Emes Ve-Emunah

Secretary of Education designate, Betsy DeVoss

If one follows the media coverage of Secretary of Education designate, Elisabeth ‘Betsy’ DeVos, one would think that that she is an ignorant uncaring racist out to destroy public school education as we know it – leaving countless numbers of inner city children to the streets and a life full of crime.

The truth however lies elsewhere. Let us examine what’s really bothering Democrats and why she is so strongly supported by Republicans. And while were at it, let us examine the educational system itself as it stands now.

First let us admit that the fact that she is both a billionaire and a Republican does not help her with Democrats in their current incarnation as liberals. Of the type that always support the underdog outside of any context. This is true with Palestinians and it is true about inner city youth. In both cases they see only the down-trodden and blame it on the ruling class (read - Republicans) that cares only about itself.

The mainstream media is cut from the same liberal cloth and has no compunction in painting DeVos as ignorant by blowing some of her comments at senate hearings way out of proportion. That along with the anti Trump feelings of half the country feeds that negative image to a willing audience whose actual knowledge of education makes DeVoss look like an expert. The protests are huge. And opposition by the Democratic minority in the senate is fierce.

Senate confirmation hearings have resulted in 2 Republican defections: Senator Susan Collins of Maine and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. They have joined Democrats in opposition to her. Their claim is that DeVoss’s ignorance of education disqualifies her from the position. But the truth is that Democrats side with the very powerful teachers unions across the country that fear their member teachers losing their jobs via a possible cataclysmic change to the system that Mrs. DeVos will try and implement to one degree or another.

Of course Democrats never mention the influence of teachers unions in their opposition. But they do use their arguments that the kind of changes Mrs. DeVoss advocates would destroy public education as we know it. (And many teachers’ jobs right along with it.)

So what is it exactly that all this opposition is really about? Two words: school choice. (It’s interesting that the only time liberal Democrats are pro choice is for abortion on demand… not for educating their children. But I digress.)

Mrs. DeVoss is a strong advocate of a voucher system replacing the current one requiring - in most cases - parents sending their children to local neighborhood public schools. Instead the Department of Education will distribute vouchers to parents. Those vouchers will be the equivalent of money which can only be used to towards educating their children. They can take those vouchers and choose any school they wish provided minimal educational standards are met.

I really do not understand the opposition to this in a Democracy. Every parent should have the right to educate their children as they see fit. If a country believes it is in its best interest to have an educated public - thereby providing free education to its young… what better way to do that than by allowing parents to choose the education that best suits their needs – as long educational standards are met?

Will this take money out of the system as it stands now? This is exactly what the opposition is about. They say that the inner city schools will suffer. Vouchers will take money out of the inner city schools and diverted to the better schools chosen by parents.

That may be true. But that is a good thing. There is a reason those inner city schools will suffer. In many cases they deserve it! Parents that care about their children want to them to attend schools that successfully teach their students. Many of these inner city schools do not do that. In some cases they are schools in name only – siphoning government funds so that teachers can continue to have jobs. Many children that live in those neighborhoods and attend those schools end up being functionally illiterate.

Not because the parents want it that way. But because of a culture that has evolved not seeing much value in a typical education. A lot of young people there see a life of crime being far more profitable that any education they might receive in a public school. It is a self perpetuating system that continues to exist courtesy of a government controlled by Democrats for the past 8 years. They want to maintain the status quo and kept pouring money down that black hole in the hope that eventually things will improve.

Now there are some inner city schools that are the exception.. Their record with respect to educating their students have seen remarkable improvement. But I submit that those schools will be the among those that inner city parents who care about the quality of their children’s education will choose via their vouchers. The bottom line is that the schools that don’t produce – will indeed close. As they should.

What about us? …those of us that want our children to get a good education in a religious environment? In a country where separation of church and state is a sacred principle, how can we use vouchers to pay for a religious education?

That is one of the arguments made by opponents of vouchers. In my view and those that support a voucher system to replace the current one do not see that as a valid argument. It will not violate church state restrictions if vouchers are used to pay only for teaching subjects that are free of any religious content.

One may argue that it is impossible for religion to be kept entirely out of the classroom in a religious school. But I doubt that even public schools can live up to such a high degree of secular purity. Do they not require the pledge of allegiance which contains a reference to God? Is that not an insertion of religion into the public schools?

I can state with complete certainly that the secular subjects I studied in the day school and Yeshiva high school had no religious content at all. Many of my teachers were not even Jewish, let alone Orthodox.

It is no small coincidence that Mrs. DeVos was chosen by an administration, whose Vice President is Mike Pence. He was the governor of Indiana who presided over a very successful voucher program. One that my own daughter takes advantage of as an Indiana resident. Her tuition bill was significantly reduced from what she paid for when living Illinois. Day School and Yeshiva tuitions in Illinois are backbreaking for the vast majority of parents who are squeezed by tuition committees for every nickel they can get! This is true for every school - from Modern Orthodox to Charedi.

I doubt there is a parent in any of these schools that would oppose a national voucher program that would relieve them of some of that burden the way it has for my daughter. Which is exactly what Mrs. DeVoss advocates. And exactly why she is opposed by liberal Democrats and 2 liberal Republicans.

It is for that reason that I voice my strong support for her nomination as Secretary of Education. Don’t let the distorted media coverage of Mrs. DeVoss fool you. She is not the Christian missionary the Reform Movement says she is. Nor is she is as ignorant as she is being painted - despite some mistaken comments she made during her senate hearings.

She has been deeply involved with education in Michigan for quite some time now. As a devout Christian she understands the value of a religious education. And has worked with some Orthodox Jewish advocacy groups to lobby Washington in favor of school choice.

The current state of public education in this country in the inner city is nothing to brag about. The system needs a major overhaul. Some examples: Inner city education needs to be redefined to include more vocational training. Unproductive schools need to close. Let teachers that can’t or don’t teach lose their jobs. Let us stop pouring money into the black hole of public education as it now stands. Let the parents decide what schools their children attend. This way everybody wins except for those that don’t deserve it.

Manny Waks at the podium - panel members seated to his left (NYJW)

At 18, he left the Orthodox community, his family publicly confronting his abusers, his faith shattered by the abuse he had suffered and the indifferent response he had encountered from many leaders of his then-charedi community.

This excerpt from a story in the New York Jewish Week is the story of Manny Waks and supports the idea (discussed here a couple of days ago) that many of those that drop observance are survivors of sexual abuse.

Sex abuse is an issue that has plagued the Orthodox Jewish world and has been the source of much controversy. Many Orthodox leaders have been criticized for their failure to properly address it. Positive change had slowly been taking place but had a long way to go. Leaving survivors with the feeling that they would never see justice.

Survivor advocates were often harsh in their criticism. Which was strongly rejected by rabbinic leaders who said they were not reflecting the Torah point of view. But that seems to be changing.

In what seems like a 180 degree turn… the Agudah Moetzes has dropped its opposition to extending the statute of limitations for abuse victims to file claims against their abusers and enablers. To say I’m surprised is an understatement. Nor can I express enough my gratitude for this turn of events.

It is gratifying to see Agudah’s executive vice president, Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zweibel appearing at a New York Jewish Federation conference on abuse in the Orthodox community. He was joined by Rabbi Mark Dratch a modern Orthodox leader who founded JSafe, an anti abuse organization; and two survivors: Manny Waks who organized the conference and David Cheifetz a member of the panel (...in the picture above, seated in the center between Rabbi Dratch on the left and Rabbi Zweibel on the right).

The Global Summit on Sexual Abuse in the Jewish Community convened last week. From the New York Jewish Week article:

In an opening night panel discussion, Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel, executive vice president of the charedi Agudath Israel of America, said the umbrella organization’s rabbinic leadership now supports an extension of the statute of limitations in New York State for sexual abuse victims to bring civil and criminal suits.
Agudath had earlier opposed such an extension, citing the potentially financial liability that day schools, camps and other institutions could face…
Sexual abuse is “a very, very important issue. This is something we can’t ignore,” Rabbi Zwiebel said... “We’ve become more and more aware of it.

While I disagreed with Agudah’s past position on this issue, I have always understood their concerns about extending the statue of limitations. They feared that viable religious schools that had long ago changed the hands of leadership since any abuse took place would be vulnerable to lawsuits decades after any abuse took place.

That would cripple them financially – possibly even forcing them to permanently shut their doors. They refused to listen to advocates that pointed to evidence that this did not happen in communities that lifted that statute.

They felt even though justice would not be served for a survivor it was outweighed by an existential fear. Every religious school was needed have to accommodate the population explosion that has been filling classrooms to capacity... even faster than they are being constructed. Schools would be closing because of something that happened decades ago that that current leaders had nothing to do with.

But… justice was left un-served in far too many cases. Abuse victims are often reluctant to come forward since by doing so they creates a stigma about themselves and their families causing communal difficulties for them. Like the all consuming issue these days of Shidduchim. Many survivors of abuse have therefore only come out decades after that abuse, And then find out that it’s is too late to do anything about it.

Agudah has now been convinced that their arguments are valid and have changed course.

There is yet another issue that Agudah seems to have moved forward on, that of Mesira - the prohibition of informing on fellow Jews to secular authorities. Although there are many interpretations that explain this prohibition as not applying to just societies like that of the United States - there are some that interpret it as absolute. Here are Rabbi Zweibel’s comments about that:

(T)he concept of mesira… is not applicable when the evidence against an accused abuse perpetrator is clear. He said charedi rabbis are instructed to tell members of their communities to immediately bring accusations of clear sexual abuse to police, instead of to rabbis. And he invited Jewish victims of sexual abuse at the hands of other Jews to bring a case in a beit din (Jewish court), where no statute of limitations exists.

This is wonderful news. It seems the culture is changing. Past reticence to deal with this issue has changed into pro-activity. Rabbi Zweibel was asked what Agudah is doing to deal with this issue:

“Not enough,” he answered. “We all recognize that we have to do more.”

This summit did not only have Agudah representation. It even had Charedi representatiopon from Israel. Rabbi Arie Munk who heads a mental health organization in Bnei Brak attended and said:

“Twenty years ago, nobody came to these conferences” — if they even took place, Munk said. In the conservative charedi world, where topics like sexuality are traditionally considered a violation of modesty standards, and abuse at the hands of community members would be considered a collective embarrassment, the topic was rarely discussed openly.
“Nobody’s quiet anymore,” Munk said.

He wants to create a registry of sex offenders that would bar them from entering the country.

I will end with an excerpt quoting Dr. Shira Berkovits, a psychologist and attorney who founded Sacred Spaces, a “cross-denominational initiative” which sums up my own feelings about this:

(I)t “was not a small thing” that Rabbi Zwiebel “was willing to state on the record that he supports an extension of civil” statutes of limitations. “It is a big deal and he should be given credit for it … and held to it.” Berkovits praised Waks’ initial advocacy work in Australia as being “light years ahead of anywhere else. He didn’t quit until the institutions began dealing with the issue. He’s done it at great personal cost.” She called Waks the most successful anti-abuse activist who had been a survivor.

Conservative Movement's Louis Ginzberg

One of the first things the founders of the Conservative Movement did was to remove the Mechtiza from their synagogues. They argued that since this idea was no where mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch there was no reason not to allow the American custom of family type seating in houses of worship.

They felt secure in the claim that they were still a Halachic movement; and were just being sensitive to the ethos of their times. They believed they had to do this in order to conserve Judaism in America since its inherent freedoms and ‘melting pot’ spirit would cause Jews to leave Judaism entirely - siding with the American cultural ethos over the Torah’s ethos.

The Conservative Movement was not a frivolous one. They were sincere in their beliefs. Their founding founders were brilliant Talmidei Chacham, some of whom were educated in the finest Yeshivas in Europe. These European Yeshiva trained European architects of Conservative Judaism believed that the survival of Judaism required taking some innovative measures. They attributed objections to it from their right to the old fashioned European mentality these rabbis brought with them from Europe – being completely unaware of the ways of America.

If this scenario sounds a bit familiar, that’s because the same thing is happening again. But with a different issue. When the Conservative movement was founded, they saw the tradition of separating the sexes in a Shul to be an impediment not sourced in clear Halacha. So they addressed it by eliminating it… using some of the finest Talmudic minds of their time to bolster their argument.

