Emes Ve-Emunah

I have supported strong restrictions on allowing Syrian refugees into this country. As have many governors including my own, Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner. Even though it is heart wrenching to watch what’s happening to innocent civilians in Syria, at the same time it is no secret that terrorist attacks have been perpetrated in some European countries by a terrorists disguised as a refugees entering those countries. Germany being the most recent example of that.

Those countries that have opened the flood gates to these refugees have paid a price. One that I don’t think America should pay. All it takes is one. I know there are a lot of well meaning people that will disagree with me and say that the fear of terrorism should not prevent us from our humanitarian mandate as a ‘Medinah Shel Chesed’ - the country of kindness. I understand that. But the first manifestation of Chesed belongs at home. This is reflected by the Talmudic dictum ‘Chayecha Kodmon’. Protecting America which is home to the largest population of Jews in the world (with the possible exception of Israel) comes first.

It is in light of this, Executive Editor JUF news, Cindy Sher, reported about something quite remarkable in the latest issue of that magazine.

Israel’s proximity to Syria has caused a dilemma for both Syrians and Israelis. Because Syrians, like most other Arabs in that region have been taught to see Israel as the devil. And yet they are in more need of Israel’s help than ever.

70% of the Syrian medical community has fled the country. Meanwhile the carnage continues and many Syrians have been left behind to suffer the consequences of war. Which brings me to 6 year old Shaheed and 4 year old Inas, Syrian children that were severely injured when a tank destroyed their home. With no where to turn, their mother who was urged by her neighbors to take her daughters 'West' - meaning across the border to Israel - bit the bullet and did so. She took them to the devil.

Once there she found a field hospital that took her daughters in and treated them. They were nursed back to health. Needless to say, her views about Israel being the devil have changed. Her daughters were given the same care any Israeli is given. She now hopes for the day when she can return to her home in Syria and invite Israelis into her home in complete friendship.

This Syrian family is not the only one being treated by this hospital. They began treating Syrians back in 2013 when the first wave of 7 refugees arrived at the Israeli border – pleading for help! Israel had a choice to make. Should they close the borders to a country that has been an implacable enemy for decades? …whose citizens are taught to hate you?

No way. They were directed to the nearest facility to the Syrian border in Tzfas (19 miles from the Syrian border) and treated there.

The Jewish people are nothing if not known for their compassion to those suffering around the world. It is after all Israel that are among the first nations to send medical help to countries that have suffered devastation at the hands of nature – no matter how far around the world they had to travel. This is rarely reported upon by the media. But it is a fact nonetheless. This compassion is no less true even to when it involves people that might ordinarily hate or fear you as did this Syrian mother.

To date, reports Ms. Sher, that hospital in Tzfas has treated 640 Syrian patient refugees including delivering 19 babies! This is now happening on a daily basis.

I only wish that this could be the beginning of a change in attitude by the Arab world toward the Jewish peope as represented by the State of Israel. While it is true that Israel’s stature has improved in they eyes of some Arab countries by dint of a common foe (Islamic terrorism) we have a long way to go to eliminate the kind of indoctrination that Syrian mother had. While stories like this are encouraging, they do not seem to be able to overcome the hatred against Israel that is so prevalent in the Arab world. Even the common foe of fundamentalism has not moved them to change their approach and forbid any further teaching of such hatred in their society.

I wish I could say I am hopeful that what happened on the border between Syria and Israel will change some hearts and minds. But alas, I just don’t see that happening.

It’s been quite a ride so far. The upcoming inauguration for President has fostered the most divisive partisan debate in my memory. Considering that my memory includes the Viet Nam War, that is saying lot.

This is not to say that I don’t have issues with the results of the election. As I’ve made clear numerous times, I do. I was just as upset as more than half of America was when it because clear that Donald Trump was going to be our next President.

I’ve since calmed down and realized that what we saw is not necessarily what we are going to get. Most of his outrageous rhetoric about how he was going to make America great again will not happen. (Surely not to the extent of his ridiculous exaggerations.)

But my fears are not entirely allayed. I am actually quite nervous about January 20^thand am still in shock at how it is possible for a man who lacks the dignity required by an office as high as this to be elected to it.

It’s not like he was keeping it secret. His lack of dignity was apparent during the entire campaign. And yet the same America that elected Barak Obama elected Donald Trump. The difference is of course in the swing votes and the lack of turnout for Clinton by constituencies that came out for Obama. And Trump’s appeal to the American worker that lost his job.

One cannot lose sight of the fact that nearly half of America voted for this erratic man instead of a seasoned politician far more prepared, knowledgeable, and respectful of the office than Trump. It is overly simplistic to say that nearly half of the voting public is ignorant and stupid. It is simply not true and insulting to the people of this great nation.

My feelings about Trump as an embarrassment to this nation have not changed. Every time he opens his mouth, I cringe. Simply put - this is not the way a President should act. And I don’t think anything will change in a few days after the word ‘elect’ is removed from his current title.

That he is incompetent to be President should not be such a surprise since he never served in any government office. His interests and expertise lay in business and making lots of money. That is no way to prepare for leading the most powerful nation on earth.

That said, I do not think his Presidency will be as bad as all of this might indicate. Certainly his policies with respect to Israel are far more supportive of that nation and its current leader than the last one. Or even the one before that. That is borne out by his choices for people that will be involved with Israel. In my view, that is a good thing despite a lot of angst about it from the left - both here and in Israel. How this will pan out in policy remains to be seen. But I doubt - for example - there will be another abstention by the US in the UN on mostly one sided resolutions that condemn Israel on Trump’s watch.

What about all of his other policies? If there was ever any question about what a President’s policies would actually be before he took office, this is it. Just today he surprised many people by saying that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) he so vehemently opposed – calling it disastrous - will be replaced with a new health care act that will provide health care coverage to every single American. This sounds almost Clintonesque (Hillary Clinton promised to do exactly the same thing as First Lady early in her husband’s term - and failed big time).

So why am I not so worried? I actually addressed this question early in the campaign when I speculated that he might actually win. Ironically it is his lack of knowledge and expertise that encourages me. I am pretty sure that Trump knows how unprepared and lacking he is. Which means he is going to rely heavily on the people he has chosen to advise him. Most of whom do have some expertise in the areas they are being asked to serve. That he has chosen people with the same political perspective he has - should not surprise anyone.

A liberal President will choose liberal advisers. A conservative President will choose conservative ones. Trump has chosen people that more or less align with his views. It should not be a surprise therefore that he has chosen people favorable to business and deregulation as his economic advisers. Trump will listen to their advice and govern accordingly.

It also seems pretty clear that his attitudes on social issues are more or less mainstream conservative. But despite that his choice for Attorney General has said that he will follow all settled law on this issue. Which means that the guaranteed pro choice right to abortions settled by the Supreme Court decision on Roe-V-Wade is safe. Despite his own convictions against it. As he will in any other issue that comes before him that has been settled by the Supreme Court.

Which brings me to all of the public boycotting of his inauguration. It is as though his Presidency was still unsettled. It is more than obvious to me that this is being driven by the left. The left refuses to let go of their hatred of this man. It isn’t about all of those issues I mentioned. It about the fear that their leftist agenda will be changed into a right wing agenda. That fear may be justified. But it is based on the same fear they have when any conservative President takes office.

The reaction to it is unprecedented. Civil Rights Icon, Congressmen John Lewis has said he will boycott the inauguration – calling Trump’s Presidency illegitimate. Hollywood (which is filled with leftists) has made sure that few if any entertainers will perform at the inaugural. Rabbis have been intimated about their participation in it. (Although I didn’t see anyone protesting Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York for participating in it.)

In my view. The left is just taking advantage of the public angst over Trump as an opportunity to vent their rage at his Conservative policies more stridently than ever.

For me the most outrageous protest of is the one being held on Shabbos by Jewish feminists. For a group identifying themselves as Jews to protest an incoming President on Shabbos when there is no imminent danger to uproot any of the government’s policies favorable to them shows how shallow their fealty to Judaism is.

Let them protest. Free country. But there is nothing Jewish about it. No lives are at stake here. This isn’t the like the Holocaust era when a group of 100 Orthodox rabbis felt the need to protest on Shabbos. These are just people who fear losing their grip on the social fabric of this country.

I support Roe-V-Wade. I am pro choice. But I cannot be happier that the pendulum is swinging back to the center now. For me that is the best possible outcome of this election. If there was ever a time when lemonade could be made out of a lemon, this might be it.

One of the more disappointing things I have experienced of late is the inability of far too many people of my own people (i.e. Orthodox Jews) to see ‘the other side’. It is almost as if they have a blind spot to it. Refusing to acknowledge even the possibility that a point of view different from their own has even the slightest validity.

This is certainly true in the realm of religiosity. The more right wing one is, the more likely they will be to reject anyone to their left. This is also true in reverse. The more left wing one is, the more likely they will be to reject anyone to their right. I have always taken a middle course. This should be no surprise about a Centrist like me. I look to my right and my left and as long as we leave out the extremes at both ends I see legitimate points of view even as I don’t believe them to be the ideal.

I have always been able to do that. To look at views that are different than my own and recognize the validity of many of the points they make. As it applies to political views, the same thing is true. I can see both the left and the right and not call either of them evil. I try and assess the values each side will bring to the table without my own prejudice interfering.

Unfortunately of late - I do not see enough of that among far too many of my own Orthodox community that tend to be politically conservative. Nor do I see it among non Orthodox that tend to be liberal left Jews (…many of whom have adopted the term progressive instead of liberal left. I guess a word that implies progress sounds better to them. Although I reject the notion that being liberal is necessarily indicative of progress.)

'And a new king arose' - quote from this week's Parsha - Indeed!

This has become ever more apparent during and since the last Presidential election. I was actually shocked at how many of my friends from across the Orthodox Hashkafic spectrum supported Donald Trump. It seemed so irrational to me. Just like their hatred of the current President.

A poll taken after the election substantiated what I knew intuitively. The votes cast in Orthodox Jewish sections of Chicago and New York – 2 states that Mrs. Clinton won handily - showed that an overwhelming majority of Orthodox Jews voted for Donald Trump!

The explanation of this kind of support for a man whose speech and general manner is anathema to Jewish values would be puzzling if not for the fact that his opponent was so hated by them. Perhaps they saw Mrs. Clinton as an extension of Obama. That would explain the vote somewhat. But I don’t see how a man that is such an embarrassment to this country and even more so to Orthodox Jews - could garner so many Orthodox Jewish votes.

What is it exactly that makes their hate for Obama and Clinton so visceral; so extreme that they are willing to support the most embarrassing and unqualified candidate for President in American history? When I asked some of my Trump supporting friends that question, the response was almost incoherent in its level of hatred for these two. The usual explanations about the lack of support for Israel, or the lack of values observant Jews seek in a candidate - did not match their hatred toward them. When I pointed out some of the obvious embarrassing things Trump had said – they seemed to just shrug them off with the claim that it was just too important to keep Mrs. Clinton out of office looking only at her failings and ignoring Trump’s.

I never quite understood that kind of hatred… and still don’t. But it’s there in spades. Furthermore I don’t think any of those who voted for Trump regret it – even as Mr. Trump seems to be digging himself into an even deeper and more embarrassing hole on a daily basis than I would have ever imagined - just by his daily tweets.

He managed to get the entire world upset with his comments of late – including some pretty high profile conservative public servants that should have been his natural allies. Both in domestic and foreign policy. We are just 3 days away from Trump taking over the reins of government! And still no regrets about electing him. Only relief that Obama will soon be history and that his natural successor, Hillary Clinton, won’t be taking his place.

They might argue that their vote was justified after all - now that Obama has ‘shown his true colors’ as anti Israel by allowing the UN to condemn Israel. A policy they can say with some justification would be continued by Clinton (although that is far from certain). But this was not the case when they voted overwhelmingly for Trump.

There is no reasoning with my fellow Orthodox Jewish Trump voters. Their hatred for Obama is so irrational, they refuse to acknowledge even the remotest possibility that he might actually not be anti Israel at all. Even after the allowing the UN to condemn it. They are in a complete state of denial about anything he ever did for the Jewish State.

No one was more upset than I was at Obama for allowing a one sided condemnation to pass at the UN. He was wrong. In my eyes this has done more harm than good. But at the same time, I am absolutely convinced that he believes what he did was in the best interests of both Israel and the United States. He believes that Israel needs to be nudged a little more forcibly than it has in the past about giving up settlement construction. That he has also specifically said that settlements are not the only impediment - is ignored. Obama knows and has said that Israel deserves to have security before any peace treaty can be executed. And that is on the Palestinians. It’s just too bad that he didn’t follow his own past precedent of vetoing one-sided UN condemnations that didn’t address that issue.

