Quantcast
Channel: Emes Ve-Emunah
Viewing all 3622 articles
Browse latest View live
↧

Fearing the Other Party

March 26, 2017, 9:23 am
$
0
0
Fearing the Other Party (Huffington Post)
A June 2016 poll by Pew shows what might to some people be startling results. 49% of Republicans and 55% of Democrats are afraid of the other party. AFRAID! I am not, however, so shocked by these results. Here’s why.

It’s all about the values that are prioritized by those groups. Although it is not 100% true, I believe that an individual’s values and what they are sourced in is what determines whether they are Republican or Democrat. Or more accurately liberals on the left or conservatives on the right. I think it is fair to say that in 2017, the divisions between these two parties are more than ever correctly defined that way. 

There was a time when one could find a conservative Democrat. They were usually located in the South. And there were (and still are) some liberal Republicans that would feel quite comfortable as Democrats.  Adding to this phenomenon is the fact is extremists on both the right and the left  are pulling these parties further away from the center. (Creating an almost unbridgeable chasm.)

What are these values and where do they come from? I think one has to look at whether those values are based on whether one is God centered or Humanistic. I believe that what most motivates people on the right is how they see God looking at the issues of the day. And the people on the left are motivated by what they see as objectively best and fair for all of humankind.

This creates a clash of values. One that was recently demonstrated by a conflict between 2 constitutional guarantees.The constitution guarantees both freedom of religion and freedom of expression. When the two come into conflict the right will favor protecting religious freedom and the left will favor individual rights. That is what the debate about same sex marriage was all out. 

The Supreme Court decided in favor of individual rights with the claim that it would not affect the religious rights of those that oppose same sex marriage. I don’t want to rehash the arguments made by ether side. But any fair minded person could see that it was a clash of rights and the decision to favor civil rights over religious rights is how a 5-4 split decision of the Supreme Court came about. The swing vote (Anthony Kennedy) determined the outcome should go to the left on that one. (He is one of those liberal Republicans I spoke of earlier.)

So why is there fear? If you are God centered, you see an erosion of traditional values. Values that are based on the bible. A bible that is considered the word of God by billions of people in the civilized world. A bible that has been the source of morality and righteousness for many centuries. They see the current Democrats as a  group of people that places little to no value on the bible. Which they see as irrelevant to modern man. The right is afraid of the heavenly consequences of what they see as a Godless society developing if the left keeps getting their way.

The left sees the right as a impediment to social justice. And patently unfair to human rights. To the left the right of a gay man to marry another gay man is an inherent right of the human condition. It views morality through the lens of a humanity that considers all human behavior perfectly fine as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. Religious objections are of little import when it comes to individual rights. They see man as ethically superior to the bible.

Why should a homosexual man be denied the right to do the same thing his heterosexual friends do? Just because someone’s religion says it is against God’s laws to live a certain way does not give them the right in a free society to deny a personal freedom. Society will not be harmed if 2 gay people can get married. The idea of a heavenly retribution is laughed off as an ancient relic of a superstitious past. Man’s moral and ethical responsibilities are towards their fellow man. God hardly enters into the equation.

The fear is that the other side will destroy civilization if their views are carried out to their fullest potential. The left will argue that religion is responsible for all the ills in the world – pointing to religion as the source of Islamist terror as a prime example. The right will say that when one takes God out of the picture, you can all toot easily end up with  genocide as government policy. As did Nazi Germany during the Holocaust. If here is no God, mass murder is just a survival tactic.

Now as I said earlier, there are plenty of exceptions. There are some very religious people on the left. But they tend to be more about helping one’s fellow man or protecting the environment - regardless of the cost - rationalizing away the moral objections made by the right on other issues. And by the same token there are some atheists on the right. But they tend to be fiscal conservatives rather than social conservatives. Which makes them more libertarian than Republican.

The financial component motivates a lot of people. The right believes that the economy will be ruined by the tax and spend ways of the left. And the left fears that the little guy will be stiffed by the right at many levels – Or that the environment will be destroyed by the right. The economy is at best a secondary consideration - and be damned if necessary! But I think that the divisions fall more along religious or philosophical lines than they do fiscal lines. 

True, this all might be an oversimplification with plenty of exceptions. But I think that at its core, it is the truth. At least the way I see it.
↧
Search

An Immodest Response

March 27, 2017, 8:54 am
$
0
0
Leggings  (for those of us that are sartorially challenged with respect to women’s clothing) are  tight-fitting stretch pants, typically worn by women or girls. It goes without saying that this kind of apparel is considered immodest by Orthodox Jewish standards. It appears that Orthodoxy is not the only institution that considers it so. United Airlines (UA) feels the same way. At least as far of its own ‘family’ is concerned. 

It appears that UA has an actual dress code required of employees and their family members when on board one of their commercial aircraft. (Who knew?)

As it applies to leggings - this is how that rule is stated: 
The following attire is unacceptable in any cabin… Form-fitting lycra/spandex tops, pants and dresses. 
I believe that most other airlines have similar rules. There are of course other modesty rules. But I focus on this one because of what followed after an instance of enforcement of this rule was made public. From the Washington Post: 
A United Airlines gate agent barred two girls from boarding a flight Sunday morning because the girls were wearing leggings…
At first I thought it rather strange that these teen aged girls were barred from the flight considering the fact that I have seen all manner of clothing worn on female passengers with whom I have flown. In some instances, leggings may have been more modest. To the best of my recollection no one I’ve ever flown with was ever barred from boarding a plane because of what they wore. But then I read the following.
United Airlines spokesman Jonathan Guerin confirmed the two teens were not allowed on the flight. But he said they were traveling using a United employee pass and “were not in compliance with our dress code policy for company benefit travel.” 
First let me say that I am happy to see that there is such a thing as a dress code by a major corporation in our day when anything goes. True, it is not applied to paying passengers. But that it exists at all shows that our even in our permissive culture the concept of modesty in clothing is still a value. How long it will last after this debacle (for UA) remains to be seen.

When the news of this broke, it generated a flurry of protests. I have to wonder why it wasn’t obvious to all that this was not business as usual for UA. Have they never flown before? Surely they should have realized that there was something different about this case. Which was the fact that these were employee rule to which regular passengers were not subjected. On the other hand if they did realize that and were still protesting, they were wrong to do so. UA has the right to set its own employee policy. They have every right to expect it to be honored. And they have the additional right to enforce it.

Those that do not like the rule or think it’s unfair, can petition the airline to change it. Or they can call for a protest against an ‘unfair’ rule or boycott the airline altogether. But employees of these airlines know the rules (or at least they should) and they violated them. Which makes what UA did justified. 

But that didn’t stop the apoplectic response on social media: 
Social media exploded Sunday with users calling the incident horrendous, outrageous and nonsense. Several users asked why leggings aren’t proper clothing… 
Are people so clueless about the impropriety of form fitting clothing that is so tight that they leave little to the imagination? Has our culture sunk so low that even this is no longer a value except to the airline executives who crafted those rules?

What is really sad is the level of protest. As though UA had forced all of its passengers to wear Burkas. But even more disgusting is who the media focuses on as protesting it. Like Supermodel Christine Teigen who tweeted"I have flown united before with literally no pants on. Just a top as a dress. 

Nice. What a  paragon of virtue!

And then there is he queen of smut, comedienne Sarah Silverman. As if she were a legitimate voice in any of this.  She said she was going to boycott UA. I have no issue with her – or anyone else doing that. My issue is about using her as an example in the first place.

This woman is one of the most vulgar comedians on the planet. She loves to highlight her Judaism and then goes about dishonoring it with her extreme vulgarity. In her twisted mind Judaism is just fine with that. But of course that is the furthest thing from the truth. How vulgar is she? In one instance that was posted online - I recall she thought it was funny to offer to perform a lewd act on a man who donates millions to Conservative Republicans if he would instead support her candidate. If what I read in the media about her performances is true, this story is mild by comparison.

Her ‘comedy’ routines are extremely vulgar. Which probably means that her stuff isn’t that funny. Any legitimate comedian will tell you that if you have to resort to vulgarity in order to get a reaction, then you probably wouldn’t get a laugh without it.

Is this the person we want leading the charge? Is she the example of virtue we should be looking at? Not in my book.

In any case, my bet is that UA will end up changing its policy because of this reaction. Which is too bad... as our culture descends even further into an amoral abyss.
↧
↧

Enablers Must Suffer Consequences

March 27, 2017, 10:29 pm
$
0
0
One of 22 sex abuse suspects arrested in Israel yesterday  (screenshot -Ynet)
22. That’s the number of people that were arrested for sex crimes in Israel yesterday. Why were so many arrested all at once? Were they a cult? No. They were individual perpetrators that were never reported to the police. Instead they were dealt with ‘in house’.

What kind of community would deem it appropriate to do so? I think we all know that answer to that one. But in case there is any doubt, the location of these arrests should tell the story: Jerusalem, Bet Shemesh, Beitar and Bnei Brak. 4 cities noted for some of the more extreme Charedim. Let me be quick to add that by far not all the of the Charedi residents of those cities are extreme. That should be obvious, too. But it is also clear that a large number of them are. As are the rabbinic leaders they listen to. Especially in the smaller cities. And the more extreme, the more closed off from the civilized world they are.

Unfortunately when a society is so closed off  (as these people are - by choice) you end up with a situation like this. Advances in how to more appropriately deal with sex abusers and survivors are not learned. The main concern therefore, is as it used to be for all communities where sex abuse took place - for the welfare of the community, the abusers, and their families - instead of concern for the abuse survivors.

Here is how Ha’aretz reported the story: 
The investigation by the police’s Jerusalem District began after they received information that ultra-Orthodox elements were concealing information on sex crimes in their community. 
These Haredim allegedly received their rabbis’ blessing to seek and collect information on sexual predators in the community, without involving the police. They did so, even maintaining written records of attacks and the people involved. At the end of the process, the perpetrators were forced to agree to undergo therapy within the ultra-Orthodox world. 
During their investigation, the police seized the notebooks in which the records were kept. Tens of alleged attackers were documented, some of whom had committed serial offenses, including against children, the police said. 
Based on this information, the police arrested 22 suspects, ages 20 to 60. Each is alleged to have committed several attacks over the last two years. 
No matter how many times I hear a story like this, I still can’t wrap my head around the fact that the people that have committed serial sexual offenses continue to be allowed to roam the streets with impunity. While their crimes are no doubt concealed from the public. While it may be laudable that their leaders require them to get some from of therapy, this does not excuse them from concealing their identity. Nor does it excuse them from not reporting them to the police. And certainly there is no excuse for simply expelling them as Ha’aretzreports they did in some cases  – leaving the communities to which they migrate vulnerable to their attacks.