Today, the same argument is being made by rabbis on the extreme left of Modern Orthodoxy about a different issue: The ordination of women as rabbis. They argue that there is no clear Halacha to prevent it. By not accepting this innovation they say we will lose some of our best, brightest, and most highly motivated people in Judaism. They point to the inherent inequality of denying a woman this opportunity who have only the most altruistic of reasons for seeking to serve as rabbis: which is to serve God and the Jewish people. They further argue that by denying them this opportunity Judaism will fail to be enriched by these very knowledgeable women. Whose perspective has been sorely lacking in our lives as a Jewish nation.

This kind of thinking has picked up speed by some Modern Orthodox rabbis on the extreme left. There are now seminaries that are dedicated to ordaining women. And they have some very vocal grass roots supporters. Another glass ceiling that has impeded women from achieving their full potential has now been broken - they will say.

Arguments against it by the mainstream of Orthodoxy are challenged as having no Halachic basis. It therefore allows us to incorporate innovations based on the current cultural ethos which they say outweighs arguments based on tradition. And like therefore just like the Conservative movement of old, they claim to still be a Halachic movement.

I can’t help but notice the parallels here. In both cases there was a plausible reason to innovate against centuries of tradition. In both cases the claim was made that it did not violate Halacha. In both cases there was some merit to that argument. And in both cases rabbis that supported those innovations were highly knowledgeable of Jewish law. This was especially true of the European Yeshiva trained founders of the Conservative movement. One of them, Rabbi Louis (Levi) Ginzberg was referred to as a gaon (Talmudic genius) by R’ Elya Meir Bloch one of the founding Roshei Yeshiva of Telshe in America. He put it writing in the forward of a Sefer – thanking HaGoan R’ Levi Ginzberg for his help in getting it published.

Not so sure that today’s Left wing defenders of female rabbis are anywhere near Rabbi Ginzberg’s league. I think they might even acknowledge that if you asked any of them. And yet not a single one of those rabbis would today remove the Mechitza from their shuls today. Nor would they likely even Daven in one. The Orthodox opposition at the time was unanimous. Modern Orthodox leaders of our time – even those on the extreme left still adhere to that prohibition. Juts to cit a rather famous example: Rabbi Shlomo Riskin staked his career on it when he insisted that Lincoln Square Synagogue install a Mechitza if they wanted him to serve as their rabbi. Which brings me to an article by one of Rabbi Riskin’s colleagues.

Rabbi Herzl Hefter

I don’t know much about Rabbi Herzl Hefter. But I’m told he is quite brilliant and a Talmud Chacham. Rabbi Hefter is the founder of Beit Midrash Harel, a seminary in Israel that confers the title of rabbi upon women that have studied and passed his exams. Which I’m told are similar to the ones male rabbis take.

The rejection of this innovation by a long list of mainstream Orthodox rabbis in both the right wing Charedi world and Modern Orthodox Centrist world has been unanimous. Most recently the Orthodox Union (OU) – which is guided by Centrist rabbis have added their own prestigious name to that list with a lengthy explanation written by those rabbis in defense of their position.

The left has dismissed it saying (as they have many times in the past in defense of their own position) that Orthodox opposition is not based on Halacha and instead base on arcane ideas about tradition that are irrelevant to the ethos of modern man.

In an incredible act of hubris, Rabbi Hefter has compared the arguments used in the OU statement to those made by Rabbi Dr. M.J. Raphall of Congregation B’nai Jeshurun in New York City. Rabbi Raphall was an Orthodox Civil War era rabbi who defended slavery as a biblically sanctioned practice. While Rabbi Hefter immediately clarifies that evil of slavery as practiced in the antebellum South is nowhere near the same thing as the ‘plight’ of Orthodox Jewish women today, he nevertheless believes the arguments used by Rabbi Raphall are practically identical to the ones made in the OU statement.

Despite his claim that he is not saying the OU statement as an endorsement of slavery… and despite his concession that the opposition is idealistic and sincere - I find this comparison to be disgusting, regardless of how he views the similarity of argument.

The imagery evoked by the slavery of the antebellum South used in any context with the rabbis that oppose him suggests a sort of guilt by association. As if any of these rabbis would have made the same arguments to support slavery in its day. Rabbi Hefter wants us to conclude that if that argument is good enough to deny women their ‘freedom’ it is good enough to deny black slaves their freedom. Which he knows they would not do thereby suggesting they rethink their argument.

The differences between enslaving people – especially the way it was done in the pre-Civil War South and denying a women a degree as rabbi are so vast that comparisons between them can have only one objective. To smear the opposition. That is what Rabbi Hefter has done. Even if he doesn’t realize it.

The fact is that Orthodox Jewish women are not ‘enslaved’ in any way. Their contributions are as important as those of men. Their learning deserves to be recognized – and is in many ways. And we are all richer for their contributions whether they be mandated by Halacha or discretionary. Orthodox Jewish women are free to pursue any endeavor they choose.

But the one thing they can’t do by virtue of our traditions and by virtue of the unanimous opinion by virtually all of Orthodoxy’s mainstream leadership - is to become rabbis. That standard will prevail just as the standard of requiring a Shul to have a Mechtiza has prevailed, despite the best efforts of the well intended to try and change it.

At the end of the day what we have here is an inconsistent response to 2 issues that have the same parameters. Rabbi Hefter accepts one and rejects the other. And I’m not particularly fond of the way he tried to do it either. In fact I lost any respect I might have otherwise had for him because of it.

Note the black eye! (YWN)

18^th century Irish statesman and political theorist, Sir Edmund Burke, once famously observed that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing. At no time in history was that more true than during the Holocaust.

But this is true at all times and for all people. And once again evil has triumphed in part for that reason in the Charedi town of Elad in the State of Israel. A 10 year old ‘Chardalit’ (Charedi/ Dati Leumi) girl was assaulted by a couple of young Charedi girls as she was waiting for a bus. Why did they assault her? Because she was carrying a smart-phone. From YWN:

She was returning from a friend’s home when she was confronted by the attackers, who said “Throw the tamei phone on the ground. We will step on it and break it for you”. They of course explained to her that the phone was not a certified kosher phone and therefore, she was not permitted to keep it.

When she refused, she was attacked, knocked to the ground as they began pulling her hair. This continued until the bus she was waiting for arrived at the stop. She boarded the bus, bleeding and crying. They continued taunting her on the bus and when she turned to others to assist, they remained silent. Finally, the girl approached the driver, who threw them off of the bus two stops later.

One might want to write this off and say that these are just children. Don’t judge the entire Charedi community by what a couple of immature kids might do. Their parents would obviously never do or condone anything like that.

Well, I do not judge the entire community that way. I happen to agree that most Charedi parents would not do or condone that behavior. The problem is that there is a reason those young attackers did what they did. It’s because they have been indoctrinated to an extremely negative view of smart-phones. They see them as so evil - that it warrants this kind of response. And they have plenty of adult role models for exactly that kind of behavior.

One does not have to search too far to find it. It was adults from an ultra-Charedi Bet Shemesh suburb that tormented a 7 year old religious Zionist girl, yelling and screaming at her... calling her a whore because she was not dressed according to their particularly strict standard of modesty for children.

Of course that wasn’t the real issue. It was really a turf war over a school built on the border between a ultra Charedi section and a Dati Leumi one. I guess they felt it was a legitimate tactic to torment young girls not dressed accoring to their strict standards to accomplish their ends.

I recall interviews that were taken from other ultra-Charedi residents there. They either defended it or excused it by saying they wouldn't do it but understood why the protesters did and agreed with their reasons. And no one from that community stood up to defend that young girl during those protests. They just stood idly by and let it happen... probably with a sense of justification about their ends.

So why shouldn’t these young girls express the same zealotry? After all they were defending their cause. They might have even thought they were saving the soul of that young smartphone owner!

The same kind of thinking may have been on the minds of all those onlookers who according to the YWN article saw the beating this young girl was taking and did nothing!

Whose fault is this mess? It is the fault of the kind of extremism that is so characteristic of the ultra-Charedi world in Israel. This is unlike the nuanced approach that has been adopted by the Charedi world in America. Most American Charedi rabbinic leaders have finally realized that there may actually be a useful purpose to smart-phones. They no longer oppose them in their entirety. I’m not even sure they ever did officially ban it. Despite that big Internet Asifa (gathering) at Citifield a few years ago that made it sound like they did. Any sort of ban they might have once considered has been replaced by urging the use of filters.

But not Israel. They are still pretty much in the banning mode. Much of the ultra-Charedi world in Israel only allows their members to carry Kosher-phones. These phones have no internet connection and can basically only be used to make phone calls. If I understand correctly, most Charedi schools in Israel will not allow children to attend if a parent uses a smartphone.When a community takes such extreme measures to deal with a problem, which I concede is legitimate in more ways than one, then it should not be a surprise when children take extreme measures to enforce them.

But even if extremism is the mentality that guides this world, I have to wonder why the good people on the bus just sat there watching those 2 young girls beating up on that young smart-phone owner. Even if they approved of their goals they should not have approved of the means these young zealots were taking. Did they?

R' Hershel Schachter - a signatory to the OU Psak

The debate goes on. And it is as divisive as ever. Those who seek an egalitarian goal in Orthodoxy see denying women the ability to be serve as rabbis as a denial of their basic human rights. There is no argument that will dissuade them. Having been raised in a culture that sees egalitarianism as an inviolable value makes them seek to insert into Judaism wherever they can.

It is as though these advocates of egalitarianism believe that this value is on par with all the Mitzvos of the Torah. Denying them this perceived right is seen as denying them their ability to be fulfilled as a Jewish woman… or even as Jew… or perhaps even as a human being!

How sad it is that the concept of equality between the sexes - a value which is otherwise quite noble - is used to attack the rabbis of our generation as nearancient relics of the past who refuse to recognize how badly they treat half of their own people. They deny them the right to serve God in ways they feel they best could. That these rabbis do not in any way have that as their motivation does not even occur to them. But the truth is that they are only motivated by what they believe God wants of His people. And as the most Torah knowledgeable Jews of our generation who are very aware of the culture in which they live, it is they who are most qualified to determine that. Certainly not JOFA or rabbis of far lesser stature that are sympathetic to their egalitarian cause.

But this post it is not really about that. It is to point out a comment made by Rabbi Gil Student in his own defenseof the OU’s statement. Because of the hot debate over this topic, that point can easily be overlooked. I think it is too important to let slide. Here is what he said:

In terms of process, the OU followed the right path. It did not turn to poskim in Israel, who might not fully understand the situation in the US. It turned to poskim in the U.S. – rabbis who lead their own shuls and/or visit communities across the country. They received written and oral input from leaders of many different communities. And after reaching a decision, they communicated it to the public in a lengthy document explaining their reasoning and providing their sources.

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of what Rabbi Student said here. As I have said in the past, the 2 worlds of Orthodoxy cannot be farther apart on a variety of issues. Although there is the obvious commonality of following Halacha that all of Orhtodoxy shares, the Hashkafos seem to divide us more than they unite us. It is wishful thinking to say that the Charedi Hashkafa of the US and Israel are the same. (I should add that even in America there are communities like Satmar that fall more into the Israeli camp than they do into the American camp. But the divisions are clear.)

Just to cite a few examples of the differences: the way the internet and smartphones are treated; the way secular studies in elementary and high schools are treated; the way participatory sports are treated; (or even spectator sports in some cases)… all of these issues are treated in an almost opposite fashion by the US and by Israel. It is almost as if there were 2 Torahs. One for America and one for Israel (and Satmar like communities).

The problem is that after the Petirah (death) of major Poskim in America like Rav Moshe Feinstein, his successors have looked eastward for guidance in some cases. So that even after they had ruled on a public matter, they allowed themselves to be overruled by Israeli Poskim.

The most famous (or should I say infamous) case of this was when Rabbi Natan Slifikn’s books attempting to reconcile Torah and science were deemed to be heretical by major Charedi Poskim in Israel . Rabbi Slifkin had vetted his books via a number of Poskim who gave them their approbation. But when senior Israeli Poskim ruled that those books contained heresy, those rabbis withdrew their approbation.