That he was so clearly wrong on this does not negate what he has been so clearly right about. He actually did something about Israeli security. He has given Israel more financial, intelligence, military, and defense aid than any other President in history. But it doesn’t seem to matter to the Obama haters. He is not given an iota of credit for that. He is seen only as anti Israel.

There are other issues that they have with the outgoing President. Many of which I agree. I do not accept his views on a variety of social issues. Just to name one, his support of gay marriage. Nor do I accept many of his foreign policy decisions. Like allowing Syria’s Assad to cross his own red line with respect to using chemical weapons!

Mrs. Clinton is in the same category with respect to many of those issues. Especially the social ones. So it might be understandable that Orthodox Jews would vote for an individual whose policies on social issues reflect more of their own. And Trump has certainly said the right things along those lines. His stated views on things like abortion more closely align with the Pro-Life position that most Orthodox Jews favor. The problem is that his behavior and gutter like comments – especially those spoken in unguarded moments - are the exact opposite of those values.

It is as if all the Orthodox Trump voters have closed their eyes and ears to what he has said and done and only heard him mouth conservative values. Are they still so sure that what he says he will do in these areas, he will actually do? I’m not, much as I would like them to be in those areas where it would match my religious views.

It is because of all these issues taken into account that I voted for Mrs. Clinton. I do not see things in as black and white terms that so many of my coreligionists of the Orthodox persuasion do. Obama is not all bad. Clinton is not all bad. And even though I voted against him, Trump is not all bad either. There seems to be an inability of the Trump haters to acknowledge that too. So visceral is their hatred for this man that even his accomplishments are spun in negative ways. Trump can do no good in their eyes. I guess objectivity is a thing of the past.

Of the three, Trump worries me the most. He is going to be the next President and it seems that my Orthodox friends who voted for him - and seem to still support him are quite happy about that. I just don’t get it.

Scene from the JOFA conference last Sunday (Jewish Week)

I’m told that back in the late 70s Ner Israel Rosh Yeshiva, Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg once commented that the biggest danger to Judaism in our time was feminism. I remember thinking that surely there other more pressing problems we faced than a movement to give equal rights to women. Something that I supported and something that has borne much positive fruit. I thought, ‘What could possibly be wrong with the ideal of equality of the sexes?’

Well I still feel that way in most cases. But clearly Rabbi Weinberg was right. I have also been told that Rabbi Weinberg felt that way because it was a much more difficult task to convince people seeking equality that Judaism is one area where it could not be universally applied. That has proven to be the case.

What was once a movement to give women equal pay for equal work and equal dignity with men, has in the case of JOFA (Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance) turned into a movement to change the face of Judaism into something unrecognizable. We are way past equal pay for equal work as feminism originally stated purpose. Even though we still have a long way to go in that department. We are also way past the idea of treating each other with equal dignity.

The agenda being set now may have begun with Rabbi Avi Weiss’s innovation of ordaining women for the rabbinate. That has picked up steam in the form of Yeshivat Maharat, a rabbinical school for women. More recently Rabbi Shlomo Riskin has done the same - celebrating the ordination of two women. He is now suggesting that women be considered for positions as religious court judges!

I refer you to an article in the Jewish Week about a recent JOFA conference. If one reads the issues addressed at this conference one would be hard pressed to find any real Jewish content. Had this conference been held by Christians or even secular humanists for that matter, it would have sounded the same. While it might be true that a lot of the rhetoric there might have included phrases like ‘Judaism aligns with…’ or ‘It is a tenet of Judaism that…’ you could probably substitute the name of any other movement for the word Judaism and say the same things. That all or most of the attendees were observant Jews does not make this a Jewish event anymore that a group of Orthodox Jews attending a conference on climate change. Climate change is a concern for all of us. But it is not a particularly Jewish agenda item.

This is not to say that Judaism does not address the issues raised. Of course it does. Judaism has something to say about all human endeavors. But that was not what JOFA seemed to be saying about these issues. The speakers addressing them had already decided on the validity of their own ‘Progressive’ approach to all the issues raised. An approach virtually identical to the prevailing view of ‘Progressives’. There was nothing in that article about objective rabbinic opinion. No mention about the possibility that their views might have some rabbinic detractors. No religious authority of any stature was cited in the 2 articles I read. JOFA speakers just assumed their ‘Progressive’ approach was the correct approach.

Now I am not saying that the ‘Progressive’ view is wrong in every way. There may be some ‘Progressive’ approaches that are supported by Halacha. But JOFA apparently didn’t bother finding out. If they did - that information is missing from both articles.

But even if they did seek rabbinic guidance - I have to believe that they sought it from ‘Progressive’ rabbis that are not of sufficient stature. And whose views are hardly objective. I am reminded of Rabbi Asher Lopatin’s endorsement of gay marriage by using Torah passage in Bereishis (2:18) of ‘Lo Tov Hayos HaAdam Levado’ (It is not good for man to live alone). This is a tortured explanation of those words if I ever heard one! A Torah is clearly talking about a man and a woman – Adam and Eve.

This is not to say that there were not some legitimate items on their agenda. Like the plight of the Agunah. Or the recent practice in more right wing circles of erasing women from the public square. Unfortunately there are even some mainstream right wing periodicals that have decided to move in that direction by never publishing a picture of a woman in order to satisfy some of their readers that have more extreme views on the subject. And as you go further to the right, this kind of thing becomes more egregious to the point of endangering the health of women. Like never publishing the word ‘breast’ even in an article discussing breast cancer. Or in removing the word ‘woman’ on a sign in Bet Shemesh indicating that a building was a woman’s health clinic!

If this was what JOFA was about, I’d become a member. But these issues seem to be relatively minor compared to the more important goal of breaking as many glass ceilings as possible – and eliminating any but the most basic physical differences between a man and a woman. No matter what obstacle gets in their way. This is not Judaism. This is militant feminism.

What about a statement attributed to JOFA founder Blu Greenberg which says, ‘If there is a rabbinic will, there is a Halachic way’? That simply is not true. A rabbi cannot change Halacha, not matter who much of a rabbinic will there is to do that.

JOFA will claim that this is meant to apply in areas where there is no clear prohibition against such a ‘will’. Perhaps. But if that means changing the entire character of Judaism into something unrecognizable, is it worth doing just because you want to be equal to men in all things? Is it justifiable to advocate the kinds of things whose legitimacy has been rejected by all the major Poskim of our generation? Is wanting something badly enough worth breaking with tradition and thereby causing yet another rift if Judaism? Are hundreds of years of traditional Judaism to be tossed out at the behest of modern day feminism just so that a religious glass ceiling can be broken?

There are many that will answer yes to these questions. The freedom of personal choice – they will say - trumps everything! They are happy to be part of a movement where “Feminism, and particularly Orthodox feminism, is being used as a lens to view everything…” They have the right to see it that way. But the consequences of blindly following this path need to be considered.The following excerpt from the Jewish Week illustrates what Judaism might look like if we view everything through that lens:

Avigayil Halpern, a 20-year-old college sophomore at Yale University and a panelist at the conference, said that though her roots are in Orthodox feminism, she now identifies as “halachic egalitarian.” Halpern attended Orthodox day schools through high school and discovered a “passion for Talmud” in an all-girls Talmud class during her freshman year. Today, the Judaic studies major and West Hartford, Conn., native puts on tefillin, the ritual prayer boxes traditionally worn by Orthodox men, and wears tzitzit, the ritual traditionally-male worn garment.

This was clearly not the Judaism of the past. Nor is it the Judaism of the future. JOFA members and supporters of their cause are welcome to do as they choose. But please don’t call it Orthodox feminism. Because all it really is - is feminism!

Marc Mezvinsky and Chelsea Clinton

One of the current by-products associated with leaving observance (going OTD) is intermarriage. This should not come as too much of a surprise. Once a Jew abandons Halacha, there is really no reason not to marry out.

Historically parents of a child that wants to marry out have been traumatized by it, even if they were not themselves observant. It was as if the desire by Jewish parents for their children to marry within the faith was their DNA. No Jewish parent, no matter how removed they were from observant Judaism approved of a child doing that. I know a few non observant Jewish parents like that. They did not raise their children with much of a Jewish identity and yet were in virtual fear that the non Jew their child was dating might end up in a marriage.

Unfortunately this reaction seems to have become more of an exception that a rule. There is certainly more tolerance about it these days – if not full acceptance.

While this may be true to Jews as a whole, with respect to Orthodoxy there is still no tolerance of it. No Orthodox Jew would ever accept a non Jewish spouse for their child. The Torah clearly forbids intermarriage. That’s a game ender as far as intermarriage is concerned.

Unfortunately it seems like there has been an increase of intermarriage in Orthodoxy these days. While I have no statistical evidence of it, my guess is that it probably matches the increase of young people going OTD.

A Modern Orthodox parent who identifies himself a Ruvie has written a very thoughtful article about his own experiences along these lines. One of his children went OTD and eventually married a non Jew. Ruvie attempts explain the reasons for the increase in this phenomenon. He lists and describes a number of very plausible explanations.

It is interesting that he speaks only of the Modern Orthodox world. I am sure this happens in the Charedi world too. But I am pretty convinced that the forces acting upon the Modern Orthodox world that might push a young person this direction are not as prevalent in the Charedi community. Which makes it reasonable to conclude that it happens more in the modern Orthodox world.

If I had to sum up his reasons for the greater incidence there I would say it is our greater acceptance as Jews in this country. It is at a point where Judaism has become the most admired religion in America. To illustrate this one need look no further than by the very high profile intermarriage of Chelsea Clinton to Marc Mezvinsky that the entire country seemed to celebrate. This kind of acceptance has fostered unprecedented assimilation. The forces of which can at times overcome even committed Jews raised in normal functional Orthodox homes. When society warms up to us, we warm up to them. Its only natural.

When a young person leaves an environment that constantly reinforces their religious practices and finds himself in a world filled with people who do not look at religion at all for any guidance – it should be no surprise that the continued positive reinforcement of that new environment which is not guided by Judaism will take its toll. In some cases even in a family where one’s commitment to the Torah and the transmission of it’s values are deep. Being immersed in a culture void of any religious Jewish content can eventually lead a young person to believe that they found their match in the person they met without regard to their religion.

This is especially true in a college where one’s religious beliefs are often challenged by the professors they encounter or the material they are required to study for a particular course. Add to that the draw of the anti establishment and hedonistic lifestyle one finds on college campuses and you have the perfect storm for an intermarriage. If one contrasts these modern Orhtodx experiences with those of their Charedi counterparts it is understandable why this phenomenon seems to occur more in Modern Orthodox circles.

That being said, I realize that there are many reasons why someone will go OTD and then possibly intermarry. Even for those that never leave their religious environment. But there is no a doubt in my mind that the circumstances I just described contribute highly to intermarriage in the Modern Orthodox world whereas these circumstances hardly exists at all in the Charedi world.

Whatever the reason the fact that it happens more frequently these days begs for a response. What does a parent do, asks Ruvie, when it happens to them? Remember we are talking about normal functional observant families where the parents did all the right things. They follow Halacha and send their children to day schools and Yeshiva high schools. They even sent their children to study in Yeshivos or seminaries in Israel post highs school. When a child from a family like this ends up marrying a non Jew what do they do? Do they accept it? Reject it? Sit Shiva? What is the best way to handle this if it happens to you?

The traditional response had always been cutting yourself off from that child. That may still be the response in more right wing circles. In my view, however, one should never give up hope that a child will be convinced to return to his roots even after they marry out. There is always the possibility that the non Jewish spouse will convert in a serious way according to Halalcha and re-marry your child according to Halacha. And if there are children, they too can convert.

The question still remains, what to do at the outset? One thing you should not do is sit Shiva. R’ Aharon Licthtenstein was quoted by Ruvie on the subject of what a parent should do about a child that goes OTD:

“The days of sitting shiva for those that leave are long over – it is a failed policy.” He believed the door must remain open with a willingness for conversation.

I believe the same thing is true for intermarried child. Only it’s a much more complicated and tougher situation to deal with since there is another human being to consider beside your child: the non Jewish spouse.