Also, unsurprising is the way some in those communities reacted to those arrests:
In some cases, ultra-Orthodox residents in the four cities – Jerusalem, Beit Shemesh, Betar Ilit and Bnei Brak – attacked the police, throwing stones and other items, and tried to block the arrests. In Jerusalem, the windows of two police cars were shattered by rocks.
Of course they reacted that way. They had no clue why these people were arrested. Why should they? No one ever told them.  And even if they were told, they wouldn't believe it - unless it came from their own leadership.

Not long ago Agudath Israel of America seemed to have come around to the idea that enablers should suffer consequences.

But in extremist Charedi enclaves in Israel, the leaders are not only are they not concerned with enablers, by dealing with it in house they actually are the enablers. What does this do to survivors? Who knows what their lives are like now! But based on the testimony of hundreds of survivors of sex abuse, it is highly unlikely that their lives are anything but hell! How could it not be - knowing that the people that molested or abused them sexually are walking their streets with the protection of their leaders - as though nothing happened! All while survivors are left to their own devices.

It isn’t too difficult to see the thinking of the leaders in those communities. They believe that it is the best interests of their community to take matters into their own hands. We know their mindset from the way cases of abuse was handled in the past. Not only in the Charedi world… not only in the modern Orthodox world… but in society in general.

It was always the institution that was protected. That concern rose above all other considerations.Certainly above the welfare of the survivor. Just ask the Graham Spanier, the former president of Penn State who tried to protect his school by covering up the serial sex abuse of Penn State’s assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky. And then consider Spanier’s well deserved fate. From the New York Times: 
On its second day of deliberations, the jury in Harrisburg, Pa., found Graham B. Spanier guilty of one misdemeanor count, punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. 
The consequences of a cover-up to survivors are by now unfortunately very clear to those of us that live in the real world. As are the consequences to that those that covered it up as in the above mentioned Spanier case.  But in the extremist world of the Charedi cities where 22 sex abusers were arrested, Charedi leaders seem to be clueless. They live in an opaque and almost impervious bubble.

I don’t know what the law in Israel is with respect or those who cover up sex abuse. As noted, they are enablers and that ought to be considered a crime. Is subjecting them to arrest what it would take to see justice being served?

If they were to suffer the same fate Mr. Spanier did, maybe things would change. Purposeful ignorance should never be an excuse to get away with ‘murder’. Which is how many professional therapists - even the most religious ones among them - describe the consequences to a survivor that was abused sexually. 
↧

The Outrageous and Constant Chilul HaShem Must Stop!

March 29, 2017, 8:45 am
$
0
0
Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach speaking at a rally yesterday (Arutz Sheva)
I can’t. I just can’t comprehend it. How religious young Jews from what are likely mainstream Charedi homes can behave like this is beyond my understanding. Watching a video of them yelling at a secular woman whose only crime was crossing the street –  ganging up on her, calling her a Shiksa (a derogatory term for a non Jewish woman), and kicking her - makes my blood boil.

It also makes it easier to understand why there is so much contempt for Charedim in Israel.  If I were a secular Israeli, I would want to run away as far and as fast from them as I could. I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near them or have anything to do with them. I would oppose everything they stood for. I would want to cut off all government aid to them. I would vote only for the political parties that want to destroy them.  

These young Charedim are not only your typical Meah Shearim types. Some of them were pretty Yeshivsh: clean shaven, wearing suits and black fedoras. Not people with long beards and Peyos; wearing the Chasidic long coats and hats they typically wear. One was even wearing a light blue sweater. But they were all involved in this massive Chilul HaShem. Just one of many that seem to be a never ending stream of them.

These young people are being taught to be zealots for God by their leaders. Both in the Eida HaCharedis and by Rabbi Shmuel Aurbach. In that role, they probably feel they have the right, or perhaps even the obligation to physically assault anyone who is does not possess their religious world view. They are surely taught that the world revolves around them as Bnei Torah. Secular Jews and their ‘anti Torah’ values are constantly being disparaged.

I have no doubt that the speakers at that rally whipped these young protesters into a frenzy. Protesters that whose hatred for the State of Israel is constantly being reinforced by their leaders. How can they feel anything but hatred when they hear one of the speakers say the following (from Arutz Sheva): 
“The first Prime Minister of Israel, whose name it is forbidden to mention, may his name and memory be erased, said that within 20 years there wouldn’t be a shtreimel [fur hat worn by some haredi men] here, and we are here today and this is our revenge. We will fill the jails. They won’t scare us,” he said. “We got past Pharaoh, we got passed the Spanish Inquisition, we got past Hitler, we’ll get past you, too.” 
After hearing speaker after speaker talk in this fashion, it might have seemed like a natural response for them to gang up, kick and scream insults at a secular woman that inadvertently crossed the street they were protesting on.

This is what they learn from their rhetoric of their leaders. I have no doubt that these young Charedim actually believed they were making a Kiddush HaShem by ganging up on that poor woman.

There is not a scintilla of doubt in my mind that this was a major Chilul HaShem. One of many - the repercussions of which have yet to be fully felt. The damage they have caused to the honor of the Torah is incalculable.

Let me be clear. These are not exceptions. These are mainstream followers of the Edia HaCharedis and Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach’s Jerusalem faction. There are thousands upon thousands of them. I believe that any one of those thousands of protesters who joined the rally might have done the same thing those young Charedim did had they been in a position to do so. This is what the world sees and then judges every Charedi Jew that way.

Let me be clear about another thing. Most young Charedim in Israel are not adherents of the Eida or Rabbi Aurbach. They do not behave like street thugs. They do not attend these rallies and do not support them. They do register for the draft even as they remain deferred from army service while they are in Yeshiva or Kollel full time. They instead lead normal non zealous lives and spend their time in the Beis HaMedrash. Not in the street.

But it doesn’t matter because this is not how the rest of the world sees them. How could they? They see a media that focuses on these protesters and the violence. Because its news. They will not go into the Beis Hamedrash where many thousands sit quietly and study all day long and wouldn’t dream of being violent. Because that’s not news.

The secular public has no other frame of reference other than what the news media feeds them. How can they be blamed for HATING Charedim! If I didn’t know better, I would hate them all too after seeing this kind of thing happening repeatedly.

One more thing I want to be clear about. I do not blame the media. They just report the news. I blame R’ Shmuel Auerbach and the Eida HaCharedis. It is their fault. Not because they protest the draft. Not even because they protest the arrest of one of their own for resisting the draft. They have the right to protest all they want in a democracy. No matter how much anyone disagrees with him.

I blame them for the way their young adherents demonstrate that disagreement. Their rabbis are the ones responsible for whipping up a frenzy in their young people that continually results in a Chilul HaShem. And these leaders do nothing to prevent it or stop it. Which ends up as encouragement to them - considering a disgusting attack like this as a fulfillment of their anti secular mission. Especially after the kind of hateful rhetoric they heard from the Eida Rabbis and Rabbi Aurbach.

Rabbi Auerbach may be a giant of a Tamlid Chacham. But he has clearly lost his way. And he may actually succeed at destroying his sainted father’s legacy.

If the Charedi world is to survive, opposition to the Eida and Rabbi Auerbach must be made clear. Silence is no longer an option. The leaders of the majority of Charedim need to condemn, - not only the violence and disruption, but the Eida HaCharedis that foments its.

And perhaps more importantly they need to condemn Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach.  If I recall correctly there has already been some activity along these lines. Obviously it has not been enough. 

They have to go full force in my view and put Rabbi Auerbach in a state of Nidui (a quasi Cherem - excommunication) if they have to. Then make that as public as they can. So that the rest of the world will know that the majority of the Charedi world is not represented by him or his followers. That they see their methods in the same way the rest of the civilized world does. And they need to do it soon, loudly, and often. So that it sinks in and hopefully the ways of the Torah’s can once again be seen by all as pleasant. The way they should be seen. That would be a Kiddush HaShem. 


Video by JerusalemOnline
↧

Only In America

March 30, 2017, 9:25 am
$
0
0
Swearing in ceremony of the new US ambassador to Israel (TOI)
I have to admit that I felt a strong sense of pride this morning when I viewed yesterday’s swearing in of America’s new ambassador to Israel, David Friedman. (See the video below) I was proud of being a Jew and in particular a religious Jew. I was also proud of being an American and proud of my country. What both the Vice President said and Mr. Friedman said would have been enough. Although past administrations have expressed similar sentiments about Israel and the Jewish people – including the last one under President Obama, this particular one has far more meaning to me.

Here was a man that is a known Orthodox Jew whose views are not the politically correct liberal ones. They are more in line with those of the Prime Minister of Israel who views settling the land of Israel as a value. Not as an evil. As such Mr. Friedman has in the past financially supported Jewish cities that are on the West Bank.

One can debate the wisdom of supporting settlement activity at this time. But one cannot debate the Jewish right to settle all of the land of Israel which was given to us by God. Although I do not think it wise to expand settlement activity at this time, I do not, however, think it is inherently wrong. And neither does the current administration.  In a just world, Jews and Palestinians should be able to live wherever they choose. On both sides of the ‘Green Line’.

Mr. Friedman was chosen quickly by the President to represent the United States in Israel. (He was nominated on January 20th -  the President’s first day in office. (And was finally confirmed by the senate a short while ago.)

It is a tribute to Mr. Friedman’s integrity and loyalty to the United States that he will represent its policies even when he may not agree with them. So that the administration’s position that settlement activity be held off, will be the position Mr. Friedman will advocate on America’s behalf.

The actual swearing in was done with his hand placed on what looked like a Tanach. It was held by his wife. There were Kipa clad people in the audience. I assume they were either family or close friends. Interestingly, what appeared to be his grandchildren milling around him during the ceremony – were wearing Charedi style large velvet Kipot. This says a lot about his commitment not only to Israel but to Judaism. It also says a lot about the Charedi influence in Modern Orthodoxy of which Mr. Friedman is very likely a member. He wore a Kipa Seruga when he placed his hand on that Tanach. I’m pretty sure that he raised his children with a Modern Orthodox Hashkafa, and yet at least one of them have become Charedi. But that is a subject of another discussion.

Whatever one wants to say about President Trump one cannot deny his lifelong commitment to Israel and the Jewish people. Especially Orthodox ones. He has surrounded himself with Orthodox Jews in business and now in his Presidency. His son in law Jared is an observant Jew that was raised in an Orthodox home and attended an Orthodox day school and high school. His own daughter had an Orthodox conversion and is observant, too. She just got named a senior adviser to the President with her own office in the West Wing.

