be seen by the rest of the world. We will go from being seen as liberal humanists seeking social justice as our primary role in society to being seen more like Evangelical Christians that focus more on the fundamental precepts of the bible.

Not making judgments here. Just observations. As a Modern Orthodox Jew I will however say that the two are not mutually exclusive. One can and should focus on what the bible says – which includes pursuing social justice… Or as Rav Ahron Soloviechik put it, ‘the building up of the world’.

This exponential growth of Orthodoxy will obviously effect the way Israel operates. Once the Orthodox demographic exceeds the non Orthodox demographic, Halacha will become more of a factor in governance. The repercussions of which are unclear. For example, how will a Charedi Prime Minister – (should it happen) deal with populating an army?

My focus here, however, will be how it will affect those of us living here.

While the reproductive rate of Modern Orthodox Jews outpaces that of the non Orthodox world, the Charedi reproductive rate seems to be four times greater than that. I therefore do not see any other scenario. Charedim will rule the Orthodox World. They will produce the religious leaders of the future who will serve all of us. Which is why the CKD was formed. To provide those leaders. Which is troubling. On the one hand I am very glad to see an affirmation of my beliefs by virtue of Orthodoxy’s growth. On the other hand I am dismayed at the kind of leadership this may provide. From YWN:

According to Rabbi Leib Kelemen, founder of the CKD, this sudden growth in Orthodoxy requires urgent action... (T)he responsible strategy would be to help the biggest talmidei chochomim get the background and skills they need to assume communal leadership. “We have giants in Torah who have tremendous maalos and beautiful middos,” Rabbi Kelemen said, “and many would be excited to take responsibility for the Klal.” This is precisely the mission CKD has accepted – in Rabbi Kelemen’s words: “To give chashuve avreichim the time and training they need to become quality leaders.”

Rabbi Keleman said nothing about defining Orthodoxy in the full dimension of all of its Hashkafos. The impression I get is that Modern Orthodox rabbis need not apply. Recruits will be coming entirely out of the Charedi world – whose Hashkafos increasingly reject secular education in their curricula - placing little if any value on it. And they denigrate the general culture which they say should be avoided as much as possible! This Hashkafa is the opposite of Modern Orthodoxy. Which places a high value on secular education. And looks favorably on those aspects of the general culture that do not contradict Halacha.

Will the fact that Charedim will by far be the largest segment of the Orthodox population... and the fact that Charedim are far more likely to go into all manner rabbinic positions mean that Modern Orthodoxy will not have a voice? Not that this suggests that Modern Orthodoxy will die. It just asks how it will be looked at by the future leadership. Will it be marginalized? Or even tolerated?

I should add that the non Orthodox will not be ignored. Outreach will still exist and will probably increase. There is no legitimate Orthodox Hashkafa that rejects any Jew – not matter how far they are removed from Torah. But their outreach will focus on a Charedi Hashkafa as the most legitimate form of Judaism and will likely discourage a Modern Orhtodox outlook.

So I go back to my original prediction. The Orthodoxy of the future will consist mostly of what I call Moderate Charedim. These are the Jews that accept the Charedi doctrine with respect to secular studies and the general culture, but have nonetheless utilized the former to enable them to earn decent incomes for their families - and participate in the culture albeit from a position of guilt. Their lifestyle will therefore not differ significantly from the right wing Modern Orthodox Jewry. They will do the same things but will see them from a different perspective. Hopefully the leaders that come out of the Charedi world will at least appreciate that fact and learn to be more tolerant of a Modern Orthodox Hashkafa since their own people involve themselves with it.

What about the extreme right and extreme left? What about the secular Jew? They will still be around. But in my view they will not be a significant influence on the overall Jewish population of the future. I believe the dominant moderate Orthodox culture of the future - and the real world will combine to impose its will and prevent extremism from taking root... all while the secular Jew will increasingly reject their Judaism altogether if we don't succeed in reaching out to them.

Rabbi Haskel Lookstein (VIN)

Let me first state the obvious disclaimer. I do not support Donald Trump’s candidacy for President. That said, I have no issue with any of the attendees to the Republican National Convention. Nor do I have an issue with those scheduled to speak and even support his nomination. Many of them are fine public servants that I could have easily supported for President, had they run.

This year’s election campaign is so complex it defies explanation. Because it isn’t only the candidate of one political party that is abhorrent. The candidates of both political parties are.

But I have made that abundantly clear many times. I only repeat it here to explain why it should be not be any greater sin to address the delegates at the RNC than it would be to address the delegates at the DNC.

Which brings me to a disgusting event surrounding it. It appears that 84 year old Rabbi Haskel Lookstein has been chastised for accepting an invitation to do exactly that. It was in the form of a petition signed by 750 his former students of Ramaz, the Modern Orthodox school he headed for decades.

There are few people that have the integrity, grace, and humility that Rabbi Haskel Lookstein has. I have never met the man. But his reputation precedes him. I have heard him described that way from people I know that have had long term association with him.

Rabbi Lookstein was asked by one of his congregants to give the opening convocation at the Republican National Convention. That congregant was Donald Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, the woman he converted to Judaism. A convert along with many others Rabbi Lookstein converted over his long illustrious career that has been accepted by the Israeli Chief Rabbinate. A rabbinate that is not prone to grant legitimacy to converts outside of its own jurisdiction.

I deference to his friendship with the family, he accepted. This is quite an honor, and a tribute to the Republican Party for choosing an Orthodox rabbi over the Christian ministers that more closely reflect the religious demographics of Republican party.. Many of which are Evangelical Christians.

This is not the first time they did that. One may recall Rabbi Dr. Meir Yaakov Soloveichik doing the same thing last time around. One does not have to agree with the party’s nominee to give an opening convocation.

But none of this is good enough for some of his former students. Who wrote a very nasty letter to him castigating him for accepting this honor. Implying that his entire legacy will be damaged by this one act. From VIN:

“Donald Trump openly spouts racist, misogynistic rhetoric; he advocates torture, the expulsion of millions of families, some long settled in America, and insinuates that some citizens of this great country are somehow less than others,” the petition said.