Certainly you cannot possibly condone it. Nor should you participate in any kind of marriage ceremony to a non Jew. I realize that is asking a lot. There are good people that are strongly committed to their Judaism and yet will participate. Even if only to show that they value their child’s happiness above all - as any good parent would. I completely understand it and am certainly not in a position to judge. Nor should anyone else. I am speaking in the ideal.

Not attending the intermarriage of a child does not mean you no longer love them. That love can be shown after the marriage in a variety of ways. In my view one should never give up on their children. Even if it seems like they will never return to observance and stay intermarried. You never know.

Marriage and contemplating parenthood matures people and they start thinking about the values they want to teach their children. In the case of a formerly observant Jew that was taught the values of the Torah - this can begin a process that will bring them back. In the case of Ruvie, his son started caring about Halacha again despite his intermarriage. From the article:

Prior to the wedding my son requested me to affix a mezuzah on his apartment door (he had rejected my offer when he originally moved in to his apartment).Post wedding my son texted my wife asking where he can tovel his new dishes.

This topic has yet to be addressed in any meaningful way. That’s probably because intermarriage was so taboo, it was relatively rare. But now that it has become more common, we have to find ways that can satisfy Halacha without sacrificing your children.

It takes a lot of courage for the parent of an intermarried child to talk about it so frankly. So profound thanks is due to Ruvie for being among the first to bring it up.

Just a little over 8 years ago, I publicly offered my congratulations to President-elect, Barack Obama. This was just after he won the election in November of 2008. It was a seminal moment in our history – being the first time an African American was elected to this high office. Even though I did not vote for him at the time, I was reminded why I was so proud to be an American.

We can all debate President Obama’s legacy. Depending upon one’s particular political perspective, he will be considered a success or a failure. But one thing I think any fair minded person will say about him is that - agree or disagree - he fulfilled his responsibilities with the dignity that this high office deserves.

Today we inaugurate a new President. Donald J. Trump will be the 45^th President of the United States. This day is one of the things about this country that is truly great. We are witnessing the peaceful transition of power. We the people of the United States have done the same thing today that we did 8 years ago. We voted for an elected the man that will lead us. Just as we did 8 years ago. We are now witnessing the passing of the baton. Despite how some people feel about him, Donald J. Trump will be everybody's President. I therefore congratulate him and wish him success in achieving his goal of ‘making America great again’.

Unlike the last inauguration where my concerns were about a President taking office whose political philosophy was different than my own. This inauguration has different concerns. Just as President Obama’s election was a first, so too is President Trump’s election.

What concerns me here is something that did not concern me then. President Trump’s political philosophy (at least presumably) is much closer to my own. Whether that will translate into policies that reflect that philosophy remains to be seen. I do however trust that as a novice to political office he will rely heavily on his advisers that do have experience. Most of whom have more or less the same political philosophy that President Trump has. At least in most cases.

What concerns me most is The new President’s lack of dignity. His approach to making his opinions known to the public has been through Twitter. And many if not most of the more quoted tweets have been knee jerk ‘putdowns’ of people that have criticized him to one extent or another. This is not how I imagined the man that occupies the Oval Office should be acting.

To say that the new President lacks dignity is an understatement. The mere fact that I am saying this is something I could have never imagined saying. How is it possible that a man who is best known for uttering the words ‘You’re Fired!’ is now the President of the United States? Had anyone asked me whether the host of this reality show would ever become President, I would have laughed my head off. I’m not laughing now.

My hope still is that the President will rise to the occasion… that he will somehow find a way to be more dignified. Based on what past Presidents have said, the job is nothing like anyone imagines it is… even if those imagining it are experienced politicians that have held high office. As such it humbles you once you are in and realize it. If anyone needs a little humbling, it is the new President. I hope he rises to the occasion. Even though he said he will continue to ‘tweet’. My hope is that as President he will stop doing things like that (especially in the way he does it) and thereby continue the tradition of dignity that past President have given it. I am quite aware of the skeptics who doubt things will change. That is a very real possibility based on the fact that he promised to continue. But until now he was just a private citizen. Now he is the leader of the free world with all the responsibilities that entails. Maybe even Donald trump will be humbled by that.

But today is not a day to worry about that. Today we celebrate the peaceful transition of power. Like him or not. President Trump should be allowed to start his Presidency with a clean slate. Forget about what he said (or even what he will say). Let’s start looking at what he will do.

There was some people so upset by Mr. Trump that they will deny him his moment. They have been protesting and will continue to protest him based on his awful rhetoric of the past. And in some cases protests are about simply protesting his politically conservative agenda. They have rejected the President as anathema to their values.

They have that right of course. Their feelings are understandable. I too have felt that way about his speech and his behavior. But their protest is ill timed and premature. Now is the time to give Donald J. Trump his moment. Which he has earned. Instead of protesting now we should all be offering a prayer on his behalf. If there was ever a time we need to pray for the success of a President, this is it. Here is my prayer:

May God grant Donald Trump the wisdom to lead this country wisely. May he work to realize this nation’s great potential. May he be successful in achieving peace and prosperity for this nation and the world. May he not only make this country great again, but to assure its continuity as the greatest democracy the world has ever known. God bless the United States of America.

Muslim Congressman, Keith Ellison

One of the complaints I kept hearing about Prime Minister Netanyahu’s address to congress last year was that he was eroding bi-partisan support for Israel.

It’s true that support had been bi-partisan for many years. It is also true that Netanyahu’s address angered a lot of Democrats. Some of whom boycotted that address. Including my own Jewish congresswoman, Jan Schakowsky.

One may recall that the address was about the deal with Iran that former President Obama orchestrated. It delayed Iran from producing nuclear weapons for 10 years. Netanyahu believed it was a bad deal – paving the way for Iran to get a nuclear bomb in 10 years; removed the crippling sanctions on Iran; and released tens of billions of dollars to them - much of which was no doubt used to spread terrorism.

I believe Netanyahu was right. And so did most of congress, including some Democrats. Most Democrats however supported the deal. Reasonable people can disagree. But the Republican led congress wanted to hear from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a man they have tremendous respect for and whose interest in this issue was existential, He accepted an their invitation and spoke to thunderous applause incuding several standing ovations.

I don’t really think Netanyahu can be faulted for that, depsite protestations by Democrats to the contrary. They felt that it was an insult to do the ‘end run’ around the President in order to fight him on this issue. This is when I started hearing talk about the erosion of bi-partisan support for Israel.

A recent poll has shown that this is indeed happening. From the Jerusalem Post:

The difference between the proportion of Republicans and Democrats who sympathize with Israel over the Palestinians is the largest it has been in surveys dating to 1978, according to a new report.

While 74% of Republicans sympathize more with Israel than the Palestinians, the number is 33% for Democrats, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted Jan. 4-9 and published Thursday.

Those are astonishing numbers! The question is why? Why are Democrats ‘jumping ship’? Why the spike in Republican support? What has changed to make that happen? Can it be traced back to Netanyahu’s address to congress? Well, partially, yes. Perhaps some of it can be. But it didn’t start with that. Nor did it even start with the first time the Prime Minister and the ex-President met, where Netanyahu was seen embarrassing the President by publicly lecturing him on the realities of the Israeli-Palestinians conflict. While that too contributed, that isn’t the real reason either.

What it boils down to in my view is how the liberal left views things versus how conservatives do.

At this point I want to be clear where I am coming from. I am neither a liberal nor a conservative. My positions on issues can be found variously on either side of the divide. But I do admit leaning right much more often than left. With that in mind, here is how I see things.

Liberals love to think they are more enlightened than conservatives - often referring to them as Neanderthals. They also believe they are more compassionate.. They are the ones that care most about the welfare of the underdog. This has always been true. When Israel was the underdog prior to the 6 day war, liberals had tremendous sympathy for them. While the party of big business consisting mostly of conservatives tended to side with the oil rich Arab countries.

But now that the Palestinians are the underdog, They are the ones that get sympathy from the liberal left. Israel is no longer the underdog fearing annihilation by its Arab neighbors. Now it is Israel that is seen as a threat to the Palestinians. The left sees the Israeli support of the settlements as a ploy to to push the Palestinians out of land of Israel. Netanyahu is seen now in much the same the way Nasser was seen then. While the analogy is not exact, the parallels are clear. The threat to the underdog was all that mattered.

What liberals fail to see is context. And it is context that makes all the difference. There is a historical context; a religious context, a security context… all of which are practically ignored by the liberal left who sees only an oppressed Palestinian people with Jews as their oppressors.

Unfortunately this type of liberal group-think includes many liberal Jews as in the above-mentioned Congresswoman. The less connected they are to the Torah, the more likely they are to feel this way. especially young Jews that were raised with little to no Jewish content in their lives. These are the same young Jews on campuses who hear Israel being vilified by respected leftist academics. It should be no surprise therefore that support for Israel is eroding even among our own people... right along with their connection to Judaism as the 70% intermarriage rate would indicate. The above-mentioned Congresswoman is intermarried.

Republicans used to be the ones that had issues with ‘the Jews’. They were the party of the wealthy upper class. They were the wealthy blue blood entrepreneurs whose soft antisemitism barred Jews from their country clubs, set quotas for Jews in ivy league universities, law schools and medical schools, barred them from certain college fraternities and sororities, and barred them from purchasing homes in certain neighborhoods.

Times have changed. It is the Republican party that is now more pro Israel than anyone could have ever imagined. The soft antisemitism has dissipated. Although there might be some residual antisemitism of that sort, Jews are now fully integrated into American culture and are not barred from anything. Why that is the case is the subject of another discussion.

The right now sees Israel in favorable light as well. They understand context. And instead of negatively stereotyping Jews as the right had in the past, they now identify Israel as an ally. When they see Israel now, they see America in microcosm. Israel is a democracy whose values are quintessentially American. And the see Israel under constant attack by the unrepentant militant Islam that rules Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. They understand that there was a Holocaust. They know about the persecution Jews have experienced throughout their history and are sensitive to it. They know about the biblical connection and respect it.

Democrats tend to be less bible oriented. They tend towards a more humanistic approach to everything. They ignore history as in any way relevant to the situation at hand. They see only a Jewish occupier oppressing a Muslim people. Context of any kind is irrelevant. The oppressed peoples of the world must be freed. Israeli settlements in the West Bank are just a means of driving out an indigenous oppressed people. If you go far enough to the left, you will even hear Israel being called an Apartheid State. Sometimes they are even compared to Nazis! Although no mainstream Democrats have gone that far, one of their most respected ones, former President Jimmy Carter has called Israel an Apartheid State.

The Democratic party is therefore a far more sympathetic home for the Palestinian cause. Which is why a Muslim Democrat known for his sympathy to the Palestinian cause is now being seriously considered as the new chairman of the Democratic Party.

All of this may be a bit of an oversimplification. But I don’t think it is arguable that it is the liberal mindset that makes Democrats more sympathetic to Palestinian cause than to the Israeli one.

Meanwhile the support for Israel coming from Republican side is now unprecedented. One need only listen to the speech given in the Senate by Republican Senator Marco Rubio shortly after Netanyahu addressed them to see how strong their support is (video below). And he is by far not the only Republican that feels that way. 74% of them do.

I’m sorry that Democratic support for Israel has decreased. But I don’t blame Israel or Netanyahu for that. It was inevitable. I blame the blind support for the underdog that is so characteristic of the liberal mind. A view constantly being reinforced by that Palestinian narrative. To the liberal mind - as long as the Palestinians are the underdog, Israel will be seen as the oppressors. No matter the context.

It’s 3:00 in the morning and I am still unable to calm down from what my wife and I went through today. (Well, by now it was yesterday that we went through it.) So I thought since I couldn’t sleep anyway, I may as well write about it. I will be too stressed out and tired to write about anything else. So here goes.

My wife and I are currently in Boynton Beach, Florida, staying in the beautiful new home my sister in law and her husband just bought. They invited us to stay there if we go to Florida this year – as we usually do every winter for a few days. So we took them up on their offer. What could possibly be wrong with that, one might ask? Well it’s not the place I’m staying in that is hell. It is how I got here.

We left home at 6:45 am for a 8:45 am flight at Midway Airport. My sister in law was gracious enough to give us a ride which is about a 45 minute drive from our house. She dropped us off in plenty of time… and drove off. That’s when the trouble began.

As we were checking our bags curbside, the attendant told us our flight was canceled. The next flight would be a 3:00 pm… to Kansas City - where we would catch a flight to Fort Lauderdale. So there we were at 8 am looking at 7 hour wait until my rebooked flight took off. After contemplating just sitting in the airport for 7 hours - we decided to take the train into the loop and maybe do a little shopping.

