Emes Ve-Emunah

Image from Facebook

563 likes. And 229 shares. That’s how many likes and shares Mrs. Suri Weinstock got on her Facebook post (re-posted on Cross Currents). I don’t know what the record is for shares and likes are for a Facebook post by a non celebrity. But I do know nothing I ever posted on Facebook got anywhere near those numbers.

Mrs. Weinstock wrote about her experiences at this year’s Agudah convention. What she wrote was not all that much of surprise to me. Although one might think so because of some of the criticism I’ve had over the years. But it was a surprise to Mrs. Weinstock to hear so many things that resonated with her in a very positive way.

Agudah’s constituents are mostly moderate Charedim. That’s why it is not so surprising to me that many of its speakers spoke in moderate tones. Agudah is led by American Charedi rabbinic leaders that understand they live in an American culture and must in some way address it in ways that are compatible to it. Even though they might look down on it as a whole.

This is in contrast to the Charedi culture in Israel which is far more isolationist than the Charedi culture in America. Moderation there does not rule the day. Which is why we so often hear extreme statements coming out of Charedi leaders in Israel. Which may be why Mrs. Weinstock wrote the following opening lines:

I must admit that I was surprised by how not extreme, normal, and positive they were! Here I was, literally surrounded by some of the undisputed gedolei hador, listening to incredibly holy people, and a part of me was expecting to hear things like, “You are awful and not frum enough and it’s causing people to get cancer!,” etc.

There is also the way Charedi educators indoctrinate their students which is also apparent from Mrs. Weinstock’s comments:

Let’s just say this was not the way the topic of tznuis was approached in school when I was a kid.

What generated this response? The following message from a speaker at the convention:

When Rabbanit Yemima Mizrachi was asked how a woman can encourage her daughter to dress b'tzanua, she said "You must speak about tznius, *b'tzanua.* Be gentle and positive, and tell her she is beautiful and holy. And whatever you do, STOP telling her she is causing others to sin! STOP!! Tell her she is holding up the world and elevating the spiritual plane of the Jewish people with her tznuit and mitzvot! And don't you DARE tell her she is causing people to sin!!" She literally screamed this at us! She said when you are constantly talking about your daughter's body or your son's eyes, you are not handling the matter b'tzanua, and are missing the point, all the while creating damage.

First it should be noted that her reference to Agudah’s rabbinic leadership as ‘undisputed gedolei hador’ and use of the phrase ‘Daas Torah’ places her squarely in the Charedi camp. Phrases like these are typical of the Charedi camp and atypical of the Modern Orthodox camp. But Mrs. Weinstock is clearly what I call a Moderate Charedi. They believe in ‘normal’. Instead of hearing the extremes one hears out of the Charedi camp in Israel, she in fact heard speaker after speaker advocate what most of us would consider within the range of normal behavior. Here are some more examples:

Rebbetzin Leah Feldman, wife of the Rosh Yeshiva of Ner Yisroel, when a woman asked how much she should sacrifice for her husband’s learning, as it was leaving her to feel neglected: The Rebbetzin didn’t need a second to think, before saying that a woman must tell her husband that she needs his time and attention! And it’s too bad if his learning has to wait a little! She said something along the lines of “You matter and your relationship matters!

When Rabbi Yaakov Bender, Rosh Yeshiva of Darchei in Far Rockaway, addressed someone's concern that his son wants to follow sports, he said that you have to raise your kids to be normal. If they are good kids who go to yeshiva, and have a good family, and they want to follow sports a little -- relax!

Rabbi Bender implored us all to learn to live with each other with kindness and decency. He made it clear that if you block someone's driveway because you wanted to make it to Mincha, your tefilla wasn't worth much. He and others said you should knock on the doors of your Non-Jewish neighbors when you move into a new town, and introduce yourself and find your common ground. Be nice; be a good neighbor. Do what Rav Pam's Rebbetzin did and hand out candy on Halloween.

The issues discussed by these speakers are the same as many that are discussed here. Usually as a criticism for not thinking or behaving in ways advocated by these speakers. That there were many speakers that urged adoption of the kind of moderate attitude that I often advocate is indicative of the fact that too many of their constituents don’t have this attitude. It is gratifying to see that American Charedi leaders advocate attitudes that - while not necessarily identical to my own - are nevertheless very ballpark on many issues.

Although she didn’t say so, the surprise at the convention that Mrs Weinstock said she experienced speaks to the values she was taught by her teachers versus the values she should have been taught as per Rabbanit Yemima Mizrachi. It raises the question about why Charedi educators have been veering off message.

Are Charedi teachers still teaching their students Tznius as Mrs. Weinstock was taught? If so, then Agudah would do well speak to Torah U’Mesorah officials and ask them to require new guidelines for teaching Tznius along the lines of Rabbanit Yemima Mizrachi. And put an end to the way it has been taught before. It would make for a far better world.

Finally, I want to say that it was refreshing to see the speakers at this convention not harangue people about the evils of the internet or smartphones; or how bloggers are ruining Judaism; or about the defacto infallibility of ‘Daas Torah’. And instead take a far more moderate tone in addressing their constituents. I applaud them for it. Moderation is after all already a fact of life among most Charedim.

Hopefully the moderation expressed this year by Agudah will begin a new era of Achdus between wider swaths of Orthodox Jewry where - despite disagreements - mutual respect will rule the day. Maybe next year they can have a Rosh Yeshiva from Yeshiva University address their convention. Wouldn’t that be nice?

Sholom Rubashkin (Cutting Edge News)

I was critical. Outraged even! Sholom Rubashkin seemed to lend credence to the false stereotype of a money hungry Jewish fraudster, I thought. Here was a bearded, recognizably Orthodox Jew doing what antisemites of the world suspect all Jews of doing – given the chance: Cheating the government out of lots of money while caring little about the welfare of his workers.

Rubashkin borrowed $27 million from a bank using inflated collateral. When his business went bankrupt, he did not have the assets he claimed as collateral to pay them back. That was a federal crime and he was tried in a federal court. Prosecutors asked for a 25 year sentence. This Chabad father of 10 got a 27 year sentence in a federal prison. Which does not allow for parole. The judge in the case, Linda Reade, said that his ‘lying’ in court and unrepentant manner deserved 2 extra years in prison beyond what prosecutors asked for. All of which was explained in her sentencing memorandum.

I had mixed emotions about this event at the time. One may recall that this all started with a raid by federal immigration officials of his Postville, Iowa Kosher meat processing plant, Agriprocessors. Hundreds of illegal aliens were arrested. There were allegations of employee abuse. Organizations like PETA accused them of mistreating the animals they slaughtered. This resulted in Agriprocessors going bankrupt. The allegations of employee and animal abuse were never proven and probably never will be since prosecutors decided not to prosecute Rubashkin after he was convicted of the fraud charges.

At the time I had suspected that Mr. Rubashkin was one of those people that takes advantage of circumstances and did not run his business in a way that would – let us say - be a Kiddush HaShem. And for that, I thought he should lose his business. With 20/20 hindsight, I am not so sure I was right about that. Although it was clear that he did commit the crime it seems clear from a variety of sources that he had every intention of paying back the illegal bank loan. He believed his business would eventually generate enough money to do that.

Not only that - even after he went bankrupt he tried to sell Agriprocessors whose assets were estimated to be worth $68.6 million. He had several potential buyers offering him well over the amount of his loan. But government interference prevented that from happening. From the Wall Street Journal:

(E)vidence that the prosecutors hid and that Mr. Rubashkin’s attorneys found over the past few years proves that the prosecutors stymied the bankruptcy trustee from making a sale to prospective buyers at a reasonable price. Instead, they warned that buyers would forfeit the business if any member of the Rubashkin family maintained a connection to the firm, although no other family member had been charged.

True, a crime was committed. But it is ludicrous to say Rubashkin intended to defraud the government from the outset. Nonetheless the bank lost $27 million. And he was responsible for it. So he was punished. But the punishment he got was grossly unjust. A nearly 30 year sentence is a near life sentence for a first time offender of a white collar crime of an illegally obtained loan where there was never any intent to not repay it.

At the time a lot of people (including me) thought the punishment did not fit the crime. Even one of his biggest detractors felt that way. There was more than one letter by respected past and present public officials asking the judge to be lenient in sentencing him. She ignored them and instead threw the book at him and then some… outlining her reasons in a sentencing memorandum. Which - if read out of context seemed to justify the sentence.

Agudah went to bat for Rubashkin. Nathan Lewin, a high profile attorney, was hired to find ways to overturn the verdict upon appeal. He was unsuccessful. Shalom Rubashkin now sits in a federal prison having served 7 of those 27 years.

For me, this is a clear injustice. Whatever one might say about this Lubavitcher Chasid, there is no possible way that his sentence was just. Rubashkin was not an evil man. Far from it. Everything I had heard about him from people that new him personally suggested that he was a good and decent man who did many kindnesses in his life. At worst they said he got in over his head, never wanting a career as a businessman – having left a career as an educator at his father’s behest.

So why am I bringing all this up now? Isn’t it old news? Yes it is. But it remains an injustice that should be corrected. Not only do I think so… so too does an editorial in the Wall Street Journal. Mr. Rubashkin more than paid his debt to society for the crime he has been convicted of. It’s time to let him out. And is for the President of the United States to pardon him. Considering that President Obama has pardoned more criminals than any other President in history, one more pardon – which would be more than just – won’t hurt him.

Aside for the moral issue there are also questions about prosecutorial misconduct. I am not a lawyer, but the authors of that WSJ editorial are. Charles B. Renfrew served as was the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Iowa and James H. Reynolds served as a U.S. District Court judge in the Northern District of California. Here is what they said:

Under federal mandatory-minimum sentencing guidelines for bank fraud, an offender’s sentence is directly linked to the loss incurred by the bank that was defrauded. The prosecutors’ meddling meant that the bank incurred a $27 million loss. This enabled the prosecutors to seek a staggering life-in-prison sentence for Mr. Rubashkin, which they later lowered to a still unacceptable quarter-century. The prosecutors concealed their role by soliciting false testimony from Paula Roby, counsel for the bankruptcy trustee, who said that the prosecutors did not interfere in the bankruptcy sale process. At sentencing, the prosecutors misled the court into believing this meddling never happened, a fact that was only recently discovered.

A lot of people have said about this case that we shouldn’t be spending our political capital on this criminal. Let him rot in jail where he belongs. I have a major problem with this attitude. Because when a man, any man is treated unjustly, we cannot idly stand by and watch it happen. Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof. Justice, Justice you shall pursue the Torah tells us (Devorim 16:20). This is our mandate. Rubashkin has more than paid a legitimate price for his crime. Justice in this case means getting this man out of jail and back to his family.

VP-elect Mike Pence, President-elect Donald Trump & Betsy DeVos (Forward)

As I said during the campaign, I agreed more with Trump’s stated positions on many issues than I did with Clinton’s - but I still felt that he was incompetent and grossly unfit to be President for a variety of reasons. And perhaps even a dangerous choice to be the man with his finger on the nuclear trigger.

But as I also said after the election, now that he has been the choice of the majority of each state’s voters (in most states) resulting in 306 electoral college votes, President-elect Trump will be our 45^thPresident. We therefore have no choice but to give him a chance to prove to those of us that voted against him – that we were wrong.

Another thing I said is that I never thought the real Trump was the Trump we saw during the campaign. I believe now (even more than I did during the campaign) that his campaign rhetoric and antics were just tactics to get elected. And they worked. Who the real Trump is – we are beginning to find out by the choices he’s already made for some cabinet portions – and the choices he’s considering for other cabinet positions.

One of the things that Trump seems to favor is school choice. The woman he chose as Secretary of Education is Betsy DeVos, an advocate of school choice. Which is what school vouchers are all about.