“To embrace Trump and Trumpism goes against all we’ve been taught. As graduates of Ramaz, and as current or former members of the modern-Orthodox community, this is a shanda [disgrace] beyond the pale.”

“Rabbi Lookstein, all the good work you’ve done in your life – everything you’ve done for your community, for the plight of Soviet Jews – will be flushed down the toilet for 10 minutes on stage in Cleveland,” the graduates wrote. “This is the single action history will remember you by, and history will not be kind.”

They also told their former principal that “Jews are never far behind” on Trump’s list of scapegoats and that supporting the candidate, whom they called a “dangerous man,” is equivalent to “embracing and politicizing hate.”

“Not in our name. Today we are ashamed to be Ramaz graduates,”

He accepted their ‘rebuke’ and withdrew his name. How sad that a good man was so severely rebuked by former students that confuse giving a convocation with endorsing a candidate. What they did was shameful.

They say they are ashamed to be Ramaz graduates. Well, I am ashamed to see Jews that identify as Orthodox shaming a man like Rabbi Lookstein. How do they know what he would have said? Isn’t it possible that he would have rebuked Donald Trump in a manner consistent with their own views?

As Rabbi Lookstein himself indicated in accepting their rebuke and withdrawing for the sake of ‘bringing the community together’:

“Unfortunately, when my name appeared on a list of speakers at the convention, without the context of the invocation I had been invited to present, the whole matter turned from rabbinic to political, something which was never intended.”

I hope that makes them happy.

I wonder if these same people would have written a similar letter or rebuke if he had accepted an invitation to speak at the DNC whose candidate is almost as unfit for high office as the Republican candidate – albeit for different reasons. My guess is that they would not only have not rebuked him, they would have praised him.

What these 750 people have done sickens me. I have no respect for any of the signers of that petition. None whatsoever! It will be their legacy that will now be tainted (if they even have one to taint). Not Rabbi Lookstein’s. Shame on them!

By Professor Chaim Waxman – Guest Contributor

Professor Chaim I Waxman (YWN)

Professor Chaim Waxman was recently featured in a Yeshiva World News story about the growth of Orthodox Jewry and where Orthodoxy of the future will get their leaders. I wrote a follow-up piece discussing the future of Orthodoxy - projecting what I believe its nature and makeup will be. That projection is based on my own observations and on the YWN article that quoted Professor Waxman. Whose implied projections seemed to match my own.

Many of those that read the two articles objected to the numbers cited about the size and growth of various segments of Orthodoxy. In short they were incredulous about those numbers – saying that they could not possibly be anywhere near accurate! And they blamed YWN for sloppy reporting. Apparently, that is not the case.

Professor Waxman was kind enough to respond to those accusations – clarifying them for me. He agreed to allow me to post his remarks on my blog. His words follow, intact and in their entirety.

Someone sent me your blog,(link)

Actually, I came neither to praise nor bury American Orthodoxy. The piece in the yeshiva world.com was based on a talk I gave where, as requested, I analyzed data from the 2013 Pew Report.

I spoke on a range of issues showing significant differences between Orthodox and non-Orthodox. I also analyzed differences between Modern Orthodox and Haredi/Ultra-Orthodox. I did not support or favor either. Rather, I pointed out some of what I saw as their strengths and weaknesses.

I did indicate that American Orthodoxy as a whole is growing. Much of the talk was based on part of a chapter in my forthcoming book, Social Change and Halakhic Evolution in American Orthodoxy (Oxford and Portland:Littman, 2017).

For your readers who dismissed the figure on the much higher Haredi/Ultra-Orthodox birth rate, that information comes from Steven M. Cohen, Jacob B. Ukeles, Ron Miller,“Jewish Community Study of New York: 2011: Comprehensive Report,” UJA-Federation of New York, June 2012. They found that, in New York, “the Modern Orthodox are now a minority, comprising only 43 percent of the city’s Orthodox population. The majority, 57 percent, are “Hasidic &: Yeshivish.” As for family size,

“[b]y any measure, Hasidic households are the largest in the New York-area Jewish population. In terms of number of Jews, Hasidic homes are far more than twice as large as non-Orthodox households (4.8 for Hasidic versus 1.8 for non-Orthodox), while Yeshivish households, with 4.1 Jews, are nearly as large as Hasidic families.
Modern Orthodox homes are somewhat smaller (2.8), but still much larger than non-Orthodox households. . . . Hasidic households are home to 12 times the number of children as non-Orthodox homes. Even Modern Orthodox households are home to four times the number of children as the non-Orthodox.” (Pp. 213-14)

All previous surveys showed a very high rate of defection from Orthodoxy but, as I have written previously, it is possible that many of those who said they were raised Orthodox meant their parents belonged to an Orthodox synagogue and defined themselves as Orthodox though they were actually part of what Marshall Sklare and Charles Liebman termed the “non-observant Orthodox.”

Perhaps among those who were, and especially among those who had 12+ years of yeshiva education, the rate has gone up. Perhaps. There is an “otd” population but, nevertheless, the Orthodox, and especially the Haredi/Ultra/Orthodox sector, is growing. The latter, btw, has a much lower “otd” rate than is found among the Modern Orthodox.

Prof. Chaim I. Waxman is the Department Head of Behavioral Sciences at Hadassah Academic College in Jerusalem and Prof. Emeritus of Sociology and Jewish Studies at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey

Charedim in a classroom (Jerusalem Post)

In practical terms it really doesn’t matter much. Because the law wasn’t being enforced anyway. But it should matter and it should be enforced.

According to an article in the Jerusalem Post, it appears that the current coalition government in Israel is about to repeal the law requiring reduced government funding to schools that do not provide a core secular studies curriculum. Which they defined as teaching at least 11 hours per week in the subjects of English, math, and science. As the Charedi poster child for evil incarnate - Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid said,

“How will the ultra-Orthodox youth support themselves without mathematics and English and without a basic toolbox for the labor market?