I am not going to get into the exact issues that led to this ban. (Been there and done that.) I am only pointing out how looking at Israel whose culture is so radically different than ours is not the way American Poskim should feel obligated to rule. And I’m happy to see that the OU Poskim followed that principle.

That episode caused untold grief to Rabbi Slifkin and his family. And it caused many American –even Charedi Rabbonim and Roshei Yeshiva that were teaching that the views expressed in Rabbi Slifkin’s books were acceptable - to have to backpedal. I recall speaking to one Charedi Rosh Kollel in America who told me that his outreach efforts would now be hampered by the Psak of those Senior Israeli Poskim. In the past he allowed people who advocated Rabbi Slifkin’s approach to speak to even in his own Avreichim about that view, right in his own Beis HaMedrash! But… no more. I asked him what he was going to do. He basically shrugged – not really having an answer.

This is why it is important to know the environment in which one Paskins. So that a Posek will not just arbitrarily take the Israeli Psak and apply it to his own environment. This is why the OU took the opportunity of their statement to not only forbid, but to permit… ruling where the role of women may be expanded within the limits of Orthodoxy. Even if not always applicable in all circumstances.

The Poskim of the OU have gone out on a limb here to do the right thing. My hope is that the leading Poskim to their right will follow their lead in this regard and allow for such an expansion when circumstances demand it. They have broken ranks with Israeli Poskim in other areas, as mentioned above. I hope they will do it here as well.

It's that time of year again. Most people like to be paid for the work they do. Even if they love their jobs. How many times have I heard a popular actor or actress who is well paid for their work say they love their jobs so much that they would do it for nothing. But the fact is that they are well paid for their work. Most of these people are multi millionaires. So I think you have to take what they say about ‘doing it for nothing’ with a grain of salt. But I do appreciate that they love what they do.

I too love what I do here. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t be doing it. But unlike those celebrities who make millions for their work, I make practically nothing. The few ads I have here barely pay for my yearly internet fees. So once a year I make a pitch for a little financial compensation as an incentive - to go along with my labor of love.

I’ve been doing this now for over 10 years – contributing one post per day except for Shabbos and Yom Tov. It isn’t easy coming up with original material every single day of the year no matter where I am. But I have continued to do so with the rarest of exception.

I therefore once again ask that those of you that enjoy reading this blog - and if the spirit moves you - to donate* whatever amount you wish into my PayPal account (located at the top right margin). But - and this is really important - only if you can afford it. If you can’t afford it – or even if you just don’t want to donate anything, that’s perfectly fine with me. Everyone is welcome here and this blog will remain open and free. But if you do want to show your appreciation for this blog in even a minimally financial way, it will be tell me that my work here is worth more than nothing… and it will keep me posting daily with what I hope is quality material (most pf the time).

I am grateful to the Jewish Press and the Times of Israel for publishing so many of my posts online. Even though they don't pay me I appreciate the exposure. I also appreciate all those of you that are moved to comment on my posts. You add a lot and I have learned much from you.

As I said last year, good Jewish blogs are getting harder to find. I think that’s even truer today than it was last year. My blog is still here and going strong.

Once again, I want to thank all of my readers and those who comment for making this blog the success that it is.

Harry Maryles

*Contributions are not tax deductible.

Bais Yisroel - typical Yeshiva where students come in MO and leave Charedi

In yet another thoughtful essay, Ezra Epstein provides some insight into the phenomenon of the ‘gap year’. This is the year between Yeshiva high school and college that many modern Orthodox students spend in a Yeshiva in Israel. Ezra is one of those students. And as young as he is, he has the wisdom of someone much older.

(Charedi high school students do not share in this phenomenon. There is no ‘gap year’ since there is no college post high school for them. Instead they generally continue in American Yeshivas by learning full time. If and when they do eventually go to Israel, it is much later and to a Yeshiva unlike those attended by modern Orthodox high school students during their gap year.)

There are, Ezra says, 2 virtually opposite reasons that a student will want to study in Israel for their gap year:

One reason is that they are happy with their upbringing, which comprises their home, school and community, and would love to take a break from their current environment to join their brothers and sisters in the Jewish homeland to continue their education, learn more Torah and begin to build an independent, adult life.

The second reason, which I described in my last article, is that they are not satisfied with their upbringing, which has left them with a bad taste in their mouths, so they turn to the Jewish gap year to satisfy their desperate need for a totally new and fresh perspective on Judaism or, as my friends and I call it, “religious rehab.”

These differences cannot be overlooked. I have to wonder what the percentage of modern Orthodox students fall into each category. And what the impact is on each type. Can an eventual outcome be predicted based on these differences? Although there is no guarantee, I have to believe that if one belongs to the latter group, there is a far greater danger of eventually becoming a skeptic and totally non observant.

The question is whether the ‘bad taste’ about Judaism they bought with them can be overcome by a ‘religious rehab’. My guess is that some minds can be changed. But I believe that in some cases (how many – I don’t know) these students are just playing along until they get back and continue their adults lives in a university campus setting that will be more appealing to them. And perhaps be lost to observance forever.

There is another aspect of this phenomenon that should not be overlooked. The extent to which Mechanchim (religious educators) push students to go to Israel for the gap year and which Yeshivas they direct them to. And push they do. Very hard!

As one might expect, Mechanchim in many modern Orhtodox Yeshivas are Charedi. That’s either because Chinuch is where many of them want to be. Or because their career choices are more limited since many (perhaps even most) never attend college themselves. The Modern Orthodox world tends towards the more financially lucrative careers outside of Chinuch which is what a college education gives them a better chance at.

There are of course modern Orthodox Mechanchim. But I think it is safe to say that you will find that many schools have teachers that are personally Charedi even as they required to teach the Hashkafa of the school. Or at least not disparage it. But it is almost impossible to hide where you are coming from to your students. And when it comes to the gap year, they influence their students which Yeshiva in Israel to attend.

There are plenty of Yeshivos in Israel that recruit modern Orthodox students. But they are far from modern Orthodox themselves. Once there the modern Orthodox student begins an indoctrination that in many if not most cases turns them into Charedim. They do it subtly but over time, a student from a modern Orhtodox background will come to reject the Hashkafos of his home. Especially if he comes from that first group Ezra described.

The high school Mechanchim consider this ‘coversion’ to be a success. They have turned these young people whose minds were filled with the mush that they consider modern Orthodoxy to be - into Bnei Torah. Which only someone with Charedi Hashshkafos can aspire to be.

But for sincere Modern Orthodox parents who wanted their children to grow in their Judaism, by sending them to Israel, it is often a shock. The wanted the growth. But they did not want it to grow into are rejection of the values with which they had raised their child.

Why do these young people buy into the Charedi version of Judaism during their gap year? I believe it is because they have been influenced by a charismatic Rebbi in Israel in the Yeshiva they attend. Buying into the arguments against modern Orthodoxy those Rebbeim have been making all year. Arguments that capitalize on the feeling a certain type of student brings with him. In describing the motivation of one students like this, Ezra put it this way:

(H)is biggest fear (was) believing… that it would force him to “drop everything and become Charedi.” He feels that the environment he was raised in at home is not genuine, so much so that it only leaves him with one option.

I am not saying this happens in every case. Perhaps not even in most cases. But it happens a lot. I see it all the time.

What about Yeshivas in Israel that have a Modern Orthodox perspective? From what I know of them (and I could be wrong) they tend towards the left wing fringe of modern Orthodoxy. That is not the answer for Centrists like me. And as most people know by now, I believe it is Centrism – and not the far left - that will be the future of a viable modern Orthodoxy - if it will continue to exist at all! If it does - it will coexist with the moderate Charedi world.

I’m not sure where this will all lead. But one thing seems certain. The Charedi influence is pervasive. Which in my view means that modern Orthodox schools need to do a better job teaching their students (and perhaps even the parent body of those schools) what the Modern Orthodoxy Hashkafa is all about; that it is as valid as the Charedi Hashkafa; and explain why that is true. If we can’t do that, modern Orthodoxy is doomed.

Deputy Defense Minister, Rabbi Eli Ben-Dahan

I get it. I really do. These students are protesting the draft. Much the same way American students did during the 70s. In both cases the students protesting do not want to be drafted into the army. But their reasons are different. And although the right to protest the government in a free and democratic society is one of its hallmarks, I can’t really place the same value on them. In the 70s young people were protesting an immoral war. This is the way, Rav Ahron Soloveichik characterized the Viet Nam War to the entire student body of HTC from a lectern in the Beis HaMedrash - long before it became popular for the Jewish establishment to do so.

In the case of the Charedi students they are protesting against the very people that protect – not only their right to protest in a democracy - but protect their very lives. And that just does not sit well with me.

It would be one thing to have peaceful protests. But what happened recently was anything but peaceful.

This is not a new phenomenon. There are 2 factions led by 2 Charedi leaders world that have different approaches to this issue. While they both oppose drafting Charedim into the army their approach is radically different. This has deteriorated into one of the most divisive disputes between Charedi factions in my memory. Some of which have resulted in violence between the factions themselves! (There are some Charedim that refuse to send their children to Ponevezh Yeshiva in Bnei Brak which is a hotbed of contention between the 2 factions.)

R’ Aharon Leib Shteinman of Bnei Brak has agreed to comply with the law which requires students to register with the draft. They then remain exempt until such time they decide to leave the hallowed halls of the Beis HaMedrash. At which time they will have to do some form of national service to fulfill their obligations. Charedim that do not spend their time studying Toarh will be subject to service right away. The Israeli government has created special units for Charedim that will honor their religious sensitivities.

R’ Shmuel Auerbach (the Yerushalmi Faction) has taken a more militant approach and exhorted his followers to not register for the the draft at all – resisting it by all means necessary. This has resulted in protests some of which have turned violent. From Arutz Sheva:

Rabbi (B)en-Dahan criticized the ‘Yerushalmi Faction’, a Litvish movement led by Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach that is staunchly opposed to haredi enlistment in the IDF, for instigating the protests and riots, which have blocked roads, led to the injuries of several police officers, and led to dozens of arrests of rioters.

"There is no decree of recruitment," Rabbi Ben-Dahan told Army Radio. "Everyone who wants to study Torah can study Torah. We are talking about those who walk around the streets and do not study Torah."

Rabbi Ben-Dahan expressed his disgust with the violence at several of the demonstrations, including an incident in which a haredi soldier was attacked. "It's an attitude that shows real ingratitude. There are people who do not sleep day and night to protect you. And this is you're attitude towards them]? This is the thanks?"

"They are using the Torah to act [in a way which is] contrary to it. They are trying to sanctify God's name, but they are really desecrating God's name. [They are turning] the Torah into a tool for hurting others," Rabbi Ben-Dahan continued.

I could not agree more with Rabbi Ben-Dahan. It is one thing to protest against the government when you disagree with one of their polices. But it is another to do it the way it happened here. It is especially outrageous to me when a Charedi soldier is attacked.They must see him as a traitor to their cause. That he retains his religious standards in the army due to government sensitivity to it - is of no consequence to them.

And yet that is one of the chief reasons Charedi leaders reject the army. They believe its purpose is to turn Charedim away from Judaism by assimilating them into becoming an Israeli prototype soldier. Whose goal they believe is to make observance of Halacha at best secondary and often non existent.

Clearly this is not the case for Charedi recruits anymore. But the resistance to the draft remains the same as though it were. That R’ Shteinman still opposes it is his right even if I don’t agree with him. He has the right to speak out against it - even as he exhorts young Charedim to comply with the law. It is even the right of R’ Auerbach to protest it. It is just not his right to allow his followers to do it the way they are.

The one thing I can’t understand is why these leaders do not see the army for what it really is? The army’s primary reason for existence is to protect the Jewish people in a Jewish country. Even if what they believe be true about a purpose to assimilate Charedim out of observance, that is clearly secondary to the real task. Which is to protect and defend the Jewish people. They know the risk to life and limb that these soldiers go through every day while in uniform. And yet despite what is the obvious primary purpose of the Israeli army - it does not seem to rate even a mention!