School vouchers allow parents to send their children to the school of their choice instead of the local public school (as the system currently operates – for the most part). They are given government vouchers that will help pay for their child’s education directly to that school.

If this were to somehow become the law of the land, the tuition crises all those of us that send our children to religious day schools and high schools face - would practically disappear.

Many argue that the voucher program as applied to a religious school is a violation of the ‘establishment clause’ of the first amendment. I can hear the argument. But only if the money is used for religious studies. If it is used for secular studies, I see no contradiction.

And neither does the state of Indiana that has a voucher program. My daughter and her family recently moved to South Bend and are the beneficiaries of their voucher program. Their tuition is substantially lower than it was when they lived in Skokie and sent their children to one of the Chicago day schools.

When they lived here - like everyone else in Chicago, their tuition payments were backbreaking. Not so in South Bend. Imagine if the voucher program were brought to places like New York and Chicago. What a blessing that would be for us and every other parent – Jew and non Jew alike – that would have the opportunity to find and afford the school best suited for their child instead of the public school in their neighborhood. Which they are ‘forced’ to send their children to because of the limited finances of most parents!

Under past administrations – both Republican and Democratic, vouchers were rejected in capitulation to teachers unions whose first priority is to secure the teaching jobs of their members leaving the actual education their their students in second place.

Unions have been crying that vouchers would destroy free public education. Well, it hasn’t done so in Indiana. There is no reason to believe it will do so in New York or Chicago. What it probably will do is increase the level of education provided in those public schools so that they can compete with the private schools parents with vouchers will be able to afford to send their children to.

Some teachers will no doubt lose their jobs in such heightened competition. But those are the teachers that shouldn’t be teaching our children anyway. These incompetent teachers are the ones whose jobs the teachers unions protects! I believe they end up doing so at the expense of their students’ education. It is no secret that the education at some inner city schools is practically non existent. A voucher program would go a long way to eliminating those schools.

I see only a plus coming out of this. As Rabbi Avi Shafran says in a Forward article, we Jews ought to be happy with Mrs. DeVos as Trump’s Secretary of Education. Instead of being a lapdog to teachers unions, Mrs. Devos – it seems will be putting students first ala a voucher system like the one in Indiana. And hopefully tuition paying parents like us will be beneficiaries of that in a major way.

Rabbi Shafran wrote that oped to counter the absurd assertions made by Forward columnist, Jay Michaelson. Who said that Mrs. Devos has an agenda to ‘Re-Christianize America’. I’m not so sure that would sit well with her boss, Mr. Trump. All of whose grandchildren are Jewish. Or his Orthodox Jewish daughter, Ivanka. Or some of his top advisers who are Jewish. Besides as Rabbi Shafran notes - the Dick and Betsy DeVos Family Foundation has funded programs that would counter any kind of objective to Re-Christianize America.

I would even go a step further and ask, Would a Re-Christianized America be such a bad thing? I sure don’t think so - provided the first amendment to the constitution remains inviolable. And I don’t really see anyone in government – even the most devout Evangelical Christian – ever suspending the first amendment. Which is a founding principle of this country. Couldn’t the United States use a little more religion these days?

Retired Marine General James 'Mad Dog' Mattis

If one is pro Israel, one might actually be ‘mad’ at the President-elect for choosing retired Marine General James Mattis as his Secretary of Defense. That’s because of comments he had made in the past blaming Israeli settlements on the West Bank for all of our problems in the Middle East. He even went so far as to use the ‘A’ word (apartheid) in describing the direction Israel is heading. Which is the term first used by another ‘James' - former President Jimmy Carter in his infamously one sided book, Peace, Not Apartheid.

Pro Palestinian groups have latched on to that phrase. To say that people who use that phrase in connection with Israel are biased against Israel would be a gross understatement. Not to mention an insult to those people who suffered real Apartheid in pre Mandela South Africa. And yet our next Secretary of Defense has used it!

Frankly I am not too worried about Mad Dog’s comments. He may very well be prejudiced against Israel, I don’t know. Thankfully, he will not be Secretary of State. That would be of far greater concern for us. It would make the Trump Administration's point man on foreign affairs a worse choice for Israel than either of President Obama’s two choices.

The President-elect knows his own limitations on foreign affairs and would need to rely on his advisers more than past Presidents have. General Mattis would have the ear of a man that could put Israel’s very existence in danger by urging him to push for peace between Palestinians and Israelis without guaranteeing Israel’s security needs. Even the Obama Administration realized the importance of doing that.

But as Secretary of Defense, his duties will be to carry out the defense of our country as dictated by the President - advising him on military tactics and strategies. Not to advise him on foreign policy.

Although he will have a high cabinet position and will no doubt state his opinion on foreign policy matters too, he will only be one voice. Trumps very pro Israel National Security Adviser - former General Mike Flynn will be there to counter him. Same thing his choice of the very pro Israel, Mike Pompeo to head the CIA. As will his very pro Israel Chief Strategist Steve Bannon. Not to mention members of his family like Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump whose advise he is known to highly value. And there is Trump’s top lawyer, Jason Greenblatt, an Orthodox Jew that supports Israel’s right to establish settlements. Trump has referred to him as his chief adviser on Israel.

One of his most important foreign policy advisers will be his Secretary of State. The current people Trump is considering are Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Bob Corker, and David Petraeus. The first three are about as pro Israel as anyone can be. I don’t know what Petreaus’s position on Israel is but I have not heard anything negative about it.

My guess is that even though Trump was impressed with Petreaus (and the preferred choice by Mattis) I don’t see him having so many former generals determining his foreign policy decisions. He’s already got 2 high up on the totem pole.

If Trump were wise, Mitt Romney would be his best option since it would lend credence to his stated goal of uniting the country to chose a man so clearly opposed to him during the campaign. It may upset his supporters. But it doesn't really matter that much anymore since he will be the President now without them. It is far more important to the President-elect to try and unite the country than it is to pander to his voting base. Besides there are plenty of things he can do to satisfy them on the domestic front. Like what he just did at Carrier persuading them to keep 1000 jobs in Indiana that were earmarked to go to Mexico.

So why did Trump choose the pro Palestinian Mattis? He didn’t chose him because of his foreign policy views. He chose him because of his military skills. Mattis has been compared to General George S. Patton. His nickname ‘Mad Dog’ indicates a Patton like determination to win battles. In that context he once made the following statement: “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.” Which fits in very nicely with Trump’s campaign promise to bomb the (expletive deleted) out of ISIS!

It therefore makes sense to look for a Patton like general to head the Defense Department. Like Patton, he will take Trump’s resolve to destroy ISIS and do whatever it takes to get the job done. That he is pro Palestinian will have nothing to do with his obligation to serve at the pleasure of the President and carry out his orders. That is what Patton did during World War II despite evidence that he may have been an antisemite.

So as much as I would like it to have been someone else, I don’t think those of us that support Israel and see its security as the most vital component of any peace deal – need to worry.

As Trump fills up his cabinet, It is becoming clear that aside from Mad Dog, the people advising on him on foreign policy will be very friendly to Israel. Much more so than any recent administration. On the other hand, This is Donald Trump – the most unconventional and unpredictable President in American History by miles! You never know what can happen with a guy like that in office.

Ultimately our fate is in God’s hands. And God help us!

R' Moshe Feinstein's Gadol card (Lehrhaus)

One might think the idea of collecting baseball cards is a frivolous undertaking. Even for young people. Are there not getter ways of spending one’s time and money than collecting cards with pictures of popular sports figures on one side and their statistics on the other? The answer is that of course there are better ways of doing that. But that doesn’t mean that doing so has no value at all.

What if there were cards that had pictures of Gedolim on them? Would that be a worthy enterprise? Would it be better or worse to collect them than to collect baseball cards? In my view it would be worse.

But wouldn’t they be educational? That ‘stats’ on the back could be a list of he Seforim they had written or the Yeshivos they founded… or even movements they founded. Like the TIDE movement of Rav Samson Rephael Hirsch. Isn’t collecting Gadol cards a better use of a child’s propensity to collect, accumulate, and trade than it is baseball cards?

Well, no. There are far better ways of educating our young about the value of our great religious leaders than to put their picture on a trading card with a small list of their accomplishments on the back. It might even be harmful.

But this did not stop that phenomenon from happening. There is a fascinating and informative article by Rabbi Dr. Zev Eleff, Academic Director of HTC in the latest issue of Lehrhaus. He tells us about the history of Gedolim cards The genre was invented by an ultra Orthodox Jew by the name of Arthur Shugarman. And the first set of Gedolim cards were produced in 1980 by the Youth Division of Agudath Israel of America.

One can guess who made it into the original 35 card series. They consisted of black and white pictures of European greats that were in some way connected to Agudah. The stats on the back were written in ways that were compatible with the Agudah philosophy. This resulted in a least one descript tion of a past great religious figure. Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch was described as follows:

“(He) Met the formidable challenge to the very basis of Jewish living posed by the ‘modern era’ with the religious philosophy of ‘Torah Im Derech Eretz.’ This maxim was the proclamation of the sovereignty of the Torah within any given civilization…”

This completely ignored Rav’ Hirsch’s positive view of the great non Jewish figures whose views he publicly extolled as compatible with Jewish philosophy… a key component of Torah Im Derech Eretz!

Presenting a distorted picture of great rabbinic figures on the back of a trading card for purposes of furthering your own agenda is not that different that writing a biography about that same person that omits truths about them which are incompatible your Hashkafos.

Not only is omitting the truth a problem, that these cards do not include other great rabbinic figures is another sin of omission. By omitting great rabbis whose Hashkafos they do not approve of, they reinforce the antipathy they some of their Mechnchim express about these great figures in the classroom. After all if Rav Soloveitchik is not on a card, he cannot possibly be a Gadol. Nor can any religious Zionist Rabbonim. Or Centrist Rabbonim.

Agudah might argue that they have a right to say who is and isn’t a Gadol for their own constituents. This is true. But when applied to trading cards that are widely distributed it contributes to that notion far beyond their own membership.

The Gadol card also makes the very idea of a Gadol into someone that larger than life; someone that is beyond human; someone that should be worshiped and idolized like baseball heroes.

Ironically building up selected rabbis as icons via trading cards also has an opposite effect. It cheapens the very idea of what a Gadol is supposed to be. They are reduced to a form of currency by collectors assigning trading value to them. Is Rav Moshe really worth a Rav Gifter and a Rav Ovadia?

It is for these reasons that I am opposed to Gedolim cards. And yet I am not opposed to baseball cards. In an ironic twist of fate, the speakers at this year’s Agudah convention which focused on normal behavior had one speaker telling parents that it was OK for a young student to follow baseball in his leisure time. In that vein there is nothing wrong with collecting baseball cards… and learning some stats about the players.

The genie may be out of the bag. I don’t know if you can still buy Gadol cards. But whether you can or not, I can still have an opinion about them. And it is not favorable. If they are available, I would urge parents to as much as possible - discourage their children from owning them.

R' Boruch Meir Yaakov Shochet - the Karlin-Stoliner Rebbe

The great ‘Internet Asifa’ held back in May of 2012 and attended by tens of thousands of mostly right wing Orthodox Jews still reverberates in my mind. Rabbi Ephraim Wachsman, an American Rosh Yeshiva and popular motivational speaker got up at that gathering and introduced the keynote speaker, Rav Shmuel HaLevi Wosner, ZTL of Bnei Brak by quoting a passage from Rabbenu Yona’s Shaarei Teshuva. He said that when the multitudes of Israel gather and decisions are made by the leaders for action, anyone who separates himself from the group has no portion in Olam Haba.

After which Rav Wosner said that it is forbidden for anyone to have the internet. That ruling was back pedaled a few days later to exclude those that desperately need it for work and even then only with filters. But the sentiments remained the same. The internet was defined as evil and to be avoided at almost all cost. Chasidic Rebbes like those of Satmar had no use for these exceptions. They forbade it completely. One of the 2 Satmar Rebbes boycotted the event because they had heard that the internet wouldn’t be entirely banned. (Nonetheless, it seems that most Satmar Chasidim seem to ignore the ban.)