A lot - perhaps even most of the criticism of the President is legitimate. But I don’t think anyone can challenge his philo-semitic credentials. The people he has chosen for high office are themselves very pro-Israel. Starting with the Vice President and including (and certainly not ending with) the appointment of Nikki Haley to the high profile position of US Ambassador to the United Nations.

It’s too bad that all of this good will is over-shadowed by the antics of a man who is his own worst enemy.  His political opponents are having a field day with that. While the President is guilty of bringing this criticism upon himself with tweets full of lies and distortions - it is equally clear to me that his political opponents are using all of that to forward their own political agenda. Not that I blame them. But it is a fact of life nonetheless.

Will the President last in office? Will all of the committees investigating him (or more accurately his people) now find evidence of impeachable offenses? I honestly don’t know. Wouldn’t surprise me either way. But with respect to American polices toward Israel nothing will change even if the power of the Presidency is transferred to the Vice President. Whose commitment to Israel is just as strong. If not stronger.

Not sure I would feel that way if the new Democratic Party were in charge. Their support for Israel has waned ever since Netanyahu dared to criticize the last President - who was a Democrat. Democratic animosity towards Netanyahu - Israel’s longest sitting prime minister - peaked when he criticized Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. Which Netanyahu and many experts on Iran (not exclusively Republican) saw as appeasement of a country universally acknowledged to be responsible for spreading terrorism all over the world. A deal which did nothing to address that. And did nothing to stop Iran’s eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons. At most it only slowed them down. Nor did it address Iran’s development of the means to deliver them. Not only to Israel who they’ve sworn to wipe off the map. But even to ‘The Great Satan’ - America!

That waning support was made obvious by the last administration’s abstention from a vote in the UN condemning Israeli settlement activity. A condemnation which blamed Israel as the primary impediment to peace. With barely a mention of any Palestinian responsibility. As was the recent appointment of a Muslim vice chairman of the Democratic Party that has been highly critical of Israel. So while support for Israel is waning on the Democratic side - on the Republican side it is swelling.

In the meantime, I remain with a sense of pride that so many observant Jews have been entrusted by the President to serve this country at the highest levels of government. God bless the United States of America.


↧
↧

Loosening the Reins

March 31, 2017, 8:56 am
$
0
0
Footsteps member removing his Tefilin (NYT)
After reading yet another sad article in the New York Times about so many formerly religious young Jews that have gone OTD (Off the Derech), I thought,  just how preventable much (or at least some) of this could be.

As I’ve said many times, there are probably as many reasons for going OTD as there are people going OTD. Everyone that does, does so for their own reasons. And yet, there is often a common thread they all share. Which is the inability to live their lives under the strict rules of the religious segment from which they come.

It is this feature that can be best dealt with within those communities. With a little bit of understanding combined with tolerance, they could remain religious and yet change their lives enough to be happy, instead of being constantly frustrated by the strictures imposed by their particular segment of Orthodoxy.

Last week, I read an article in one of the Charedi magazines by a Charedi Rav who seemed relatively mainstream. In that article he gave suggestions how to avoid turning on the TV in a hotel room when away from home. His point was that no religious person would ever consider owning a TV in his home. And yet when away from home (e.g on a business trip) once in the privacy of the hotel room with nothing else to do for hours before going to sleep - with a TV staring you in  the face  you might be tempted to turn it on.

Now I’m pretty sure he wasn’t talking about watching porn. He was talking about watching any TV. As though if one did so, it was tantamount to eating Treif. I thought, ‘What must this rabbi think of people like me - an observant Jew that actually owns and watches this medium’?

TVs are not the only thing that is treated that way. So too is the internet, secular music, and just about anything that has no religious Jewish connotation. The point I am trying to make here is how restrictive some of the more right wing segments of Orthodoxy are - and how they believe it to be the norm for any religious Jew. 

In most cases if one is raised to lead their lives that way, they usually are able to do so with relative ease. But there are obviously many that can’t. And yet would do quite well if they were allowed some of those ‘forbidden’ things that many other religious Jews take for granted. For them there comes a breaking point where they seek relief and eventually leave observance completely. How sad it is that – were these people raised in a more permissive religious environment, they would have probably remained religious.

Now of course there are no guarantees. There are also plenty of more modern Orthodox Jews that go OTD too. Even those that have all of those ‘Treif’ items. But for them it is for a variety of reasons having less to do with the restrictions of Judaism… and more to do with things like the intellectual challenges of the modern world… or the simple attractions of a totally secular lifestyle. Which in my requires an opposite remedy. One along the lines mentioned by Rabbi Henoch Plotnikin another issue of that same magazine. They need to be inspired by their Judaism. Those that are not are more easily enticed by other ideals - or a more permissive lifestyle.

Now this lack of inspiration or enthusiasm about one’s Judaism may exist in Charedi circles too. I have no doubt that it does and plays its part in the motivation by some to go OTD. But I have to believe that more often than not - it is the heavy burden placed on young people on the right that is a greater factor for its members that go OTD. The more right, the greater the burden. That is the message I see so often in stories like these. A common refrain is that they can’t take it anymore. They want to live more ‘normal’ lives. And with no alternative religious lifestyle offered to them, they leave altogether.

Suggestions that they first try a more modern lifestyle does not work for them. They have been indoctrinated to think that owning a TV (for example) is the same as eating Treif. There is also the fact that they have been raised in a culture that simply can’t relate to a modern lifestyle. They feel odd among modern Orthodox Jews. They cannot relate to the kind of conversations they find nor the interests of the people in those communities. 

If they are from the more hard core Chasidic enclaves like Skvere or Kiryas Joel, their English language skills are very poor, heavily peppered with Yiddish and often sound like they are newly arrived immigrants from some European Shtetl. In those communities their lack of a secular education or any understanding of the secular culture in which most MO Jews live - leaves them with little in common. This does not make for an inviting situation for them. 

I also believe that most MO communities tend to be very self-centered and pay little attention to an ‘outsider’ with which they have little in common. Jews from the more restrictive backgrounds seeking relief skip it and go entirely secular. 

I can only imagine how desperate they must be in order to make that break from the warm embrace of family and friends in the cocoon in which they have lived all of their lives to that point - and enter the cold world of the secular lifestyle with no one there to welcome them in. The feelings of depression often generated by such a bold move can and sometimes do end up in a suicide!

That’s why organizations like Footsteps (which is focused upon in the New York Times article)  are so successful. Unfortunately though, Footsteps goals do not include retaining the religious values with which one is raised. They are only concerned with the material and social welfare of those that seek their help.

There is an Orthodox Jewish organization that was formed to deal with these people. They try to show them that there is another way to live and still retain their Mitzvah observance. But it would be a lot better if these communities nipped it in the bud before anyone in their community ever had a thought of going OTD.

My advice to the world of the right on how to better deal with the increasing OTD problem they are confronted with - is to loosen up the reins. This does not mean they must allow TVs and other cultural items of which they don’t approve into their homes. But it does mean not equating them all with Treif. So that if someone feels they need it, they will not be ostracized if they own one of these items. For those who need it - they should be allowed to  participate in a that part of the secular culture that does not violate Halacha. And not be ostracized for that either.

It also means that they need to provide a better education for their young. Not only for parnassa (livelihood) reasons - but to better understand the culture of the country in which they live. They must certainly stop disparaging all of it and reserve criticism of the culture for those things which are actually forbidden by Halacha. They can still live their lives the way they choose. But by changing the way they promote their lifestyles and the way they deal with Halachicly permitted outside culture, they can probably save a lot their own people the heartache caused by a child going OTD.
↧

When Will They Ever Learn

April 2, 2017, 8:27 am
$
0
0
Senator Cory Booker visiting SCHI (SCHI website)
He could have gone down as a great man. History has been very kind to individuals who have sacrificed for their people. 60 year old Rabbi Osher Eisenman is one of those people. His story is the stuff of ArtScroll biographies. His life is so dedicated to a cause that few people could do anything but admire him for it.

This is a man who built up an institution that was sorely needed and lacking in the community of Lakewood. Lakewood as most people know is the where Beis Medrash Govoha (BMG) is located. Founded by Rav Aharon Kotler, it has grown from a modest beginning of a just a few students (in the 1940s) into the largest Yeshiva in American serving (as of 2012) over 6500  young men whose only task is to study Torah full time.

The Orthodox mostly Charedi Jewish community around BMG has grown right along with it. It is truly a beautiful Makom (place of) Torah. Which some refer to as Lakewood Ir HaTorah (City of Torah.) I say this without reservation. Even though my Hashkafos differ with them in certain areas, there is no question about the depth and breadth of Talmud study taking at BMG. There is no place else like it anywhere in America.

Like any growing city - along with that growth comes communal needs that are not sufficiently met by the existing religious infrastructure. One of those needs is providing a  school for children with special needs. The larger the growth the greater the need becomes. The faster it grows the more acute the need becomes.

One man rose to the occasion. In the mid 1990s - sensing the need via his own special needs child, Rabbi Osher Eisenmann founded the School for Children with Hidden Intelligence (SCHI) a facility that catered to these children.  From Asbury Press: 
The school provides educational services for the "medically fragile, and socially-emotionally challenged children," according to its website. 
Starting out in a storefront with 5 students, the school grew in reputation and size into a one that houses 250 students, 450 employees, and ultimately cares for over 600 students ages 3-21. In short, Rabbi Eisenman was a walking Kiddush Hashem. Which was enhanced by a variety of New Jersey state officials like Senator Cory Booker and Governor Chris Christie that have taken tours of the facility.

In the meantime Rabbi Eisenman has led a simple and modest lifestyle. One which is typical of selfless, giving people like that.

Oh how I wish the story would end here. Unfortunately it doesn’t. What could have been a perpetual Kiddush HaShem has suddenly turned into a Chilul HaShem. One where the essential facts of the charges brought against him have been admitted by Rabbi Eisenmann through his attorney, Jeff Ifra.

This story is become an all too familiar one. Apparently sticking one’s hand into the public cookie jar is just too tempting –and too easy to pass up.