When we got back at about noon ready to go through security. Which is usually a breeze for us since we have a TSA pre-check. Except that this time I was randomly pulled out of line for a more thorough screening. I was ex-rayed and that set off a ton of red flagged for some reason. That led to my being patted down by the security agent and a check of my hands for explosives residue. Guess what? The result was positive! That agent then called over a senior agent who took me into a private room for a more thorough pat down. While he was doing that, a third agent thorough search everything I had with me – practically tearing it all apart! After that humiliating experience I was finally cleared for release.

We finally boarded our flight to KC and arrived there at 4:30 pm to be told that our flight was delayed for about an hour and a half. We finally took off and arrived in Ft. Lauderale at 10:15 pm – instead of the 11:00 am time we were supposed to be there.

At which point we found one of our bags missing. It seems it was mis-tagged under someone else’s name. We surmised that because there was a bag there with our name on it that was not mine. That bag had my Talis and Teffilin in it!

Now normally I NEVER check my Talis and tefilin. Too valuable to take a chance on losing it. I always put it I my carry-on. But since I had a 7 hour wait, the bag was heavy, Curbside baggage attendant in Chicago asked us if we wanted to check it, I thought, just this once, I’ll check it. What are the odds that it will get lost this one time?!

Big mistake!

So I have no Talis and Tefilin to daven in later this morning. Who knows when – or even of I will get it back! Or if I will get reimbursed for the entire loss should they fail to find it. (It also had my wife’s very expensive Shaitel in it.)

To make matters even worse, our off site car rental place was closed by the time we finished reporting out missing luggage. It was around midnight and I was fit to be tied. We had to re-book a rental car at the airport at a much higher rate!

We had originally planned to go out to eat in Boca Raton after we got settled in Boynton. But by the time we actually arrived in Boynton 14 hours later, it was 1:00 am. We hadn’t eaten anything all day long except for some potato chips and popcorn we bought… and the peanuts distributed to the passengers on the flight.

And now I can’t sleep thinking about what I’m going to do in the morning about Davening. And worrying that I will never seeing my bag again.

Needless to say, I am worn out and frustrated. And the thunderous storm taking place outside right now isn’t helping either. Can’t even think about sleeping with all that noise.

Just thought I’d share my frustration with my friends. It helps to talk about it. Thanks for listening.

Post script. It is now 5:30 am and I haven’t slept a wink. What a way to start a vacation! It’s depressing to say the least.

Maale Adumim

First let me make clear my long standing commitment to the 2 state solution as the best possible hope for the future of our people in Israel. It may surprise people that I still feel this way, but I do since it is ultimately the only fair way to resolve the conflict and keep Israel both Jewish and democratic (small d).

What about my feelings that it would be suicidal to do that now? I still feel that way. Very strongly. But that does not mean I have given up on the ideal. But in my considered opinion this cannot happen in the near future. Probably not even during my life time. It make take a couple of generations to get there. But I do believe it is possible technically if good people are committed to it.

There must be a complete reversal of attitude towards the Jewish people by Palestinians, Arab governments and their affiliates. Their media; their schools; their mosques and madrosses; their universities, high schools, elementary schools; and their entertainment industry. They hate us. And by us I mean the Jewish people.

That they attempt to separate their hatred of us by saying it is only Zionism is disproved by the occasional slip of the tongue when during one of their tirades against Israel they will refer to us as 'the Jews'. When they are challenged about that they say they meant Zionists. They might even point to some Jews that they actual love: those that parrot the Palestinian narrative with respect to the Palestinian Israeli conflict. But the constant reinforcement of Jew hatred that one finds among Arabs in that region belies any claim t distinguish Zionists from Jews. One might recall the very popular mini series in Egypt a while ago that was based on Henry Ford's antisemitic 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'.

Their hatred is perpetuated this way and that makes it easier for Islamists to consider it a holy task to kill Jews (and even Muslims) toward there goal of freeing Palestine from the infidel Jews. That is the attitude of the Islamist that control Gaza have. If that is allowed to happen in the West Bank via a Palestinian State- it would be a prescription for the biggest Jewish blood bath since the Holocaust. Not in scale, but in the sense of the desire to make their land (i.e. all of Israel) Judenrein. Israel would fight back. But a Lot of Jews would die. We cannot let that happen. For now the West Bank must remain in Israeli hands.

And yet a one state solution will leave Israel with a choice. It can't be both a democratic state and a Jewish one. Even if we were to give Palestinians complete freedom under Israeli rule, we could not give them the vote. Because they will eventually outnumber via their higher birthrate. And they would end up voting themselves into power. They could end the Jewish State of Israel by the ballot box without firing a shot.

What’s the solution? It is not stopping the settlement construction. At least not all of it. It’s about ending the hatred. And that cannot happen in a generation that was raised in hatred. If handled properly through education the dynamic of violent acts against Jews in respnse to the slightest provocation would end. Here is how.

First there has to be good will shown on both sides. For Israel it would be to completely stop settlement activity deep into the West Bank that would end up being a Palestinian State. At the same time, Arabs should understand that existing border type towns like Maale Adumim that will be part of Israel (as agreed to in Oslo) deserves to have the right to build in order to accommodate natural growth. A family living in Israel that ougrows a 2 bedromm house should have the right to add a bedroom. Any fair minded individual on the Arab side should have that kind of reasonable approach.

The Palestinians and all Arab states must outlaw expressions of hatred in their society. Hate speech ought to be eradicated and replaced with tolerance – even as they might feel their perspective on the conflict is just Instead of teaching hatred and making antisemitic TV shows they have to start teaching their people to ‘love thy neighbor’. This is a Judeo-Christain principle is a universal value I'm sure it is found in Islam too.

Tolerance should become a required course of study and expressed constantly in all fora. It needs to permeate every aspect of their relationship with the Jewish people. Clerics preaching hate should be removed from their pulpit.

What about generations of greivence Palestinians have against Israel? Justified or not, it exists

Nelson Mendela was able to put the past behind him rather quickly and said that if the new era ending Apartheid was to be a success, all past reverences must be forgotten. I think those words of wisdom must apply here.

I would insure that this process be meticulously followed by including monitors at all levels to see that there is no cheating. The moniters would be in groups of three consisting of a Palestinian, an Israeli, and an American (or other neutral party with no past expressions of bias.) Once the hatred is replaced with mutual understanding and respect, we can proceed to 2 states.

Right now, I see no possibility of that. That the terrorists among them have made life hard on them via Israel’s need for harsh security measures is a hard thing to overcome when there is so much hatred expressed institutional on a daily basis. Once that change - peace can actually be at hand.

What about the Israeli right that sees giving up even an inch of the holy land violates their religious principals? They too must be put on notice to stop acting on those beliefs and to stop the hate speech one often hears there about Arabs. We have to do our part. I would tear down all trailer park settlements deep in the West Bank that were constructed strictly for purposes of settling the land of Israel.

I would tell the messianists among Religious Zionists that their religious fervor harms the Jewish people. I would use the carrot stick approach to dismantling those trailer park settlements by offering them incentive to leave – like paying for heir re-settlement expenses into Israel proper and providing them same kind of trailers they live in now (or their value in Shekels). Resistance would be met by enforcement of the law forbidding settlement construction deep in the West Bank. Israel has to show its good will and not be deterred by fanatics of the right.

This may sound far-fetched. But it is the only way I see a 2 state solution any where in the future, that will allow Israel to be both a democracy and a Jewish State. On the other hand as long as there is a possibility of a Palestinian State turning into Gaza, there can be no peace and no 2 states. If and when they stop hating us, Israel and Palestine can exist the same way the US and Canada does.

It is my hope that the current administration would pursue this policy. Unlike the last administration and to one extent or other past administrations that blindly followed the Palestinian narrative opposing all settlement construction as the primary obstacle to peace, the Trump administration would do well to begin a new narrative where hatred is seen as the real impediment. While many pro Israel advisers in the new administration support settlement construction, I would hope they see the future the way I do… and in that cause to NOT support trailer park settlements deep into the West Bank.

Unfortunately Israel has a fifth column in the guise of a objective news reporting. Ha’aretz never misses an opportunity to cast blame on the right. Many of their editorials could have been written by Palestinians. Anyone with an ounce of objectivity can see just how biased this newspaper is and the extent it will go to in smearing their political opponents.

Their recent headline is a example of that bias. It made Israel sound like it has approved all settlemet activity for the purpose of driving Palestinians out of the West Bank. But it is only when you get into the article that will you find that Israel is only permitting border cities to do it. Not trailer park settlements. I'm sure that Netanyahu's ruling coalition has done this as a direct result of the election.

Palestinians may be incited by their leadership into yet another violent and deadly Intifada for something like this. Even though it has already these border cities have been conceded to Israel at Oslo. That Palestinian leaders are encouraging it against Israel even if a foreign country moves its embassy to Jerusalem tells you that it isn't settlements that is the issue.

If that happens - and it very well may – it will once again show just that hatred is issue not settlements. If Israel and America sign on to a plan like the one I suggested. I don’t see how any sane person could object. Because Palestinians will finally have their own state; and Israel will have everything: A Jewish State; a democracy; and a friendly neighbor.

Former Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel, Yona Metzger (TOI)

It is an understatement to say that it is a Chilul HaShem. And yet there is no other way to say it. Yona Metzger, the immediate past Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel is one of the most corrupt individuals to hold any public office in Israel’s recent history. Hard to believe that this man was in charge of religious life in Israel for almost 10 years. The accusations are breathtaking. From the Times of Israel:

Metzger will plead guilty to fraud, breach of trust and tax offenses…
Last year, the Jerusalem District Court charged Metzger with accepting some NIS 10 million ($2.58 million) in bribes. He is accused of keeping NIS 7 million ($1.8 million) for himself.

(A)lleged scams linked to Metzger involve(ed) millions of shekels of funds purportedly siphoned into his accounts...

Police said Metzger had stashed about $200,000 with his sister in Haifa, and a search of his home turned up NIS 40,000 (over $11,300 at the time) in cash hidden in various books. At the time, Metzger contended that the money in Haifa came from an inheritance, but the investigation found this claim to be untrue.

According to the indictment, various nonprofit organizations connected with the rabbi during his term in office received millions of shekels in donations, some of which Metzger allegedly took for his personal use.

In addition to profiting from donations to charitable causes, he was also accused of taking bribes meant to sway his opinion on matters he attended to as chief rabbi.

I don’t even know where to begin. But I do have a few thoughts that come immediately to mind. First - as noted a few weeks ago by Rabbi NatanSlifkin - there is the fact that he was backed by the Charedi leadership – even though there were rumors about Mtezger’s honesty along these lines. But they backed him anyway because as Chief Rabbi he promised to follow the Charedi leadership in all of their Halachic pronouncements.

When their leadership was asked about it at the time, they said that until it is proven, it is all rumor and innuendo (which it is forbidden to pay any attention to). In the meantime the fact that he would follow Charedi Psak overrode any such reservations in any case.

In my view the Charedi leadership should have been more suspicious of Metzger. Perhaps conducting an investigation of their own. Because now that those rumors have proven to be an understatement of his actual corruption, I cannot imagine the embarrassment they must now feel. But it seems they are not embarrassed at all. In fact, as Rafi Goldmeier notes on his blog, they are angry at anyone that criticizes him even now that he has admitted guilt in a plea bargain that will put him in jail for 3 and a half years and fined $1.3 million. (That’s dollars! Not shekels).

Here is what Benny Rabinovitch, a Charedi journalist said when MK Naftai Bennett called Metzger’s behavior as Chief Rabbi a Chilul HaShem:

He called Bennett a Rasha - evil, wicked, person - for this. He said it is obvious that he has hatred for anybody who seems to be Haredi. Well, I guess I am a Rasha too because I agree with Bennett on this. And so is anyone else that thinks what Metzger admitted to is a Chilul HaShem.

I am not necessarily casting aspersions on the Charedi leadership for making this mistake at the outset. Rumors are not proof of guilt. And their desire to see the Rabbinate follow Halacha the way they interpret it is understandably very important to them. I can forgive them for supporting someone who as Chief Rabbi promised to follow their Psak – even if they ignored the rumors about him.

Because the truth is that they are right about not paying attention to rumors since that is nothing more than Lashon Hara. I say this even though I believe that they should have gone Lifnim Meshuras Hadin to go the extra mile as a precaution to prevent the kind of Chilul HaShem that has resulted.