Although Rabbi Wachsman told people they would lose their eternity by not listening to Rav Wosner, most non Chasidic American rabbinic leaders have taken a far more rational and practical approach to the internet. But among much of the Charedi world in Israel and among Satmar like Chasidim even in America there is still an extreme contempt for it. I believe that’s because of the far greater isolation that exists.

This is old news. What is not old is the emergence of a saner Chasidic voice in Israel whose views reflect the more rational approach that the rest of Orthodoxy subscribes to.

In fact there is not much daylight between what I have said in the past and what Rav Boruch Meir Yaakov Shochet, the Karlin-Stoliner Rebbe said about it recently. I don’t know much about the Karlin-Stoliner Rebbe other than I have heard of him. But According to an article in the Jewish Press His words not only echo mine, it’s almost as if he has read my blog on these issues. Here, from the Jewish Press is what he said about the internet and smart phones:

1. According to Torah one cannot prohibit something which may also be used for positive ends.

2. As technology is becoming more advanced every day, it makes no sense to issue frequent prohibitions which would surely be eliminated by new prohibitions following the next innovation. This belittles the image of today’s sages and results in fighting symptoms rather than the real problem.

3. A rabbinical decree which the people are unable to abide by is no help at all. A high percentage of Haredim are using the Internet, and turning a blind eye on the problem is bound to cause harm. The Internet cannot be prohibited, much like the use of a car–which may result in an accident, cannot be prohibited.

4. Finally, the Karlin-Stoliner Rebbe is by no stretch of the imagination a liberal, emphasizing that he only permits using the Internet through massive filters, and also pointing out that just the way some people should not be allowed to drive a car, some Chasidim should not be permitted to own a smartphone.

I believe that most Modern Orthodox rabbis would agree with this approach. Especially when children are in the picture.

Why has it taken so long for this view to emerge among the right wing? The culprit in my view is isolation. You cannot effectively deal with the real world if you are not really living in it. This applies to the myriad of issues facing the Orthodox world. Not just devices which carry the internet. You must be part of the real world in order to understand what you are dealing with.

In all too many cases elderly leaders that are unfamiliar with the things they are asked to comment upon end up making mistakes – which later have to be corrected when they become better informed. As was the case with Rav Wosner who had to back pedal on his total ban on the internet at that gathering.

Relying on others who themselves are isolated or have agendas of their own to tell you what it’s like ‘out there’ and then ruling based on that can lead to tragedy. This is not to impugn the integrity of those leaders. It is to highlight the necessity of living in the real world in order to make informed decisions about it. And not to rely on others whom you believe have the best of intentions. But may in fact intentions that are not so honorable.

I also have to wonder why an American Rosh Yeshiva like Rabbi Ephraim Wachsman didn’t realize this enough to hold back on the kind of dire spiritual consequences he implied would happen for those who did not follow Rav Wosner. An elderly Rav from Bnei Brak who lived for decades in a bubble called Bnei Brak and therefore had little if any real life experience in the rest of the world during that time. Did he believe that Rav Wosner had Ruach HaKodesh? And no matter what he said - it was Daas Torah? Clearly Rav Wosner did not use Ruach HaKodesh if he had to back pedal a day or two later. And how does all this impact the Charedi view of Daas Torah?

Well, at least there is one Chasidic Rebbe in Israel that realizes what most of the rest of us do. He didn’t rely on Ruach HaKodesh. He used his God given mind - and used common sense on this issue. Hopefully more right wing rabbinic leaders – even the more extreme Chasidic ones - will come around. When they do, it is just a shame it will have taken so long.

Hat Tip: RYS

Who will teach them how to function in the 21^stcentury?

Last week I was happy to report that Agudah seemed to turn a corner. This was indicated by a very positive yet unexpected experience that a moderate Charedi woman by the name of Mrs. Suri Weinstock who attended their recent convention had. The views expressed by the speakers on the topics they chose to address were similar to my own.

But there was one speaker that did not quite hit the mark. Even though I truly respect and admire the work he does as Agudah’s Executive Vice President (and I know how very hard he works and the legitimate accomplishments he has had) I was disappointed in Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zweibel’s presentation at their recent convention.

This is not to say that he did not make some very valid points. He did. But it is what he didn’t say that was disappointing. As was the way he dismissed the motives of the people he criticized.

First let me say that I agree with Agudah’s opposition to an education bill in New York if it is constructed the way Rabbi Zweibel described it. It would require the same minimum 5 hours of secular education that public schools are required to have. This is what he said Agudah is fighting. I agree that implementing and enforcing this provision would hurt most Yeshiva high schools (including the ones I attended: Telshe and HTC - were they located in New York).

As Rabbi Zweibel noted, most Yeshiva high schools have longer hours in religious studies than they do in secular studies. Yeshivos would have to either add on to an already long day of classroom instruction or reduce the time allotted for religious studies. Both options are in my view untenable.

Educational mandates should not be about the quantity of time. They should be about the type and quality of the material learned. New York already requires that the curricula of non public schools be ‘substantially equivalent’ to those of the public schools - in order to receive any of the financial benefits that non public schools are entitled to. The problem was not the lack of a required curriculum. It was one of enforcement. It was non existent. Which allowed some schools to practically ignore those subjects.

Rabbi Zweibel did not address that problem at all even though he quite clearly said that these subjects should be taught. He even mentioned some of the core secular subjects that should be taught adding that most Yeshivos do teach them. They have a dual program of religious and secular studies.

As I said, if Rabbi Zweibel is correct about its time component the bill should be opposed. But what about those schools that don’t teach much of any secular subjects? The very subjects he says should be taught? There are currently 39 of those. While fighting the bill as currently structured may be justified, what about the collateral damage that Rabbi Zweibel agrees is harmful to the young people that attend those schools?

Rabbi Zweibel imputes blame to young ‘disaffected’ former Yeshiva students for the problems Agudah is now facing. Maybe so. But had these schools offered the curriculum they were required by law to offer, there would be nothing to talk about. Those ‘disaffected’ former Yeshiva students notwithstanding.

It would have better had Rabbi Zweibel also mentioned that these schools are deficient in the very things he said should be required. He didn’t.

He did however speak about the values that are taught in public schools that are in conflict with our own values. As if the new bill required religious schools to abandon their faith. I find it hard to believe that a country founded on principles of religious freedom would require any religion to abandon those teachings. Respecting the rights of all citizens even when their behavior is not in accord with our values does not mean we have to approve of their behavior. I don’t think this bill is about that.

Nor is his anecdote about how impressed New York State Education Commissioner Rick Mills was with the way young Orthodox men and women date each other relevant. We aren’t talking about teaching ethics (which is its own problem that requires serious attention). We are talking about providing our young the educational tools that will enable to function in society.

In my view, Rabbi Zweibel should have addressed – not only the flawed bill but the lack of any significant secular education of those 39 Yeshivos. Which he said is necessary for its students and is taught by most Yeshivos.

Why didn’t he do that? I can only speculate. Perhaps Agudah feels that Yeshivos have a right to teach as they see fit even if they disagree with them. And therefore they have a religious right to ignore the government’s educational requirements

What about providing those youth the tools to survive in 21st century America? How does Agudah answer that?

So yes, I am disappointed. It should be noted that if there is any improvement in those 39 schools (if and when the bill is defeated) credit is in my opinion due to those ‘disaffected’ former Yeshiva students’ that brought this issue into public consciousness. Had it not been for them, it would be business as usual in those schools.

Yosef Mizrachi

An unrepentant fool. That was my description or ‘Rabbi’ Yosef Mizrachi about a year ago when he first let the world know just how much of a fool he is. Unfortunately not everyone thinks he’s a fool. Let alone how dangerous he is as a man involved in bringing Jews closer to Judaism. He is a personality that is often invited to speak to large numbers of people for that purpose.

When I addressed this issue last January, I believed he was finished. Surely I thought that the exposure he got after he made his revisionist Holocaust YouTube video claiming that less than a million actual Jews were slaughtered - that no one would ever take him seriously again. Especially after viewing a series of additional ridiculous videos he made prior to that. Some of which I listed and linked to in a subsequent post. But he keeps popping up like a bad penny – to further his absurd and hurtful claims.

To the best of my knowledge his Kiruv organization still exists. He has several websites and a facebook page. His Kiruv organization distributes – free of charge - DVDs, Audio CDs, MP3 CDs spreading his hurtful and disgusting messages to Jews seeking to learn about their Jewish heritage.

According to Wikipedia, 1000s of his these items have already been handed out to unsuspecting innocent Jews, believing that he is teaching them the truth of Judaism. What makes him even more dangerous is that he actually believes what he preaches and he mixes it with traditional Jewish thought all jumbled up and presented as a package of truth.

British Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis was quoted recently in the Times of Israel referring to Mizrachi as a ‘Preacher of Hate’! They added:

An online petition, which describes Mizrachi’s views as “cultish, divisive and contemptible,” has been signed by 600 people, including leading figures in British Jewry.

Condemnation of this fellow is not limited to any particular Hashkafa. One might think that the Agudah Moetzes would be reticent to publicly critcize any Orthodox Jew. But here is what Rabbi Yaakov Perlow, the sitting head of the Agudah Moetzes said last year when he was informed about Mizrachi’s outrageous claims about the Holocaust:

“I condemn in the strongest terms possible the outrageous claim that fewer than a million halachic Jews were killed in the Holocaust. This claim is demonstrably false, profoundly offensive and extremely hurtful. It is an affront to the Six Million Kedoshim, precious, holy, Jewish souls whose lives were snuffed out by thesonei Yisroel. Minimizing the degree of the terrible destruction of Churban Europa, in a most morally irresponsible manner, does a grave disservice to truth, and only gives enemies of Klal Yisrael ammunition for their lies.”

And yet, like the ‘Energizer bunny’ he keeps on going. His influence must end once and for all. In that vein I am pleased to report that I received letter signed by a group of prominent rabbis from across the spectrum of Orthodox Jewry. I was asked to make it public. I am happy to do so here. Here is what it says:

As rabbonim and mechanchim, we are greatly concerned about the popularity in some circles of a “kiruv” approach that does not bring honor to the Torah ha-Kedoshah but, on the contrary, creates considerable chilul Hashem.

Earlier this year, Rabbi Yosef Mizrachi apologized for one particularly offensive statement he made on several occasions. But he has voiced, both before and since that apology, many things that reduce complex issues to simplistic and misleading sound bites. He has also repeatedly arrogated to “know” why unfortunate things happen to various people and has presented subtle statements of Chazal in superficial and deceptive ways.

That method may entertain and even stimulate some audiences, but it does no justice to the Jewish mesorah. And, especially with the worldwide audience enjoyed by any public speech these days, misleading assertions even when offered with the best of intentions, are particularly objectionable, and even dangerous.

Jewish institutions must be discerning about the credentials and the histories of those to whom they offer the honor of acting as teachers of Torah. We urge all shuls and organizations to act responsibly and take seriously decisions about whom they invite to address their gatherings.