Because of it success and reputation SCHI receives an annual allocation of state funds to the tune of millions of dollars: 
David Shafter, a state-appointed monitor who oversees Lakewood's school district, said the district paid more than $22 million to SCHI this school year, up from $18 million in the 2014-2015 school year. Tuition at SCHI is much higher than other schools in the area that cater to special-needs students. 
Lakewood School District pays $60,485 per year in tuition at the Bancroft School in Voorhees Township, Shafter said, about 41 percent less than tuition at SCHI. 
"The tuition at SCHI is the highest Lakewood pay per student for any out-of-district school," Shafter said but added that the quality of the school was not in question. 
SCHI's most recent financial reports show the school earned $19.2 million in revenue in 2015, most of that coming from public funds. The school had $18.9 million in expenses, leaving $331,746 in surplus. The records show Eisemann was paid a salary of $119,273 in 2014. 
Rabbi Eisenman is chaged with stealing over $630,000 in public funds for personal gain.  He allegedly  tried to cover up this ‘loan’ by funneling some money from the schools operating account into the fundraising account as ‘repayment’ of  debts to the school. Thus laundering the money.

At this point I want to stress that every man deserves his day in court and is innocent until proven guilty. But it does not look good for Rabbi Eisenmann. That his lawyer said he actually did borrow the money but had every intention of paying it back is basically an admission of guilt.

The Torah tells us that G’Neiva (stealing) is a crime. It is strictly prohibited. It does not matter that the crime can be corrected by paying the stolen funds back. In Talmudic parlance this is called a Lav SheNitek B’Aseh. But stealing it in the first place remains a crime. 

He stole the money. I am not an attorney but it seems to me that intent to pay it back is not an excuse in this case anymore than it was in the Rubashkin case.

Nor does it matter that an individual is otherwise a great person who lives a modest lifestyle. Not even if the funds stolen are for an idealistic purpose. No one has even claimed that to be the case here. But even if it were, that too would not be an excuse. It is still a crime. One need not go too far back in time to remember a prominent Chasidic Rebbe who defrauded the government in an elaborate international money laundering scheme where he use the funds he gained to support his charitable institutions. It didn’t matter then and it won’t matter now.

Aside from the lapse in ethical judgment, why didn’t Rabbi Eisenmann learn from the past? Did he think no one would notice and that he could enrich himself via an investment with ‘borrowed’ money and pay it back before anyone noticed? I guess so.

It’s hard for me to imagine that an altruistic individual like Rabbi Eisenmann could be tempted to do what he did, even if he thought he could get away with it. But he did. And we - the Orthodox Jewish community - are all paying the price. Because when a Jew that is so clearly and obviously religious breaks the law for financial gain and gets caught, it generates unfavorable publicity in the media. Which lends aura of credibility to  the antisemitic canard that all Jews – especially the religious ones - are  greedy criminals that will cheat the government for financial gain at every opportunity.  And that is the furthest thing from the truth.
↧

Unorthodox Answers

April 3, 2017, 9:28 am
$
0
0
‘Seder without history’ (The Torah.com)
The question is better than any of the answers given. In some cases, the answers are shocking – coming from knowledgeable people that claim that mantle of Orthodoxy. 

In what can best be described as an Open Orthodox forum called ‘TheTorah.com’ A sincere but troubled Jew asked the following question: 
I have always loved studying Torah. But over the years, as I have added the study of history and philosophy in depth, I find it more and more difficult to believe in the traditional version of the Exodus. I simply can’t accept a story with plagues and miracles, splitting of seas and manna falling from heaven as historical. 
I still feel connected to God, as well as to Torah and the mitzvot (I am observant) and I would like to have a spiritual Seder Night. How can I recite the haggada and talk about a story that I don’t believe actually happened, in a meaningful way? (As my kids get older, this will become an even more pressing question.) 
Unfortunately for this Jew and any Jew, the correct answer is you can’t. If you don’t believe the historicity of the Exodus narrative then you are an Apikores. That  many sincere Jews reach that conclusion honestly based on modern scholarship is a sad reality. But a reality nonetheless.

Biblical criticism is not a just a function of our time. It wasn’t born yesterday. It has been around since at least the 19th century era of biblical scholar, Julius Wellhausen. There were plenty of bright and sincere people that accepted Wellhasuen’s documentary hypothesis. Which contradicted Orthodox Judaism’s notions about the Torah’s Author and the era in which it was written.

Rav Chaim Soloveichk was once asked how to deal with someone like that. His answer was not to condemn him. He said, ‘Nebech’. R’ Chaim felt badly that a sincere and well intentioned Jew fell victim to the academic disciplines of his day. But he added, ‘Nebech an Apikores is still an Apkores!’ You simply cannot get away from that.

The question asked of these rabbis is a good one that many educated people grapple with. The questions are not frivolous and insincere. Modern scholarship has raised some serious questions about who wrote the Torah and when it was written. There is also the lack of physical evidence about the events recorded in the Torah. One would for example expect to find some physical evidence of over a million people leaving Egypt together and crossing a desert for 40 years. 

Yet there has never been any trace of any such evidence found. Surely archaeologists would have found something by now. But - nothing. Not a single piece of debris. 

These are indeed among the serious questions that deserve answers. I can easily understand how someone can reject the historicity of the Torah based on all of that.

And yet, even with all of these questions, the ‘deduction’ that the Exodus never happened is not the only possible conclusion. It may sound like the most likely one to the scientific mind. But there are other explanations that are just as possible no matter how unlikely them may seem to the rational mind.

For those who insist on believing it did not happen based on their academic studies, I don’t see how they can lead their lives based on a myth.What kind of god lies to us in order to get us to believe in him? Does this make sense to anyone?

One must believe in the Torah narrative even if the historical fact of it is not the main message. A message based on a lie isn’t much of a message, no matter what the intent  of the author is.

One must be honest about that even if it means someone losing his faith. What is kind of faith is based on something you know to be a lie? How can that be the foundation of your belief system? The questioner should have been told that his lack of belief that the Exodus happened makes it impossible to recite the Haggadah – in which the Exodus story is treated as history… a truthful history from which we learn.

Three of the respondents answered him honestly but skirted the issue. And two of them answered in ways that are close to being – if they are not actually – Apikorsus. In fact one of them is clearly Apikorsus.

The flagship institution of Open Orthodoxy, Yeshivat Chovevei Torah (YCT)  has clearly stated that one of their  theological requirements is the belief that the events at Sinai actually happened. Anyone that denies it is an Apikores. These were the words uttered by Rabbi Y’soscher Katz, YCT’s Talmud Chair during a broadcast interview last year. I wish these respondents would have been as clear.

But instead of being clear Rabbis Herzl Hefter, David Bigman, and Yuval Cherlow, skirted the question by emphasizing that one should not focus on the historicity of the Torah but on its message. Which is what is really important.

This is true. In doing so, they did not deny the historicity of the Exodus. But I don’t see how it helps the questioner. He does not believe it happened. These answers don’t help.  The Haggadah treats the Exodus as though they actually happened. How he can recite the Haggadah in any meaningful way if he doesn’t believe what he is saying?

The only answers that might be satisfying to the questioner are the 2 answers given by Rabbi Jeremy Rosen and Professor Tamar Ross. Rabbi Rosen’s answers borders on - if not actually being - Apikurus: 
Each religion, each culture has its own traditions and narratives that are often not factually true or at least not strictly so, but underpin and reinforce its value system. Does their significance lie in their historicity or accuracy? Is it important to try and “prove” them to be “true”? I don’t think so. I accept the Torah as my way of life, of God communicating with me. Do I know exactly how or even when it was transmitted? Not in any scientific sense, no. 
Now he doesn’t actually say it didn’t happen. But he comes pretty darn close. If he would have added that ‘Even though it can’t be proven scientifically – that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen’ that would be one thing. But that he left it hanging like this leaves the questioner with the impression that one need not believe it at all.

Here is what Professor Ross said: 
I’ve come to terms with the notion that we may never know how factually reliable the story of the escape from Egypt actually is.  In fact, I’m not even sure whether the biblical account of the exodus was ever intended as a bona fide attempt at reporting history.  It may well be that the original account already reflects the influence of prevailing conventions as to how tales of origin should be written, or perhaps the lack of a clear distinction between myth and systematic history in ancient times. 
This is pure unadulterated Apikursus of the type condemned by one of Open Orthodoxy’s leading lights. And called unacceptable by YCT's dean, Rabbi Asher Lopatin. Yet this website hosted her response without comment. I don’t see how anyone associated with a forum that hosts an Apikores as a legitimate voice of Orthodoxy - can themselves be considered Orthodox.
↧
Search

Going OTD in Israel

April 4, 2017, 9:53 am
$
0
0
Haim Rubenstein, at 13 and today (Tablet)
What a startling statistic! There are about 17,000 Israelis between the ages of 20 and 40 that have left the ultra-Orthodox world. This figure is from Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics – reported in Tablet Magazine.

That many Orthodox Jews have gone OTD is not news. But if that number is anywhere near accurate - that so many left the Charedi world surprises even me.

I said OTD. Which means they are no longer observant. But perhaps that statistic only indicates that they left the Charedi (ultra-Orthodox) world. This is how Tablet phrases it. Perhaps they otherwise remain observant. I hope that’s the case. But I tend to doubt that it is in most cases. Because there is ample evidence that once they leave the Charedi world, they leave it all.

That statistic was recorded in what seems like an endless stream of stories about formerly Charedi Jews that have gone OTD. Why they go OTD is a subject that I have discussed many times – as recently as last week. But as I said - the number cited here really surprised me. The question is, why are there so many at this point in time? 

True there are more Charedim today than in the past. Exponentially so. I have no  idea what the percentages of Charedi Jews going OTD in the past was. But even if they percentages remain the same - if the population grows exponentially (as it has) - the numbers increase to an epidemically proportional number of 17,000 Jewish souls! I can’t believe that the Charedi world in Israel is not up in arms about this! If they are, they are keeping it secret.

Although I have read few articles about this phenomenon in Israel - and realize that there are now Charedi organizations that deal with it, I have to wonder if there are anywhere near enough. In any case it hardly ever merits public discussion by the Charedi leadership or their politicians. The areas that seem to concern them the most is the perpetuation of their way of life and assuring the government not only – NOT - interfere, but support them financially.

If I were a Charedi leader and someone told me there were 17,000 of our young people that have gone OTD, I would be declaring a crisis of international proportion! It would become my highest priority. I would be having mass gatherings about this instead of protesting the draft, Tznius, the internet, and smart phones.

Their response might be that protesting those things is the way they actually deal with the problem. But I have to question the effectiveness of that if it has produced 17,000 people that have gone OTD.

The Tablet article goes on to describe Haim Rubenstein, a once Charedi fellow that went OTD. (Ironically with respect to yesterday’s post -  via his discovery of biblical criticism!) He filed a class action type suit against the State of Israel for neglecting to enforce its core curriculum mandate in Charedi schools. Which denied him and the 52 plaintiffs a useful education - hindering them in their pursuit of decent jobs. Israel countered that they could have chosen one of the many schools that do provide a good education.