I have been a vocal supporter of requiring a core curriculum. Primarily because I see the poverty that has resulted in a growing community that refuses to get a basic education in those subjects. Their devotion to studying Torah is so strong that it precludes them studying anything else.

What about making a living? They have claimed that if and when the time comes for an Avreich to leave the halls of the Beis Hamedrash they will ‘find a way’ to make a decent living without it. How often, they might for example ask, does Euclidean Geometry come into play when earning a living? They consider it a waste of time. And they will point to the many among them who have made a successful transition from the Beis HaMedrash to the work place.

Granted there are a lot of Avreichim that do ‘find a way’. There are a growing number of training programs just for that purpose. The only question is what percentage of them are able to do it without having received the basic study tools one gains in elementary school and high school. I have to wonder how many Avreichim left the Beis HaMedrash and couldn’t quite ‘make the grade’. And were then forced by that circumstance into menial low paying jobs.

In a related note, Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein pointed out a fascinating statistic in a recent Cross Currentsarticle. It appears that the highest pass rate for those taking CPA exam for the first time for all universities in the state of New Jersey, is for students at BMG - better known as Lakewood Yeshiva! Rabbi Adlerstein wonders if:

...it might pay to rethink educational strategy altogether, at least for some students. If motivated people in their 20’s with practically no secular education at all can compete effectively with products of conventional educational systems, what can we learn about all the drill and reinforcement that is part of elementary education?

I am not at all surprised that there are some very bright students in Lakewood. Nor am I surprised that very bright students that are motivated to succeed will do what it takes to get there. Like study for a CPA exam.

I am reminded of Frank Abagnale, the infamous fraudster who – until he got caught - impersonated a variety of professionals without ever having been trained in those professions. In his guise as an attorney, he successfully passed the Louisiana Bar exam without ever attending law school! If you are smart enough and motivated enough, I guess you can do things like that.

But I am not sure I agree that we need to rethink our entire educational strategy. These are the exceptions – exceptional people that do not reflect the needs of the majority.

Which brings me back to the state of Charedi education in Israel. That they will ‘find their own way’ without any preparation may be true in some cases. Just as it is in Lakewood.

But even in Lakewood there is a significant difference between Avreichim there - and those in Israel. Lakewood Avreichim have in most cases had a secular education to one degree or another through high school. Israeli Avreichim for the most part, have not. Those that have are frowned upon as having taken away precious time where they could have been studying Torah. They fall behind their peers that have been studying Torah full time. So it isn’t only the Charedi leadership that opposes it. It affects their social standing among their peers. Secular studies is therefore a ‘hard sell’ at almost every level. Which means it will never voluntarily change from what it is now.

So I am disappointed that these core curriculum requirements are about to be rescinded instead of being enforced. It will hurt them. And it will hurt the Israeli economy. They will continue to be denied getting the tools they need until – it may be too late for far too many!

What about the detractors - those who argue against requiring a core curriculum?

I have heard arguments accusing the government of requiring more than just the basics. And requiring a curriculum to have subjects that are taboo. But I don’t see how 11 hours per week in basics like English Math and science is ‘overdoing it’. As for taboo subjects like the theory of evolution – that can be taught in ways that are compatible with Torah. But even if it is not taught at all, that doesn’t mean that everything else should be eliminated. The important thing here is to eventually get them into the workplace with decent jobs.

What about the principle that no one - not even a well intentioned government - has a right to tell people how to educate their children. I have never disputed that basic right. But only if it does not negatively impact on society as a whole. Furthermore - this has never been about the government forcing Charedim to teach a core curriculum. It was about not funding those that don’t. No one was forced to do anything.

Why should the Israeli taxpayer pay for a system they see producing a growing number of people that will rely on financial aid well into adulthood? Why shouldn’t they demand a curriculum that will help them be less dependent? So many of them end up illiterate while they are in Kollel indefinitely - because they can’t get decent jobs! And then demand to be supported!

So, yes. I am with that ‘evil Rasha’, Yair Lapid on this one. It is only right that Yeshivos get government support if they teach English, math, and science for at least 11 hours a week. I don’t think it is asking too much. And for those that refuse to do that? Well, God bless them. Let them teach – or not teach – whatever they want. But the Israeli taxpayer should not have to pay for it.

It’s too bad that the political system in Israel depends so heavily coalition partners in order to function. I would love to see direct elections for Prime Minister – same as we have for President of the United States. I know it’s been tried and failed. But I’m not sure why. They should try it again. That would give their government far more stability. And they would not be able to be blackmailed into doing things which I believe are detrimental to entire population of religious Jews. And to the Israeli taxpayer.

Rabbi Yigal Levinstein speaking at the 'Zion & Jerusalem' convention (TOI)

I have no clue what he expects to accomplish with his hurtful words. Even if I might agree with the underlying thoughts.

I do not know – and have never met nor heard of Rabbi Yigal Levinstein, He is apparently a Religious Zionist head a prestigious army preparatory academy in the West Bank settlement of Eli. And he seems to have gone off the reservation with his remarks about the Reform Movement, and even more so with his remarks about homosexuals.

Just to reiterate my own views on these two subjects. I do not believe that the Reform Movement in any way represents authentic Judaism. They completely discarded all Bein Adam L’Makom (ritual) Halacha – at first to such an extent that they castigated those who practiced it calling it anathema to their definition of Judaism (A kind of ethical humanism). I recall back in the late 50s when I was a young boy in Toledo passing by a Reform Temple on the way to my father’s Shul on Shabbos. My father once told me that the Temple’s rabbi refused to allow anyone into his Temple wearing a Kipa, calling it a sign of disrespect for the customs of this country.

Of course now 60 years later – realizing that without performing any ritual at all, there was no real Jewish identity to a Refrom Jew, they actually encourage ritual observance. But only if you feel like it. This is not Judaism. This is anti Judaism. Because Judaism without ritual law is nothing more than ethical humanism.