Here are the signatories:

HaRav Gedalia Dov Schwartz Rosh Beit Din, Beis Din of America and Chicago Rabbinical Council
Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein Editor, Cross Currents

Rabbi Shalom Baum President, Rabbinical Council of America

Rabbi Yosef Benarroch Rosh Midrasha, Midreshet Eshel Mara D’atra, Adas Yeshurun Herzliya Synagogue Winnipeg, Canada

Rabbi Moises Benzaquen Mara D’atra, West Coast Torah Center Rosh Hayeshiva, Harkham Gaon Academy Los Angeles, CA

HaRav Mayer Alter Horowitz, Bostoner Rebbe of Yerushalayim

Rabbi Joseph Dweck Senior Rabbi of the Spanish and Portuguese Sephardi Community of the United Kingdom

Rabbi Daniel Feldman Rosh Yeshiva, Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary

Rabbi Ilan D. Feldman Mara D’asra, Congregation Beth Jacob Atlanta, GA

Rabbi Efrem Goldberg Mara D’asra, Boca Raton Synagogue Boca Raton, FL

Rabbi Micah Greenland International Director, NCSY

HaRav Michel Twerski Mara D’asra, Congregation Beth Jehudah Milwaukee, WI

Rabbi Shaya Karlinsky Rosh Yeshiva, Darche Noam Jerusalem, Israel

Rabbi N. Daniel Korobkin Mara D’asra, Congregation Beth Avraham Joseph (BAYT) Toronto, Canada

Rabbi Avi Shafran Media Liaison, Agudath Israel of America

Rabbi Yitzchak Shurin Rosh Midrasha, Midreshet Rachel V’Chaya

In my view the letter is worded too gently. A much stronger condemnation is in order. And I regret that there are not more rabbinic leaders signed on. But this is still an impressive and inclusive list of distinguished and respected rabbis across the Orthodox spectrum. It ought to be posted in every Shul, Yeshiva, Seminary… every Jewish organization. Especially those involved Kiurv. Hopefully it will serve its purpose and once and for all shut this guy down. Maybe then Mizrachi can get some help! He really needs it!

Guest Contribution by Paul Shaviv

Paul Shaviv

I am once again pleased to host the words of renowned Jewish educator, Paul Shaviv. His comments are always thoughtful, informative, and incisive. This post is no exception. As always the views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect my own. His words follow:

As some readers of this esteemed blog will know, I write a weekly newsletter, which deals with school operational issues. The last two issues, prompted by the failure of “pollsters and pundits” to foresee the results of the Presidential election, talked about missing obvious signs of imminent change. You can read them here (#31) and here (#32).

* * * * * * * * *

Over the coming decades we will see revolutions in the way we work and the way we live. Automation will completely upturn the workplace – even in the ‘thinking professions’.

There will not be any work available for a significant proportion of the population; and that will be the norm. Many professions and occupations will simply disappear. Whatever can be automated – will be automated.

A small number of very highly educated engineers, computer scientists and similar top professionals will enjoy secure, well-paid employment. Unskilled jobs will be low paid and highly competitive. Many will work only occasionally, or never.

Governments will have to devise a system of ‘Universal benefit’.

How will this affect Jewish life in general; and Orthodox life in particular?

Social, economic and political turbulence over the last four hundred years or so generated major changes in Judaism – the Sabbatean heresy, Hasidism, the Volozhin and Pressburg Yeshivot, Zionism, Hirschian Judaism, the Haredi philosophy of the Chatam Sofer, Torah uMadda, Beis Yaakov – and an array of non-Orthodox movements and institutions. They all arose against a backdrop of change (or trauma) in general society around them.

Are the ingredients for a similar change present today?

I would like to discuss just two components of a developing situation, and hypothesize some possible outcomes.

The most tantalizing – and perhaps the most powerful – is to foresee a Jewish community version of the ‘populist politics’ which characterized recent events in the USA, the UK, France, Italy, Austria and elsewhere.

In all of these scenarios, popular movements ‘of the people’ ignored “elitist” leadership, and acted in surprising ways.

In today’s Orthodox world, it is not far-fetched to compare the Haredi and RWO leadership – their policies, pronouncements and attitudes – to the leadership of the Democratic party in the American elections, or the “Remain” Tory leadership in the UK Brexit referendum.

In both of those cases, leadership completely misread the real concerns of the people they claimed to represent – and paid the price.

While every Haredi/Hasid that I know is gasping for better (= basic) secular education in the Haredi schools, the Aguda is proclaiming that it rejects it.

While every Jewish family is groaning under the financial cost of leading a Jewish lifestyle, our leadership seems to be totally unconcerned.

While every thoughtful Jew is clamoring for solutions to the personal crises around shidduchim (on the one hand), and to the extortion around gittin and agunah situations (on the other) – the rabbinic establishment is largely silent, resistant or in collusion.

Rightly or wrongly, in the tide of public concern about safety of children, the public perceives that the rabbinic establishment is far too often more concerned with protecting perpetrators than victims.

Orthodoxy is getting more and more restrictive. The effect of this is to progressively limit ‘social literacy’ -- the flexibility for observant Jews to function in larger society – and thus in the workforce.

In a time of disruption in employment patterns and uncertainty in incomes….. how much longer will the Orthodox public bear these situations?

Will the current trickle of Orthodox children enrolled in public schools turn into a current?

Will new voices and new groups begin to organize and be heard?

Are there nascent signs of these tendencies in such disparate phenomena as the near-universal ignoring of the cell phone ban?

- or, in a different way, the emergence of the Orthodox womens’ movement?

- or even the emergence of YCT/OO?

- or demands for less stringent, and less expensive, Pesach standards?

Might we see a new Jewish vegetarian movement, driven by cost? Is there a Rav somewhere who will promote that idea – and other cost-saving rulings - ‘l’tovat hatzibbur’?

The possible list is very long.

2. A second component is the rapidly changing Jewish family.

There are growing numbers of single parents, interfaith families, same-sex partnerships (formal and informal), elderly, and, in certain circles, a growing constituency of OTD groups. There is a small, but constant constituency of children where one parent is still observant, and one has left observance entirely. Special needs children and adults are one constituency for whom the Orthodox community has made provision; but real ‘inclusion’ still has a long way to go.

And, of course, there are many stable families, with wonderful parents, across the Orthodox spectrum, looking at mounting expenses and mounting debt.

None of these groups are going away any time soon.

But, with some (laudable) local exceptions, they and their needs are more or less invisible in the Orthodox community.

I have three predictions:

These groups will not acquiesce in being ignored forever. Sooner or later they will organize and make their voices heard, and demand representation – but how? Social media will be central.

The community institutions – synagogues and schools – will be changed by the act of recognizing their changing membership profiles. Structure, tone and content will all have to change.

The volunteer and charity organizations will be stretched to their limit. However, in a shrinking workforce, there may be many more volunteer hours available…. No money, but plenty of volunteers. 

* * * * * * * * *

I have no idea whether these brief thoughts are prophetic, or crazy. There have been many similar articles in the press and online recently. As I point out in my newsletters, the situation of the ‘Rust belt’ is already not far from what I describe; that is what propelled Mr. Trump into the White House. Our community, overwhelmingly living on the East Coast and West Coast, is concentrated in non-industrial occupations. It has largely been isolated and insulated from the effects of the collapse of industrial and agricultural employment in the USA. But it will encroach on us soon.

Schools and, probably synagogues, face their biggest reforms for perhaps 150 years. Society is changing; education must change; and our community must change.

Who will lead the way?

Paul Shaviv is an independent Educational Consultant, specializing in School Management and Crisis Support for schools. You can subscribe to his newsletter here.

Seminary women (Arutz Sheva)

It’s a stupidity like this that makes me so strongly reject the Hashkafos from which it is sourced. From Arutz Sheva:

The haredi educational journal, Kol Hachinuch (Voice of Education), recently published an article under the title “Serious Breaches,” which criticized the training of haredi girls in emergency first aid in a leading haredi seminary. The article states that under the guise of saving lives, girls would arrive at the scenes of accidents, and from there…“needless to say…”

Needless to say... what?

It’s always nice to know that when attempting to teach even their own standards of modesty, they won’t even describe the kind of serious breaches they are trying to avoid. They just leave it to your imagination, I guess. Why do they do that? I suppose they feel that it would be immodest to actually describe such situations.

This mentality is also responsible things like for not mentioning the word ‘breast’ when dealing with breast cancer. When they write about this illness in an attempt to spread awareness and teach women the means of identifying the symptoms or how to deal with it, women are left guessing what they are really talking about.

Those who have these Hashkafos might respond that they don’t need to actually mention the disease. One can ‘get it’ from the context. But is this ridiculous level of modesty justified by the fact that women can figure out which disease they are talking about by themselves?

When dealing with a serious life threatening illness that is unfortunately becoming all too prevalent in the world today - one ought not dance around the disease without naming it. A simple and direct description of the disease and detailed information about what to do is the correct approach - eliminating even the slightest possibility for confusion.

These types of modesty extremes are absurd. It is almost the way the Gemarah describes the concept of a Chasid Shoteh (pious fool). A Chasid Shoteh is a religious man that refuses to save the life of a drowning woman because of modesty issues. Not only is such an individual a Shoteh he is in violation of the Halachic prohibition to not stand idly by while your friend’s blood is being spilled.

And yet, that is what this group so obsessed with modesty is in essence teaching here. They are telling their young women that it is a serious breach of modesty to learn how to save lives. Which also means that whenever they encounter a life threatening situation, they may very well be afraid to act even in ways which do not need special training, lest they violate their standards of modesty. Even if they are taught about the importance of saving a life!

When the Gemarah describes a Chasid Shoteh its intent is to prevent such a situation… realizing that some righteous people might make the mistake – based on habit – of not acting to save a life because of modesty issues.

Now I have no clue if Kol Hachinuch is mainstream or renegade. But I have not heard of any Charedi leaders coming out against this article. One might argue that if this is a renegade publication then there is no need for a mainstream response. That it is so obviously ridiculous that the Charedi leadership won’t even address it.

That might be an argument in a vacuum where there has never been any other attempts to establish or enforce ridiculous modesty standards. But that is far from the case – as has become painfully clear from numerous incidents of violence in the name of it. Like those perpetrated by extremists against women sitting in the front (men only) section of even an empty bus. There have been far too many incidents like this or worse to count - in the name of modesty.

So that even if this publication is not representative of the mainstream Charedi thought in Israel, it is imperative that the leadership speak out against it. If they say nothing, their acquiescence can easily be interpreted as agreement. And frankly I don’t believe that for a minute. Should I?

He’s right. Attorney, Elliot Pasik is one of the movers and shakers when it comes to combating child sexual abuse. In a Times of Israel article he penned, he reminds us about one of his major contributions to that cause. 10 years ago, he was practically single-handedly responsible for a New York state law that permits fingerprinting and criminal history background checks of nonpublic school employees. In this way criminals of all sorts that have had encounters with the law - not the least of which were sex offenders - would be screened out of working in a public school. From the Times of Israel:

New York public schools are required to fingerprint and perform criminal history searches on their employees. All public school employees are mandated to report child abuse to the police or child protection services. All public school administrators and teachers are required to take coursework in identifying child abuse, and preventing violence. All public schools must have written polices and safety plans to prevent child abuse and violence. These, and other child protection laws, apply to the public schools, but not the non-public schools.

The law does not however require private schools to do any of this. For them it is voluntary. As it pertains to those of us that send our children to religious schools, it leaves a tremendous void in protecting our children. Elliot notes that only 2 Jewish schools out of 400 in New York have opted to follow the guidelines mandated for public schools. This leaves most of our children unprotected. Or at the very least not as well protected as public school children are. I should add that it isn’t only Jewish parochial schools that are exposing their children to possible unnecessary danger, it is the vast majority of all non public schools. But that should not make us feel any better.

The question is why? Why are those entrusted with the responsibility of educating our children not sufficiently concerned about their physical and psychological welfare? At least not enough to implement the standards required of public schools?

I can think of no reason that such protection is not offered. Are they afraid of ‘Big Brotherism’? Is it that they fear any government interference? Is it the slippery slope argument that says that ‘today it’s about protecting against sex abuse, tomorrow it might be about teaching things that would contradict our values? I have no clue. In my view these arguments – if they are they are indeed the reasons – fall flat in the face of increased levels of protection our children would have. There is no reason to believe that a protective measure like this will lead to anything other than better protection.