I don’t see how that is a defense – since these young people had no control over where their parents sent them. Interestingly – in that vein the government filed a 3rd party lawsuit against the plaintiff’s parents and the schools with the claim that they bear the responsibility of that. We’ll see how that goes.

The rest of the article is just more of the same thing I have discussed many times about this situation: The many attempts by the government to enforce those requirements; and their ultimate failure to do so.  The difficulty and the expense of trying to catch up via tutoring... and more. It’s all there. I need not rehash it again.

Back to the problem and how the Charedi world could perhaps better deal with it. I don’t believe that increasing strictures and haranguing their public is the answer to this problem. Not if that number is anywhere near accurate. It’s kind of like disciplining a child by beating him. And if he doesn’t comply, beating him harder.

Wouldn’t it be wise to try another way? Perhaps they should stop ‘beating the child’ altogether and instead try to learn and understand what bothers them. And see if the many and varied problems they learn about can somehow be corrected without them going OTD. ‘Beat’ them with acceptance, kindness, tolerance, and love instead. Sometimes honey actually does work better than vinegar. You don’t have to give up Halachic observance to do that. A little understanding and empathy can go a long way.
↧
↧

A Ray of Sunshine on the Trump Presidency

April 5, 2017, 11:14 am
$
0
0
The Kushners
No, I have not changed my mind about the President. I still believe he is an embarrassment to this country. But as I have said before, I do not think he is the disaster I once thought he was. Even while I know that many people still do. And can point to a mountain of reasons why they think that. Many of which fall squarely into a liberal political perspective. Like his pro business agenda. Which led to his repeal of some of the excessive regulations imposed by the Obama administration that killed jobs and hindered businesses. 

While I can understand their feelings and in some instances and even agree with them, I do not see him as the epitome of evil. That he doesn't know how to behave in public, tends to exaggerate or even lie in his retaliatory way about his critics; doesn't treat foreign leaders with the dignity he should, and cares little about how he is perceived by a media he distrusts nor what his political opponents think about him - that does not mean it is the end of the world. One of the reasons I feel that way is his daughter, Ivanka Trump.

I have to admit that I am impressed with Ivanka. I watched an interview with her this morning on CBS. I don’t think anyone could have done a better job of presenting the positive  side of the Trump administration than she did. What her father lacks in poise, common sense, humility and self control, Ivanka has in spades. I don’t think her father has a better asset in his administration than his own daughter. And he knows it. Which is why she was given such a high position in his administration. Her father actually listens to her.

Ivanka is obviously her father’s daughter. She proudly said so. But she also has her own views on many of the things her father is involved with. And they are not necessarily the same. When the interviewer asked her what some of those disagreement are, Ivanka demurred.  Why not trumpet them, she was asked? Her answer was that she is much more effective expressing her views privately to her father than if she would shout those disagreements from the rooftops. 

She said she has absolutely no reservations expressing her disagreements to him. And he listens to her. That doesn’t mean he changes his views every time she expresses a different opinion. But he probably does some of the time. It is very possible that she is responsible for some of the critical changes we have seen in the President’s current agenda from what it was during the campaign. 

I only wish her father would stop behaving badly and listen even more to his daughter. I have a feeling that if Ivanka were President, we would be having an entirely different national conversation right now. Even if her agenda were the same as her father’s. (Which I am sure it would not be. At least not exactly the same.)

Mrs. Kushner was asked about her husband, Jared. How could he be given so much power and responsibility with such a large portfolio when at age 36 he has absolutely no experience in any of them? This is a question that keeps popping up all the time by various mostly liberal media pundits. Usually in a disparaging way that implies how dull Jared’s mind is. 

The image they imply is one of a pretty boy whose father’s money has gotten him as far as it did. That without it, he’d practically be out on the street begging for a job somewhere with no resume. That he continues to do well financially is because he married up. Or because of his father’s behind the scenes expertise.That is really what drives his increasing financial successes. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard these kinds of disparaging comments ridiculing Jared.  

They must all be laughing in the White House at that description of him. It appears that Jared is very bright. But he does not flaunt it publicly - staying out of the limelight. He apparently reserves his views and opinions for the people he works for. Or the people that work for him. As for what he doesn't know, he does not hide it. he is candid about it and relies on the expertise of the various people he has chosen to be on the staff of each of his portfolios.

Ivanka described him that way. And so has anyone else that knows him personally or interacted with him recently. He seems to be quite intelligent. That he is quiet should not be mistaken for being dull minded. He doesn't want - or need the publicity. He is instead focused on doing his job. And probably correctly surmises that talking to the media has no upside. Why bother when the confidence in him shown by his father in law keeps increasing with every new portfolio he is handed.

What is also very interesting about Jared is that his observant form of Judaism confounds all of the antisemites and white supremacists that supported Trump, thinking they had a friend in the White house. What must they think about an observant Jew that is given increasing power by the man they thought was their savior? Well, if you want to know the answer to that here is what the JTA reports: 
“I think that Trump has an absolute infiltrator in the White House,” (David) Duke said Monday on his daily podcast.
 (Neo-Nazi Andrew) Anglin and other white supremacists have posted confused responses to Kushner’s ascent that reflect three theories: 
1. Kushner is just a ruse to hide Trump’s white supremacism.
2. Kushner shows Trump isn’t actually the white supremacists’ guy.
3. Kushner is using Jewish nefariousness to manipulate Trump. 
The article goes on with some additional antisemitic nuggets coming out of the feeble brains of  these fringe group types.

But suffice it to say that with an observant Jewish power couple in the White House along with so many other observant Jewish power players - the Trump administration is probably the least antisemitic administration in US history. Kind of like Trump’s answer Ami reporter Turx in that now infamous exchange in the White House. And that’s saying a lot. (I can already hear all the naysayers disputing that.)

It’s too bad that Trump is such an easy foil for late night comedians or SNL. It’s also too bad that he is involved in so much controversy mostly of his own making. Because many (but not all) of his ideas are actually good for the country if one is of a conservative political perspective. 

One can disagree with him on many – or even all of his agenda items. But that would be no different than anyone disagreeing with the agenda of the President from the political party of which they are on the opposite side of the aisle. 

It’s only been 75 days since Trump has been in office. All the investigations of Trump and his people have really only just begun. It’s hard to know where all that will lead. But I am feeling a bit more optimistic now about our future. 
↧

Sexual Harassment, Consent, and Coed Schools

April 6, 2017, 9:16 am
$
0
0
Illustration from the Forward
After reading this article in the Forward , my first thoughts were that its author, Brocha Shanes, should never have attended a coed school. Brocha complains that there is not enough sex education (if any) taught in religious schools. That may be true. But her particular focus was on the concept of consent. Which means that no human being has the right to engage sexually with another without their permission.  

Teaching about consent seems to be almost ignored in religious coeducational high schools. And I can understand why. Halacha forbids intimate relations between the sexes outside of marriage. And even then only when the Halachic requirement of Taharas HaMishpacha (i.e the use of a Mikva) is observed (The details of which are beyond the scope of this post). 

Included in this prohibition are many sub-laws - one of which is the prohibition of any physical contact at all between a man and a woman. In modern Orthodox circles this is referred to as being Shomer Negia. (No touching.)

I assume that since this Halacha is so strongly ingrained into the minds of our young students  the idea of consent is a non starter. There can be no consent since such activity is forbidden even if there is consent.

And yet Brocha Shanes experienced sexual harassment while a student in a religious modern Orthodox high school. Now I don’t know the exact nature of that harassment. But if she’s talking about consent, I have to assume it was more than the ‘whistles and jeers, crude language and gestures, and comments on (her) body and clothes’ that she described experiencing in her school. Some of it might have been physical. What about the laws against physical contact between the sexes? It seems that far too often they are observed in the breach in these circles.

I hasten to add that many – hopefully even most students do not engage in such behavior. But based on Brocha’s experience far too many do.

Teaching young people in high schools about consent might work to avoid harassment. But there is a much better way to eliminate this problem. I have always been opposed to coed religious high schools. Not because there is anything technically wrong with them. Halacha can and should be observed in such an environment.  And many students do. But it cannot be denied that puberty breeds sexual awareness and the feelings that go along with that.

Teenagers are especially vulnerable to these feelings. I know this because believe it or not, I was once a teenager. And I remember…  

What often happens in a coed school is that relationships develop and the desire to have some sort of physical contact is difficult to overcome. Generally teenagers have not yet learned how to fully control those desires. While many are able to, some are not. That rarely leads to a full sexual relationship in high school, although it can and does happen. But even short of that, (and without going into detail) there is often physical contact of a sexual nature that is still clearly forbidden by Halahca. 

That doesn’t surprise me. Even if they are strongly cautioned by their parents and religious teachers not to engage in physical activity, the desire to do so can and often does override it. Consent isn't even an issue.

That's why religious schools do not talk about consent. Because that implies that as long as there is consent – it’s OK. Which it is not. 

It is because of the human nature I just described that I oppose coed high schools.But that is not the only reason. A coeducational classroom distracts young people with raging hormones from the task at hand – their studies. Which is what they should be focused upon instead of worrying about whether the boy or girl sitting next to them will go out with them on a Saturday night.

If a young man or woman has added to their plate all the social pressures involved in a coeducational structure, their studies can easily suffer. But more importantly, the constant interaction between these young men and women can and often does lead to inappropriate behavior. With or without consent.

Why put these young men and women with their newly raging hormones in a position that can lead to all of these problems? Why not avoid the social climate of the coed classroom so that students can avoid those distractions and instead better focus on their studies?

Well, there is a counter argument. And it does have some merit. Putting young men and women together in the classroom teaches them the social graces and how to interact with each other. Without such exposure a young man or woman will not be able to learn how to properly do that. Making the male female encounter awkward. At least at first .  

After all – the argument goes – will they not be living in the real world where male female encounters are an everyday affair? What better place to learn how to do that than in a religious school - under the guidance and tutelage of their teachers? That might be true. But for me it is outweighed by the aforementioned pitfalls. 

There is plenty of opportunity to learn how to properly socialize with the opposite sex outside the classroom. Whether at family gatherings; or at a Kiddush at Shul; or at a wedding; or at a Bar Mitzvah. 

That being said, I am not in favor of abolishing coed religious schools. There is still a need. There are many parents who insist that their children attend a coed school and will not send their children to a religious school that is not coed under any circumstances. They will send them to public school. There are also special circumstances for individual children that should be sent to a coed school - even if the parents are opposed to coed schools. (What circumstances those may be are also beyond the scope of this post.)