Where is the Hakoras HaTov? Where is the kind of gratitude given to the army that was expressed in public so eloquently by R’ Chaim Shmulevitz after his Yeshiva was nearly destroyed in a near miss of a rocket attack in one of Israel’s wars? We have gone from that to Charedi violence in the streets against that same army – seeing increased opposition even as new accommodations for Charedim have been established.

There are some people that want to separate themselves from these Charedi gangs by saying that every group has its extremists. This may be true. But these extremists have a respected Charedi leader in R’ Shmuel Auerbach. He is the one generating this behavior by his rhetoric! They are inspired by his words and believe that they are simply acting on them.

I am not qualified to judge R’ Auerbach’s authority as a religious leader. But I am qualified to judge evil when I see it no matter what the evil doer looks like. I therefore have absolutely no mercy on these violent protesters. They belong in jail. If that happens I shudder to think of the protest that will follow. It will massive and make the current ones look like child’s play.

But it is the right thing to do. There has to be a price paid for such behavior.

There is only one word that can capture the behavior of certain religious looking Jews: Uncivilized. These are Jews that are raised in a bubble. A bubble that sees everything outside of it as either evil or beneath them. And therefore have no clue how to interact with fellow human beings that are not like them.

Those who are a bit wiser among them tend to hide this attitude when in public. Sometimes they succeed. But often they do not. By the way they lead their lives they believe themselves to be the most devout of Jews. Sacrificing the world of materialism for a life of spirituality. Their Jewish education is limited to what their leaders deem worthy of teaching them in terms of their relationship with God and their relationship with man. What they learn about the latter does not extend to non Jews. Who are treated accordingly.

I cannot begin to describe how embarrassed I am by the behavior this attitude generates. That they end up making a Chilul HaShem does not occur to them. If confronted they will deny it. They actually believe their behavior towards non Jews is normal, reasonable, and appropriate. In that sense their leaders that have failed them miserably!

This is not the first time I have discussed this. And unfortuntely it probably won’t be the last. There seems to be precious little anyone can do to change things. But I want to make clear my disgust with an attitude that produces the kind of Chilul HaShem that was described in the Jewish News:

Desperate easyJet staff called police from 30,000ft during a “nightmare” flight from Tel Aviv to Luton, after a group of strictly-Orthodox Jewish men refused to take their seats for religious reasons.

During the incident on Monday afternoon, which one air steward described as “the worst flight in 11 years”, one passenger also plugged a mobile phone into the plane’s control panel in a “foolish attempt to charge it”, causing the exit light to switch on.

According to one witness, the chaos began at boarding in Tel Aviv, when a group of male passengers refused to take seats next to women.

Eventually a “bemused” female passenger offered to swap her seat.

“I chatted to her later on. She just couldn’t believe the whole thing and they didn’t even say thank you. That was something the staff mentioned as well, that they did not say please or thank you.”

The perplexed passenger also noted the group – a wedding party, which made up more than 50 percent of the flight – kept using the call button, causing disruption to the other passengers.

They were constantly ringing the bell for the steward. I’ve never heard it go off so many times. It was dinging constantly and to the point it was really intrusive if you are trying to read or something.

I wish I could say that this is an anomaly. Although not quite as egregious, I have personally witnessed similar behavior by a group of passengers like this on a fight I was on. From the moment they boarded the plane they treated the flight attendants like personal servants. As Kipa wearing Jew, I was embarrassed by it. I tried to apologize to one flight attendant - saying that I hope she didn’t think all religious Jews behave this way. She was very gracious and said no, she knows we don’t adding that she was used to this kind of treatment by these people. She added that in her experience, most Orthodox Jewish passengers were very respectful of others and were among the best behaved.

That people raised this way don’t even realize how bad their behavior is - is what makes this so upsetting. It’s true that every group has people that misbehave making innocent fellow members of that group look bad. But in those cases, those who act badly know it. They are just sociopaths who care about no one but themselves.

But these people are not sociopaths. They think they are acting normal. That can only happen if you live in a bubble and never learn how to interact in civilized ways with people outside of your group.

I understand that their religious ideals see the mingling of the sexes as a violation of their modesty standards. Although I don’t agree with the their extreme interpretations, I respect their right to view it as they understand it. Which requires them to avoid contact between the sexes as much as humanly possible.

This is what generates the desire for their men to avoid sitting next to a woman on an airplane. I have no issue with their motives. My issue is only in how they try and honor that standard by imposing on others. And if they can’t get what they want one way, they will do it another - no matter who or how many it inconveniences or disturbs. They believe they are being true to their ideals. Are they all like this? I don’t know. But there have been too many instances of it for it not to be the norm at some level.

What generates this behavior is the severity of sexual sins. They therefore believe one must go to the greatest lengths to avoid male female interaction – let alone contact. Sitting next to a woman on a long flight in the sardine can situations of economy class may very well result in some inadvertent physical contact. This, they see as so unacceptable that they will use any and all means necessary to avoid it. It does not matter that the rest of the Orthodox world doesn’t see it that way. They believe their superior level of sensitivity to sexual sins requires them to inconvenience other passengers if necessary.

What they don’t realize is that whatever heavenly reward they think they will reap by going to such lengths will be more than nullified by the Chilul HaShem it creates.

There are those among mainstream Orthodoxy that will go to their own great lengths to defend them as a group - even if they reject the kind of behavior that took place on this flight.

In my view that just adds to the Chilul HaShem. We – the rest of Orthodox Jewry - ought to all stand up together in unity and reject not only this behavior but what generates it. We should recognize that no matter how religious someone appears to be - behavior like that is not Jewish behavior. Orthodox condemnation of this behavior and it what causes it ought to be complete, universal, and without the slightest hint of apologetics. Not that it will change anything. But at least we can let the world will know that what passes for Judaism on their part is the furthest thing from it!

Chasidic reporter, Jake Turx (TOI)

Turx is how this Chasidic reporter identifies. No first name. Just his last. Reminds me of the fictional gunslinger Paladin in the 50s TV series ‘Have Gun. Will Travel’. This Chasidic reporter works for one of the Charedi magazines and is perhaps one of its finest and most entertaining reporters. He recently received the high honor of being granted White House press credentials. That gives him a seat at Presidential press conferences. Which he attended yesterday.

In what has to be one of the most surreal Presidential press conferences I have ever seen, Turx had his head handed to him by the President. It is no secret that the ultra Orthodox community voted overwhelmingly for Trump. And the Charedi magazines are clearly ultra Orthodox. While I have no clue how Turx voted in the last election – it is not unreasonable to assume he voted for Trump. (Although... who knows.) At the very least, the vast majority of those who read Charedi magazines are unabashedly pro Trump and probably voted for him.

When Turx was called upon by the President, he prefaced his question by telling him that no one in his community thinks that he is an antisemite. He added that he realizes that Trump’s daughter is Jewish as are his grandchildren - using the Yiddish word Zaidie in describing Trump’s relationship with them. I guess Turx thought that this preface would clearly indicate that he was not attacking the President in any way – by even hinting that Trump was responsible for what he was about to ask. So he asked if the White House was going to address the increased phenomenon of antisemitism in this country which was manifested recently by over 40 bombing threats made against Jewish Centers.

Trump totally ignored the content or the intent of the question as well as the elaborate preface. Not to mention ignoring the overwhelming support he must know was given to him by the Charedi world from which Turx obviously comes. Trump only heard one thing. Antisemtism. Once that word came up, he stopped listening. From that point forward he saw Turx as yet another lying reporter attacking him with false accusations of antisemitism.

To be fair, I can understand why someone who is constantly accused of antisemitism; or accused of tolerating (or even fomenting) it might be overly sensitive to being accused of being something he is clearly not. But that is no excuse for not listening to a serious question from a reporter he should have known would be friendly toward him.

Trump cut Turx off in the middle of his question. And then went into a tirade against him - accusing him of being just another member of the ‘fake news’ media out to get him. His ‘answer’ had nothing to do with the question. It was all about how false Turx’s ‘accusation of antisemitism’ was.

Poor Turx. What a way to start off his job as a White House reporter. (On the other hand this is generating unprecedented publicity for both him and the magazine he works for. There is a silver lining I everything, I guess)

To their credit, the mainstream media has been defending Turx – realizing how unfairly he had been treated. But to them this is nothing new. President Trump is paranoid... seeing an enemy behind every rock. (Kind of the way Nixon did.)

Of course that was not the only surreal thing coming out of the press conference yesterday. Which was yet another example how embarrassing this President is. The conference was filled with lies and false accusations; peppered heavily with self congratulations. Again, to be fair, the media has been relentless in focusing on how terrible he is. I can’t really blame him for feeling so paranoid. What he absolute fails to understand is that he gives them plenty to work with. When Trump plays fast and looses with the facts, does he expect them to ignore it? When his Presidency has so quickly gone into disarray, does he expect no one to notice? Of course he is so full of himself that he thinks his Presidency is working ‘like a fine tuned machine’ (his words). Not only is he paranoid, he seems downright schizophrenic and not at in touch with reality.

Which is all such a shame. Because if one ignores his stupid rhetoric and focuses on his policies, he is not really that far off from mainstream America. Or at least half of it. Trump is right about media criticism of that. All he is trying to do is turn the promises he made as candidate into policy. The problem is that when a President’s comments are so terrible and so constant, when his errors are so frequent and public, when is demeanor is so embarrassing to this country, when his implementation of the policy is so ineffectual... what gets lost is the actual policy he is trying to implement. It all gets rolled into one big negative. Which is (wait for it…) HUGE! And all the inflammatory rhetoric candidate Trump made about those policies does not help him either. It does the opposite and is constantly used against him by a liberal media that is clearly biased against him and - more importantly - against his polices. A bias he fuels with his constant attacks against them.

Just to cite one example. His promise to deport illegal aliens is merely a decision to enforce the law. The key word there is ‘illegal. And he doesn’t even want to deport them all. All he wants to do is deport those illegal aliens that broke the law. But if you look at the reaction to that by the liberal media and liberal special interest groups, you would think he wants to execute every single human being living in America whose ancestors did not arrive on the Mayflower.

This is an unfair attack against him. You can’t really blame Trump for the biased way this is being covered by the mainstream media. Reporting that is dripping with bias. I have seen precious little perspective on this that was not heavily biased. Of course I can’t blame the media for being biased either because of Trump’s attacks against them.

I feel sorry for Trumps children. They must realize all of the dynamics here. They must know that their father is at least partly responsible for it. But they still can’t be happy that their father is being treated so viciously by the media.

I actually think that Trump is a nice guy. Before he became political, that is how he seemed. That is how people that know him talked about him. He had been known for many kindnesses he did for people in need without any fanfare. But once he became political, the media judged him only on his terrible political rhetoric ignoring him as a human being. And that changed how he viewed them.

I believe that even though he is somewhat of a narcissist, that his intent is what he says it is, to make America great again. He actually does want to help the American worker that has been stiffed by the effects of modern technology and increasingly tough government regulations. I think he really wants to destroy Islamic terrorism. I believe he does want to strengthen our military. I believe he does want to make peace between Palestinians and Israelis. I believe he does want to see an alliance between Israel and her Arab neighbors.

I believe he does want to reduce the tax burden on the middle class. I believe he does want to improve the infrastructure in this country. I believe he does want replace the Affordable Healthcare Act with a better one. I believe he does want to renegotiate the nuclear deal with Iran. I believe he does want to replace bad foreign trade policies with better ones. It is all of those promises – and more that got him elected. And the people that voted for him still support him despite how ugly his Presidency looks.

I just wish the President would shut up; stop tweeting; and stop reacting to media coverage of his Presidency. Let others do the talking for him. (Not too thrilled with his Press Secretary, Sean Spicer either. I’d rather see someone like Vice President Pence be the public face of the Trump administration). The media will then by default have to focus on his polices. Which can legitimately be debated by good people on both sides of the political aisle.

But alas, this is just a dream. Trump doesn’t have it in him to be quiet when criticized. He lashes out fiercely! And the media will continue covering it.

Freelance reporter, Hunter Stuart (VIN)

It’s no secret that I lean conservative on most issues. However, I am not a card carrying conservative. I do have some views that are usually considered liberal. I just want to be clear about my perspective before I go on.