What do the parochial schools say in their defense? They claim to be doing their own due diligence on this issue:

Clever opponents of a mandatory fingerprint bill will tell you that many, or even most, of New York’s non-public schools already are doing employee background checks, but without the fingerprinting. They assert that there are schools which are utilizing private companies to background check, and government fingerprinting is, therefore, unnecessary.

But as Elliot points out there is no substitute for creating and maintaining a data base of criminals whose histories can be checked via fingerprints. That kind of data cannot be faked. Additionally it is far from certain that due diligence is actually taking place. There is no mechanism to assure that is happening. And even if they do some sort of background checking, what are the means that these schools use to check them out? How reliable are those means? How thorough are they? Can’t identities be faked? Can’t histories be faked?

I agree with the Rabbinical Council of America. They support legislation that would require all religious schools to follow the same protocols as public schools. What harm can there possibly be in this? Don’t our children deserve the same level protection as public school children? It’s just a shame that except for 2 schools, they haven’t done this voluntarily. How many more of our children will have to be sexually abused before we get the message?

Protesters arguing with Charedim (Ha'aretz)

When I heard Conservative Rabbi Andrew Sacks claiming that egalitarian sevices are Halachicly sound, it re-enforced my resolve to oppose them. It has long ago been established that Halacha does not recognize a Minyan composed of anything other than a minimum of 10 adult men.

9 men and even 100 women do not constitute a Minyan. This has nothing to do with my own feelings about the inequity of such a situation. This is Halacha whether I or anyone else likes it or not. Even Open Orthodoxy requires a Mechitza separating men and women during prayer services.

A confrontation between Israeli authorities and a group of protesters some of whom were carrying Sifrei Torah (Torah scrolls) took place at the Kotel Plaza not long ago. Their goal was to change the decades long status quo that allows only traditional modes of prayer.

I have no problems with protesting a government whose policies are universally considered discriminatory. But when people disrupt a traditional prayerful atmosphere for their own specific agenda which is not universal my support stops. That is not discrimination. It’s about forwarding an agenda which is not universally accepted

To say that the Kotel belongs to everybody (as is the constant refrain of these protesters) may be true. But that does not justify doing whatever one feels like doing – even if they believe they are doing it for God.

A lot of people sincerely think they do things for God. That doesn’t make it so. Who determines what God wants? God has given man the Torah and mandated the rabbis to interpret it. In Israel it is the Chief Rabbinate – a mandate they have had from the founding fathers predating the State itself. Israel has every right therefore to define what is and isn’t considered proper Jewish behavior with respect to religious sites like the Kotel. The Rabbinate is in charge. Not an outside group that wants to change things. Israel therefore has every right to thwart challenges and enforce the law.

Protesters pushing their way into a holy place where traditional modes of prayer are taking place creates a distraction at best and possibly even havoc. Furthermore these protesters cynically used Seifrei Torah as shields. This in turn caused the usual extremists to react badly. I wouldn’t be surprised if the organizers of this protest anticipated the reaction by the police hoping to generate sympathy for their cause.

Personally I have no sympathy for either the protesters or the extremists that reacted. One may be sympathetic to the goals of one side or the other. But one cannot – should not - be sympathetic to their methods. This was an outrageous attempt by outsiders to challenge the authority of the rabbis that are legally in charge of the Kotel. Their purpose was clearly to advance their agenda. The only question is - what is their agenda, really?

None of this is new. Nor is the fact that there was an actually compromise proposed in the Keneset that was unopposed by the Charedi parties. That should have ended the conflict. Which is why I reluctantly supported it. It would have given these people their own place to practice any version of worship they claimed to be legitimate to Judaism. It would have allowed the Kotel Plaza to retain its traditional Orthodox character and not be constantly disrupted by the nontraditional forms of worship.

(Although that compromise would not have satisfied the Women of the Wall since many of them they do not consider egalitarian prayer services to be legitimate. But that is beyond the scope of this post.)

Why do I bring this subject up again? Because, I am dismayed at a report in Ha’aretz about the heavy handed way the religious parties have recently responded to this phenomenon - no doubt fueled by that last protest. They have proposed a law that actually mandates either a stiff fine or even jail time for something as simple as a woman wearing a Talis at the Kotel Plaza. From Ha’aretz:

The new bill was initiated by Shas, the ultra-Orthodox Mizrahi party. It was signed not only by all the members of the two ultra-Orthodox parties in the Knesset – Shas and United Torah Judaism – but also by three members of the Likud, Oren Hazan, David Amsalem and Miki Zohar, and by three members of the religious pro-settler Habayit Hayehudi, Bezalel Smootrich, Motti Yogev and Nissan Smoliansky.

Even though that last protest caused me to be even more determined to oppose them, this proposed new law has the opposite effect on me. Furthermore if it passes it will no doubt backfire. The last thing the government needs is to generate sympathy for a group they oppose by coming down too harshly on them. What will be gained? If anything the opposition will become even more determined. And more fierce. Protest will surely increase and possibly become more violent! And if the report in Ha’aretz is true (there are conflicting reports) it would end any possible compromise:

It would also prevent men and women from holding mixed services at the area known as the upper plaza, right above the gender-separated prayer plazas adjacent to the actual wall.

I have been told by an Orthodox rabbi involved in the original compromise that it would have been reluctantly accepted by the religious parties had not the Reform and Conservative movements demanded recognition by the government be included. If I understand correctly, that demand is what scuttled the deal.

I would have preferred that a compromise be reached that would have given the protesters a place to worship God in their own way – misguided though I believe them to be. But the leaders of the Reform and Conservative movements weren’t satisfied with anything less than full recognition, thus undermining any progress they might have made.

At the same time, though, this proposed new law may end up aiding them more than any protest they have had in the past. The religious parties are playing right into the hands of the very people they are fighting. If this law is passed it will surely generate sympathy for their egalitarian cause and more animosity for the rabbinate. Is pursuing this law really a good idea? I don’t think so.

Guest contribution by Heshey Zelcer

If you are a religious Jew what is your reaction upon seeing the flag of Israel? Pride? Shame? Disgust?

I have a tremendous sense of pride when I see this flag. I know that Israel is not a perfect nation. I know that there are some issues with which I disagree. But on the whole, my heart swells with pride every time I see it.

Not only because it is the Jewish homeland promised to the Jewish people by God. Nor is it only because of the haven it became for survivors of the Holocaust. Or the tremendous Makom Torah it has become. Or the number of contributions it has made to the world in the fields of medicine, science, economics, literature, art... and many other fields. It is all of the above - and much, much more!

But I know that not everyone feels that way about the Jewish state. It is with this in mind that I am pleased to present an important post by Hakirah CEO, Heshey Zelcer. As always the views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect my own.

Chareidi yeshivos don’t speak about Israel. Their shuls don’t make a me-she-berach for the Israeli soldiers. Therefore—so the narrative goes—chareidim do not care about Israel. Is this conclusion justified? I believe not.

Ask yourself the following questions: What percentage of chariedimwant Israel to succeed? How many would be devastated if Israel ceased to exist? How many are pleased to hear that Israel is flourishing: economically, technologically and militarily? In my own encounters with chareidim—an assuredly non-scientific sample—the answer to all these questions is, “almost all of them.”

There are studies that confirm this. When a Pew survey asked ultra-Orthodox/chareidim if they believe God gave Israel to the Jewish people 81% answered in the affirmative. When the same Pew study asked ultra-Orthodox/chareidim about their emotional attachment to Israel, 55% responded positively.

This is good news for all of us who care about the State of Israel and its security. There is no longer a need to convince chareidim that Israel is ‘good for the Jews’. Who can deny the wide array of Chassidic and Litvish Torah communities that thrive there. We simply need to channel their caring into active practical support for the security of Israel. What do I mean?

The United States currently provides approximately four billion dollars of aid to Israel each year. It sells Israel its most sophisticated military equipment and it uses its position on the UN Security Council to veto anti-Israel resolutions. Why does the United States do this? The basic answer is because it is the will of the American people. This begs the question: Why do the American people like Israel and agree to spend their tax dollars to support it?

There are several answers: First, Evangelical Christians believe that God gave the Land of Israel to the Jewish people, and if they support the Jews, God will shower His bounty upon them. They take seriously the verse in Genesis 12:2 “I will bless those who bless you.”

Second, Israel and America share common values and ideals including freedom of religion, and a true and open liberal democracy for all its citizens. It also helps that Americans believe that Israel embodies the values that made America great—hard work and personal initiative. They also admire the survivors of the Holocaust who refused to remain victims and instead dusted themselves off and created a flourishing state. Finally, organizations like AIPAC and NORPAC actively and successfully lobby Congress to support the State of Israel.

However, while this model of American support was true in the past, the future looks more ominous. For one, college professors preach a leftist political agenda which demonizes the Jewish state. Furthermore, organizations like BDS bully college students and intimidate anyone daring to advocate for Israel. Pro-Israel speakers are often heckled and shouted-down. College students—and future generations of Americans—will thus be less likely to support Israel than previous generation.

Another factor working against Israel is that those who fund pro-Israel lobbying efforts such as AIPAC are primarily secular Jews. Unfortunately, secular Jews are intermarrying at alarming rates and, as studies show, their offspring are less likely to be pro-Israel, and less likely to advocate for its security.

That is why it is so important to properly channel the pro-Israel sentiments of the chareidi population. The Chareidi population continues to expand, and chareidim have conservative values—including caring about the security and safety of the State of Israel. Chareidim need merely be reminded that just as they support a wide range of community charities, they also need to be there for the security of Israel, a place where they have so much at stake.

It is therefore important for Chareidim that do have positive feelings about the state do more than have feelings for it. And that they make that support more public. If within a year or two, we could, for example, double the number of chareidim supporting AIPAC. If within the same period, we could also, for example, double the number of chareidim who annually give $10,000 or more to organizations like AIPAC, NORPAC, EMET, MEMRI, CAMERA or FLAME, all of which fight for Israel’s security… that would go a long way in countering the aforementioned negative propaganda.

It is not so much to change anyone’s mind about Israel. It is simply to get those who have a stake in Israel; those who already care about Israel; those who send their children to learn there; those who have relatives living there; those who visit there… to support and advocate for the security of Israel—just as they so generously support other charities and organizations about which they feel passionately.

It is important for Chareidim to be more proactive and advocate publicly on behalf of the security of Israel; to reach out to congressman; to send letters and emails when the need arises; and to financially support the organizations that lobby on behalf of Israel.

With that goal in mind Netzach Yisrael was created. They will provide seminars for Chareidim that agree with these goals. If you are someone like that, please register at www.NetzachYisraelUSA.orgso that you can be notified about educational seminars in your neighborhood.

For the sake of Israel, for the sake of our brothers and sisters who live there, we, the Orthodox community, must unite and advocate for its security.

Heshey Zelcer is the author of Companion Mishnayot: Tractate Niddah (1994) and A Guide to the Jerusalem Talmud(2002). He has published about a dozen articles on Jewish law, philosophy, history and liturgy, and is the CEO of Hakirah: The Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought.

Mini-skirted protesters that were blocked from the Keneset (Forward)

Are modesty standards relative to the culture? Well, yes and no. Read on.

Yes, modesty is an issue in Judaism. Unfortunately when the word modesty is used in the media, it usually refers to the way a woman should dress. Meaning that women should not dress in ways that are sexually provocative. While that is one facet of modesty, it is certainly not the only one. Modesty in the way we dress also means not wearing showy clothing that brings attention to oneself even if they are not sexually provocative. Modesty in dress applies to men as well.

One must not only dress modestly but act modestly. One must be modest in all ways; the way we dress; the way we act; and the way we speak.