For these reasons the religious community (from right to left) needs to support coed religious schools despite the pitfalls. But in the ideal, a coed high school is something that should be avoided. If Brocha Shanes had attended an all girl’s high school, I think she would have been spared the experiences she had. And her grades would not have suffered.
↧

Mike Pence and Yichud

April 7, 2017, 9:22 am
$
0
0
Vice President  Mike Pence and his wife  Karen
This may surprise many people that do not know me well but I am a big fan of the Hilchos Yichud. (Not that any Halacha needs me to be a fan.) Yichud is the prohibition against a man and a married women (or even 2 women) being secluded in the same room (Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 22:5). While there are some exceptions to this Halacha (e.g. if the room is not locked and anyone can walk in at any time… or if it takes place in her home and her husband is in town and can walk in unannounced at any moment - then this there is no violation of this Halacha.)

I would extend this to any man and woman – married or not. Which is quite a reversal of the way I used to feel. I used to wonder what the big deal was. Why the need to be so strict? Meetings between 2 people happen all the time in the business world. Sometimes it is between a man and a married woman in the privacy of an office that is off limits to anyone but the 2 people meeting there. Are we to be suspicious of every such encounter?

The answer of course is no. Most of the time such meetings are exclusively about the business at hand. But ‘most of the time’ isn’t good enough. And business is not the only place where Yichud might take place. Unfortunetaly we now know of far too many instances where it was violated by supposedly religious people with devastating results.

There have been rabbis who counseled married women about personal issues with doors closed - that have ended up with those women accusing their rabbi them of hitting on them. Or worse.

Seminary heads that have taken sexual advantage of their female students; doctors that have taken advantage of female patients they were examining; dentists that have taken sexual advantage of female patients that were anesthetized.

And in one of more notorious cases of our time, a Chasidic ‘counselor’ had sexually abused a troubled young female client  for many years in the privacy of his office before getting caught. (He is now sitting in prison.)

There have been many other stories like that. Doctors, rabbis, seminary heads, spiritual gurus… if Hilchos Yichud would have been followed, none of this would have happened.  But Yichud was the furthest thing from their minds. By insisting that ‘privacy’ was supposedly for  the client’s benefit, the locked ‘door’ was instead ‘open’ for sex abuse. Their colleagues just looked the other way because - based on their reputations they believed them. Never suspecting abuse.

Not that I am accusing everyone that violates Hilchos Yichud to be doing it for nefarious purposes. Most times it doesn’t happen. But sometimes it does. Either in the form of abuse or with consent between the 2. Most of us have seen this movie. 2 attractive married  people (not to each other) are alone together discussing business suddenly there is an innocent touch. That leads to an embrace and then a kiss and… Art does imitate life! (…and vice versa).

What about self control? Shouldn’t that play a part? Of course it should. But why not do something that will help avoid the situation altogether? If you are in a position to be alone with a member of the opposite sex – as a student, a client, or a patient – make sure that someone else is in the room or in the room next to you and leave the door open a bit. And certainly NEVER lock the door. 

Why do I bring all this up now? Because of a wonderful story about our Vice President, Mike Pence. Now there is a man whose behavior in this regard we would do well to emulate. A few days ago, the Los Angeles Timesquoted Washington Post reporter, Ashley Parker’s comments about him after her storyabout Mike Pence’s wife, Karen, was published: 
Ashley Parker, the reporter, noted that Vice President Mike Pence once had told The Hill, a political newspaper and website, that he never dines with women alone, nor does he attend functions without his wife if alcohol is being served. 
That comment generated a flood of responses. Many of them negative. Just to cite a couple of examples: 
Was this a sign of marital devotion and respect? Or a signal that the Pences don’t trust Mike Pence to be alone with a woman? Or perhaps don’t trust a woman to be alone with Mike Pence?
 “I believe this is gender discrimination,” said Kim Elsesser, 52, a UCLA lecturer on gender and psychology who founded a proprietary quantitative hedge fund at Morgan Stanley after graduating from Vassar and MIT. “If you don’t go out to dinner with a woman, it’s hard to have a woman be your campaign manager or your chief of staff or whoever you need to regularly meet with.” 
I hear the argument. But is there no other way for a member of one sex to serve a client of the opposite sex? Must there always be circumstances of seclusion?

True, dining with a married woman that is not your wife in a public place - is not seclusion. Yichud does not go that far. It is certainly permitted. I have personally been in that situation. But why must there be criticism of a man who is surely just trying to observe a higher standard of behavior in public? Does anyone really believe that Mike Pence is a misogynist? Or that he considers women to be second class citizens? He obviously loves his wife very much and wants to honor that relationship as much as he can. This is one way of doing that. And his wife surely respects him for that.

Is a pledge never to dine alone with another woman such a terrible sin? Has the egalitarian ideal gone so far off the rails that feminists are willing to tolerate opportunities to take sexual advantage of women as a legitimate price to pay in pursuit of that goal?

Of course they would respond by saying, ‘It’s the man’s responsibility to control himself’. I agree. But tell that to the victim who was taken advantage of in that situation. She might also say that the man that attacked her should have had self control. But how does that help her now? I have to wonder if any woman that was ever attacked by a man in the privacy of an office would not support a version of Hilchos Yichud. My guess is that all of them would, because they know that had the practice of Yichud been observed, they would never have been attacked.
↧

An Odious Comparison

April 9, 2017, 9:24 am
$
0
0
Ayatollah Rouhollah  Khomeini - Israel's future does not look like this man
I literally do not know where to begin. But I do know how wrong Reza Aslan is. How misguided his fear is. And how misleading his article is.

Aslan hosts a series on CNN called ‘Believer with Reza Aslan’. Born in Iran before it became radicalized by religious fundamentalism  - he says he’s worried about the same thing happening in Israel.

Prior to 1979, Iran under the Shah was seen by then President Jimmy Carter as an "island of stability in one of the most troubled areas of the world." Much the same way Israel is seen today. Indeed Iran had all the fundamental trappings of a free and democratic society. And a majority population that liked it that way. 

But when the Shah’s iron-fisted control that treated dissidents harshly was challenged on humanitarian grounds by that same President, his grip on the country weakened and religious extremists overthrew that government in a coup that shook the world with reverberations are still being felt in major ways today.

They established a new regime that was led by an Ayatollah – who is radical Islamist  Supreme Leader. He restructured Iran into an Islamist theocracy. One that envisions an entire world eventually dominated by their religious legal system called Sharia law. Starting with the annihilation of Israel to be replaced by an Islamic regime! In furtherance of that goal Iran is now the biggest exporter of terrorism in the world. The citizens of Iran are now governed by strict Sharia law whether they like it or not. What was once a secular dictatorship under the Shah is now a dictatorship under an Ayatollah.

In my view, just about all the terrorism in the world perpetrated by Radical Islam starts with that coup in Iran back in the late 70s.

I don’t think anyone would dispute these basic facts of history. But the comparison to Charedim in Israel to the fundamentalists that took over Iran is an exaggeration in the extreme that has absolutely no merit.

I do understand his comparison. Some of the points made by Aslan I have made myself. For example the obsession with modesty extremist factions in the Charedi world that has caused so many of them to be violent towards people that violate their standards. Or the way they treat government authority figures or members of the military, especially if they are from their own ranks. There are far too many examples of that for me to mention.

The point is that I agree that these problems exist. At the same time some of the things he mentions as an example of fundamentalist takeover is better described as democracy at work. Like the right of religious Jews to protest the Women of the Wall… or to present legislation in the Knesset that will outlaw that type of behavior at the Kotel. Whether one is in favor of that or opposed to it, this cannot be seen as an instance of fundamentalist takeover of the government.

What happened in Iran in 1979 will in no way happen in Israel. There is no elderly ‘Supreme Leader’ inspiring a violent overthrow. There will be no violent coup led by Rav Steinman. Or the Belzer Rebbe. Or Rav Kanievsky. Or even Rav Shmuel Auerbach.

Now it’s true that most Orthodox Jews (who are a minority comprising about 13% of the country) would be happy to live in a country that abides by Jewish law. That shouldn’t surprise anyone. In a vacuum - Jews who live in accordance with Halacha would make that task much easier in a government that is run that way .

But Orthodox Jews do not live in a vacuum. The fact is that 87% of the country is not Orthodox. And no Orthodox Jew - not even Charedi ones- have ever promoted a coup to remove a sitting prime minister, abolish the democratic infrastructure and replace it with a Halachic form of government. 

What the Charedi parties do in that vein is to use the legal infrastructure available to them in Israel’s democracy to protect Halacha that was agreed upon between secular and religious leaders upon at the founding of the state – in what is commonly referred to as the status qou agreement.  And protect the Halachic identity of who is an isn’t a Jew as an existential matter.

Otherwise most Charedim just want to be left alone to do their thing. One can quibble about how much support that should be given. But in no way do their goals in this regard amount to anywhere near resembling a coup, violent or otherwise.  

Violence that has occurred to that end is the result of extremists that the mainstream does not support. It therefore does not foreshadow anything like what happened in Iran. Even though there are some similarities between extremists in Israel and the extremists that overthrew Iran in the70s, there is no comparison in the goals nor the lengths that will be used to achieve them even if those goals were the same.

Aslan ends with the following statement: 
And as someone who lost his own country to a small but powerful group of religious zealots, I genuinely worry about the future of Israel. 
I don’t see any danger of that. Not even remotely. What I do see is a not so well camouflaged attack against all the religious Jews of Israel – smearing them all as radical religious fundamentalists. Same as Iran.  That is a patently false scare tactic that - to me - is odious in the extreme. Nothing more and nothing less.
↧
↧

Chag Sameach

April 10, 2017, 7:01 am
$
0
0
It’s Erev Pesach in Chicago. Needless to say It's been a busy week preparing for Yom Tov. I'm sure the same is true for most of us this time of year.

This evening I am hosting two of my daughters and their families for the first Seder. I'm looking forward to that.

I want to once again take this opportunity to wish all of my readers... and all of Klal Yisroel a joyous Pesach.

As in the past I am linking to a number of past Divrei Torah I’ve written. Enjoy.