I have been saying for some time now, the hard core liberal perspective usually begets a sympathetic approach to the underdog. Which in the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict often generates a lot more sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians than it does for Israelis. It doesn’t seem to matter much whether a liberal is Jewish or not. The primary motive for a liberal is sympathy for those the oppressed masses. In Israel, the oppressed masses are the Palestinians.

I have conceded that Palestinians experience hardships. I don’t think that can be disputed by anyone with even the slightest bit of objectivity. But as I also constantly say, Israel is forced to scrutinize them more carefully for security reasons which is the cause of those hardships. That too should not be disputed by people with the slightest bit of objectivity. It’s not that Israel is prejudiced against Arabs or Muslims. It’s that Israel has been terrorized by people from their midst!

To the liberal, that doesn’t matter. When the mainstream media (which is exceedingly liberal) reports about the treatment of Palestinians at the hands of Israelis they rarely talk about the context of their treatment. They only focus on how difficult it is for Palestinians living under occupation. And without context - that makes Israel look like pre Mandela South Africa.

This view was recently corroborated by Hunter Stuart, an American reporter. From a Jerusalem Post article (republished at VIN):

Before I moved to Jerusalem, I was very pro-Palestinian. Almost everyone I knew was. I grew up Protestant in a quaint, politically correct New England town; almost everyone around me was liberal. And being liberal in America comes with a pantheon of beliefs: You support pluralism, tolerance and diversity. You support gay rights, access to abortion and gun control.

The belief that Israel is unjustly bullying the Palestinians is an inextricable part of this pantheon. Most progressives in the US view Israel as an aggressor, oppressing the poor noble Arabs who are being so brutally denied their freedom.

This was his attitude and at first he would make his case in discussions and debate with his Israeli friends. But he slowly came to realize what those of us who support Israel and its actions realize. That It isn’t about Israel ‘oppressing the poor noble Arabs who are being so brutally denied their freedom’. In facing the realities of living in Israel he gradually began to change his mind. Its started with a Pew Research Report he was shown:

I saw that Pew’s researchers had done a survey of thousands of people across the Muslim world, asking them if they supported suicide bombings against civilians in order to “defend Islam from its enemies.” The survey found that 62 percent of Palestinians believed such terrorist acts against civilians were justified in these circumstances. And not only that, the Palestinian territories were the only place in the Muslim world where a majority of citizens supported terrorism; everywhere else it was a minority ‒ from Lebanon and Egypt to Pakistan and Malaysia.

Shortly after being shown this report, he saw a new wave of terrorist attacks by individual Muslim Palestinians who on an almost daily basis were popping up out of the woodwork and stabbing Jews. (Later to become known as the ‘Stabbing Intifada”.) Nevertheless, his bias got the better of him at first. He blamed ‘the occupation’. If only Israel would cease the occupation, Palestinians wouldn’t be attacking them.

He soon found out that the ‘occupation’ wasn’t why Jews were being attacked. It was while he was doing a story in the Arab part of East Jerusalem called Silwan. He was mistaken for a Jew by a 13 year old Palestinian who started shouting, ‘Yehud’ (Jew - in Arabic). That generated a group of that boy’s Palestinian friends to race toward him with what he calls ‘a terrifying sparkle in their eyes’. He calmed them down after exclaiming that he wasn’t Jewish and that he loved Palestine.

That look, he said was something he would never forget. That incident was followed by the following:

Later, at a house party in Amman, I met a Palestinian guy who’d grown up in Silwan. “If you were Jewish, they probably would have killed you,” he said. I made it back from Silwan that day in one piece; others weren’t so lucky. In Jerusalem, and across Israel, the attacks against Jewish Israelis continued. My attitude began to shift, probably because the violence was, for the first time, affecting me directly.

I found myself worrying that my wife might be stabbed while she was on her way home from work. Every time my phone lit up with news of another attack, if I wasn’t in the same room with her, I immediately sent her a text to see if she was OK.

Later he spoke to an Israeli friend who told him about the murder of his friend on an Israeli bus that was stormed by 2 Palestinians. Ironically this was a story he had reported on. And just as other reporters had done at the time - he blamed Israel for it and glorified the attackers.

The victim in that incident was a liberal, too. He was heavily involved in the peace movement, never missing a rally. He believed that by teaching English to both Palestinains and Israelis he would be able to bridge the gap and show that peace is possible if more people did the kind of things he did. But his killers could not care less. They were well-off Palestinains who were paid 20,000 shekels to storm the bus with guns and kill some Jews.

What was the Palestinian reaction to this murder?

More than a year later, you can still see their faces plastered around East Jerusalem on posters hailing them as martyrs.

And yet, most of the mainstream media and foreign governments still blame Israel for these attacks. If only Israel weren’t occupying Palestinians land…

Why is this the case? This brings me back to my theory about the myopic view of the liberal. I will end with an excerpt that sounds almost as though I had written it:

I’ve come to believe it’s because the Israeli-Palestinian conflict appeals to the appetites of progressive people in Europe, the US and elsewhere. They see it as a white, first world people beating on a poor, third world one…

Unfortunately for Israel, videos on social media that show US-funded Jewish soldiers shooting tear gas at rioting Arab Muslims is Hollywood-level entertainment and fits perfectly with the liberal narrative that Muslims are oppressed and Jewish Israel is a bully.

I admire the liberal desire to support the underdog. They want to be on the right side of history, and their intentions are good. The problem is that their beliefs often don’t square with reality.

Rabbi Rafi Eis (Herzl Institute)

Rabbi Rafi Eis has written a insightful essay on Torah Musings about the current controversy surrounding women as rabbis. The controversy has recently been increased by an OU document signed by rabbinic authorities associated with modern Orthodoxy. It stated that after due deliberation of all the relevant factors that go into Halachic Psak - women may not become rabbis. Although they did expand the role women may play in our society today.

Rabbi Eis is surely not some right wing fanatic. He was ordained by Yeshiva University, heads educational programs at the Herzl Institute and teaches at Midreshet Lindenbaum, a decidedly left wing women’s seminary in Israel. It is important, I think to consider these factors as I believe that they impact Rabbi Eis’s view on this subject. A view that I find hard to disagree with.

First he lauds the OU for issuing their statement seeing it as unifying rather than dividing. He then goes on to explain that autonomy in Judaism has its limits. And connects that to the 6 axes of morality explored by Dr. Jonathan Haidt in his book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, and how the various expressions of Orthodoxy (left to right) weight them:

1. care/harm

2. liberty/oppression

3. fairness/cheating

4. loyalty/betrayal

5. authority/subversion

6. sanctity/degradation

Rabbi Eis then makes the following observations:

These values come into conflict. Haidt posits that political liberals emphasize the first two moral axes over the other three, even ignoring axes 4, 5, and 6, while various groups of social conservatives find some balance with all six. Extreme conservatives slightly elevate sanctity above the others.

Modern Orthodox Judaism balances the six moral axes. We do not believe that sanctity, authority, and loyalty are just to promote better fairness, liberty, and care. Sanctity, authority, and loyalty are inherent values.

I believe this is key to understanding how to view controversial issues that have conflicting moral values. As it applies to the issue female rabbis I believe the left does in fact favor some of these values over others. They see the values of liberty and fairness superseding those of authority and sanctity. This has been the crux of the division between those that support women in the rabbinate and those that are opposed. When one places more value on fairness over authority and the other places more value on authority over fairness, it leads to an impasse where each side sees the other as betraying the value they feel is greater.

From his modern Orthodox perspective, Rabbi Eis sees Haidt’s values as equal and therefore not to be overridden by one value over the other. Authority and loyalty must always be taken into consideration when considering fairness. If it is ignored or minimized then you are down a path of division that cannot be bridged. As it pertains to Orthodoxy, a community can lose cohesiveness when that happens. Here is how he puts it:

Shared loyalty, authority, and sanctity generate social trust and a unique communal identity. They are strengthening motifs. Communities have particular heritages, listen to their authorities, and hold certain things sacred. By definition, these communities include some and exclude others…

Individuals that reject the community’s history and authorities, even in the name of liberty, create distance between themselves and their community. Just as the community cannot force its beliefs on an un-wanting individual, the individual cannot impose his beliefs on the community. The individual does not dictate the terms of his community membership.

He asks whether we are at an impasse here… wondering if this issue will serve to divide us yet again as did movements of the past. He hopes we are not. He hopes that the Open Orthodoxy stays in the ‘tent’ as they fervently wish too. I share that hope. But if they continue to place higher value on personal liberty than they do on authority, I don’t see that happening.

I am happy to see that there are still Orthodox rabbis on the left that are clearly within the tent of Orthodoxy. We need their voices. I only hope that his colleagues and constituents pay attention to him. Unfortunately, as Rabbi Eis notes, the response by many of those colleagues to the OU rabbis that issued that statement has been less than respectful. In some cases it was ‘with venom and disdain for the OU rabbinic panel’ – as Rabbi Eis notes. That ought to stop. Because the first step towards unity is not disparaging the view of great rabbis no matter how much we disagree with them.

US Representative to the UN, Nikky Haley

Chaos! That is probably the best way to describe how the Trump Presidency is going so far. But there are exceptions. One of which is his choice of who will represent the US at the UN.

What a breath of fresh air. Our new UN representative is one of the great pluses of the Trump administration. Whatever one may feel about the President himself, no one can deny that Nikky Haley is one of the most clear headed and ethical people to ever hold that job. There is no more excusing the conduct of a world body that is overtly anti Israel. There is no more passivity about resolutions that are one sided against the Jewish state. No more.

Mrs. Haley spelled it out in great detail in the video below. It is almost like listening to the Prime Minister of Israel. He has said virtually the same things. Only this time it is America saying them.

It took courage to stand up to this world body and tell it like it really is in the face of what must have surely been a hostile audience. I’m sure that Mrs. Haley did not think she did anything special. She probably feels that any normal and ethical individual in her shoes would say what she did. But the fact is that as recently as 2 months ago, our last UN representative, Samantha Power did not do so. Instead at the behest of our then President and her boss, the Secretary of State, she allowed the UN to pass resolution 2334 condemning Israel for its settlement policies. A move that was roundly condemned by all those that seek truth and justice. Including a bipartisan vote (342 members of the House of Representatives) condemning that UN resolution.

Mrs. Haley made it clear that the Trump administration would not stand by and let something like this ever happen again. Those that believe Mrs. Power was on the right track and supported the agenda of the previous administration with respect to Israel… all I can say is that the last 8 years of that agenda produced nothing positive for either the Palestinians or Israel.

This praise for the Trump administration’s new approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should not be misconstrued as a change of heart on my part about the disastrous results of the last election. Trump has not changed into a diplomat that knows how to behave as the leader of the free world. He is still the narcissistic personality he was before. And he is still an embarrassment to the United States practically every time he opens his mouth and spews the garbage coming out of it. Garbage filled with distortions, falsehood, and ignorance. Some of it bordering on abrogating the first amendment guarantee of a free press.

But at the same it is a tribute to a man who seems to be doing what he had promised to do (or at least trying to do) during the campaign as quickly as possible. During the campaign he said that he will be the most pro Israel President in history (or words to that effect). If Nikky Haley is any indication of that, Trump is off to a good start. At least as far as dealing with UN bias against Israel is concerned.

That Trump is ignorant about his job is not news. Trump is clearly a man out of his depth in virtually all areas of government, especially when it comes to issues of national security and foreign policy. Nor is it news that he is such an embarrassment on the world stage. And yet he was elected. And his core constituency still supports him. We must remember that his core constituency is not a bunch of minority fringe groups. They are nearly half of America that voted in the least election. They are mainstream Americans. And they still cheer him at rallies as they just did last weekend, despite his despicable behavior.

In one of my early posts on Trump during the campaign, I speculated about what may happen on the ‘outside’ chance that this manic personality might become the President. I felt that his ignorance may in fact be an asset. Deep down, he knows that he’s ignorant, despite his babbling about how much he says he knows. Strange as that may sound, if one thinks about it, the fact that Trump is so ignorant and knows it means that on matters of national security he will have no choice but to listen to his advisors.