Interacting with our fellow human beings ought to be done with respect and dignity even when there is strong disagreement between us. In this sense blogs and their comment sections often fail. Far too many of us – myself included – fall short. But in my case, and in those of others that identify themselves with our real names, there is some degree of reticence to say things that would reflect poorly on our character. We try and behave in ways that would not bring shame upon ourselves and our families.

Those that use aliases on the other hand have free reign to say whatever they wish throwing modesty to the wind! Some of the comments are so insulting that if uttered by someone whose identity is known - they might end up being shunned by peers, friends, neighbors, and perhaps even family! Which is why I am sometimes tempted to require people use their real names. That would prevent some of the terrible insults one sometimes sees here.

Although that is one of the downsides of a comment forum that allows for anonymity - it isn’t really what I wanted to address today. It is modesty the way it is commonly thought of; dressing in sexually provocative ways.

Obviously that issue is very subjective depending on the culture in which one lives. In societies where all women wear Burkas, exposing any part of the body that is not commonly seen in public can be provocative and is immodest. On the other hand there are cultures where women normally walk around topless. (I’m sure those of us that are old enough can remember those kinds of images in National Geographic.)

What about in cultures that have a variety of different demographics each with their own sense of what is and isn’t modest? Surely the United States and Israel are two such societies (as are many other societies in Western culture). In the US we have women wearing Burkas and women who – when on mixed beaches wear bikinis that are so skimpy they are practically naked!

In the American (and Israeli) street in the summer, one will encounter all manner of dress with various levels of skin exposure, most of which does not comply with any Orthodox modesty standards. In some cases - by far! Truth is that we are surrounded by immodesty all year long. On billboards, magazines newspapers, TV and movies. Even the business world that used to have stricter dress codes have given way to dress codes that – not too many years ago - would have raised eyebrows – but today hardly register a blip on anyone’s modesty ‘radar screen’.

How does this affect Orthodox Jews? Those of us that are not isolated from the culture – and I include most Charedim – have learned to live with it – whether we like it or not. If someone has a job where women are present, invariably one will find themselves encountering women dressed in ways so provocative that virtually all Orthodox sectors do not consider modest in anyway. Especially in the white collar working world.

Even if you purposely try to avoid such encounters by isolating yourself in the cocoon of your community – as is the case in places like Kiryas Joel or New Square, you will still encounter people who dress provocatively when the need arises to leave that cocoon. Which happens quite often albeit not as much than those of that do not live isolated lives.

Which brings me to what happened in the Keneset recently. Apparently they now have a dress code for women working or entering there that is in compliance with Halacha. Meaning a woman may not work there in a miniskirt. I’m not sure who is responsible for these new rules, but I have no doubt that it was the religious parties. They are the most sensitive to these issues. Apparently most Keneset members were on board with this.

A few days ago, '2 women were either turned away or delayed at the Knesset by guards because of what they were wearing'. As reported in the Forward, this did not sit well with a group of women who felt this was discrimination. They all showed up at the Keneset one day dressed in miniskirts. I suppose they might have felt that they were dressed the way most women dress in Israel where short skirt lengths are hardly an issue. Most religious Jews go on with their lives as they pass these people in the street without saying anything (most of the time).

I am reminded of the time R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach was sitting in a bus when a woman who was clearly not dressed modestly by Orthodox standards sat down next to him. Without comment, he stood up and exited the bus at the next stop as though it was his stop. It wasn’t. He got off a couple of stops early in order not to embarrass the woman. He realized that societal standards were not Halachic standards and he was not going to make an issue out of it by embarrassing someone.

Even though the protesters were dressed modestly by most standards - making sure to barely violate the dress code, they were wrong to do this. A reasonable dress code passed by a majority of the Keneset that is stricter than that of the street is a right that they have and ought not be protested. It ought to instead be complied with by everyone.

Decorum in a place like the Keneset matters. Where religious Jews sit and are offended by immodest dress the decorum is clearly interrupted. It doesn’t really matter that most people consider such dress modest enough by societal standards. Or what they are used to seeing on the outside. Dress codes of any institution are determined by the people who run them - not by the culture of the street.

If for example a restaurant requires a jacket to be worn by men, they have the right to ask you to leave if you aren’t wearing one. By the same token if the Keneset establishes a reasonable dress code in order to accommodate its religious members - they have the right turn away those that do not comply. Miniskirts are no different than shoes in this respect. If the Keneset dress code requires wearing shoes and someone comes in barefoot, the Keneset has every right to deny them entry. Same thing with miniskirts. Simple as that.

Which in my view makes a fool out of Zionist Union lawmaker Manuel Trajtenberg who stripped down to an undershirt in solidarity with the women. Really? Is stripping down to your shirt in compliance with the decorum one should expect in that august body? Not in my book. He was immodest in the truest sense of the word.

Rabbi Avraham Sherman (YWN)

Why do I care what Rabbi Avarham Sherman says? Personally I don’t. I don’t really have much respect for people that cause the kind of damage he does. But the damage is real. He is a man of considerable influence in the Israeli Orthodox rabbinate. He cannot be ignored. His public comments must be addressed. Which should be in the form of a complete rejection of recent comments about two Modern Orthodox rabbis. He has labeled both Rabbi Haskel Lookstein and Rabbi Avi Weiss Kofrim (heretics)! And adds that all of the people that they have ever converted are not Jews and need to go through the conversion process again.

This is not the first time his words have afflicted the convert. Or the second. Afflicting a convert is a serious violation of Torah law. (Although I doubt he thinks he did that.)

Back in 2008 a controversy concerning the conversion of Russian immigrants of questionable Jewish lineage arose, A special conversion Beis Din was set up and headed by Rabbi Chaim Druckman - who at the time was a respected Religious Zionist Rosh Yeshiva. There are a great many Russian immigrants like that. Many Russians came here thinking they were Jews – having a Jewish father and non Jewish mother; or a mother with an improper conversion. They need to convert to be considered Jewish.

Rabbi Druckman was asked by the government to quickly convert this mass of Russians by using any Halachic leniency he could find. One can debate whether the leniencies he used were acceptable. But one cannot question his integrity.

And yet Rabbi Sherman who was the Chief Judge of the rabbinate at the time did just that. Not only invalidating Rabbi Druckman’s Russians converts but every single individual he ever converted! This surely caused tremendous anguish not only to the Russians but to all of his previous converts. And it caused anguish to Rabbi Druckman. I recall Rav Aaron Lichtenstein, ZTL being outraged by it.

One may argue that Rabbi Sherman was just being true to his ideals in rejecting those converts since he felt that the means used were not Halachicly valid. Perhaps. But certainly the conversions prior to these Russians were valid.

Furthermore he can’t really say that about Rabbis Lookstein and Weiss. Can he honestly say he knows that the means used by these rabbis were invalid? I don't think so. But he did offer a reason for rejecting their conversions. He called them heretics. Once you are a heretic you cannot possibly convert anyone no matter how legitimate was the procedure.

How can he call Rabbi Lookstein and Weiss heretics? What does he really know about their theological views? He claims that Rabbi Lookstein issued Halachic decisions that contradict the Shulchan Aruch. Well, one can disagree with Rabbi Lookstein’s Halachic decisions. But that does not make him a heretic. Does Rabbi Sherman really believe that Rabbi Lookstein purposely perverted Halacha?

I cannot help but believe that this is all about rejecting Modern Orthodxy in all its incarnations. Perhaps he doesn't think one of Rabbi Lookstein’s more famous converts, Ivanka Trump Kushner, was sincere enough in her acceptance of the Mitzvos because of the way she dresses. I wonder, though, how many investigations he’s done on his own converts in this regard? My guess is - not many. Certainly not all. Using his yardstick - maybe all of his own conversions should be questioned.

Rabbi Sherman seems to be a maverick in the Israeli rabbinate. Rabbi Lookstein is a vice president of the RCA Beis Din which supervises conversions. RCA conversions have been accepted by the Israeli rabbinate for some time now. That he does not accept Rabbi Lookstein’s converts is indicative that he is a maverick.

Rabbi Sherman may think by rejecting rabbis whose Hashkafos he doesn’t like – he keeps the chain of Jewish lineage pure. But in my view what he is really doing is oppressing the convert - just because he doesn't like those that are Modern Orthodox.

If he is still a member of the Israeli rabbinate, he ought to be asked to resign. And he ought to never again be seen as any kind of authority on this matter. Nor on any other religious matter.

David Friedman, Donald Trump, and his daughter, Ivanka (Ha'artez)

During the campaign I thought that candidate Trump was an embarrassment to the nation that should in no way become the leader of the free world. That hasn’t changed. He still has a penchant for getting even with his detractors by calling them the worst names he can think of. Not very Presidential to say the least. I still feel he is an embarrassment to the country practically every time he opens his mouth.

More importantly, however, is the fact that he is still a loose cannon who will have his finger on the nuclear button. I am still apprehensive about it. That’s why I supported his opponent.

At the same time I conceded that his stated views (which I wasn’t convinced would end up as policy) were more in line with my own. In particular his views of Israel and the Jewish people. That was easy since his own daughter, his son-in-law, and two of his top lawyers are Orthodox Jews that are very pro Israel. These were the people he most trusted to advise him on what American policy toward Israel should be.

As I predicted, much of his pre-election rhetoric turned out to be just that: rhetoric that he knew would appeal to his base but would not be implemented . It got him elected. Now reality has settled in.

The one thing Trump seems to have meant, though, is his strong support for the State of Israel. That did not surprise me considering the above mentioned advisers.

Yesterday he announced that he will nominate David Friedman, one of those two Orthodox Jewish lawyers to be America’s ambassador to Israel. And that he will be operating out of Jerusalem, Israel’s eternal capital. Whether either of those things will happen remains to be seen.

Friedman still has to go through his senate confirmation hearings. But unless there are some serious skeletons in his closet, I don’t see a problem with that. Moving the embassy to Jerusalem is a bit trickier. The repercussion of such a move may have negative consequences for Israel and the US… or may not.

Nevertheless Trump has said he has every intention of fulfilling that promise and implementing congress’s decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. We’ll see. Not that this issue matters that much to me. But it’s nice to see the President-elect still saying it with such conviction. The symbolism of recognizing the obvious fact that Jerusalem is indeed the capital of Israel is by itself – quite wonderful.

According to an article in Ha’aretz Friedman is more right wing than Israel’s current prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. So much so that J-Street has vowed to fight the nomination with ‘everything they got!’ That fact alone speaks very highly of Mr. Friedman. I can think of no better endorsement than J-Street’s opposition . Not only does Friedman support settlement activity - he does not believe in a 2 state solution – preferring a bi-national one state solution instead. He feels the Palestinian population ‘time bomb’ that would eventually make them a majority over Jewish Israelis - is exaggerated.

I am very pleased at this development. This might make me seem like a real right wing hawk that endorses settlers even in places like Chevron or deep in the West Bank. They have the goal to populate all of biblical Israel with Jews and are actively doing so. Despite opposition by virtually every single nation including the US.

But if you’ve been reading this blog long enough, you’d know I am not some right wing hawk that supports those moves. I supported Oslo – and still would if its goals if a true peace that would end the violence and lead to peaceful and friendly relations with a New Palestinian. I was even supportive of giving up sovereignty over East Jerusalem as their capital – provided we had free and unfettered access to our holy places (like the Kotel).

So no… I am not a right winger. I still feel this way. I just don’t believe that goal is realistic or even possible. There has been too much indoctrination of hatred of Israel and the Jewish people in the Arab culture. Which now manifests itself in murderous terrorist violence all over the world by Islamic fundamentalists. Not the least of which is are Hamas and Hezbollah. Both of which are committed to Israel’s destruction at all cost. They will never accept ‘Oslo’ other than as an interim step towards Israel’s annihilation. At the moment, I support a military occupation of all of the West Bank - free of any settlers or settlement activity other than in border enclaves like Beitar and Maale Adumim.