I have expressed my views on homosexuality many times. In short I believe in respecting my fellow man no matter who he or she is attracted to – members of the opposite sex or members of the same sex. People cannot help who they are attracted to. That said I am opposed to sinful behavior – whether performed in a heterosexual or homosexual manner. The Torah point of view is to hate the sin, not the sinner.

Rabbi Yigal Levenstein will not have any of this. With respect to the Reform Judaism - he called them a Christian Movement. He justified this by saying that Christianity began as a branch of Judaism – just like Reform did. Christianity left to become their own religion and so too will Reform.

I have no clue where Refrom Judaism will end up. In my view they will probably end up in the the way many Jewish sects of the past ended up. There are (for example) not too many Sadducees (Tzedukim) left in the world today. By redefining who is and isn’t a Jew, Reform Judaism will be including so many non Halachic Jews into their community that a couple of generations hence - it will be impossible to know if a person identifying themselves as a Reform Jew – is actually Jewish!

But to call them a Christian Movement is simply false. They do not believe in the Divinity of Jesus and certainly do not believe in a second coming as the messiah! They do not believe in the Trinity. Most of them believe in one God. The same God Orthodox Jews believe in – with no other god beside Him.

Furthermore, the current Reform rabbinate are victims of generations of distorted teachings by their Reform progenitors. They have been indoctrinated to see their distortions as ‘Truth’. I would call them all Tinokos Shenishbu – children that were ‘captured’. Meaning they never had a chance to study the Truth of Torah as it has been transmitted throughout the generations since the days of Moses. They only know what their ‘breakaway’ founders have taught them.

The anger and hurt that Rabbi Levenstein generated with his remarks served no purpose except to alienate, not only all Reform Jews, but all Jews that seek to reach out to our no observant brothers. So that even though I agree that Reform Judaism is not an authentic expression of Judaism, I condemn the hateful way in which he expressed that view. I prefer treating them without the rancor. And with dignity. We need to befriend them as Rabbi Yosef Reinman did with a Reform rabbi with whom he co-wrote a book.

And then there is what Rabbi Levenstein said about homosexuals. That could not have been more hurtful to people with same sex attractions. He called them deviants and perverts! From Israel Hayom:

"There's a crazy movement of people who have lost sense of what's normal in life. This group has whipped the entire country into a frenzy, they force their way into the IDF, and no one dares say anything. There are perverts giving lectures in [the officers' training school] Bahad 1."

This is inexcusable! He has - in one brief moment - thrown an entire group of people under the bus. Just because someone is a homosexual, doesn’t necessarily mean he preaches it as a lifestyle. Nor does it necessarily mean that he violates Halacha anymore than a heterosexual. No one should be peeking into - or even speculating about what goes on in - someone else’s bedroom. This applies not only to homosexuals, but even heterosexuals. If for example we would suspect that an officer violates Hilchos Niddah (family purity laws) do we say he has no right to give military lectures to the IDF?! Unless they flaunt it, it’s nobody’s business. I therefore join those who condemned his remarks.

While we’re on the subject, what I will say is that flaunting sinful behavior or a sinful lifestyle should be condemned. Whether it is promoting ‘open marriages’ (mutually consensual sleeping with other people’s spouses) or sleeping with members of the same sex. Which is why I oppose things like Gay Pride Parades. There should be no pride in wanting to commit sinful behavior or promoting a sinful lifestyle.

Many well intentioned defenders of Gay Pride Parades claim that their purpose is not to flaunt behavior. It is to instill self confidence in gay people so that they will be proud of who they are instead of being prone to depression because of how they see society looking at them.

I don’t buy that. The parades I’ve seen (mostly in news reports on television) show people flaunting their homosexuality in highly inappropriate ways. That is not pride. It’s exhibitionism!

Furthermore, if pride is the point of these parades, why have black people or other minorities that have experienced disdain and disrespect never had a pride parade? Surely the black community deserves that kind of validation. But the black community does not have pride parades. They have protests and demonstrations about the injustices members of their community have been victims of. That is a legitimate enterprise.

But a Gay Pride Parade does not demonstrate about injustices. They celebrate their lifestyles. They are not asking to be accepted for who they are, but for what they do. Which in many cases is a grave sin. And that is an entirely different enterprise. It equates the sinful with the permitted. And that too should be condemned.

Donald Trump accepting the nomination last night

One of the more lamentable things that disturb me about my inability to support Donald Trump’s candidacy is the tremendous show of support his party now has for the State of Israel. Although support for Israel is bipartisan, the current administration has somewhat cooled its support for the State because of the President’s antipathy for Israel’s current Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

The reason for that is petty in my view. The President did not like being lectured in public by Netanyahu early into his Presidency. And then the relationship got worse when Netanyahu’s strong opposition the nuclear deal with Iran moved him to address a joint session of congress expressing dismay over - and being highly critical of - the President’s decision. Far too many Democrats agree with the President’s antipathy for Netanyahu and see him as a fear monger whose sole purpose is to hang on to power for as long as he can by any and all means he can.

This is not the case with the Republican Party. They seem to have an unabashed love affair with the Jewish State and with Netanyahu. Which is why there were so many standing ovations for Netanayahu when he addressed congress. They love him and see in him the strength lacking in their own President. The love they have for Netanyahu is synonymous with their love for Israel.

That love was again evident several times during the Republican National convention. To say that this convention was not unified is an understatement. It was one of the most contentions conventions since 1972 - the year the Democratic Party nominated George McGovern for President. But the one thing that seemed to unify everyone, was support for the State of Israel. Whenever Israel was mentioned, the crowd cheered. Both Cruz (who can’t stand Trump and refused to endorse him) and Trump mentioned their support in the strongest of ways. Vice Presidential candidate Mike Pence said it best (to similar cheers) when he said:

If the world does nothing else, it will notice: America stands with Israel.

In other words that is what the world will notice most about America if the Republican Party wins the White House in November. Which probably means that there will be little if any daylight between Netanyahu and a Republican President.

I do not see that kind of support being expressed at the Democratic National Convention, next week. Which if they win the election will be carried over to the White House. Of course Clinton will continue to support Israel. I do not question that at all. Both she and the current administration will continue to give it financial aid, have joint military exercises, and share intelligence. But Democrats are far more critical of Israel than Republicans.