National Security Adviser, General H.R. McMaster,

Although he has made some mistakes on who he has chosen to serve him, one of the more important ones has been corrected. In the case of National Security Adviser, the enigmatic and somewhat paranoid General Michael Flynn has been replaced by Lieutenant General Herbert Raymond McMaster. He is a highly regarded military tactician and strategic thinker. And he has a PhD in American history from the University of North Carolina. He is a combat veteran who is not afraid to speak his mind, most famously having written ‘Dereliction of Duty’ a book criticizing President Lyndon Johnson’s prosecution of the Viet Nam War.

The left will continue to criticize the President about his choice of advisers… using his behavior to bolster their argument about how bad those choices are for our American values. The thing is that the left’s values are not America’s exclusive values. The right has values too. And their values are just as American as the left’s. Some of those values conflict. Whereas the left has a more humanist centered approach, the right has a more God centered approach. Each side believes its values are superior to the other’s. And in some cases - one side sees the other’s values as anti American!

So of course the left doesn’t like the mostly conservative choices Trump has made... characterizing them as un-American... and getting away with that because of Trump’s behavior.

It seems obvious that Trump will continue to embarrass himself and this country by his rhetoric and behavior. I was hoping that would end and that he would become more Presidential. That’s not happening. But since we’re going to have at least 4 years of Trump, we will just have to hold our collective noses and tolerate it. At he same time, I believe he will listen to the advice of the experts he has chosen and base policy on them.

Trump’s more or less conservative philosophy may not sit well with the left. They will hate him as much for ideological reasons as they do for the way he embarrasses this country. But in that respect he will be no different than past conservative Presidents. For example. Although Ronald Reagan was very Presidential and had none of Trumps personal flaws, the left hated him. However, despite protestations by the left, Reagan will probably go down as one of the most effective and popular Presidents of the 20^th century.

Typical looking observant Jews. Are they all as they appear to be?

Observant Judaism is hard. There is no question about it. It is not easy to ‘follow all the rules’. Especially those rules that are rabbinic. I have more than once thought about one Halacha or another and wondered, ‘What is the point?’ Why did Chazal make life so difficult for us?

Just to cite one example (and there are many): I often tell my wife and daughters that if I had it in my power, the one thing I would abolish is the requirement of married women to cover their hair. But the sages interpreted a Pasuk (verse) in the Torah indicating that a married woman must cover her hair - calling the uncovered hair of only a married woman, Erva (nakedness).

The logic of that escapes me. But despite my inability to understand it, I am not free to ignore it, much as I would love to do that for my wife and daughters. (Please understand that this is my own view and has nothing to do with the way my wife and daughters see things. They are all perfectly happy to cover their hair. It’s me. I am the one with the problem.)

While I understood the reasons given for some of these difficult Halachos, I often feel that those reasons no longer apply. And yet I follow them. But I have to be honest, I follow them with a great deal of difficulty. I follow them because I am a believer in the Torah and the sages interpretation of it.

I understand their interpretations of biblical law and why additional rabbinic enactments were made even if those reasons no longer apply. I also understand the way the generational hierarchy in Judaism works. We cannot retract the laws issued by the sages. Their rules are the final word on all matters. Later generations are left with Poskim applying those rules to their own time and circumstances. But understanding that does not make it any less mentally difficult to observe them. Which is why I am such a big fan of Kulos. I believe that there are more than a few people that find observant Judaism difficult to observe and we ought to make it as easy as possible for them to do so. Why make Judaism more difficult than necessary?

I mention all of this to sympathize with a young married woman with similar thoughts on a variety of Halachos and just like me - maintains her religious observances. But unlike me she secretly does not believe in much of it anymore. (Although she does still believe in God.) She has written a revealing essay about her current state of mind on these issues.

Because of her upbringing, love of family, friends and community, she remains completely observant. But she doesn’t really believe in what she’s doing.

I wasn’t surprised by the comments to that essay. They were all sympathetic to her. Most saying that they feel the same way she does. They are still observant without believing in what they do. No one would ever suspect what is going on in their minds.

This is not the first time I’ve read about Orthodox Jews being OTD on the down low (to use her phrase). There were 2 individuals in particular that I recall. One was a modern Orthodox rabbi of a Shul who loved his job and wanted to keep it despite his becoming a skeptic (or downright atheist - I don’t recall which). His congregants had no clue. He was outwardly observant and performed his rabbinic duties meticulously. His congregants loved him and did not suspect a thing. (Obviously he never revealed his true identity.)

The other individual was a Charedi Posek (in Bnei Brak if I remember correctly). He too stopped believing. But he kept on Paskening Shailos for his community for quite a while and was highly respected. He eventually went public and was removed as a Posek by his peers. Asked how he could dare Paskin while being a non believer, he answered that he had been trained in Psak and knew how to Paskin. He paskined the same way he would have had he been a believer.

I wonder how many people there are like this. How many Jews remain observant while secretly not believing at all in what they do... doing so only to retain the status quo with family and community?How many of them that were raised completely observant in functional loving families have become disillusioned to the point where they no longer believe? And yet maintain the facade by continuing their meticulous observance as before? Is this woman the tip of the iceberg? Is she a symptom of a far greater problem than anyone is aware of?

I suppose that people who are honest with themselves might have some of the same issues this woman did. Or the issues I have. How many have taken the same route I have? And how many took the route this woman did? And why was one path chosen over the other in each case?

I realize that there are a lot of devout Jews that do not think about these kinds of issues at all. They do not question. They just do. And believe and observe with a full heart without a second thought. Often seeking the highest level of Mitzvah observance well beyond the minimum. They are Chareid L’Dvar HaShem, having great trepidation about following the word of God. They never question anything and serve God with complete devotion and joy.

But at the same time I have to believe that there are a lot of people that do question… and many of them do not take the path I took. They take the path of this writer and stop believing while remaining observant. I don’t think we will ever really know how many observant Jews there are like this. No one who stops believing and yet wants to maintain their lifestyles will want reveal their lack of belief to anyone.

That probably translates to a lot more people like that than anyone might suspect. People that might be very close to you. To put it the way this writer did:

I’m your neighbor, your friend’s sister, your daughter-in-law, your daughter, your mother, your wife. Maybe I’m you. I’m willing to bet there’s a lot of us out there.

On the other hand, if one has really stopped believing, I don’t see how it is possible to hide that forever. Children will pick it up. If not sooner, then later. Won’t they?

'Rabbi' Nechama Leibowitz?

Perhaps the biggest challenge to Orthodoxy today is the glass ceiling. This is a concept I never heard of until relatively recently a few years ago. It came into vogue at the time feminism began pushing the envelope of egalitarianism more successfully. The idea behind this metaphor is that women have a ‘ceiling’ which they can see through but have been societally prevented from breaking through. Thus women are being unfairly denied opportunities automatically given to men.

I actually support breaking those glass ceilings. No one should ever be denied achieving any goal they seek. Gender should never be an issue. The only thing that should count is merit. If one is the best qualified for a given job, they should get it - no matter whether they are a man or a woman.

But as I have said so many times, in Judaism egalitarianism is not a value. Judaism sees men and women each in their own roles. And although there is much overlap, there are some areas that don’t. The one glass ceiling which cannot be broken is that of the rabbinate. It is no secret that I oppose the ordination of women (for a variety of reasons that I will not rehash here). I in fact strongly support the recent OU statement that made it clear that this innovation is not acceptable. Thus adding yet another Orthodox institutional voice in opposition to it.

This is old news. But I don’t think it has been emphasized enough that there are roles for women in much of what is done in the rabbinate by men. Roles that have been increasingly accepted even by the right wing. The OU statement made specific reference to that in their statement.

There are highly educated and knowledgeable women that teach Torah in girls schools all over the world. Some of them are principals. And they do so with the full support of Orthodox establishment rabbis.

There are women that do pastoral counseling.

There are women that will answer questions about Taharas HaMishpacha (Niddah issues). Even among the right wing. They are rebbetzins – married to rabbis that are Poskim in these matters. They have been around their husbands so long and have heard these Shailos asked to and answered by their husbands hundreds of times. They know exactly what he would say. To the best of my knowledge no one on the right discourages this practice. Should they not be given a title recognizing their achievement and status?

The Centrist community has actually done this in at least one case. We now have women that actually study those laws and can answer most of the common questions via what they have studied instead of through osmosis from their husbands. They are called Yoatzot – Halachic advisers. The right has rejected that as too much of a leadership role. While not universally accepted by all Centrist Psokim, there are those that do.

Laura Shaw Frank has addressed this issue in a recent article on Lehrhaus. She asks readers to consider recognizing these accomplishments. And points to the fact that such recognition does actually exist in right wing circles. Most notably in Jewish outreach. Especially in Chabad. It is pretty clear that rebbetzins – the wives of Chabad Shiluchim who have had excellent Jewish educations play an essential leadership role – equal to that of their husbands in reaching out to fellow Jews. This is how they are seen by the Jews they reach out to. This is how they see themselves. This is how their husbands see them… and this is how Chabad itself sees them.

Even the Agudah approves of women taking upon themselves certain aspects the rabbinate. And they have no problem referring to them as clergy when seeking parsonage – a tax benefit given only to members of the clergy. Which the courts have granted to them.

Is this not a contradiction to the utter rejection of women as rabbis by Chabad, the Agudah, the RCA and the OU? On the surface it may seem so.

I think it is something else. If one examines the positions of all three of these (Chabad the Agudah and the RCA/OU) all are on board with women that have assumed some of responsibilities normally associated with rabbis. There have been female teachers formally teaching women since at least the advent of the Beis Yaakov system. There have been Rebbetzins giving Taharas HaMishpacha advice longer than that. And when it comes to outreach clearly both men and women have equal roles to play.

What about titles? Should there not be some sort of recognition of those leadership roles that is more than honorary – which is the way the word rebbetzin is used? What about calling them rabbis? …breaking the ultimate Orthodox glass ceiling? That would seem logical. And yet not a single Orthodox faction agrees to that. Why not?

It isn’t that I am opposed to giving women authority over men in Judaism. It is Halacha that is opposed. The title ‘rabbi’ grants more than recognition. It grants authority. And places women into a new category of leadership that according to virtually all Poskim contradicts the issue of Serrara – authority over men. The prophetess Devorah often cited as proof that a woman may indeed have authority over men was an exception by virtue of the fact that she was given the gift of prophesy by God.

Recognizing achievement does not grant authority. Conferring the title ‘rabbi’ (or any substitute title for rabbi) does. And that is the crux of the issue. No matter how much Torah knowledge a woman might have she may not - according to Halacha be given Serrara; the ability to rule as an authority over men. It may not be fair. But it is Halacha. In almost all of the examples above, it is women dealing with women. And in those cases where women deal with men, it is not in an authoritative way. By definition, a rabbi is an authority in Halacha.

Truly great women do not need titles in any case. Nechama Leibowitz, was perhaps the greatest living expert on Tanach in her day bar none – including male rabbis. If any woman deserved the title rabbi - she did. But she did not seek the title, rabbi. She did however, deserve the recognition. In spades! Which she got!

I realize that this will not satisfy Orthodox feminists who see breaking this particular glass ceiling as a goal – and reject the idea that Serrara applies to a rabbi. And they have increasingly begun to do so by ordaining women both here and in Israel. But their view has been completely rejected by both the right and the center. Which is increasingly causing a rift between us that may soon be unbridgeable.

Guest Contribution by Elliot Resnick

Who would sit on today's Sanhedrin? (Algemeiner)

Elliot Resnick is a writer and editor for The Jewish Press, as well as the author of “Movers and Shakers: Sixty Prominent Personalities Speak Their Mind on Tape” (...in which I was honored to be included) and the editor of “Perfection: The Torah Ideal.” As always the views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect my own. His words follow.

Was halacha more flexible in ancient times? Some Jewish intellectuals – even those who identify as Orthodox – claim it was. They argue that our ancient chachamim made bold reforms to Judaism in response to changing times, and we should as well.

I disagree. Even if these thinkers are right that halacha was less rigid in ancient times, radically amending halacha in the 21st century would be a disaster in my opinion. Here’s why:

To make major sweeping changes to Judaism without fracturing the Orthodox Jewish community, we would need a central rabbinic body – something akin to the ancient Sanhedrin. Unfortunately, though, a contemporary rabbinic body of this nature would almost assuredly be politicized. It would be widely suspected of deciding controversial issues – not based on halacha – but on the extent to which it accepts or rejects the modern liberal agenda. It would resemble America’s Supreme Court, which half the country routinely accuses either of obscurantism or dishonestly interpreting the

Constitution in an effort to be politically correct. Do we really wish to introduce this state of affairs into our community?