So if I supported Oslo, why am I so happy with someone who is so right wing and very likely opposed everything Oslo stood for? What about all the problems a policy like Friedman’s would generate? What about Palestinian resistance to it in the form of yet another Intifada which would lead to even greater violence against innocent Israelis… and Jews all over the world? And possibly increased violence to Americans right here?

I have no clue what will happen if America’s policy towards Israel changes along Friedman’s lines. It has never been tried. Every administration since the founding of the state has had a fear of upsetting the Arabs by supporting Israel too much. Even the Reagan Administration listened to their state department’s warnings of dire consequences for – not only Israel – but for America. None of that has lead to peace. All we got is a world full of terrorism with the appeasement policies of the past

On the other hand, relations between many Arab nations and Israel have improved considerably under Netanyahu. We can thank Islamic fundamentalists for that. Those fanatics are a bigger danger to the Arabs states than they are to Israel. So even though they still nominally oppose settlement activity and support a 2 state solution - they are not all that ready to turn on the most powerful nation in the region whose capability to fight Islamists is greater than all of those nations combined. In other words the enemy of my enemy…

As a religious Jew I would like nothing better than to re-settle all of Israel and to have an undivided Jerusalem as our eternal capital. That I opposed all the right wing settlement activity is because I felt (and still feel as things stand now) that it wouldn’t work and just make things worse. Israel would lose whatever minimal support it gets from the nations of the world and it would harm its relationship with the US. Not to mention the violence that might ensue if history can be our teacher in this regard.

But as I said, the US has never had such a pro Israel administration as the one Trump is promising. It’s possible that a toughness that has never been tried might just work. Fundamentalism is on the rise. Netanyahu has improved relationship with Arab nations. Perhaps a vision that someone like Menachem Begin had would be a path towards peace. A one state solution that would set up autonomous Palestinian zones where they could govern themselves under an Israeli flag. With an Israeli government helping them to accomplish it.

Now it’s true that Palestinians have much pride and investment in the idea of a national homeland. And their hatred of Israel and Jews will not go away anytime soon. But they do not have any realistic hopes of creating a Palestinian state while Trump is President.

Maybe negotiation through strength with an America that backs you will work better than negotiation through the capitulations of the past. On the other hand, things may go south very quickly. We will have to see if any of this happens and where it will lead. But in lieu of the current unstable situation where everything on the left has been tried to solve the problem, maybe it’s time to try something on the right that has never been tried.

Who knows. But I guess we are about to find out if Trump is the best or worst thing to ever happen to the State of Israel since its founding.

Image from Ha'aretz

Every once in a while there is some good news to report. This was the sentiment of Rabbi Moshe Grylak in his Mishpacha editorial (of the same title) this week. I agree. He noted a phenomenon that I was not aware of at all. It appears that there are some successful secular Israelis - who Rabbi Grylak calls the ‘secular elite’ - that are becoming ‘closet’ observant Jews.

This phenomenon is not what has been described as an Israeli population the majority of whom are traditional but not fully observant. These are actually secular Jews that have gone from almost no observance to almost full observance. Including the sine qua non of religious Jews, Sabbath observance. I only wonder just how wide spread this phenomenon is? What are the actual numbers? Rabbi Grylak quotes a source that indicates that it is more widespread than it seems. Nonetheless the fact that it is happening on any scale is quite extraordinary, .

What makes this particular phenomenon unique is that they hide their observance. Which is one reason that the numbers are hard to gauge. In service of that - the one thing they will not do is wear a Kipa – the identifying mark of an observant Jew. As far as their public personae are concerned, they are as secular as they have always been. So much so that in one instance - an individual who became observant in this secretive way - put on teffilin every day in his closet for a full year – lest his family find out about his new found observance.

There are many questions that arise. The most obvious one being why successful people who ‘have it all’ have chosen to become observant? What happened to them to make them do that? Rabbi Grylak quoted one individual who seemed to be saying that he was looking for meaning in his life. And he found it in his own heritage. He somehow became convinced that the purpose of life is to serve His Creator.

How did they decide that becoming an observant Jew was the way to do that? Perhaps they surmised that as a Jew following the dictates of the Torah the way their ancestors did. They might recall memories or stories they heard from their parents about their grandparents observances and used that for a model.

Perhaps they look at the survival of our people. Is there a better indication of God’s providence than to look at our survival throughout the millennia? Despite being a small persecuted minority living among the nations? All while great once great civilizations are now a extinct – or a shadow of their former selves? Where is the mighty Rome, today? While there are many rational explanations that can be offered for their demise, what explanation can be given for our survival against all odds?

A bigger question in my mind is why are they hiding their new found observance? Rabbi Grylak answers that. They do not want to be associated with religious Jews. Why? Because they live in neighborhoods where religious Jews are not looked at favorably. They have established their lives, their family, and their friends there and don’t want to change or give up those friendships. Especially if they are the only ones in their families that have become observant. So they continue to maintain their secular lifestyles and friendships in public while at the same time maintaining their observance without showing it. They want to maintain their friendships and their basic lifestyles while at the same time being observant privately.

It is a sad commentary on the religious community that a newly observant Jew has to hide his observance because the secular world looks so unfavorably at us. At the same time it should not be a surprise that this is the case. Religious Jews in Israel have not endeared themselves to the secular public at all. There are just too many instances that our behavior has done the opposite and caused secular Jews to resent us. One does not have to look too far to see some examples of that.

Just to cite a few examples. There are the rock throwers in Meah Shearim, Or protesting a government decision to leave a a street in Jerusalem open on Shabbos. Or extremists that attack women who sit in the wrong section of a bus. Or incidents like the one where a little girl was called a whore because she did not live up to the more extreme modesty standards of people living nearby. Or the erasure of women from the public square. Or the extremist religious Zionist settlers that commit violence against the Palestinians on the West Bank. Or that 2 of the biggest murderers in Israel’s recent history were observant religious Zionist Jews. Or the fact that one of Religious Zionism's most prominent rabbis was convicted of sexually assaulting a male minor? And I’ve only scratched the surface.Who wants to be associated with people like this?! I wouldn’t.

That there is much Chesed in the religious world is drowned out by the extremists that ruin it for everyone else. Added to that is the apologetics one hears in some religious circles - while mildly condemning it. Not a way to win friends and influence people.

But it’s more than that. Even moderate religious Jews that would agree that the above mentioned examples are indeed very off-putting and strongly condemn them the way I do, do little to otherwise reach out to their secular neighbors and show them our good side. There is a degree of segregation between religious and secular Jews that perpetuates the above negative images. Which is the red meat mainstream media reportage. And who can blame them? They are true stories - and those kinds of stories sells newspapers.

There are sincere Jews who have found Judaism and follow Halacha not because of rote religious behavior many of us do - but because they believe it is the right way to live. And yet they refuse to be a part of us that live have lived that way all of our lives. This is not only a loss for them because they could learn a lot from us. It is a loss for us. We could learn a lot from them. They are inspiring role models whose sincerity is to be admired and should be emulated. Too bad it’s not like that. But it’s our own fault!

The 2 year old victim

The Chesed of the Orthodox Jewish world was once again evident recently in the form of responding to tragedy in Lakewood. Sadly a 2 year old boy was tragically killed by his aunt last week in when she accidentally backed her car into him in the family’s driveway. This happened right in front of his mother! My heart goes out to this family. I cannot imagine the kind of deep pain this has caused them.

The Orthodox Jewish community responded immediately. From JTA:

An Orthodox Jewish committeeman, Meir Lichtenstein, went to the hospital to comfort the family, the Asbury Park Press reported. He also arranged for Misaskim, an organization that assists in burials according to Jewish law, to clean the scene of the child’s death before the family returned home.

The Central Jersey township’s Orthodox Jewish mayor, Menashe Miller, arranged the establishment of a GoFundMe page to defray the costs of the funeral. The page reached and surpassed its goal of $7,500, with many of the donors local Orthodox Jews.

It is not a surprise that Orthodox Jews help each other in times of need. It is in our blood. Our Patriarch Abraham passed those genes on to his offspring, the Jewish people. This sense of helping people in need is evident by the multitude of Chesed organizations created and staffed by Orthodox Jews throughout the world. Perhaps the most prominent example of this being Satmar’s Bikur Cholim society whose mission statement is the following:

To help Jewish hospital patients heal by delivering wholesome home-made food to hospital rooms. SBC also provides food for family members, so they can spend the maximum time with their loved ones and not have to worry about food.

They do this for all Jews, regardless of whether they are observant or not.

But what if it isn’t a Jew that crosses our path in need of help? What if it’s a non Jew? Do we ignore them because they aren’t Jewish? Well if Lakewood is an example of what we should do, the answer is a resounding, no!

The family that suffered the above tragedy is not Jewish. They are Hispanic. And they were treated with the same compassion and care that Orthodox Jews are known for in their own communities. The Orthodox Jewish residents of Lakewood are not known for their wealth. But they are known for their charitable acts and generosity. As mentioned many of the donors to the GoFundMe page were local Orthodox Jews.

I think it is worth noting that a community that is so heavily criticized does have a good side. One which far surpasses the bad which is so constantly in the news. The fact is that the vast majority of Lakewood’s Jewish residents are good people. They do not have a mean bone in their body. And when they see someone suffering they rise to the occasion. Even if those suffering are not Jewish. Their sense of compassion is stirred in them.

And yet there is an unfortunate negative attitude about Orthodox Jews that is undeserved because of the few bad apples that end up making the most noise. The bad apples are the ones that make the news. The good deeds that are the normal every day stuff of a city like Lakewood is not newsworthy. That is the nature of the news. It is the abnormal that is reported. Not the normal. Which ends up painting the entire community with the same negative brush. Something which they clearly do not deserve.

The JTA article further notes:

The Jew in the City blog reported that before the details of the family were known, several anti-Semitic rants assuming the grieving family was Jewish appeared online, which were “trashing religious Jews for not watching their children.”

That is an undeserved stereotype which smacks of antisemitism. But aren’t there Jews – even those of us that are religious - who are guilty of stereotyping fellow Jews with our own biases? I am constantly being attacked for doing this by both the left and the right. Well, I’m human. Perhaps I do have biases that influence my writings. I truly try not to be biased - although I am not always sure I succeed. The unfair and mistaken rants by some individuals who are guilty of stereotyping based on broad brushstrokes - should be a lesson for all of us.

This is not to say there are problems that need to be dealt with in Lakewood some of which I have discussed in the past. But this is true in every community. We are all human beings. Most of us are good people but some of us aren’t. One must never judge a community, though, by its worst elements. Instead it is worthwhile to publicize a Kiddush HaShem like the above which is far more typical. Which I just did.

Lubavitchers that do outreach work - at a 2013 annual meeting

One may be tempted to feel a sense of triumphalism because of the thoughts expressed yesterday in a Forward article by Hebrew Union College Research Professor Steven M. Cohen. But I am not so eager to celebrate just yet. Professor Cohen has come to the conclusion that the American Jews of the future will all be Orthodox. At least that’s the way the title of his article first read. It has been changed. That’s probably because it is a bit of an exaggeration. But not by much if one reads the article.

This is not news to those of us that have seen the Pew Research statistics about the increase in the size of Orthodox Jewry versus the decrease in size of all other denominations – including unaffiliated Jews.

Although Pew is one of the most respected research organizations in the world some have challenged their research parameters. As have some of the conclusions drawn from their research. But even if their numbers are off - the direction non Orthodox Jews are going is clear. Heterodoxy has failed while Orthodoxy has succeeded.

For me that is strong evidence that it is Halacha that has kept us alive throughout the millennia. I don’t think this is arguable. While culture has always played a role in how Halacha developed or is practiced, it is beyond clear to me that following it is what kept us going – and will continue to keep us going into the future. And it doesn’t help heterodoxy that they have small families versus Orthodox Jews which have large families. While Orthodoxy too has an attrition rate – a truly big challenge we face internally, it is no where near the attrition rate of non Orthodox Jews abandoning their Judaism.