That was evident when Netnayahu last spoke to congress. The reactions to his speech could not have been more different. Democrats realize they need Israel as an ally. It is the most reliable one and the only true democracy in the region. So they will continue that support. But if current attitudes are transferred to the next administration – it will be a cold support. Not the warm one we saw at the RNC this past week.

So, I lament the fact that I will not be voting for the Republican candidate. There is no doubt in my mind that he supports Israel a lot more warmly than Obama and Clinton… despite some controversial statements he made about being even-handed in a peace making process. One can see that his heart lies with Israel in countless other statements he made about it. Like his warm embrace of Netanyahu.

Much as I would love to see a White House that considers America’s interests to be in line with Israel’s - I can’t vote for a man that is so in love with himself that he doesn’t know too many other words besides the word I. He has no core values that anyone is aware of (beside his children – if there are any values).

He tends to tell people what he thinks they want to hear. More so than what he actually believes - it seems. He reacts to criticism with a type of road rage. And has no problem insulting his rivals (including personal insults) - or anyone else that may make a negative comment about him. Including world leaders.

He makes promises that everyone knows he cannot keep. And he says he will do it all by himself without the aid of congress. He is erratic and unpredictable. Which in my view makes him – not only unqualified but very dangerous as a world leader with his finger on the button.

He envisions himself as a virtual dictator that will stop at nothing to get his way. That’s the way he apparently ran his business and that’s the way he thinks he is going to run the country. Not even having the slightest clue that the Executive branch of government does not have that kind of power. So that even if his intentions were good. I do not trust him.

Not that I trust his Democratic opponent. She is no better than Trump in the ‘trust’ department. And her polices will just be a carryover of Obama’s. Or worse. I am not enthusiastic about a Clinton Presidency to say the least. But as bad as she is, she is gold compared to Trump. She is not erratic and will deliberate long and hard about the tough decisions she will have to make. Many of which I’m sure I will disagree with. But she is more knowledgeable and not as reactionary as Trump. She will not react to crises the way I am afraid Trump will.

If Trump is so obviously bad (which I don’t think there is too much doubt about in the minds of most rational people) how could he have won the nomination so handily? …and with the largest number of voters in the history of Republican primaries?

I think it’s because those voters see Trump the agent of change they believe this country so desperately needs. That he is an agent of change could not be more true. If change from the status quo is what you want, then Trump is your man. But be careful for what you wish. The change you seek may not be the change you get. Trump might bring the kind of change that is disastrous to the country and to the world. I would prefer avoiding that kind of change. I prefer a government that is stable even if it means furthering the status quo.

So, there you have it. A party that I would love to endorse but can’t. And a party that I am loathe to endorse but will. At least as things stand now. Because as I’ve said in the past it is the lesser of two evils.

Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, Senator, Tim Kaine

I hate to keep talking politics. But I can’t let this one go without comment. It seems that Forward columnist Ari Feldman has decided that Democratic Vice Presidential nominee, Tim Kaine would be the Jewiest of Vice Presidents.

I’m not sure exactly what it means to be ‘Jewy’. Maybe what he means that Kaine is an exceptionally pro Jewish and pro Israel candidate. So much so that he should be considered an honorary Jew.

I don’t really know much about Tim Kaine. He seems like a nice guy. But to claim that he is especially pro Israel is ridiculous. Especially since he boycotted Netanyhu’s speech to congress last year.

The explanation Kaine gave is that he ‘did not agree with the timing of the talk, and Netanyahu’s perceived political motivations for delivering it before the Israeli elections’.

OK. I can understand his objection even if I didn’t agree with it. But does that mean you dishonor the sitting head of state of America’s closest ally? Do you boycott a leader that was invited by the sitting Speaker of the House to address both houses of congress? Kaine was one of the few senators that did that. There were many Democrats that had similar misgivings about the timing of the speech. But only 8 senators out of 100 boycotted it. He was one of them.

This is not the behavior of someone that is exceptionally pro Israel. It may not make him an antisemite. But I can’t see calling such behavior Jewy. He could have done what other Democratic senators did and expressed those same reservations about Netanyahu without boycotting him. To the best of my knowledge Kaine has never boycotted any other head of state, let alone one that is such a close ally of the United States.

What about the other reasons that Feldman gave that make him Jewy? Let me answer one of them -reason number 3 - with a question: Hummus? Really? That Kaine wanted an Israeli Hummus company to set up shop in his state that would provide create jobs is not what I would call being Jewy. I would call it wooing an industry that would help boost his state’s economy.

That he supports a two state solution for Israel and the Palestians (reason number 1) makes him no more pro Jewish than it does pro Palestinian. I’m not saying that he’s wrong about that. But that does not make him Jewy either.

That Kaine is a religious Catholic is cited as reason number 2. I agree that this is a plus. Religious values have increasingly been challenged in recent years. I think we could use a little more of those values these days – as more people than ever are rejecting them on the alter of instant personal gratification, humanism, and political correctness.

But I don’t see those values being translated into policy. Catholicism opposes abortion even more than Judaism does. And yet Kaine is pro choice. I am pro choice too. But that’s because my religious views require me to leave that medical option open to women who would be permitted – and even required by Halacha to have an abortion. For Kaine, however, what is the point of having religious values if they don’t inform you policies? If you believe in the righteousness of your values, then you ought to be promoting them.

But even if he did, being a devout Catholic does not him any more Jewy than the Pope.

Another thing that is cited is that as Virginia’s Governor he hosted a Passover Seder (reason number 4). OK. That’s a nice gesture. But not enough to make him Jewy if you factor in the other stuff.

All of that said - I am still supporting the Democratic ticket this year because of who is running against them. Even though I do not see Kaine as particularly Jewy, he is not an antisemite. I just can’t stand it when the secular Jewish media needs to go to ridiculous lengths to show how pro Jewish a candidate is. The truth matters and it ought not to be stretched in order to get more Jews to vote for a favored Presidential ticket.