It is not that different than how they used to view reports about sex abusers. They used to say that it is forbidden to report them to the police. But at the same time it was prudent to keep your children away from them.

This should have been their attitude here. If they didn’t want to report him to the police, that’s one thing. But to put him in a position of power where he could do so much harm is another and is tantamount to putting the aforementioned accused child abuser in a classroom as a teacher. I am not comparing the Metzger’s deeds to those of a child molester. Only the approach to placing people who have been suspected of wrongdoing in a position to do damage.

But it seems that they still don’t understand this if a Charedi journalist represents their thinking. Is it any wonder that so many good people (…in many cases even religious people) have issues with the Chief Rabbinate and the Charedi establishment? I think a bit of introspection on their part - just about now - might be wise.

Group of Orthodox women (Forward)

I admire Simi Lichtman for the intellectual honesty she expressed in her recent Forward article. This Modern Orthodox feminist can hardly be denied that description. What is interesting about her is that her version of feminism is similar to my own. I too call myself a feminist. And the things that Mrs. Lichtman advocates, I advocate. Where she parts company with feminism is where I do. She has always seen feminism stopping at the Torah’s door. So do I.

Which had put her at odds with current thinking by Orthodox Jewish feminists which has spawned radical innovations in service to egalitarian ideals.

Mrs. Lichtman attended the recent JOFA (Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance) conference and was inspired by what she heard. Here are some of the observations that inspired her:

From sexual abuse in Orthodox institutions to the halachic and social implications of transitioning in the Orthodox community, the sessions were thought-provoking, inspiring, all those trite adjectives that will never fully capture the feeling I left with at the end of the day: the feeling of camaraderie and awe of spending a day among progressive, Orthodox social justice advocates; the feeling that my community was something to be proud of, that there were leaders and activists who were enacting change and fostering important conversations; the feeling that there was so much to be done, and so much that I myself could do.

There are important issues facing Orthodoxy today. Many of these were touched upon at the JOFA conference. But they are not exclusively feminist issues and should not be limited to a woman’s forum. Nonetheless that they discussed these issues freely is a plus. I applaud theme for it and assume that they had rabbinic input as to how to deal with all these issues Halachicly. That a liberal point of view was expressed there does not make in anti Halachic. Social Justice need not - and should not - be exclusive to the liberal mindset. I certainly have no problem with such discussions and I tend to personally be on the more liberal and tolerant side on these social issues as long as Halacha is not ignored.

What about the Torah? Does fealty to the Torah contradict fealty to Feminism? I think it does. Something that Mr’s Lichtman was brought to wonder about at this conference. As a lifelong feminist, Mrs. Lichtman never considered her role as a woman in Judaism to be in contradiction to her strong feminist stance. She saw her role as a Jewish woman outside of her strong feminist perspective. Here is how she puts it:

Fighting for equal rights in the religious sphere has never concerned me much. Getting an aliyah (turn to read from the Torah in synagogue) or wearing a tallit (prayer shawl) was not something that interested me personally, so I let other men and women occupy themselves with those issues. Because halachic Judaism never felt, to me, particularly oppressive—at least not specifically oppressive as a result of my gender—I never fought the Orthodox feminist fights.
I recognized, of course, that halacha does not treat men and women equally. It would take an impressive amount of delusion to deny that. But it never bothered me.

She goes on to speculate about the reasons for that which in my view are inaccurate, but that is beside the point. The following sentence from that comment is key:

halachic Judaism never felt, to me, particularly oppressive—at least not specifically oppressive as a result of my gender.

I valued feminism precisely for the following reason. Women were not being treated fairly primarily because of their gender thus suffering financial hardships. They were also treated as second class citizens in many ways . I fought that fight right along side them. But now, feminism has changed from being a movement about fighting for equal rights in the workplace and being treated with equal dignity, into defying the traditional role Judaism defines for women. That is clearly what one particular session Mrs. Lichtman attended promoted:

One of the sessions I attended at the JOFA conference addressed the topic of kiddushin, or Jewish betrothal, and possible alternatives to the traditional marriage process. Kiddushin, as the speakers explained, is in actuality the legal process of a man acquiring a wife; in the Gemara, her acquisition is compared to the purchase of land.
From a modern perspective, of course, this is sexist. Try telling a bride today that her marriage is an overpriced legal transaction wherein her husband is purchasing the right to have intercourse with her; this is far from the romantic ceremony of love and dedication that we have come to understand a wedding to be.
The presenters, under this assumption of sexism, proposed a variety of ways to enact a halachic marriage without the inclusion of a one-way purchase.

First, this is an inaccurate description of what Kiddushin is all about. Women are not considered the same as land to be purchased by a man in the same way. That we refer to Kiddushin as a Kinyan (acquisition) does not mean we mean she becomes a possession to her husband. Kiddushin is more about what the root of that Hebrew word is: sanctifying the relationship; making it holy; a union blessed by God. I don’t know why the Gemarah used the word Kinayn in its discussions of betrothal. But it is definitely not about possessing your wife!

During that particular session Mrs. Lichtman thought back to her wedding day – which was very traditional... and started contemplating the Halachic aspects of her ceremony. It occurred to her that everyone she knew got married that way and wondered if she was a fool for not recognizing the chauvinism inherent in it. Was she a self hating woman, she wondered?

She also started wondering whether her Orthodoxy in Judaism contradicted her Orthodoxy as a feminist.Was there some cognitive dissonance about this? She did not find answers to her questions at the conference.

How sad it is to put the kinds of doubts in the mind of a woman that was essentially happy with both her role in Judaism and her strong feminist ideals.

Does JOFA really perform a public service for women by expanding their definition of feminism into the realm of Orthodox Judaism? Is fighting to change traditional customs at a wedding in order to make it more egalitarian worth destroying the self image of women that heretofore felt good about themselves as both women and Jews? Many of whom supported the original goals of feminism as I did. I don’t think so.

Syrian refugee children (Reuters via the Jerusalem Post)

Can anyone imagine Israel taking in Syrian refugees? If one realizes that Syria is an Arab country bordering Israel’s north; and a country with which it is technically at war; and a country that is perhaps one of Israel’s most bitter enemies... that question might seem absurd. And yet the fact is that the government of Benjamin Netanyahu has done exactly that. 100 Syrian children fleeing that war ravaged country are being approved for asylum in Israel. From YWN:

The Interior Ministry backed by the Prime Minister have given the necessary approval to permit Israeli Arab families to foster Syrian orphans in Israel, speaking of 100 children. Israel views the ongoing bloodshed in Syria as a humanitarian mission and is planning increased medical assistance as well.

One may ask, what about the parents of these children? Shouldn’t Israel accept them too as a completion of this humanitarian gesture? The argument against that is that young children are not going to terrorize anyone but their adult parents very well may.

Just because they are running from the bloodshed in Syria doesn’t mean they don’t still have it in for Israel. If the entire Muslim population of the Middle East has been indoctrinated to ‘Hate the Jews’ and sees every Israeli as the embodiment of evil, how can any Syrian adult be allowed in. There is also the possibility that some of those ‘running away from the bloodshed’ are actually terrorist infiltrating the greatest enemy of the Arab world with the intent to do us harm?

For me that is a compelling argument. But so too is the humanitarian side of keeping desperate families whole.

Which makes the following quite a revealing statement about Israel’s heart:

According to the plan approved by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Interior Minister Aryeh Deri, 100 Syrian orphans will be housed in the Israeli Arab sector and it is likely close members of their family will be permitted to join them at a later date.

I assume that these family members will be thoroughly vetted to assure the safety of Israel’s citizens. And then they will be allowed to join their children.

I know it’s only 100 young people. But parents will apparently be allowed to join them later. that is 200 additional adults. And perhaps more relatives like aunts and uncles too.

That still may be a small number. But for a nation plagued with terror and the threat of annihilation consonantly being proposed by the religious leaders of Israel’s enemies, this is quite a remarkable gesture of good will.

Unfortunately I doubt there will be too many accolades coming out of Palestinians or Israel’s Arab neighbors.

Which is too bad. Gestures like these ought to tell the many Arabs indoctrinated to believe that the Jews are out to dominate the world (as the widely watched Egyptian miniseries based on the book ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ suggested) – that they are nothing like that. That instead they just want to be good neighbors living side by side in peace and friendship. And that at heart the of seed of Abraham is a kind giving a people.

The Sages tell us the Jewish people have inherited the attribute of Chesed – loving kindness - from this Patriarch. Arabs with whom we share the same patriarch are known to have this trait among their own as well. This shared trait could be one upon which a positive relationship could be built. If only the haters of the world would allow it – instead of constantly trying to blow us up.

Bar Ilan Historian, Professor Adam Ferziger

I had the privilege yesterday of listening to a lecture given by social historian, Professor Adam Ferziger. He was the scholar-in-residence at the Boynton Beach Synagogue I attended. Professor Ferziger was ordained in Yeshiva University and received his PhD from Bar Ilan Universty. He is a prolific writer and intellectual having written several books on his area of expertise - as well as many scholarly articles in professional and academic journals. Needless to say, he is also an Orthodox Jew. And if I may say so his religious sentiments seem to be oriented toward Centrism even though I doubt that he would like to be pegged that way – Or pegged any way for that matter.

It always gives me great satisfaction when I hear a scholar with a reputation like Professor Ferziger’s say the kinds of things I have been saying here. As a social historian he has a perspective that few others have. While his views and mine are not identical, the overlap is substantial.

His message yesterday at one of his many lectures was about how Orthodoxy has changed over the last century or so. He began with a premise first proposed by another Orthodox Jewish scholar, Professor Charles S. Liebeman. Back in the 60s Professor Liebman authored a pioneering essay entitled Orthodoxy in American Jewish Life wherein he rejected the commonly held belief by historians that the future of Judaism in America was in heterodoxy. Jews would thereby better fit in to the American ‘melting pot’ society of the times. Orthodox Jews were thought to be ancient relics of the past that were doomed to fail in an America whose freedoms were in many cases anathema to many of Orthodoxy’s ideals.

(This became tragically apparent when a group of 100 Orthodox rabbis traveled to Washington DC on Shabbos to meet with then President Roosevelt. They wanted to discuss saving European Jews during the Holocaust. Before the meeting FDR asked Samuel Rosenman who was Jewish and one of his his senior advisers whether these rabbis represented any real constituency. Rosenman responded with the accepted notion that these rabbis represent a small and dying segment of Jewry that would no doubt shortly disappear from the American scene.)

Based on his personal experiences, Professor Liebman correctly predicted that Orthodoxy would grow dynamically and that many Orthodox Jews felt quite comfortable integrating with American culture while maintaining their religious beliefs and practises. This was the way it was in America prior to the Holocaust. Orthodox education was mostly geared towards that type of integration. Then Orthodox Jews sought to be both Orthodox and fully American. Yeshiva University came into existence to accommodate that mindset. As did movements like Young Israel. Day Schools and high schools at that time were geared towards producing assimilated observant Jews with an emphasis on higher education.

Until the great European immigration resulting from Holocaust, this was the way most Jews lived. Although there were some fledgling right wing institutions that sprang up pre-Holocaust (e.g. Torah VoDa'ath), even they understood that a higher education was the path most Orthodox Jews sought.

With the mass immigration of European Jewish refugees post Holocaust - a new paradigm arose. One that most people refer to as Charedi or ultra-Orthodox. That has grown into what we have today. A major and dominant force in Orthodoxy. That culture is one of insularity from the culture. It supports Jewish values to the exclusion of all secular values.

There resulted in a competing set of Orthodoxies. One that rejected most of the secular world and one that embraced it. Both loyal to traditional beliefs and practises. The chasm was pretty great.

But as I have said many times, Professor Ferziger noted that both communities have been moving to a center point. He cited several examples where the Charedi world was moving toward the center from the right… and Modern Orthodoxy was moving toward the center from the left.

I have called this phenomenon the New Centrism. One which is based on social rather than idealistic concerns. It consists of observant Jews that live all but identical lifestyles and have jobs requiring a higher education in many cases.

In addition, there is more participation in the culture by the moderate Charedim albeit with perhaps some guilt. And moderate Charedim are the ones that choose schools for their children that offer a secular education.

By the same token many Modern Orthodox Jews have moved to their right, while maintaining Hashkafos that include positive engagement with the culture. Which is what ideological Centrism is all about (as opposed to sociological Centrism).