What it is about Halacha that perpetuates us? The obvious answer for those of us that are believers is that God promised us in the Bible that we would always exist as His nation. Never to be completely wiped out. That is the spiritual reason. But I believe one can see a more practical reason. Former British Chief Rabbi - Lord Jonathan Sacks has called it ‘The Dignity of Difference’. Which is the title of a book he wrote on the subject. It is our differences that have kept us unique and identifiable as an entity. Assimilation – if it is total is indeed a melting pot to the extent that it erases our identities. If Jews are the same as non Jews in every way, then belief alone will not not carry us into perpetuity. Our children may not have those beliefs. If we behave like everyone else – we become everyone else. If we walk like a duck…

Culture is not enough to keep us distinct. That’s because it changes over time and differs among different societies. Often cultural distinctions cease to be unique to us and are adopted by host cultures. For example Yiddish used to be exclusively the language of the Jewish people. Now one can find many Yiddish words in an English dictionary. And how many Yiddish speakers are there today anyway (except in isolated conclaves like Satmar)? While the incorporation of Jewish culture is great in terms of our acceptance - it is not something that keeps us unique. Only Halacha does that - as I have said countless times. That is ours and ours alone. It keeps us different, unique, and gives us dignity if we practice it the right way.

This was the mistake made by the Conservative movement. It was founded with the intent of conserving Judaism – as its name suggests. But it has failed in that mission. Some of their leading lights (like Rabbi Jack Wertheimer) have identified the real reason for its failure. Their leaders have by and large ignored the lack of Halachic practice in most of their members. They believed that coming to Shul on Shabbos was enough to keep them Jewish – even if they drove there. Clearly that hasn’t worked. And now they are scrambling to keep themselves relevant by turning to secular or traditional Israelis in the belief that their mission will succeed there. They believe – with some justification – that Israelis will never assimilate out in a Jewish state. Although I’m not sure how successful they will be even if they gain the official recognition from the State they are fighting for.

Perhaps there will be a remnant of non Orthodox Jews in the America in the future. But the handwriting is already on the wall. It won’t last any more than other non Halachic movements of Jewish history lasted. In some cases even Halachic movements like the Essenes died out because they were too far out of the mainstream.

All this may sound triumphalist. But it isn’t. I do not feel good about what’s happening here in America. Yes, I’m gratified that my beliefs are vindicated by a positive statistical outlook for the Orthodoxy of the future. But the fact that the vast majority of Jews here are not Orthodox or observant in any real way is very depressing. The numbers are staggering.

Conservative Judaism was not wrong in identifying the problem back in the melting pot era of its founding. They saw Judaism being challenged and they wanted to do something about it. They were just wrong in how they went about it. The question is, what do we do about it?

The obvious answer is outreach. In my view, in light of the dire circumstances cited by Professor Cohen we need a far more aggressive approach to reach out to our fellow Jews. Not aggressive in terms of force. But in terms of interactions with them. We are simply not doing enough. Orthodox Jews may feel satisfied living among themselves and leading their lives according to Halacha more or less oblivious to what is happening to non observant Jews. And even if they are aware of this problem they might say, ‘There’s nothing we can do about it anyway’. But that is absolutely false. Ask any Lubavitcher.

We can and should do things as individuals. Like making a public Kiddush Hashem in the way we behave. We should be role models if we are truly observant. We ought to go out of our way to be open, warm, and welcoming to all Jews regardless of their denominations. Never disparaging their movements or rabbis. Invite a fellow Jewish worker and his family over for a Shabbos meal. Let them see what keeping Shabbos is really like. Take pride in who you are as a religious Jew. Much can be done by each of us that isn’t being done now by most of us.

Organizationally Lubavitch is by far the most successful outreach group. But they can’t do it alone. Even if you factor in every single Jew that became a Baal Teshuva through their efforts, it is still a drop in the bucket compared to vast numbers of Jews leaving Judaism. If a 70% intermarriage rate among non Orhtodx Jews doesn’t send us this message, nothing will. And Lubavitch by far has the greatest numbers of Baalei Teshuva. Probably more than all other outreach groups combined.

I therefore suggest the following. All segments of Orthodoxy must come together in one singular cause. If there was ever a reason for unity this is it. It doesn’t matter whether one is Charedi, Chasidic, Lubavitch, Sephardi, Centrist, or left wing Modern Orthodox. The leaders of these groups ought to meet and unite in the singular cause of doing what the Conservative Movement tried to do – keeping Jews Jewish.

No stone should be left unturned. Instead of working at cross purposes and getting in each other’s way – outreach ought to be coordinated among all such groups. This ought to be the highest priority for us in light of the spiritual Holocaust that seems to be taking place. We need to put our differences aside and work towards the same goal of perpetuating Judaism for as many Jews as possible.

I would go one step further. I believe that many of our heterodox brethren truly care about keeping Jews Jewish – despite their failures of the past. I know many formerly Conservative Jews that became Orthodox with the full approval of their Conservative rabbis. Although those rabbis would have preferred that their people remain Conservative, they are far happier when they go right than when they go left - and out of Judaism altogether. I am also aware of Conservative rabbis feeding some of their teenage members to NCSY events. This is something that should certainly be explored and expanded upon in my view.

It is not an impossible dream. But it will take courage and determination by all involved. It is far more important to see a Jew following Halacha than it is to see him adopt a specific Hashkafa. In this regard, NCSY is a leader since their Baalei Teshuva can be found in all streams of Orthodoxy.

It is more than time for all Orthodox segments that feel their own way is the only – or even the best way - to rid themselves of that feeling and work towards reaching out to all Jews for one purpose: to return as many Jews as possible to the only form of Judaism that has proven to be legitimate: observant Judaism. And let the peripherals – like what kind of hat to wear - take care of themselves.

Machon Tal founder Adina Bar Shalom and her father, R' Ovadia Yosef, ZTL

The Charedi world in Israel is in turmoil right now. Their population is increasing as their per capita income is decreasing. The reason for that should be obvious even to the casual observer. The work ethic among Charedi men in Israel is practically non existent. At least as far as working for a living as a priority is concerned. That’s why Charedi women work.

That is one of the few ways that Charedi families in Israel can support themselves. The ‘working wife’ is very often the chief bread winner in the Charedi family. That is clearly not enough to support the large families that are so common among religious Jews. Especially since women generally make less pay for the same work done by men. So it is very understandable why this world is in such dire financial straits.

To say that they choose this way of life is a bit simplistic. True, it is a personal choice to live any lifestyle one chooses. This is no less true in the Charedi world. No one holds a gun to anyone’s head there to learn full time and not work. A family that chooses to sacrifice their material welfare in service to God may be something to admire. But are they really free to choose any lifestyle they want?

I think that too has an obvious answer. No they are not. The expected and accepted path in life a Charedi man takes (at least for those of the non Chasidic – Lithuanian type Yeshiva world) is to learn Torah full time for as long as possible. Long after marriage and family growth. And only much later does he go out and find a job that will make a better life for his family. And there is absolutely zero preparation for doing that up to that point.

So in theory they have a choice. But in reality Charedim in Israel are psychologically ‘forced’ to choose this lifestyle. In most cases they do so willingly because they are indoctrinated practically from birth to believe this is how God wants every Jew to live. And even for those that might realize they are not cut out for full time learning many years post marriage - do it anyway because they will at best be considered second class citizens if they don’t. And if they even express the slightest doubt about doing so before they are married – there go their Shidduch chances!

(Though there are often other factors, this paradigm is at least in part responsible for the increasing rate of young Charedim at risk, some of whom drop observance altogether. I am told that there is hardly a Charedi family that does not have at least one such person – or at least knows a family that does. But that is the subject of another discussion.)

I am not saying any of this as a pejorative. These are just the facts of life in the Charedi world in Israel.

Which brings me to a recent huge rally held in Jerusalem where Charedi leaders in Israel addressed issues of women’s education. The point of which seems to have been to discourage young women from attending college in order to get better paying jobs. Why are they opposed? Rabbi Natan Slifkin made the following observation in his own post on the subject:

Once a person steps out of the daled amos of the yeshivah or Beis Yaakov, they are exposed to all kinds of influences and ideas that run contrary to charedi and Torah values. I don't understand how there are people that deny this.

But as he also notes the Mishna in Avos which says : Im Ein Kemach, Ein Torah. This loosely translates as ‘if there is no livelihood, there is no Torah’. A Torah community cannot survive without an income. Working wives are a major source of that. Other sources may be needed as well but at most they supplement. They do rarely support. To paraphrase: If there are no working wives, there can be no Torah.

None of these leaders said that women should not work. Of course they should. They are now the breadwinners. They are now the ones that ‘work with the sweat of their brow’. That curse given to Adam is now the woman’s curse. To go along with the curse of birth pains Eve got. (Good deal for men, No? We don’t have to work - or suffer the pain of giving birth.)

Charedi leadership’s opposition to women attending to college was coupled with a blessing that the jobs they will get will without a college education will provide the livelihood they need. Ultimately God is responsible for Parnassah (livelihood). So women will be blessed for not attending these bastions of Kefira (heresy).

What about Charedi colleges like Machon Tal founded for Charedim by R’ Ovadia’s daughter, Adina bar Shalom? I have no clue why they are opposed to that. But they are. (Rabbi Slifkin notes that college is about to close for lack of enrollment.)

What has grabbed the attention of a lot of people is comment attributed to R’ Aharon Leib Steinman about this issue. He said that a Charedi college for women is like a pig wearing a Shtreimel (a Chasidic fur trimmed hat)! While that comment may have been impolitic, R’ Steinman is not one to care about political correctness. He speaks his mind without caring what other people think. All he was really saying is that a woman attending even a Charedi college is highly inappropriate. He should not be castigated for espousing his beliefs. No matter how much one may disagree with him – as I do. Why make this analogy? I guess he wanted it to have an impact. He succeeded.

Fortunately many Charedim have been ‘voting with their feet’ on this issue… and taking academic courses that do enable them to get better jobs. Whether this rally will change things remains to be seen. But a rally like this didn’t work to ban the internet. I don’t think it will work here either. Not in significant numbers. At least I hope not.

I can’t help but once again contrast what’s going on in Charedi Israel with what’s going on in Charedi America. The two worlds could not be farther apart. Attending college here – even for men is not seen as too big of a deal as long as it is done for Parnassah reasons. Witness the increasing numbers of Charedi professionals. You will not see anything like this in Charedi Israel.

And yet there is a push in Charedi America to emulate the Israeli model. Which is why there is decreasing emphasis in secular education in almost all Charedi Yehsiva high schools here. Some of which do not offer any secular studies.

Is this really the direction in which Charedim here should be going? What will the future of both communities be? Will Israeli influences increase here? Will there continue to be an increase in Charedi professionals? And how long will Charedi Israel survive as the population increases while Parnassah opportunities decrease? Who knows?

The New and Improved Moderate Agudah?

Justice, Justice You Shall Pursue

Are School Vouchers on the Horizon?

It’s Mad Dog!

Gadol Cards - a Bad Idea

A Chasidic Rebbe’s Approach to the Internet

It’s What He Didn’t Say

Yosef Mizrachi Must be Stopped

Is this what 2040 will look like?

The ‘Guise of Saving Lives’?!

We Owe it to Our Children

A Bad Idea – The Proposed Kotel Law

Will Chareidim Advocate for the Security of Israel?

Modesty, Culture, and Dress Codes

Rabbi Sherman Must Go!

Will Trump be Good or Bad for Israel?

The Invisible Kipa

A Tragedy Turns into a Kiddush Hashem

Will All of American Jewry Eventually be Orthodox?

A Pig in a Shtreimal?