Both Clinton and Kaine will continue the current status quo. Their policies with respect to Israel will be a carryover from the current administration. Which is by far not the end of the world. But it isn’t the best of all possible worlds either. Not even close.

Rabbi Kaufman at his Sheva Brachos in Beth Yehudah

Last Wednesday evening, a beloved Rebbe of mine passed away. Rabbi Shmuel Kaufman was my 5^th and 6^th grade Rebbe at Yeshiva Beth Yehudah in Detroit. Which was one of Reb Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz’s pioneering day schools outside of New York. It was established and led by three of his top Talmidim, Rabbi Joseph Elias, (principal) and 2 vice principals: Rabbis Avraham Abba Friedman and Sholom Goldstein. They in turn recruited some really top talent as Rebbeim. One of whom was Rabbi Kaufman. A pioneering Mechanech!

Rabbi Kaufman had a profound influence on me. I was one lonely outsider that was constantly homesick. Living in Toledo, I commuted to Detroit every week beginning in 4^th grade at age 8. Before that, my father saw the handwriting on the wall as I was slowly rejecting my Judaism. By attending public school I was influenced by my many non Jewish friends. For example I hated wearing a Kipa since I was the only one doing it. And I hated things like not being able to eat the birthday cake at a friend's birthday party. So my father made a hard decision to send me to the closest Jewish day school. Which was in Detroit 60 miles away from Toledo. This way my influences would change and lead me in the right direction.

That was a wise decision. Had it not been for that, I would probably not be religious today. But it was a difficult time for me since I was always homesick – going home only for weekends. I stayed by some very nice families over the 5 years I was there. But I was not happy. Except when I was around my 5^th grade Rebbe, Rabbi Kaufman. He made me forget my homesickness by making learning interesting. I used to love his ‘Jewish history’ lessons from Tanach. He was a master storyteller. Hearing him tell the stories of Tanach was better than watching a good movie. It stoked my imagination. Tanach became alive for me.

He was not one for following the strict protocols of teaching. He was kind of a rebel that way. Which helped endear him to us. But he was a rebel with an eye toward serving God. And his goal was to get us on that same page.

His unorthodox teaching methods inspired his students to work hard towards achieving their potential. He was a real motivator by being ‘one of us’. One of the things he did was encourage his students to attend a Thursday night Mishmor. That was a weekly night time Torah study session with a Chavrusa (study partner) in the Yeshiva Beis HaMedrash. The reward for that was a free game (or 2) of bowling at the local bowling alley after the Mishmar. For 9 and 10 year olds, that was quite the treat back then. (Detroit was a big bowling town back then. I don’t know if it still is.)

He used to pick us up in his old car… packing 6, 7, or 8 of us into a six passenger vehicle. We had a blast during that ride. (This was in the 1950s pre seat belt era. He would never get away with that today.)

He was a fun Rebbe but also a tough disciplinarian. That did not, however, diminish our love for him. It only increased our respect for him. If we were disciplined by him, we knew we deserved it. I attribute my own parenting style to this. He was tough but loving. I told my children that I learned my disciplinary methods from him. And they turned out pretty good.

When I was informed of his death, I felt like a part of me died. He will forever be a lasting role model of Chincuh for me. What a loss to the world of Torah. They just don’t make ‘em like Shmuel Kaufman any more. How I loved that man. Baruch Dayan HaEmes.

Rabbi Herzl Hefter

Once again, I am saddened by what a brilliant Torah scholar is doing. I am saddened that his innovation – if expanded – will surely contribute to the rift in Orthodoxy that is taking place right now. A rift that is being caused by a Hashkafa that has departed from tradition.

I am not going to make my usual argument about why I have issues with Open Orthodoxy. Especially in its pursuit of women’s ordinations which is the main subject of this post. This is strictly about the rift that Rabbi Herzl Hefter is contributing to. It is a rift not only between Charedim and Modern Orthodox Jews. It is a rift even from the majority segment of Modern Orthodoxy that I call Centrists.

I have said it before. Regardless of how one feels about the religious justification or propriety of this, there is not a doubt in my mind that that ordaining women will never be accepted by the right wing. Nor will it be accepted even by the right wing of Modern Orthodoxy (also known as Centrists) This was made clear by the RCA’s statement about it.

In a sense, Rabbi Hefter actually acknowledges this. When asked about whether he thought his mentors, Rav Joseph Soloveitchik and Rav Aharon Lichtenstein would have approved of what he is doing, he clearly answered, ‘No. I don’t think so.’ He added that he thinks about that a lot.

Unfortunately I don’t think he thinks about it enough. For if he did, he would come to the same conclusion I have. That ordaining women for the rabbinate – no matter how justified he feels it is – will never be accepted by mainstream Orthodoxy. Which means that there will be a break. On the one side between the vast majority of Orthodox Jewry that is comprised of Charedim (of all stripes) and Centrists (which is how the majority of RCA members would define themselves)... and on the other side those that support and accept a female rabbinate. The chasm will (or perhaps already has) become so wide that it will be unbridgeable! Much the like what happened to the Conservative Movement.

I understand where Rabbi Hefter is coming from. I even agree with him when he said, ‘I know men who have ordination and are not worthy of serving as rabbis, and women who are...’

I know more than a few Orthodox male ordainees that can barely read Hebrew. And I also know some very bright women whose knowledge of Torah on a variety of Torah subjects is so superior to mine, that I am embarrassed by it. .

So it is not too hard to understand why Rabbi Hefter feels that the time has come to recognize such such women with an ordination. But the price too high. His heart may be in the right place. But he could not be more mistaken in undertaking and perpetuating this enterprise. It is simply not worth the break in Orthodoxy this is causing. A break knowing that his own rabbinic mentors would not approve.

That he has gotten a few other knowledgeable rabbis – like Rabbi Daniel Sperber on board with this will not help getting it accepted by the mainstream. It will not be. Despite his high level of Torah knowledge, Rabbi Sperber is not a mainstream Posek and not accepted outside of his own left wing constituency.