This is a subject I have covered many times. It’s nice to see a credentialed expert on Jewish sociology saying pretty much the same thing (albeit with very some minor nuanced differences.)

What Professor Ferziger did not really touch upon was the impact of the extremes at both ends. There is still a strongly held belief by the more right wing Charedi rabbis that insularity is the only way to preserve traditional Judaism. They discourage any participation with non Jewish culture.This is true even in the American Yeshiva world.

But in the Satmar type Chasidic world and the entire Charedi world in Israel (Yeshiva and Chasidic), the isolationist ideal is so strong tit makes even the extreme right of the American Yeshiva world seem modern by comparison. Although moderate Charedim are by far the mainstream, the influences of the extreme right cannot be discounted. Those influences are very powerful on the Charedi mind that views their rabbinic leaders as their ultimate authorities in all things.

And to the left there is an Orthodoxy so strongly influenced by the values of the general culture that Orthodox Judaism as we know it is being turned into something unrecognizable – even as observance of the Mitzvos is a given for them. Their influence should not be discounted either.

I’m not exactly sure how Professor Ferziger sees the fringes at the extreme ends of Orthodoxy. I’m sure he is aware of them and has an opinion. (I may be wrong but if I had to guess I suspect his views may not be that far off from my own.) But I understand his reticence to discuss a controversial topic to an audience where people from both factions were present.

Guest Contribution by Joel Rich

Beth Medrash Govoha (BMG - Lakewood)

My review of Professor Ferziger’s lecture on the sociological history of Orthodoxy generated a response from Joel Rich. Mr. Rich has read one of Professor Ferziger’s books on the subject entitled Beyond Sectarianism- The Realignment of American Orthodox Judaism". Joel provides us with a review/critique which sheds some additional light on the subject. I present it here as a guest contribution with some minor edits for clarity. It follows.

In his book, Beyond Sectarianism – The Realignment of American Orthodox Judaism Dr. Ferziger traces a perceived drift in the U.S. over the last 100 years by Modern Orthodoxy to the "right" and Hareidi Orthodoxy to the "left" (my huge oversimplification).

Yeshiva University (YU-RIETS)

Reviewer's observation

1) It would be worth considering whether the causes of these trends are primarily philosophical or practical/sociological. It would also be worth remembering the words of an old Dane "Prediction is hazardous, especially about the future" and an old actuary "Projecting current trends linearly into the future is always wrong. The challenge is guessing in which direction".

2) Is history the story of great people? Ideas? Demographics? Economics? Why not just lay down and cue the Grass Roots "Let's live for today" (When I think of all the worries, people seem to find and how they're in a hurry to complicate their minds...").

Section I. Division

Chapter 1 - Between Hungarian and American Modern Orthodoxy

This chapter traces the more recent history of Hareidi and Modern Orthodoxy in the U.S. via two rabbinic personalities (both very grounded in their own personal histories).

Chapter 2 - A Modern Orthodox Rabbinical Dynasty

Fascinating history of the Rabbis Joseph and Haskell Lookstein ‘family business’ at KJ (if you read the chapter, you'll see this is not an exaggeration). Viewed as an archtype for inclusionary Orthodoxy and never as a compromise (at least not by the Rabbis).

Reviewer's note

No mention of Jay Lefkowitz and his Social Orthodoxy (Orthodox Judaism without God - it's all about the kugel) or what percentage of the community that "movement" represents.

Chapter 3 - The Rise and Fall of Orthodox Solidarity

The Free Soviet Jewry movement in the U.S. had a high proportion of Modern Orthodox leadership and involvement and this led to ties with the broader Jewish community grass roots.

Haredi Orthodoxy believed in a behind the scenes approach their the traditional askan [community representative] approach to government affairs.

Eventually Modern Orthodox engagement declined with other streams and now each group, including Haredi Orthodoxy, has a Washington office.

Section II. Realignment

Chapter 4 - Pilgrimages to Eastern Europe and Haredization

The "March of the Living" holocaust awareness trips started out with broad participation of the MO and non-Hareidi Jewish community and thus led to significant interaction between MO youth (and leaders) and those of other streams. Eventually the Modern Orthodox Yeshivas" trips split off and became much more separate - their goal changing to remembering the holiness of pre-war Europe.

Reviewers note

1) lots to discuss about re imagining history of pre-war Europe;

2) hope you're seeing the trend-initial MO engagement followed by regression to separatism].

Chapter 5 - Counter - Feminism and Modern Orthodoxy

Right Wing YU (RWMO) is now more Hareidi (read separate and suspicious) in its approach to women's issues and created a new halachic construct to defend its position [focus on Rav Hershel Shachter and his meta approach to Halacha]. Professor Ferziger compares this approach to Hareidi approaches to feminist pressures.

Reviewer's note

The real issue mentioned by Dr. Ferziger needs to be reinforced: Are the pressures coming from advanced religious education or secular feminist sources? What does the aspirational future look like for the aspirants?

Chapter 6 - Reform in the Eyes of Orthodoxy

This chapter focusus on the history of Reform/and Haredi Orthodox relationships from the leadership of Rav Aharon Kotler until today.

Originally there was full throated confrontation, separation and total rejection. Once Reform was no longer viewed as a threat, Haredi Orthodox outreach begins. Dr. Ferziger provides a history of the personalities involved and halachic guidelines. Challenges to Haredi Orthodox outreach include legitimization of other streams and acculturation of outreachers.

Reviewer's note

1) I'd focus more on supply and demand - if you have a surplus of "learners", a franchise system is an obvious economic response;

2) Triumphalism is a bad idea - see earlier comment on projecting current trends].

Discussion of NCSY as well but MO has become concerned with in reach - think about why.

Reviewer's notes

Again, notice the theme. Modern Orthodoxy has less self-esteem and perceives internal weakness.

Chapter 7 - Rabbinical Training and Role Reversal

The history of Orthodox rabbinical training shifting from a focus on law (Halacha) to a teacher/preacher role model. The Hareidi movement also shifts from Rav Aharon Kotler's pure focus on learning to outreach training with all the associated skills (people, fundraising...).

Dr. Ferziger also covers how the 'Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary'(RIETS/YU) and Yeshivat Chovevei Torah (YCT) differ in their focus (RIETS inreach, YCT in outreach) and role models. Hareidi changes from a position of strength, Modern Orthodox from weakness.

Reviewer's note

There's a complex dance between the Rabbis and the laity. The seminaries may have a vision but I question whether it translates to the rank and file. (See the history of the Conservative movement)].

Chapter 8 - The Chabadization of Haredi Orthodoxy

Dr Ferziger discusses the history of Haredi community kollel development. Originally it was more of a traditional kollel with a number of seed families doing some outreach on the side. But eventually it took on more of a Chabad house look but with fewer locations and still a core focus on learning. He mentions the start of MO inreach Kollels . Still some differences (which he analyzed) but some more coming together.

Reviewer's note

I wonder... Was Rav Chaim Volozhiner was consciously reacting to chassidut in his Nefesh Hachayim writing and Volozhin Yeshiva structure? (Dr. Ferziger's point here is well taken.) Or was it just "in the air"? Was the original Chassidic movement only reacting to the Mitnagdic pressures or was the outside world also a cause?

Chapter 9 - Beyond Outreach: Post-Denominationalism, Open Orthodoxy & Realignment

Haredi women have taken a leadership role in outreach too, not without internal issues (both for some women and for leadership). Will this lead to female spiritual leadership? Perhaps with time the feminist anti-feminist model will lead there. (Note: By feminist anti-feminist I mean Haredi women taking role model positions outside the home while rejecting feminism)

Reviewer's note

1) The key in my humble opinion is that change appears organic and home grown;

2) You (yes, you and me as well) can't have it all, life is all about trade-offs.

Conclusion: Dr. Ferziger pulls together the changes in Haredi Orthodoxy, Right Wing Modern Orthodoxy and Open Orthodoxy. Where will they all go?

Reviewers note:

1) correct answer is given by either of the following 2:

a) Robert Zimmerman (Bob Dylan):

…don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.

b) Werner Heisenberg (The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle):
The more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa

Lest we forget what we are fighting...

Somehow the conversation always turns around to Trump these days. And usually in the most negative of ways. It almost doesn’t matter how the conversation starts out. Somewhere along the way someone will say ‘Trump’ and that ends up taking up the lion’s share of the conversation.

I can’t say I’m surprised by that. During the election campaign Trump just about sucked up all the air in the room. I do not recall any candidate in American history getting such media coverage. Most of it negative. And for good reason. His rhetoric inspired it. It caused me to vote against a candidate whose stated views favored Israel a lot more than any of his Presidential predecessors; and all of his Democratic opponents. That kind of talk heard from the Trump campaign was never heard before by any major party candidate for President. And yet I voted for his opponent. Because I believed that he was the most unqualified candidate for President in American history.

And yet the vast majority of Orthodox Jews voted for him. I can only guess at the reason for what to me is a most perplexing phenomenon. The hatred for Mrs. Clinton and her former boss at ‘State’ (i.e. the ex President) was so strong, they would have voted for an alley cat before they voted for her. They viewed Obama as the most anti Israel President in American history and saw Clinton following in his footsteps. That too is shocking since that was patently untrue.

I really don’t understand that. Even after the terrible deal with Iran, that horrible vote allowed by Obama in the UN, and the money he quickly tried to funnel over to the Palestinian Authority just before he left office. Yes, even with that, he was clearly not anti Israel considering the unprecedented financial, military, and intelligence aid he gave them. But I guess that is how so many Orthodox Jews saw him. But I digress. Back to Trump.

My fears seem to have been justified. At least so far.( It’s early. Perhaps Trump will settle down after a while. One can hope.)

How are we to react to one of the President’s first acts? He issued an executive order to temporarily ban (120 days) on all refugees coming from 7 Muslim countries known to be connected to terrorists? I don’t think the answer is as simple as the ACLU, the mainstream media and all the massive protests across the country make it out to be

First let me state the obvious. I agree that there should be no religious test for refugees entering the country. Humanitarian concerns should be the first consideration of a country known for its kindness. And certainly the vast majority of Muslims fleeing a country like Syria qualify for that concern. Many European countries – most notably Germany - have opened their doors wide open to these people giving them a refuge from the terror they experienced at home.

But what about the security issue? The fear of a terrorist infiltrating the ranks of these refugees is real. One cannot discount the distinct possibility that a terrorist who looks and acts like a Muslim refugee can slip right through the vetting process as it stands. And as virtually all counter terrorism agencies constantly remind us, all it takes is one.

One terrorist can come in along with thousands of legitimate refugees - and then one fine day show up at a crowded mall or well attended celebration and blow himself up; or start shooting indiscriminately at people; or drive a truck into a crowd of innocent people. One terrorist! … and many innocent people die. Just as has been the case in European countries and this country. So many times!

Many people point to the fact that there is no evidence that any of those attacks were done by a someone allowed in as a refugee. I’m not so sure about that. But even if that’s true, there is little doubt about the Islamist ideology that motive them. In just about every case of terror - the terrorist was a Muslim inspired by Islamist Jihadist propaganda. In almost all cases they picked up that ideology in travels back to those countries and hooking up with Jihadist clerics; or they picked it up on terrorist internet sites. It is therefore not unreasonable to be especially cautious when allowing Muslims into the country. It is Islam that spawned the Islamism and the resultant terrorism. That cannot and should not be ignored.

There are of course those like the ACLU and others who ignore all that and argue that this temporary ban on Muslim immigrants violates our principles. Some have even compared it to Jews seeking refuge from the Nazis before and during the Holocaust.

That comparison is odious in the extreme! While there may be some similarities, the situations are not the same. There were no Jews asking asylum whose coreligionists were screaming ‘God is great’ while blowing themselves up in a crowd of innocent people. There were systematic murders of thousands of Jews even before the final solution and certainly after. And yet the American people of that time did not raise much of a protest (if there were any at all) about the St. Louis being turned away or the refusal y the government then to allow Jewish refugees from Europe even as immigration quotas remained unfilled! There was instead a national apathy for ‘the Jews’. Without a word of protest against FDR and his State department which was responsible for immigration and humanitarian gestures towards refugees.

This is not to say that Trumps executive order temporarily barring Muslims into the country will assure our safety. As noted there are plenty of home grown potential terrorists that are inspired by ISIS on line. It is mostly from their ranks that terrorists have arisen in this country But at least one possible source of it has been reduced.