The Four Cups
Why are Women Required to Recite the Haggadah
Sinas Chinam and Pesach
The Fifth Cup
The Torah is Not in Heaven
L'fichach
Pesach, Matza, Marror
Yochel MeRosh Chodesh
Amen
Maschil B'Gnus U'Mesayem B'Shvach
Heseibah L'ikuva
Kol Difchin
Baruch Shomer Haftechaso
The Haggadah and Kriyas Yam Suf
Kriyas Yam Suf
Torah Thoughts for the Seder
↧

Another Odious Comparison

April 13, 2017, 9:34 am
$
0
0
Religious Zionists worse than Hezbollah? (Jerusalem Post) 
Columnist Yossi Klein in his latest oped in Ha’aretz has called religious Zionists "more dangerous than Hezbollah, hit-and-run drivers or girls with scissors." 

I searched Ha’aretz’s website and could not find the article. Perhaps they pulled it, I don’t know. Maybe the near universal condemnation of that comparison caused them to re-think the wisdom of retaining it in their archives. 

It is not surprising that Ha’aretz, the 6thlargest newspaper in Israel  hosted such an article. They are probably the most left wing publication in the state. That oped fit in well with their worldview. Which is basically the worldview of J-street. Which favors the Palestinian narrative that  blames Israel for the continued conflict between them and Palestinians.  Blaming religious Zionists for all the troubles in the world is a logical extension of that worldview.

So when Klein submitted that repugnant oped, they probably salivated at the prospect of publishing it.

Based on all of the reaction I’ve seen published in many of the othermediaoutlets in Israel, I surmise that Klein must have based his contention on acts of violence perpetrated against Palestinians by the radical elements among them. Or the oft heard cry about ethnically cleansing Israel of its Palestinian residents. 

I have been one of the most vocal critics of that segment of religious Zionism. It is from religious Zionist ranks that murderers like Dr. Baruch Goldstein and Yigal Amir have arisen. It is also from their ranks that the so-called price taggers stem. These are the ones who worship Goldstein and Amir and advocate ethnic cleansing . 

But that is not the sum and substance of Mizrachi (…the more commonly used term for religious Zionists in America). The idea that all  religious Zionists are radical extremists that will stop at nothing to get their way is the same thing as saying all Jews are white collar criminals that will stop at nothing to enrich themselves.

Although I am not a religious Zionist, they are some of the most admirable people I know.  Especially those that grew up in the comforts of an American home in an American culture that offers them everything! 

Even though one can live very well in the modern state of Israel, it is undeniable that the affluence of America is there for everyone to achieve in far greater measure than it is in Israel.  Furthermore the cultures of the 2 countries are different. If one is raised in an American culture, it is a huge adjustment to move to a country whose culture is a mix of Middle Eastern and European culture. There is also the language barrier, dealing with additional Halachos that only apply in Israel, dealing with mandatory conscription into the army,  and getting used to a different kind of bureaucracy.  Not to mention leaving your family (parents, siblings) and friends behind and moving into a country where you may not know anyone. These are only a few of the differences.

I therefore have nothing but pure admiration for the religious Zionists that make Aliyah.  They are the kind if idealists the rest of us can only hope to be. I could not do what they do. I admit that I am too comfortable here. They have given up that comfort to live their ideals. In this case the ideal is the Mitzvah of living in the land of Israel.

It is from their ranks that the cream of the Israeli military is drawn. The Hesder program that combines military service with Torah study (a 6 year commitment if I understand correctly) is designed specifically for religious Zionists. These committed soldiers are among the most elite and dedicated soldiers in Israel – often volunteering for the most dangerous assignments in groups! That is perhaps one reason that religious Zionists are moving up the ranks of the officer corps to the point that some of the top military leaders are religious Zionists.

For Yossi Kein to label this particular group worse than Hezbollah is an insult in the extreme! Of course the extremists among them are dangerous. But let us be clear. They are extremists. Not core religious Zionists. Although there is a fairly large number that worships murderers like Baruch Goldstein, they are not the mainstream of religious Zionists.

They are of the Meir Kahane faction. He too was a religious Zionist but he eventually went off the rails and in my view is the source of most if not all the radicals among them. Most of the religious Zionists I know are all about living in Israel.

True, most of them believe in of settling all of the land. But not with violence nor even with breaking the law in most cases. They want to do it politically by voting for parties that sympathize with that ideal.

How blinded by bias must Klein be for taking this view. And how blinded by that same bias must Ha'aretz be for them to have published it. And sticking by it after near universal criticism even from the politcal left! If this doesn't tell you what Ha'aretz is all about, nothing does.

Update
In the original post, I made the error of mistaking Yossi Klein for Yossi Klein Halevi. They are not the same person. It was an honest mistake for which I offer Mr. Klein Halevi a sincere apology. 
↧
Search

Why Do They Keep Doing it?

April 14, 2017, 9:41 am
$
0
0
Peleg's hated Charedi soldier
I don’t get it. I really don’t. The harassment of Charedi Jews continues. Harassment that is apparently sanctioned by Peleg, the Jerusalem faction of Charedi Jews led by Rav Shmuel Auerbach. Who is himself Charedi. It is Rav Auerbach’s ‘Jews’ that are doing the harassing. 

Peleg which essentially means divide or division (an apt name for a group if there ever was one) is the movement that has set itself up as the most zealous ‘keepers of the faith’. They are the guardians of the pure. Those that will not sit idly by when they see another Charedi Jew has ‘joined the enemy’. Which in this case is the Israeli army.

Their ire is not being raised by National Religious or even just plain religious Jews. It is being raised by people that are  Charedim that have crossed the line into the hated IDF. Which they see not as a defense force without which they would all be living in Palestine under Sharia law controlled by Hamas – but instead as a house of Shmad and a national brothel. 

So when one of their ‘own’ joins the enemy, they are treated worse than secular soldiers. Worse than national religious soldiers.  And even worse than Islamist terrorists! How dare they put on that uniform?! It doesn’t matter that they have joined new units specifically geared to Charedi needs. No… that’s just a ploy by the IDF to eventually assimilate them! And it must be fought tooth and nail.

That is at least what it seems like from the increasing numbers of attacks against Charedi soldiers that cross a Peleg’s path.

It happened again just a few days ago – on Chol HaMoed Pesach - in a public and well traveled area of Jerusalem.

Fortunately no one was hurt this time. But that does not excuse the harassment of this poor fellow who did nothing wrong at all other than looking like a Charedi while wearing an IDF uniform.

Unfortunately this is happening so frequently now that it is no longer news.  So why do I bring it up? Because it sticks in my craw that seemingly normal young Charedim that do not look extreme are acting like extremists. These young people are not the Charedim of Meah Shearim. They do not look to the Eida HaCharedis for hashkafic guidance. They look like they could be students of any mainstream Charedi Yeshiva. Like Mir or Chevron. 

How mainstream? If you look closely at the mob chasing down that Charedi soldier, (video below - more at YWN) you’ll notice many of them have smartphones and are trying to take videos while they chase down that poor soldier.

Their behavior is not all that different from the Meah Shearim extremist types that spit on reporters; throw rocks at passing cars screaming ‘Shabbos’; or yell ‘whore’ at little girls not dressed in accordance with their modesty standards. In other words they look mainstream but behave like extremists.

The fact is that most Charedi youth are not like this. Most of them actually register for the draft. And certainly do not harass a Charedi soldier. Most Roshei Yeshiva forbid their students from participating in these kinds of activities. Even the Satmar Rebbe of Kiryas Joel has in so many words condemned it. And if anyone is extreme, it is Satmar. They are as opposed to the army as Rav Auerbach is. More… even! But even so, Satmar’s leader still condemns this behavior.

Why do the Peleg youth continue do this, oblivious to any criticism? There is only one answer. Their leader encourages it. He must be swelling with pride every time he hears that his young people have harassed a Charedi soldier.

While I can’t say this for an absolute fact, there is no other explanation for the increased behavior by seemingly mainstream young Charedim. If Rav Auerbach hasn’t told them directly to attack Charedi soldiers, he has certainly inspired them to do it by his rhetoric. And done nothing to discourage further attacks like this.

What I don’t fully understand is how mainstream yeshiva students from normal Charedi backgrounds – some of whom carry smartphones - can end up like this. How can they fall so far from the mainstream values of the rest of the Yeshiva world? How can they diverge from the teachings of most mainstream Roshei Yeshiva? Why do they ignore the Chilul HaShem this makes? Why do they choose to listen to a radical like Rav Shmuel? Is it his last name? Well it shouldn’t be. Because no apple has fallen so far away from the tree as Rav Shmuel has from his father.

What is the draw of this man on so many young minds? Is there anyone that can explain it? Until we can answer that question the rational behavior by so large a swath of young Yeshiva students that used to be the norm - seems like a dream about a past that will never return. And I have no idea how to begin to understand it, let alone prevent it from ever happening again. 



↧

The Weaker Sex

April 16, 2017, 9:45 am
$
0
0
Are women in the military a good idea?
I can already hear the loud sneers about the title of this post from the more militant feminists. But this fact should be obvious to any rational person. Men and women are different in not only biological ways but in psychological ways as well. Ways that should impact on egalitarian ideals. And yet those differences are treated as though they were nonexistent. I mention this in light of a recent Mishpacha oped by Jonathan Rosenblum (available at his website Jewish Media Resources) that makes eminent sense to me.

It is clearly politically incorrect to say that women are the weaker sex. But what about that? Is it so unreasonable to consider gender differences as a factor in certain jobs? This is not to say that there can’t be individual differences between women where in some cases they may be as good or even superior to men in tasks that are traditionally male. But is it wise to ignore gender altogether?

Let us take a look at Jonathan’s military example. In theory we might just set parameters of service and let both men and women apply.  It is almost certain that most women will not be able to complete those tasks that men – with their greater upper body strength – will be able to perform. Should we therefore open the gates to the few that can perform those tasks equally with men?

As mentioned - this sound good in theory. But experience has shown that this would not satisfy some feminists. That’s because it would still make the composition of the military lopsided in favor of men. Egalitarianism would demand that the tests be revised so that more women would pass. The claim being that the lower standards would not significantly reduce the effectiveness of the military.

The military will be forced to accede to that egalitarian political correctness. Referencing Stephanie Gutmann’s 2001 work on gender integration in the U.S. military, The Kinder, Gentler Military: Can America's Gender-Neutral Fighting Force Still Win Wars? – Jonathan makes the following observations: 
The average woman is five inches shorter, has half the upper body strength, and 37% less muscle mass than her male counterpart. The only way to integrate women into combat units is to dramatically lower standards and the intensity of training. Gutmann reports how "women were allowed to come into basic training at dramatically lower fitness levels and then to climb lower walls, throw [grenades] shorter distances, and carry lighter packs when they got there.""Teamwork" is stressed to cover for women who can't perform standard tasks; "ability groups" accommodate those who can't keep up the pace, and training "time-outs" provide for those who are overtired or overstressed. 
The differentials between men and women affect not only training standards, but have real world consequences on the battlefield. In the first Gulf War, men took over taking down tents and loading boxes because most women were incapable of the heavy-lifting required. Few women can carry a male colleague on their backs. Yet the ability to do so can be the difference between life and death for a wounded soldier. 
Is Egalitarianism worth the increased risk of harm under combat conditions that could very likely happen?