One of the arguments I keep hearing is that things are different in Israel. That a vibrant Orthodox community already exists that accepts these kinds of innovations. That unlike America these innovations have been widely accepted and will grow. Whereas in America they are accepted by an almost insignificant minority that will ‘whither on the vine’ (to borrow Newt Gingrich’s comments about Medicare many years ago.)

It may very well be true that Israel has enough of a critical mass to perpetuate these innovations as a viable community. But the simple fact remains that the mainstream will not be part of it. That should be clear from the many statements that have come out by a variety of mainstream spokesmen from right to center - clearly condemning it. I don’t see that changing any more than mainstream Orthodoxy's rejection of the Traditional Movement. Who had an even greater Posek allowing their innovation of removing the Mechitza from their Shuls. They were rejected by all other mainstream Poskim. And although they were once a powerful force here in Chicago - they have since withered on the vine.

To be clear, the point I am making here has nothing to do with my own Hashkafic opposition to what Rabbi Hefter is doing. It is simply my analysis based on how mainstream Orthodoxy is reacting to it and how such reactions in the past caused there to be a split, and/or a demise of the movement based on it. Either way, I see nothing positive coming out of this.

One has to consider the practical consequences of one’s actions. Sometimes the price of one's convictions, when weighed against the massive opposition to them by those who reject them is too high. In my view - even leaving out the Hashkafic and Halachic arguments - causing yet another split in Judaism just isn’t worth it.

Typical look of a Mikvah (TOI)

I get it. But I don’t agree with it. At least the way the new law regarding Mikvah use in Israel is concerned. According to the Times ofIsrael:

The Knesset on Monday passed into law a bill that permits regional religious authorities to turn away individuals from using the state-run ritual baths (Mikvahs).

The reason for the law is to prevent conversions that are deemed invalid by Orthodox standards. Something that the Reform and Conservative Movements have been trying to get a right to perform in Israel.

(My how the Reform Movement has changed. They now want to be allowed to perform a ritual that would have been seen as archaic, backward and primitive to their principles back when they were founded. And frankly even now, they do not require a Mikvah as part of their conversion procedure. So why the need for them to insist on the right to use it? But I digress.)

The Chief Rabbinate doesn’t even want to allow conversions by some Orthodox rabbis… let alone Conservative and Reform rabbis. They have tightened the rules about what is and isn’t considered a legitimate conversion and have limited conversions to an approved list of Orthodox rabbis and conversion courts.

Conversions done by those not on the list are not considered valid. This came to a head recently when in the city of Petach Tikva - one of Rabbi Haskel Lookstein’s converts was rejected by a satellite court of the Chief Rabbinate. That issue was resolved in Rabbi Lookstein’s favor. I mention it only to show how stringent conversions standards have become. And why the new Mikvah law was passed.

Like I said, I understand it but I don’t agree with it. Yes, conversions do need to be standardized in order to stop the abuse of that law which was so common even among some Orthodox rabbis in the past and seemed to be increasing. How far to go with that – is a legitimate question, but beyond the scope of this post. What concerns me here is the following.

Hilchos Niddah (commonly referred to as Family Purity Laws or Taharas HaMishpacha) are some of the most important Halachos in Judaism. A Jewish man may not intentionally have sexual relations with a menstruant Jewish woman (a Niddah) - even long after her period has subsided if she has not immersed in a Mikvah. The Torah tells us that a man and woman that intentionally have sexual relations while she is a Niddah will both be subject to penalty of Kares. Which is death by heavenly means. And their souls will also cut off from the world to come. The only permissible way for Jewish man to have sexual relations with a Jewish woman after her period is if she has immersed in a Mikvah. (Details of this are also beyond the scope of this post.)

This is why Hilchos Niddah is considered so vital in Judaism. Right up there with Shabbos and Kashrus (which has a far less severe penalty in Halacha than violating Hilchos Niddah). The problem is that in most of the non Orthodox Jewish world Hilchos Niddah is not observed. Which makes sexual relations between a Jewish man and woman sinful albeit unintentionally so in most cases.

This brings me to the problem I have with this new law. If women that identify as Reform or Conservative want to use a Mikvah, there should be no law to stop them. Even if they are not generally observant at all by Orthodox standards. Because if they use it properly they will no longer be Niddos when having sexual reations. Which makes this law an obstacle to following Halacha.

It’s one thing to want to prevent illegitimate conversions. It’s another to take this law so far that it ends up causing Jewish men and women to sin. If - as the statement implies - this is a law forbidding any Conservative or Reform woman for using a Mikvah, the Keneset is complicit in sinful acts it could have prevented in those women that might have otherwise used it.

There is also this. Back in the 70s no less a Posek than Rav Moshe Feinstein actually permitted the Chicago Mikvah Association (CMA) to allow Conservative conversions to take place in their Mikvahs. What about the problem of aiding an illegitimate conversion? R’ Moshe said that looking the other way when they used the Mikvah to convert someone, was not considered aiding them.

The reason that was an issue back then is because the Chicago Jewish Federation was asked to help finance the construction of a New Mikvah. The primary old one had become irreparable. Their condition was that the CMA had to allow Conservative conversions. Since without federation help the new Mikvah would never have been built, R’ Moshe gave his Heter (Halachic permit).

Now it’s true that this Psak was unique to the circumstances at the time. R’Moshe surely would not have permitted it otherwise. But it shows that allowing Conservative and Reform Rabbis to use a Mikvah even for their conversions has no inherent Issur involved. At least according to R’ Moshe.

(I should add that Rav Ahron Soloveichik had already Paskined that they could not allow Conservative Conversions in the new Mikvah under any circumstances. He was the senior CMA Posek. So that if the condition for contributing Jewish Federation funds was to allow those conversions, they should not take federation money. Desperate for those funds, the CMA then went to R' Moshe and without telling him that they had already gotten a Psak from Rav Ahron, asked him the Shaila for which he gave the above answer. Had he known that they went to Rav Ahron first he wouldn't have Paskined for them.)