Some would argue that cynicism towards, and disrespect of, poskim already plague Orthodox society. To some extent, that’s true. But when Rabbi X gives a liberal psak, or Rabbi Y gives a conservative psak, he can be ignored – even dismissed – by those who dislike his worldview without harm to the reputation of halacha. Not so a modern-day Sanhedrin.

A Sanhedrin cannot be ignored any more than America’s Supreme Court can be ignored. Orthodox Jews would be forced to follow its verdicts no matter how politically-driven they suspected them to be. As a result, bitter resentment towards this rabbinic body would quickly develop and respect for halacha as G-d’s divine will would decline.

Amending halacha nowadays, though, is problematic for another more basic reason. Even if one assumes that Chazal routinely reformed halacha, their changes arguably flowed organically from the Torah itself; they weren’t enacted in response to values external and alien to the Torah. In other words, the changes generally came from within, not from without. And when they did indeed come from without, the external ideas to which our ancient chachamim responded were ideologically parve in nature.

The same cannot be said of the ideas influencing those who wish to change halacha today. These ideas are rooted in the cultural revolution of the 1960s, which consciously cast off the “shackles” of G-d and religion. The sad fact is that modern-day liberalism is not yesteryear’s liberalism. Movements like abolitionism and the fight for women’s suffrage never attacked religion as “the enemy.”

If anything, the opposite is true. Modern-day liberalism, however, routinely does, evincing an almost instinctive disgust of religious tradition. It believes G-d a pernicious delusion, traditional marriage homophobic, Judeo-Christian sexual morality repressive, and the belief that men and women should play different roles in society nothing less than bigotry and oppression of the highest order.

That is why winning hearts and minds is not enough for liberals. They are determined to crush the opposition. People who disagree with them are not merely wrong. They are racist, bigoted, xenophobic, misogynistic, and homophobic. Thus, a private Christian baker, for example, must be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Mordechai must publicly bow before Haman. Anything less is unacceptable.

Liberal Orthodox Jews are fond of quoting Rav Avraham Yitzchak Kook’s comment that yirat shamayim should elevate, not supplant, natural human morality. That might be true, but I doubt Rav Kook had in mind the “natural” morality of activists who consciously aim to expunge G-d and tradition as standards of behavior in society.

To this “natural morality,” Judaism must take a firm stand. Even if halacha may evolve at times, it can never do so to accommodate ideas and worldviews conceived in rebellion to divine values. In the face of such ideas, we shouldn’t feel defensive or apologetic. We should rather walk in the footsteps of the ancient Chashmonaim, proclaim, “Mi laShem eilai,” and not cede an inch.

Former Chief Rabbi of Israel and convicted criminal, Yona Metzger

I have to agree Rabbi Gil Student. He has said that Yona Metzger, the immediate past Ashekenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel ought to have his Semicha revoked. He has breached the public trust. Yona Metzger was convicted on corruption and fraud charges and sentenced to 4 ½ years in prison. The court correctly rejected a 3 ½ year plea deal agreed to by Metzger’s attorneys and prosecutors. What did he do to deserve that sentence? From JTA:

(F)raud, theft, conspiracy, breach of trust, money laundering, tax offenses and accepting bribes. Metzger was accused of accepting nearly $2.6 million in bribes — keeping nearly $2 million for himself while paying the rest to accomplices and charitable organizations.

Metzger was accused of profiting from donations directed to charitable causes and taking bribes to sway his opinion on matters he decided as chief rabbi.

In my view even the 4 ½ year sentence is not nearly enough time for such brazen criminal activity in order to line his pockets. The effect it has had on a public already disaffected with the institution of the rabbinate is harmful to the very character of a state whose Jewish nature should be determined by those that are best equipped to define what Judaism actually is.

These crimes committed by any Jew would be a Chilul HaShem. But when committed by a man that is chosen to be Chief Rabbi of the Jewish State, the Chilul HaShem is multiplied many times over. A rabbi - any rabbi is by definition a teacher. Someone that leads as much by example as he does by his teachings. This is even more true of a rabbinic leader.

When seeking a Chief Rabbi one would assume that among the most important qualities that should be examined is ethical character of a candidate. For me, that should be the first thing that is looked at – without which all else does not matter. Lacking this quality should end his candidacy. No matter what other considerations there are. The committee in Israel charged with the obligation of selecting a Chief Rabbi should have followed this ideal. Did that committee do that? Did they trust that Metzger would act in accordance with the highest ideals expected of a Chief Rabbi? I'm not so sure.

But if they did, Metzger surely betrayed that trust. And in the process contributed to the public dissatisfaction of the Chief Rabbinate. In the eyes of many who were already disaffected with the rabbinate for a variety of reasons, this was yet another nail in the Rabbinate's coffin. And who can blame them? Even those of us that support this institution as a necessary component of a Jewish state have become disillusioned with it because of this.

How could this happen? Unfortunately it is the result of the influence of a man that most Charedim considered to be the Gadol HaDor, the leading rabbi of his generation - Rav Shalom Yosef Elyashiv.

Please do not think I mean to disparage Rav Elyashiv, ZTL. Far from it. He was a Gadol. And I don't use that word lightly. I firmly believe that he acted in accordance with his conscience and totally L'Shma. Nevertheless, I believe it was a huge mistake to support a man that was ethically challenged for Chief Rabbi. Despite some of the explanations given in R' Elyashiv's name.

I cannot help but wonder why R’ Elyashiv did not factor in the ethical questions that surrounded Metzger at the time he was being considered. I realize that he felt that the people of Israel would be better served by the candidate that promised he would listen to his Halachic decisions. But how could he not factor in the damage that would be done if the media reports at the time of his candidacy about his questionable ethics were true. I recall reading that R' Elyashiv was asked about that and responded that at the time those reports were no more than rumors. And that in any case it was far more important to have someone in that office that would listen to his Halachic decisions. This - he believed outweighed those negative reports.

One must remember that the big controversy at the time was the Heter Mechira - a lenient view that allowed farmers to avoid the laws of Shemita. These are laws mandated in the Torah that forbids use of the land every seventh year. One must leave it fallow. Today, that law is rabbinic in nature. But it is the law nonetheless. The Heter Mechira allowed Jewish farmers to sell heir land to non Jews thus no longer requiring it to be left fallow. The sale was largely symbolic and opposed by Charedi rabbis But Religious Zionist rabbis insisted hat it was a valid leniency. Although supported in the past by other great rabbis R' Elyashiv held that this leniency may may not be used in our day.

Religious Zionist rabbis had put up a candidate of their own, a highly respected religious Zionist Rav who supported the lenient approach. R’ Elyashiv believed that the Chief Rabbi of Israel needed to follow his directive. A candidate was found that promised to do that - Yona Metzger. R’ Elyashiv - knowing of Metzger’s less than stellar reputation supported him anyway for the above reasons. He won. But even if one agrees with R' Elyashiv's views on the Heter Mechira - look at the price that was paid. I have to wonder if it was worth it.

Women of the Wall leader, Anat Hoffman

I have been opposed to the Women of the Wall (WoW) ever since I first heard about them. For those who have somehow missed this phenomenon, Let me explain it. WoW is a group of women led by Anat Hoffman, a Reform Jewish activist, that has taken it upon herself to change the traditional way Jewish women pray at the Kotel – the Western Wall.

She has successfully enlisted the support of women in other denominations to join her. Including women from an Orthodox background. She has designed a service that respects their Orthodox sensibilities. At least those women on the far left of Orthodoxy. That’s why for example heir services are for women only. But many of the practices her group has adopted are controversial and not accepted by the vast majority of mainstream Orthodoxy. The goal of WoW is much the same as the goal of Open Orthodoxy.

Why have they done this? Depending on who you talk to, it is either to give women a more meaningful prayer experience or to advance the cause of feminism. Some would say it is both and that there is nothing wrong with that. Adding that there is everything right with it.

Why not - they will argue - give women additional avenues to express their devotion to God? If it helps them spiritually to read from the Torah at the Kotel on Rosh Chodesh (the beginning of every lunar month), why not simply let them do it? Live and let live! What’s wrong with being a feminist if it does not contradict Halacha?

Taken by itself I would agree with that. But it isn’t that simple. Leaving out possible halachic objections - to the vast majority of women that go to the Kotel for prayer, they do it the way it has traditionally done by women, quietly praying at the Kotel with tremendous fervor.

That is what happens to many people that go to the Kotel to pray. It is a deeply moving spiritual experience for them. It is for them a private moment with to speak to God in the place closest to the where the Shechina (God’s Divine presence here on earth) rested in the Beis HaMikdash. When this mood is disrupted by a group of women that insist on publicly bucking tradition by doing what men usually do - it creates a feeling of disruption. While there may be women that can ignore it, there are clearly women that can’t.

So it isn’t about live and let live after all. It is about forwarding an agenda. Something Mrs. Hoffman has clearly said is her goal. Which is to advance the cause of women. The problem is that it does not advance the cause of women. Just those women that agree with her. And in Orthodoxy they reside mostly in the fringes of the far left. She has also stated that her goal is to make Israel pluralistic by accepting all Jewish denominations as legitimate. Which is the same goal as the movement to which she belongs, to force her movement to be recognized. Something Orthodoxy could never accept.

I am obviously opposed to those goals. As I have said many times, Judaism and feminism have different goals. While the egalitarian goal of 21^st century feminism is a noble one, it is incompatible with the goals of Judaism. God gave men and women different roles to fulfill which are represented by different sets of Mitzvos. And while most of those Mitzvos overlap, there are clearly those which do not. Fully imposing the egalitarian ideal is therefore an impossibility.

This is not to impugn the motives of all of WoW. I’m sure that many of them are sincere in wanting to serve God by using traditionally male modalities. But good intentions alone are not enough. Even when required Mitzvos for men are seen as optional behavior for women – if practicing them disturbs the mainstream, it ought not be pursued. That they may be technically permitted is not enough. There is a certain degree of selfishness and even Chutzpah in doing something that is so widely opposed by mainstream.

Once again at the Kotel, WoW did their monthly thing at the Kotel. A group of women went into the middle of the women’s side of the Mechitza at the Kotel and decided to hold the kind of prayer service similar to those that men have in synagogues all over the world. (This can be seen in the video below albeit a bit difficult considering the size of the crowd.)

But this time they were outnumbered and outshouted by perhaps thousands of protesting young Orthodox women many from the religious Zionist camp (Bnei Akiva) bused there to disrupt them. They danced while singing loudly at the top of their lungs – overpowering not only the voices of WoW, but the din of the entire crowd there. Clearly outnumbering WoW many times over.

I am happy to see so many young women celebrating joyously at the Kotel in traditional ways. Even if they were bused in for the purpose of protesting and disrupting WoW, they surely have the same right to be there and do their own thing as WoW does. The difference being that they are not challenging the system. They are embracing it. These young women are behaving in mainstream ways. And they object to the break with tradition that WoW seeks and expresses. (There were men dancing on the other side of the Mechitza too. With just as much fervor.)

But none of that excuses the bad behavior of the extremist Charedi protesters that showed up. From Ha’aretz:

Outside the women’s section, a large group of ultra-Orthodox male protestors congregated, cursing members of Women of the Wall as they entered the holy site. “Wicked women,” they shouted. “You are not Jewish. You are Christian.”

To say they were obnoxious is an understatement. They were yelling and screaming; pushing and shoving; even kicking one Woman of the Wall, Reform Rabbi Susan Silverman. They were acting like ‘Vilde Chayes’ wild animals. It is one thing to protest. It’s another to act like a Behaima ( an animal).

As much as I oppose WoW and their agenda, I oppose these Charedi extremists even more. They do as much harm to traditional Judaism as WoW does. Their behavior takes them out of simple protest and into Chilul HaShem territory. By their behavior they undermine their own cause. That they wear black hats only makes matters worse. WoW becomes the victim. It generates sympathy for them and their cause. And in my view, these animals ought to all be thrown in jail.