The hue and cry by those protesting and the media focus on it is unprecedented. The way it should have been during the Holocaust. The anti Trump backlash on this issue never materialized against FDR when he allowed his State department.

This is not to say that the concern of the protesters is not legitimate. If it was right to do so during the Holocaust, it is also right to do it now. Even though as noted the two cases are not the same, it is only a matter of degree.

But I can’t help but notice who it is protesting the loudest. These are the same people that supported the UN resolution condemning Israel; the deal with Iran; gay marriage; abortion on demand; oppose school choice and see Israel as an Apartheid state. In other words the political left, the ACLU, and ‘progressive’ clergy (including progressive rabbis) with an unrelenting Trump hating mainstream media coverage sympathetic to the left.

The protests are huge. But at most they represent only one half of the country. Not the half that voted for Trump precisely because he promised to do what he is doing. It should also not be lost on anyone that England just voted to leave the European Union (Brexit) for precisely this reason: to stop the flow of refugees from Muslim countries.

The real fear all of these is not about denying refugees their refuge. It is the fear that all the cherished ‘American’ liberal values achieved over the last eight years will be overturned. Overturned by conservative values they see as anathema to their ‘enlightened’ humanistic views. Which are far superior to the archaic views of the religious right that comprises much of the conservative base. Trump’s executive order was just a trigger (and excuse) to hold yet another protest against this man. And that he is such an incompetent disgusting boor gives them cover. They are after all only standing up for an American value of compassion!

One might surmise that I support what the President did. I do not. I would have done things a bit differently. Like slowing down the process with the kind extreme vetting Trump referred to later in his campaign. Certainly I would have allowed for certain carefully selected exceptions. Like those Muslims that have worked with us to combat Islamism.

The bottom line is, though, that there is no inherent right of anyone to enter this country’s borders. That I supported many US governors that did for their states is not the same thing as not allowing them in to the country at all. (Nor do I recall any protests about it when these governors did it.) Immigrants enter our borders by virtue of this country’s immigration laws. Why are Muslims being picked on? Does that question really need to be asked?

Scene from the Amona evacuation (NBC)

All those who think that Netanyahu is all about settlements have to explain why he is so quick to dismantle the trailer park settlement of Amona ordered by the high court.

Last time that was tried, the right wing settler movement of the Religious Zionists went berserk over it. The resistance begat a strong response from the Israeli riot police. That turned bloody and violent. It was not a pretty picture.

To the right that event represented police brutality. To the left it represented the violent lengths the messianist religious Zionist Jews will go to retain the land they occupied.

While I do not condone police brutality in any form, neither do I condone violent resistance to the law. Had those settlers left peacefully as the law required, all would have been well.

They will counter by saying that they listen a higher Authority – God Himself, who by His word requires His people to settle all the land of Israel. They are entitled to their opinion. But they are not entitled to endanger lives because of it based on one interpretation of this Halalcah when there are other legitimate ones. Like the one I subscribe to. Which is the Charedi interpretation that holds land may be given up for genuine peace. And therefore violent resistance to a legal eviction is against Halacha. If settler activity brings about bloodshed then that activity should stop.

They did not listen then. And much as I had hoped things would be different this time, they are not. It appears that their messianic views about retaining all the land of Israel is once again begetting violence. From the Jerusalem Post:

More than 15 security forces were wounded during clashes and a police source said least some of the officers sustained injuries from a chemical substance thrown at them by protesters.

A spokesman from Hadassah University Medical Center in Jerusalem's Ein Kerem, three police officers were being treated for their wounds, including two with moderately wounded from liquid thrown at their eyes.

Ahead of the long-awaited eviction of the illegal outpost, settlers poured oil on the main road leading to Amona to make it difficult for security forces to reach them…
Earlier, activists had set fire to tires in an attempt to block any security forces from entering…

Additionally, the Post witnessed another woman injured on the floor being treated by paramedics. The woman's child is being cared for by another woman…

A spokesman from Hadassah University Medical Center in Jerusalem's Ein Kerem, three police officers were being treated for their wounds, including two with moderately wounded from liquid thrown at their eyes.

Ahead of the long-awaited eviction of the illegal outpost, settlers poured oil on the main road leading to Amona to make it difficult for security forces to reach them. ..
Earlier, activists had set fire to tires in an attempt to block any security forces from entering…

I might have had some sympathy for these settlers had they left peacefully as required by law. Or even if they had protested peacefully since peaceful protest is a fundamental right in a democracy like Israel. As I said they have a right to their beliefs. After all Israel originally encouraged settlements back in 1967. That said - I'm hard pressed to believe that these settlers feel double crossed. That policy had long ago been reversed. But even if they felt that way, violent resistance to the law should not be tolerated whether it is rock throwers in Meah Shearim or in Amona.

I support Netanyahu on this. He could have easily said ‘wait a minute!’ With a settlement supporting American administration in office now, why not loudly protest the high court decision and back the settlers? And even promote more such settlements like that in the future? Surely the Trump administration will back him up as will the Orthodox supporters of these settlers (as reflected by the editorial policy of newspapers like the Jewish Press)? Netanyahu could even better secure his governing coalition by pandering that way to its right wing members?

I think what we are seeing is a policy I have referred to in the past. One that I believe Netayahu supports: That of eventually annexing Maale Adumim and other large city-like border settlements in a final comprehensive peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians that would give them the West Bank. That is after all what Oslo originally called for. To that extent he supports and has permitted building activity those border settlement blocs.

I believe that the Trump administration would agree with – and support that policy, too. That Palestinian Authority wants Israel to give up what their founder and late leader Yassir Arafat already agreed to in principle is something that we should at least understand as a legitimate starting point for negotiations. Under Obama and the mostly leftist government leaders of Europe (where antisemitism is fomented by an increasing Muslim population) Israel was denied that starting point – as per the Palestinian narrative. Under Trump, it is a lot more likely the US will give Israel that.

As for Amona - it’s too bad that saner heads have not prevailed there today. If they had we could have avoided the violence.

Violent protest at UC Berkeley campus yesterday (NPR)

The Trump factor refuses to go away. No matter how much I want discuss issues that are more directly related to the Jewish people - the elephant in the room won’t allow it. Every day something new about Trump comes up and dominates the news. The reportage of these events are invariably anti Trump. The images in the media seem to be a steady stream of protests against his every act. It reminds me of how the Viet Nam War was reported back in the 60s and 70s. I therefore feel compelled to address them.

The media fueled opposition then is just as it is now. Even though the two cases are far from identical, they have in common a liberal media bias that reflects the values of only half the country. And yet they treat those values as sacred.

If one were to use only the mainstream media as their source for news, one would think the entire country is in an uproar about what the President is doing - united in opposition to the President and his polices. Images of protests are all over the media. As are interviews of the people that are protesting.

That is clearly not the case. Were that true, Trump would have been crushed in an unprecedented landslide instead of being elected. The truth is that half the country actually supports what he is doing. The country is as divided now as it was during the Viet Nam War. And that has generated what happened yesterday at that hotbed of radicalism, the University of California at Berkeley.

It was 1968 all over again as what began as a peaceful protest turned ugly. Violence and vandalism prevailed. What precipitated that protest? A scheduled speech at the university by the new chairman of Brietbart News, Milo Yiannopoulos. The protest succeeded. The speech was canceled!

I don’t know much about this guy, however I am not a fan of based on some of the things I heard coming out of his mouth. But how I or anybody else feels about him is beside the point. This is about protecting free speech. Just as the ACLU protected the free speech of neo-Nazis in Skokie back in the 80s, so too should free speech be protected here. (Although I have not heard the ACLU weighing in on it this time).

Those mostly young student protesters didn’t care about free speech. They only cared about their values being overturned. They firmly believe that if one does not subscribe to their values, they are un-American. Meaning religious Americans.

That these two value systems clash is an understatement these days. When religious values challenge what they believe to be American liberal values, they go ballistic. The values they hold dear are those that were set by a President whose agenda was biased in favor of an egalitarian agenda intolerant of a religious point of view. So that when the agendas of both clashed, the ex President favored egalitarianism over religion. Progressives see religion as more of a superstition that is based on values anathema to them.

These Berkeley students see egalitarianism as the American ethic. The chance that the progress made over the last 8 years will be overturned makes them see red. In the person of Trump who has been strident about restoring the America of the past with all the intolerance they believe it suggests - their anger becomes unhinged. On the UC Berkeley that anger is transformed into violent protest.

But resorting to violence to assure liberal gains are not overturned is not democracy. It is fascism when you try and force your political views on everyone. They will not be deterred until they get their way by whatever means necessary – believing that their egalitarian ends justify their violent means. They will never tolerate eroding all those gains by a conservative agenda which they have been misled to believe is racist, bigoted, sexist, misogynistic, war mongering, and supportive of oppressive regimes like Israel. (Which is why there have been so many anti Israel protests in some universities.)

Now it is true that not all liberals feel this way. Some are very religious. As there are Conservatives that are not all that religious. But I believe it is fair to say that the two sides more or less break down that way.

Unfortunately a lot of well meaning people are easily influenced by the media spin on all of this. Which brings me back to Trump’s executive order. The reaction to that is split.

On the one hand -it is difficult to watch a young Muslim mother running for her life, children in hand, looking for refuge in any country that will take her. It is difficult to watch a parentless young Syrian child covered with blood after his village was just demolished by indiscriminate bombing. It is difficult to see wave after wave of immigrants (totaling in the hundreds of thousands if not more) marching out of their country towards an unknown destiny. It is difficult to see a little boy lying dead on the shores of a country his refugee parents tried to get into. And then hearing the President close this country’s doors to them. If that is all that is focused upon by the media how can anyone not feel compassion for the refugees and outrage against the President?

On the other hand - those images are only half the story… and the only ones being focused upon. The other half of the story is being ignored. The entire world is facing unprecedented danger from a religion that spawned the greatest attack against the free world since Hitler’s Germany. That fact is practically denied by politicians refusing to recognize Islam’s part in all of this. They keep saying that these terrorists do not represent Islam. As do many Muslim clerics that are seen as moderate. The real Muslims – they say - reject the ideology of the terrorists as not a legitimate form of Islam.

That is simply untrue. There are too many Imams preaching exactly that kind of Islamist theology. Starting with Iran’s Shiite leader, Ayatollah Khomeini - and his successor and current supreme leader, Ayatolah Khameini. (Sunnis have their own versions of this. Like the Wahhabi sect of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia where the 9/11 terrorists came from.)

One does not have to think very hard to be reminded of the fallout of the radical versions of Islam. The images of severed heads, the carnage in San Bernardino, Orlando, Fort Hood,Turkey Paris, Brussles… All of which were committed or inspired by a stream of Islam that is radical. It exists and identifies as Islam claiming to be the only legitimate version of it!

No other religion in modern times has spawned so many murderous martyrs as Islam has. Religious fervor as a motivator is far more dangerous than other ideologies since they believe they are doing it for God and do not fear death. Sometimes even embracing it!

It is for that reason that half the country actually supports what Trump did. He has kept the promises he made to the people that voted for him. They are not bigots. They are citizens of the United States that have a different point of view and want to see their families protected. And they are grateful for that executive order.

Jordan's King Abdullah and President Trump

As predicted by yours truly, Trump has changed some of his positions based on what his advisers and some world leaders have been telling him. The latest being his views on Israeli settlements. After speaking with Jordan’s King Abdullah, he warned Israel that constructing new settlements "may not be helpful" to Middle East peace efforts. He said that Israel should stop the kind of settlement construction that expands the borders of their existing ones.

This is almost verbatim what I thought he would do. He does not say that Israel should stop all settlement construction. He only suggests curbing it and not to expand the borders. That means that if someone needs to add a bedroom to an existing house in Ma’ale Adumim, he should be allowed to do so.

This is quite a departure from past administrations that condemned any and all settlement construction activity referring to it as an obstacle to peace. He did not use the word obstacle or impediment. I had always believed that this was the fairest way to proceed in Israel. It is fair to long time residents in cities that are just beyond the so-called ‘green line’ and it cannot be claimed by Palestinians that Israel is in the process of a ‘land grab’ as they often say. I hope Israel takes a cue from this and follows suit.

It is interesting to note that he made these comments right after speaking with Jordan’s Abdullah. Apparently Abdullah realizes that there is a new sheriff in town whose advisers on Israel have views that mimic the settler movement. He’s probably happy to have moved Trump away from those views a bit. I don’t hear him complaining about this new policy of implied support for some construction. At least not yet. It remains to be seen how the PA will react to this.