In the case at hand, I nevertheless understand why the Charedi parties in the Kenesset want to prevent Reform and Conservative rabbis from using their Mikvahs to perform illegitimate conversions – even if it might be technically permitted. They believe it to be an existential issue.

I agree with Yesh Atid Kenesset member Aliza Lavie who said:

“This law is not Jewish, not legal, not democratic...”

To issue a blanket prohibition from using a Mikvah against any women identifying as Reform or Conservative is in my mind a violation of another Torah prohibition: Lifnei Iver Lo Sitain Michshol – Do not put obstacles in front of the blind.

Updated for clarity

More Charedim in Israel than ever are in college

Updated. See below

I’ve always said that the revolt (or at least the change) would be at the grass roots level.

According to an article in Commentary, this seems to be what is happening. The character of Charedi wolrd in Israel is changing from one where there is a mandate for men to learn Torah full time for as long as possible (virtually cradle to grave - if they can manage it) without any distractions - to one that incudes Limudei Chol (secular studies). The old paradigm has produced a Charedi level of poverty that is among the highest in the Israel. One that will be growing exponentially over the next few generations if things don’t change.

This is why I was in favor of the government requiring a core secular curriculum in Charedi schools. Which would be roughly comparable to the secular curricula in American Charedi schools. My belief was (and still is) that a core curriculum would enhance the prospects of relieving their poverty level and make Chareidm more inclusive and contributory to the overall Israeli economy. I was hopeful that this would somehow be accepted even though the Charedi leadeship didn't like it. Or at least that there would be some sort of compromise.

Those hopes were dashed recently by the government dropping those requirements. The Charedi schools can breath easy now. They will not have the government breathing down their necks. But their joy may be very short lived as the poverty level will continue to increase to unsustainable levels. Unless Commentary is right about what is happening:

Younger Haredim, while remaining passionately committed to Orthodox Judaism, are increasingly rejecting their rabbinic leadership’s hardline positions on numerous issues, including work, army service, academic study, and communal isolation.

They go on to describe the revolt in some detail. Charedim are now participating on the work force at over a 50% level for the first time. More of them are enrolled in college programs than ever before there has been an 83 percent increase in enrollment from 2011-2015.

73% of Charedi women work – many of them outside of their own community allowing them to interact with non Charedim in the work place and see that they are not all anti Charedi.

Yisroel Porush, the 36 year old Charedi mayor of a Charedi city has made it his goal to get as many of his city’s residents into the work place as possible. He has gotten 2 neighboring local governments (one secular and one Arab) to agree to build joint industrial parks.

What is noteworthy about Mr. Porush is that his father and grandfather were Kenesset members that were opposed to his kind of thinking. The last thing they would have wanted is to get ‘as many Charedim as possible into the workplace’. They were focused on keeping as many of them as possible in the Beis HaMedrash for as long as possible. As of now, Charedim seem to have won that battle.

But they may be losing the war. At least in terms of promoting the ideals promoting full time Torah study at all cost. And considering secular studies to be a waste of precious time that would otherwise be spent on it:

(T)he Jerusalem Post quoted a new survey which found that 83 percent of Haredi parents would like their sons to attend high schools that teach secular subjects alongside religious ones, as Haredi girls’ schools already do…

The number of Haredi boys attending yeshiva high schools, which prepare students for the secular matriculation exams, has doubled since 2005. Though the number remains tiny (1,400 enrollees last year), the survey results indicate that this may be due less to lack of demand than to lack of supply: Today, just over a dozen such schools exist.

This is great news.

I have to admit that force has not worked. The more it was tried, the more it was fought. And it created a backlash that was counterproductive to this phenomenon. But this phenomenon is indeed happening. Charedim – at least they younger generation – are beginning to understand that they cannot continue to exist with a status quo that rejects secular studies. They are beginning to understand what is obvious to so many of the rest of us. That they need to be better prepared early on so that can gt the tools they need to succeed.

I don’t mind being wrong in my methods if my goals are achieved. I have been told many times by Charedim that agree with me about my goals but disagreed with my methods, that force will not work and only be counterproductive. That – left alone things will change in the right direction… and already are. Force would only slow things up – if not stop them altogether.

It seems that they were right. Things are changing. That 83% of Charedi parents would like their sons to attend a school where secular studies are taught alongside religious ones – is (to quote a favorite word of Donald Trump) - HUGE!

Who knows. Maybe the demand will spur a new supply of American style Yeshivos that will meet those demands. And then the Charedim of Israel can join those educated and working American Charedim that are increasingly becoming the mainstream moderates. Who along with Centrists are the future of Judaism.

H/T Marty Bluke

Update
Marty Bluke just reported the following in a comment. If true pours some water over the change I was so enthusiastic about:

Arutz Sheva is reporting based on government and other statistics that the Charedim are not succeeding in academic programs:

1. The dropout rate in pre-academic mechinot (programs that fill in the educational gaps that Charedim are missing) is at least 50% maybe more.
2. 0% of Haredim test out in the top aptitude group in reading and only 9.7% in math (vs 17.5 in the general population).

These numbers would seem to put to rest the idea that Charedim don't need to learn a core curriculum in school because they can make it up later. These numbers show that for the average Charedi not learning the core curriculum puts them at a severe disadvantage and in many cases prevents them from succeeding in an academic setting

Extremely Careless

Why OTD - Rabbi Fischer Responds

Black Lives and Police Lives - Matter

OTD Then and Now - What Changed?

Blurring the Differences

A Breathtakingly Bad Attitude

Ahavas Yisroel and Zealotry

PEARLS, YAFFED, and Satmar

Trump, Clinton, Terrorism, and the Election

The Spiritual Leaders of the Future

A Rebuke to the Rebukers

The Truth about the Growth of Orthodoxy – A Clarification

The Charedim Win – and Lose!

Fomenting Hatred Instead of Understanding

Israel, Republicans, and Democrats

Is Tim Kaine Jewy?

Rabbi Shmuel Kaufman, ZTL

Unleashing a Storm

Obstructing Mitzvah Observance

The Charedi Generation Gap