JCC being evacuated because of a bomb threat (St. Louis Post-Dispatch)

We live in the best of times. At least as far antisemitism is concerned. Now before anyone goes ballistic here and says I’m off my rocker, let me explain.

I realize there has been a wave of antisemitic attacks in recent weeks. Dozens of bomb threats have been made against mostly Jewish Centers and a few Jewish days schools. There has also been some major vandalism at 2 Jewish cemeteries. One in Missouri and one in Pennsylvania.

Not to mention all the antisemitic rhetoric disguised as anti Zionist rhetoric coming out of the leftist academics in recent years. And their all too eager students whose minds full of mush coming in to those colleges is being replaced with the mush of some leftist academics. And then used in virulent antisemitic protests disguised as anti Israel protests in many university campuses across the country. Then there is BDS and some celebrity boycotts of Israel.

It is also quite possible that the President’s rhetoric during the campaign - and since - has emboldened the antisemitic fringe to come out from under their rocks and speak their minds. Or perhaps even encouraging the people making those bomb threats or vandalizing Jewish cemeteries .

With all that happening, how can I say we live in the best of times? Well we do. The fact happens to be that no one was touched in any of those bomb threats. Because that’s all they were. Threats. There were no bombs at all.

This of course does not mean those threats didn’t cause fear and havoc to the Jews involved with those institutions. It absolutely did. And should not be taken lightly. Thankfully it is being taken seriously by the FBI. Hopefully they will find those doing it; put a stop to it; and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. Which in this case should be considered a hate crime.

But it still does not rise to the level of death or injury that an actual bomb would cause. Was it just some kids doing prank calls? Was it an easy tactic by terrorists that simply want to strike fear into our hearts? I don’t know. But one thing is for sure. It doesn’t take a lot of people to phone in dozens of threats over a period of a few weeks in order to terrorize people. One person with a disposable cell phone can be doing it all by himself without ever being caught.

My point here is that these threats are not a reflection of how Jews are seen in America today by the vast majority of its citizens and leaders. One caller (or even a few callers) does not an antisemitic society make. Nor do the few leftist academics and their easily persuaded students.

Here is what we should be focusing on.

Recent polls have shown that Jews are the most admired religious group in America – surpassing Catholics, Mainline Protestants, Evangelicals, Buddhists, Hindus, Mormons, Muslims and Atheists. This is unprecedented. If one considers what it was like just a few generations ago in Europe, and even America, one can’t underestimate the vastness of differences. Let us examine some of them.

Europe was at best indifferent to Hitler’s treatment of the Jewish people during the Holocaust. Which included a lot more than just threatening phone calls to Jewish Centers. Many European governments were willing participants with Hitler rounding up their Jewish citizens to be shipped off into concentration camps. And eventually to death camps. There were pogroms all over Europe both before and after the Holocaust.

American antisemitism was alive and well then too. American icons like Henry Ford were overt antisemites determined to spread their hatred of Jews to the entire world. He published ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ detailing his conspiracy theories about Jewish plans to take over world. American hero Charles Lindbergh was a Nazi sympathizer that urged Roosevelt not to listen to the Jews agitating for American entry into the war.

The Jewish passengers from pre Holocaust Germany on the ship St. Louis were famously denied entry into the United States and other countries ‘proving’ to Hitler than nobody wanted the Jews. During the Holocaust, Breckenridge Long, the State Department official in charge of immigration was famously indifferent to the news that Jews were being slaughtered in large numbers. He left immigration quotas unfilled denying them entry into the US even as simple legal immigrants, let alone as refugees.

There was Father Chalres Coughlin, a Roman Catholic Priest who had his own weekly radio program. 30 million weekly listeners heard his pro Hitler - antisemitic weekly rants – until his show was finally canceled in September of 1940.

As mentioned, even after the Holocaust there was plenty of European antisemtism in the form of new pogroms. And America had no shortage of antisemites that were otherwise American heroes. General George S. Patton’s antisemitism was well documented. Among other disparaging comments about Jews, here is one thing he wrote in his journal during his tenure overseeing the post Holocaust Displaced Persons camps:

“[The inspector believes] that the Displaced Person is a human being, which he is not, and this applies particularly to the Jews who are lower than animals.”

In pre - and immediate post war America, Jews were barred from buying homes in certain neighborhoods, barred from certain exclusive clubs and severely limited by quotas into top universities and professional schools. Like Columbia, Cornell, Harvard and Yale. Jews were viewed with suspicion. And looked down upon – even shunned - by American blue blood Republicans. The Christian world saw us as Christ killers.

If we contrast all of that to what we have now, it should be obvious that we live in the best of times. As mentioned Jews are the most admired people in America. We no longer have to worry about quotas. We are no longer barred from anything. And we are fully accepted - even welcomed by both the political right and the political left.

A former Democratic President’s daughter can marry a Jew at a ceremony that had a lot of Jewish trappings with a fawning media looking on.

The right wing that used to be the home for blue blood antisemites are tripping all over themselves to support Israel and honor its prime minister with standing ovations during an address he gave to both houses of congress last year

The Catholic Church now rejects the notion that we are Christ killers and considers Judaism to be a brother religion - rejecting its former position that Christianity was a replacement religion.

Evangelicals are more pro Israel than most Jews. And are donating to Jewish charities in record numbers. (Ask my friend Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein about that. Last year he distributed $150 million in Christian donations to the Jewish poor in both Israel and Russia.)

Hollywood is filled with Jews. The occasional antisemite is ostracized in Hollywood.

Jews are in academia, the arts and sciences in a big way and recognized for their achievements by all kinds of prestigious awards. Nobel prizes are given to Jews in far greater percentages than our rather minuscule percentage of general society.

We had an immediate past President that appointed an observant Jew to a top cabinet post and honored 2 Jewish holidays yearly in the White house, Chanuka and Pesach (which included a White House Seder which he and his family attended every year).

We have a current President whose daughter converted to Orthodox Judaism. And whose Orthodox Jewish husband may be the President's top adviser.

Senate minority leader, Charles Schumer is the top Democrat in the Senate. He is a proud Jew who voted against his own party and President in opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran. His colleagues still gave him the job anyway. I could go on, but this post is long enough.

The bottom line is that - yes, antisemitism still exists. It may even be on the rise. And antisemites are now making a lot of noise. But it still exists only at the very fringes of society and is far overshadowed by our acceptance. We should not forget where we are right now. Which - I think it is safe to say - is the best position as Jews we have ever been in since the destruction of the 2^nd Temple in Jerusalem.

That being said, our highly regarded status as Jews is not entirely a blessing. Because it very likely facilitates so many Jews assimilating out of Judaism. But that is an entirely different conversation.

President Trump addressing congress last might (CNN)

Last night he was Presidential. For the first time President Donald Trump did not sound like a reactionary with a 72 word vocabulary. He did not trot out a lot of misinformation. He did not bash the media. He did not insult anyone. He did not even use the word ‘I’ that much – preferring to use the word ‘we’.

Just to remind anyone that forgot, I did not vote for Trump. But once he won the election I felt the same way former President Obama and Hillary Clinton felt. He ought to be given a chance. He won the majority of voters in most states – giving him a rather substantial electoral victory. The people that voted for him deserved to let him do what he promised them he would do. I had believed (or at least hoped) that once in office, the enormity of his position would sober him up and that he would become more Presidential. But I was disappointed. Those who disagreed with me were right, I thought. Same old Trump. He would continue embarrassing the country.

That’s how it was for the first 30 days. But last night he was a different man. He stayed on script instead of habitually going off script and sounding like a dangerous conspiracy theorist (e.g. the media is the enemy of the American people.) It took him about a month to do so. But he finally did. I only hope the new Trump stays that way. (If only he can stop tweeting at 3:00 in the morning! it would help a lot. Is that too much to hope for? We’ll see.)

Last night he spoke about his vision for America. He began his address with a forceful condemnation of the antisemitic events of recent weeks. And correctly declared that this is a bipartisan issue – for which he was applauded from both sides of the political aisle.

He then proceeded to discuss what his vision for America actually is. Which is no secret since he constantly promoted it during the campaign and after. Much of which is the politically conservative vision of reducing taxes on large corporations. That would incentivize production and increase jobs. He spoke about deregulation which will reduce impediments to those job creators. And it would give coal miners back their livelihoods.

He spoke of strengthening the military by increasing their budget. He spoke of reducing the budgets of other government agencies to pay for it. He spoke about supporting veterans, providing them with better heath care. As well as repealing and replacing Obamacare with better coverage at lower cost to all Americans.

He spoke about favoring school choice – including religious schools as a legitimate choice. He pointed out a young black women in the audience that demonstrated how school choice helped her.

He spoke about supporting and respecting law enforcement and ending the high murder rate in the inner city (which in Chicago is mostly perpetrated by gang members against each other except when an innocent bystander gets in the way). And about crime ridden neighborhoods in general… which – aside from the danger they present – is an impediment to education of young people in those neighborhoods.

He spoke of support for Israel. He spoke about supporting NATO and forcing NATO members to pony up!

He spoke about protecting our borders from illegal aliens and better vetting procedures of immigrants from terrorist supporting countries like Iran. All well within the limits of a conservative political philosophy.

But it was not all conservative. Some of it was politically Democrat in nature. Like eliminating free trade deals that hurt the American worker. He wants to keep jobs in America. He spoke about fixing the infrastructure of this country which would be paid for in part by the private sector.

I haven’t covered it all. But I think this is a fair representation of what he spoke about last night. He asked Democrats to join him in achieving his goals. There are some areas where he might get that. Hopefully the response by his opposition will be based on substance of his speech last night rather on his past rhetoric or his personality.

There was one moment that got a 90 second standing ovation by both Republicans and Democrats (see video below). It was when he paid tribute to a fallen soldier. Here is what the President said – and I believe he meant it:

"We are blessed to be joined tonight by Carryn Owens, the widow of a U.S. Navy Special Operator, Senior Chief William "Ryan" Owens," Trump said. "Ryan died as he lived: a warrior and a hero –- battling against terrorism and securing our nation."

I have always believed that the real Trump is not the monster so many people paint him as. But because of the way he has behaved ever since he announced his candidacy, I can’t really blame anyone for seeing him that way. I know that last nigt’s performance by Trump will not convince them. But I believe that deep in his heart, I believe Trump actually does care about people.

While it’s true that he is extremely self centered, I do not believe his is selfish. There is a big difference between the two. He does see himself in grandiose terms. His ego is as big as a mountain. An a tough businessman. But based on what people who know him personally say about him, he is a kind and generous individual who is known to always lend a helping hand to those who need it.

This is a side of Trump that we have not seen publicly. But that doesn’t mean that he is not that way in private.

Selfish people do not produce decent children. Selfish people tend to produce selfish children. If one wants to know the true character of a man - look at his children. Even his rival during the election, Hillary Clinton conceded at one of the debates that he must have been a good parent pointing to his children. I’m sure for example that she knows Trump’s daughter, Ivanka who is a close personal friend of her only child, Chelsea. Despite the ridicule his children have gotten from late night comedians, they are probably more like Mrs. Clinton sees them than the way they do.

I can understand why opponents on the other side of the political aisle will oppose his vision in many areas. But it will hopefully be for ideological reasons and not personality reasons. For better or worse let the focus be on his message and not his past faux pas (deliberate or not) or his antics.

As far as I’m concerned last night was the real beginning of the Trump Presidency. The one I expected. It came 30 days late. But better late than never. If he stays on message, stops reacting to criticism with nasty and foolish tweets, then we can move forward. And you never know, he might do some good things as President.

A New Day for School Choice?

A Welcome 180

Hubris and Inconsistency

Whose Fault is it, Anyway?

Deciding Orthodox Practice

No Pressure. No Obligation. No Subscription Fees.

Is the Future of Modern Orthodoxy Doomed?

Throw Them in Jail!

Uncivilized Behavior

Turx, Trump, the Media, and Policy

The Real World Education of a Liberal Reporter

When Legitimate Moral Values Conflict

The First Thirty Days

OTD on the Down Low

Recognition Yes. Authority No.

How And When Should Judaism Change?

When Ethics are Trumped by Other Considerations

Extremism and Protesting WoW

Antisemitism in America

The State of the Presidency