While Trump has some very strong settler supporters on board he also realizes that one cannot so drastically change foreign policy.

The same thing happened in the UN yesterday. Although committed to improving relationships with Russia, UN Representative Nikky Haley condemned them for their aggression in the Ukraine. The sanctions will not be removed. Shades of the Obama administration. That was exactly their foreign policy stance with Russia.

It is also clear that Trump will not dismantle the deal Obama made with Iran. What is clear however is that he will be a lot tougher with them than Obama was. Trump will probably never allow a red line to be crossed - and do nothing. Iran’s recent attack on a Yemenite ship believing it to be an American ship… and their recent testing of a ballistic missile has generated a warning from the Trump administration that Iran is being put on notice. And that the US will retaliate.

That generated the typical response from Iran’s Supreme leader, Ayatollah Khameni, which basically said the US better not mess with Iran, or else! I don’t think the new administration is going to be rattled by a third rate (not yet nuclear) military power’s threat in the face of America’s potential military might. (Which Trump said is not off the table –in response to a question about the kind of retaliation the US is thinking about.)

There is also the fact that though he has a desire to use torture against enemy combatants to gain vital information that would help protect our citizens here and abroad, he has nevertheless deferred to his Secretary of Defense that told him not to do it. And he won’t.

I knew the man was not as impulsive as he seemed to be during the campaign and during the transition period. With the exception of the temporary ban on refugees from the 7 predominately Muslim countries known to in some way be connected to terrorists - he is not as impulsive with respect to setting foreign policy as he is with his daily rhetoric on Twitter. What remains then is a conservative and tougher foreign policy stance than that of his predecessor that is being guided by people with conservative values who have the experience to guide him in those areas.

Unfortunately his penchant for impulsive tweets that tend to inflame passions from his political left; some on the right; and world leaders both friendly to us and not - will likely continue. But at least his bark is a lot worse than his bite. And I think world leaders like Australia’s Malcom Turnbull who as one of our closest allies was nevertheless scolded by Trump yesterday - are beginning to realize that.

(I hope this will be the last word on Trump for a while. So that I can get back to what I intended blog to all be about. But I wouldn’t bet the farm on it just yet.)

Rabbanit Alissa Thomas-Newborn of Congregation B'nai David

It appears to be unanimous. The rejection of female rabbis by virtually all religious authorities and institutions is apparently complete. The Orthodox Union (OU) has just released a statement that bars women from serving in a rabbinic capacity in any of their 400 member synagogues. Regardless of the title they use in that capacity.

A lengthy Teshuva (responsum) written in English was issued by 7 rabbinic leaders associated with Modern Orthodoxy whose Hashkafos are largely based on those of their mentor, Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik. The statement is unequivocal. Women may not be rabbis. I am not going to go into details one can read the Teshuva for that. I will just mention how they arrived at their decision in their own words:

There are three primary factors that may be considered by a halakhic decisor when developing a ruling: legal sources, precedent, and a relevant halakhic ethos.

I will only add that many of the points raised in this Teshuva are points I and many other Orthodox rabbis have made; and that I largely agree with everything they wrote.

That being said, I am not here to debate the legitimacy of their decisions. That is beside the point of this post. Which is to reiterate what I have said many times. I can’t predict the future, but as things stand now, the mainstream Orthodox leadership will never accept women as rabbis.

With this Psak the OU has joined the ranks of many other Orthodox institutions that have arrived at same conclusion. Those institutions include but are not limited to, the Agudah Moetzes, The Israeli Charedi rabbinic leadership, The Rabbinical Council of America, Young Israel, The Israeli Chief rabbinate, and the Conference of European Rabbis. In short there is not a single established organizational Orthodox body that will accept a woman in the position of rabbi.

Of course JOFA - the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance has rejected this as have those rabbis that identify with Open Orthodoxy. They will point to a grass roots movement that is already underway and growing. There are two institutions – Yeshivat Maharat in the US and Beit Midrash Har’el in Israel – that have been established for exactly that purpose: ordaining women as rabbinic leaders.

There are also a few Orthodox synagogues that have hired some of these graduates to serve in a rabbinic capacity. While JOFA has expressed disappointment, there has been some unfortunate disparagement by at least one Open Orthodox rabbi, Shmuel Herzfeld, who said about the OU that they should ‘stick to tuna fish’.

I know he’s angry. His synagogue is one of those that hired Maharat Ruth Balinsky Friedman as his assistant. But anger is hardly a substitute for a cogent response using the same criteria used in the Teshuva

And yet I understand his frustration. It is sincere. He believes that Orthodoxy has room for female rabbis and that women can add tremendously to the quality of communal observance and spirituality. As do many members of JOFA.

I agree that women can and do add tremendously to Judaism in a variety of ways. Their contributions have no less value than those of men. But charging ahead in the face of near universal opposition does not in my view contribute to it - no matter what the cultural ethos of the time dictates. In my view it does the opposite by dividing us.

I have never doubted their sincerity. Not those rabbis of Open Orthodoxy nor those women who have been ordained. But neither have I doubted the wisdom of all the rabbinic leaders that have rejected it. Arguments in favor of ordaining women have not convinced me or any of the rabbinic authorities that lead all of the above-mentioned organizations to reject that innovation.

Sincerity is not enough. There has to be acceptance by the rabbinical leadership. Leadership does not include the few renegade rabbis that believe the time is right to factor in the cultural ethos of our time into our own religious structure. But, as many other have noted, Rav Soloveitchik rejects that notion completely: From the Teshuva:

The same is true of the Rav’s nuanced embrace of secular knowledge and modern civilization. Based on his Torah weltanschauung… (he embraced) the inner logic of halakhah as a source of values (as) the sine qua non for navigating this engagement with society in a manner that is in consonance with the Torah. Our community’s mandate to understand both the world Hashem created, as well as the society in which we live, must never blind us from recognizing that there are frequently societal trends which run counter to the ethos of the Torah.

As I have mentioned many times men and women have different roles in Judaism. Egalitarianism by definition wants to eliminate these differences completely. Although egalitarianism is a noble goal it does not override our religious mandate and when the two ethical concepts collide, the Torah must not only prevail but we ought to be proud of the differences. Being Jewish is almost by definition being different. We have our own ethos and ought to wear it with dignity, not deny it or try to change it.

As an aside, I am happy to note that the OU sees a role for women as Yoetzet Halacha. Although there was some disagreement about it among individual signers of that Teshuva, it clearly allowed for it in certain circumstances for reasons that I have discussed in the past.

The question remains however, what happens now that there is an increasing number of female ordainees and synagogues that are hiring them. There is little anyone can do to change the tide. Just like there was little anyone could do to change the tide of the growth of Reform and Conservative Judaism in their heyday – despite the best efforts of the Orthodox establishment of their day.

Nor did the opposition to removing the Mechitza change the direction many Traditional synagogues of the 60s took in removing them. Time will take its toll on them all as it already has on those Traditional Shuls. As it has to the non Orthodox segment of American Jewry as the respected Pew Research organization has shown. Meanwhile the mainstream will continue to grow. Understand that I am not being triumphant. Nor do I wish to disparage those who disagree with me. I actually honor their sincerity even as I vehemently disagree with them. I’m just making a prediction based on historical precedents.

This new phenomenon of questionable innovations by the left that are being rejected wholesale by the mainstream will - for the movement - continue grow. But it is clear that - like it or not - it will be outside of Orthodoxy. I believe that there may be an emerging acknowledgement by supporters of female rabbis as indicated by Bnai David’s Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky’s rejection of the OU Teshuva. But if past is prologue their growth will be short lived. If Jewish history has taught us anything it has taught us that Jewish movements that have departed from the mainstream do not last.

Rabbi Shimon Russell

A few weeks ago, Montreal Beis Yaakov principal, Rabbi Shneur Aisenstark wrote a guest column for Mishpacha Magazine in which he gave some startling advice to parents whose children have dropped observance (popularly known as going OTD – Off The Derech). These young people often do not stop with that but go on to anti social behavior involving sex, alcohol and/or drugs.

None of this is new. Most professionals that work with these troubled young people advise parents very strongly to give these children unconditional love. Rabbi Aisenstark does not agree. He insists that there are lines that – when crossed have to be firmly dealt with. In other words the love cannot be unconditional. Which is what he means by the title of his column, ‘Not a Hefker Velt’.

Quoting R’ Chaim Kanievsky he said we do not live in a world where our actions shave no consequences. Parents must therefore insist on certain lines not being crossed on pain of ultimate rejection if necessary. Even troubled children have responsibilities says Rabbi Aisenstark adding Yesh Din V’Yesh Dayan. There are rules and a Heavenly Judge.

Children that are so rebellious to your religious requirements must be eliminated from your lives. That full acceptance comes only with the acceptance of Torah ideals. The door will be open only at such time that a child shows consideration for others in the house by at least observing the rules if not believing in them. Otherwise you love will take place only from afar.

In the course of his article he says that we don’t really know why a child goes OTD. I have said in the past that there are indeed a variety of reasons that young people go OTD. But based on people that work in the field have said - the reasons a young person goes OTD narrows to two basic ones.

Last week a Rabbi Shimon Russell, a Charedi professional ordained in Lakewood and a Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LSCW) wrote what can only be descried as an angry response to Rabbi Aisenstark – even though he said that he respects him as a Mechanech – a Jewish educator. He has an insider’s view as well as a professional one. And he completely rejects the notion that what applies to normal Chinuch applies to those that have gone OTD.

They are two different worlds requiring radically different educational approaches. It is one thing to tell young people that there are religious boundaries that cannot be crossed without consequences which will be visited upon them when they are crossed. But someone that has gone OTD is a horse of an entirely different color.

Speaking form his professional experience, Rabbi Russell then says that we in fact know very well why most young people go OTD - citing 2 primary causes. One being that they suffered abuse or molestation. (The abuse Rabbi Russell speaks of is not just sexual. It can be physical, mental, or even spiritual abuse.)

The former is easy to understand and has been discussed here many times. When a child is abused, it is usually by someone he knows and trusts. Like a parent, aunt/uncle, older sibling or teacher. And when reporting their abuse they are often disbelieved and sometimes even accused of lying for some vendetta they might have against the accused! When that happens the entire foundation of belief is so shaken that they start thinking everything they were taught is a lie.

The latter is when a child simply can’t keep up with his class in their studies. They end up feeling inadequate and unwanted. Sometimes that is caused by a dysfunctional family situation. And sometimes it is a plain old fashioned learning disability like dyslexia.

Rabbi Russell then chides Rabbi Aisenstark for quoting Gedolim to support his views - countering that he can quote Gedolim and Chazal that say the opposite!

The bottom line is that dealing with the OTD phenomenon should be left to the professionals. Those that have been trained and have experience working with these young people. It is their advice that should be taken and not the advice of laypeople – even respected Rabbis and Mechanchim like Rabbi Aisenstark. No matter how well intended.

I think this good advice in all areas where rabbis are not experts. For example, it is the experts that should be deciding policy in matters of reporting sex abuse to the authorities. Because no matter how well intended the rabbis who say you should go to them first are, they are not trained experts. They cannot therefore possibly see the entire picture the way a trained professional can. There are those that say that rabbis can be trained to properly. But that still does not give them the expertise that a professional has.

I don’t know whether Rabbi Russell would agree with those of us that advocate reporting sex abuse directly to the authorities. But I have to believe that he would be consistent with that view based on his experience with so many young people who because of that have gone OTD.

Rabbi Russell is not just an experienced professional. He is Charedi. If as I suspect, this his opinion then I think the rabbinic establishment ought to listen to him.

A Concrete but Distant Hope

Looking at the Negatives and the Positives

Is Objectivity a Thing of the Past?

Viewing Judaism through the Lens of Feminism

Marrying Out in the 21st Century

Congratulations, Mr. President

Why Bi-Partisan Support for Israel has Crashed

The Travel Experience from Hell

Love Thy Neighbor – A Prescription for Peaciie

Another Religious Jew Embarrasses Us

Not Your Mother’s Feminism

Kindnesses of the Children of Abraham

A Scholarly View of the Right, Left and Middle

Beyond Sectarianism – The Realignment of American Orthodox Judaism

An Executive Order

Dismantling a ‘Trailer Park’

Bleeding Hearts; Fascists; and Islam

As Predicted…

The Dignity of Difference

The Importance of Rabbis Listening to Experts