This doesn’t even take into consideration the religious and moral problem of young men and women working together in close proximity where the power of the sex drive will surely be a factor. Here are some sobering statistics to ponder - quoted in Wikipedia: 
A 2011 report found that women in the U.S. military are more likely to be raped by fellow soldiers than they are to be killed in combat.[1] At least 25% of U.S. military women have been sexually assaulted, and up to 80% have been sexually harassed.[2] A 2012 Pentagon survey found that approximately 26,000 women and men were sexually assaulted. Of those, only 3,374 cases were reported.  
Feminists will cry that men will just have to learn to better control themselves. But that doesn’t always work as all too many women in the military have unfortunately found out. Sexual harassment is far more likely to happen in the military. With all the scandals (e.g. Tailhook, and more recently Marines United) coming out about this - that should not surprise anyone. Is it a mere coincidence that this is happening now that we have a more gender integrated military? How much intelligence does it take to realize that the command structure of the military leaves women vulnerable to the sexual advances of their superior officers?

Feminists will counter that women should not be denied opportunity because of this. And that with proper oversight and strong sanctions this problem will be eliminated. I have to question the wisdom of that claim.

There are other example of problems created by women serving equally with men in the military. Like this fact quoted by Jonathan: 
During the first Gulf War, for instance, 31% of the female sailors on two U.S. aircraft carriers had to be evacuated from ship because they were pregnant. 
Then there are the psychological differences between men and women. Gender based psychological differences clearly exist but it is politically incorrect to even mention them.  

As I’ve said many times. I consider myself a feminist in the original sense of the word. Equal pay for equal work. And equal respect between men and women. Men and women are both human beings and should treat each other with equal dignity. But modern day feminism has evolved into a complete negation of the any real differences between men and women. Biological differences are seen as irrelevant  and psychological differences as non existent. And that has a negative impact on us all.
↧
↧

Why I Criticize

April 19, 2017, 9:59 am
$
0
0
Illustration form Mishpacha Magazine
I sometimes wonder if my sense of right and wrong is guiding me properly. When I write a critical post about an Orthodox Jew that committed a crime, I often get challenged by some people that accuse me of violating the laws of Lashon Hara, gossiping about fellow Jews. Or worse spreading false rumors about them that have been unproven. And even if they are proven, the laws of Lashon Hara forbid me to spread that news to others.

The criticism I get varies from mild rebukes asking me if I have checked with Posksim - to calling me the vilest of names - condemning me to an eternity in Hell. Sometimes  get a private e-mail about it. And sometimes I will get a comment on my blog about it. The truly vile comments I tend to ignore. It is the thoughtful critics that I sometime wonder about. (I should add that the vast majority of feedback I get is very positive. But the few negative comments affect me more.)

The last edition of Mishpacha Magazine featured  an article by Eytan Kobre about a symposium the magazine held. Several Orthodox journalists and one Yeshiva leader expressed their views on how observant members of the media that care about these issues as a matter of Halacha - should properly deal with them. The responses assured me that I am on the right track.

The participants were Ner Israel President, Rabbi Sheftel Nueberger, Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby, Agudah spokesman and noted columnist Rabbi Avi Shafran, Mishpacha reporter Binyamin Rose, and community leader Marvin Schick.

Does an observant journalist have a different standard than a secular one?  Should they be holding Orthodox institutions accountable for their behavior? What news is fit to print – or not fit? How does such reporting impact observant Jewry?  Do general journalistic standards comport with Orthodox standards? These are the kind of questions asked of these 5 people.

Interestingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, Rabbi Neuberger’s approach was the most troubling for me. He said that an Orthodox journalist must be guided by the desire to always make Orthodoxy look good. And to try justify questionable behavior if there is a credible way to do so.

I will give Rabbi Neuberger the benefit of the doubt. I do not believe he meant that we must lie about an Orthodox Jew that was caught in criminal activity. By credible - he meant that if there is any way that can legitimately put a positive spin on it on a negative media report about an Orthodox Jew, we should do it. But only with the truth.  An example might be providing evidence that there was no crime at all – and the that media report was mistaken on the details, or incomplete. But even if that is what he meant, this approach comes dangerously close to whitewashing bad behavior. Especially if the media reports end up being the more credible version. The result of that kind of ‘positive spin’ just makes matters worse... making it seem like we are trying to excuse the behavior!

A far more reasonable approach was taken by Jeff Jacoby. He  made the point I often make here about accusations of Lashon Hara. That it is not only permitted but perhaps even required when an Orthodox Jew gets caught in a crime. This issue came up in a critical column he did about a convicted Orthodox Jewish lobbyist that was involved in a heavily covered scandal. He discussed the gravity of the Chulul Hashem that a Jew that was identified in the media as an Orthodox Jew. 

After that column was published, he caught flak in a letter from a fellow Orthodox Jew who was a friend of that lobbyist - berating him for speaking Lashon Hara about someone that had done many Mitzvos. His response was similar to my own when I am challenged that way. Publishing that criticism will help deter other Orthodox Jews from doing things like that. In other words, there is a Toeles – a legitimate purpose that overrides the Laws of Lashon Hara.

Rabbi Shafran made the point about staying above politics and trying to be objective about the political leaders in the country. Judaism is neither Democrat or Republican. One should therefore look at each individual act or policy by a politician and judge that, rather than who said it and which political party they are from. I fully agree with him there. That the Torah’s values should always be our guide in how we report things and that we should be honest about it - is something I agree with too. As he indicated every reporter is a human being and is informed by their own biases. It would be nice if they all admitted it instead of pretending to be objective.

Binyamin Rose basically just talked about how sources differ between the mainstream and the religious  media – making the claim that religious media sources tend to be more credible because the relationship that develops with an Orthodox source ends up being much closer than is the case with a mainstream media source. He also said that an Orthodox news publication does not practice ‘gotcha journalism the way the mainstream media does. Orthodox journalists are not motivated by catching someone in a lie, but rather in finding out the truth of a story.

It was Marvin Schick whose view most closely reflects mine. It was similar to Jeff Jacoby's view .There is no absolute Halachic or Hashkafic ban on publishing criticism of other Jews. Even Orthodox Jews. By name when appropriate. As long as it is done with a goal of prevention of future behavior of this kind. There is no hiding misdeeds anymore. Anyone can google a story and find out in an instant what an Orhtodox Jew is guilty of. Without offering pubic criticism it appears to green-light such behavior as long as it can be gotten away with.

What about Teshuva? If a miscreant truly regrets his behavior and turns his life around, that criticism will not be erased from the internet. It will remain there forever and hurt an individual whose Teshuva is sincere. But without criticism those that engage in criminal behavior will have think they have a green light to continue doing so. To put is the way Mr. Schick did: 
Scamsters and serial fraudsters depend on and are nurtured by an environment that mandates silence. 
I will add one more important reason for public criticism of Orthodox miscreants. By publicly condemning such behavior it counters the Chilul Hashem they make as an obviously Orthodox Jew. You are letting the public know (Jew and non Jew alike) - that kind of behavior is not OK. It is a violation of the Torah. These people may look religious. But they are criminals and do not represent the high ideals of the Torah.

This pretty much sums things up. I will admit that I sometimes err and when I do, I try to correct the error and apologize. But I hope that in the vast majority of critical posts, that they are justified.
↧

An Open Letter to Eytan Kobre and Mishpacha Magazine

April 20, 2017, 8:35 am
$
0
0
Guest Contribution by Rabbi Sholom Gold - Ish Yerushalayim

Tomatoes grown in Israel 
Rabbi Sholom Gold, a renowned Religious Zionist Rabbi who lives in Israel, has asked that I publish his rather strong response to Eytan Kobre. Eytan had written a column in Mispahcha Magazine (issue 653) about what he believed is the Torah Hashkafa about what is truly important about Israel – and what is not. Rabbi Gold's response is a bit longer than my usual posts but well worth reading. As always the views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect my own. His words follow.

Re: Issue 653, 24 Adar 5777, pages 32-33 Kobre writes that: 
“Nothing other than our possession of the Torah plays any role in our national character, nothing whatsoever. Not a common land, language and culture.”
Eytan Kobre’s article is a smorgasbord of nonsense, apostasy, blasphemy and a rejection of the very essence of all of Torah. The tragedy is that he believes that he is expressing the true, authentic, genuine Torah hashkafa, certainly approved by “Gedolei Yisrael.” The greater catastrophe is that thousands of innocent Jews read it and blindly and naively accept it. The damage done to their souls and minds is enormous. 

Let’s take a closer look at what he writes and study four words: “not a common land.” A common land, he says, does not play a role in our national character. He must be talking about Eretz Yisrael. Does he mean that the only land in the world where all mitzvahs (613) apply; the only land in which it is a mitzvah to live (to the absolute exclusion of all others); the land about which Torah says “that the eyes of Hashem are on her from the beginning of the year to the end of the year? Does he mean the land to which Hashem commanded Avraham Avinu to journey and there make him blessed and a great nation, a source of blessing to all the nations of the world? 

Does Kobre mean the land that Moshe Rabbeinu prayed for permission to enter, the one that G-d swore to Avrohom, Yitzchak and Yaakov to give to their children, to which He promised to bring His people back at the end of their long exile? Is it not the land about which it says “there is no Torah like the Torah of Eretz Yisrael”? Does Kobre really believe that “a common land” plays no role in our national character? 

When I was rabbi at the Young Israel of West Hempstead I had a neighbor on the block, a baal teshuva. We became good friends. A few years after moving to West Hempstead he told me that he was going on aliyah. He told me “Rabbi, I have been listening to the Torah reading every Shabbos for five years and the whole Torah is about Eretz Yisrael. I’m going.” 

The ability to read Torah and see the truth is something that Kobre has taught me cannot be taken for granted. My baal teshuva friend got it. Kobre just doesn’t get it. 

I find it very difficult to believe that Eytan has forgotten the hundreds of pesukim in Torah that are devoted to “the land.” Of the many I choose the pasuk that is often said in davening in Selichot and appears in the Parshat Hateshuva. 
Then Hashem, your G-d, will bring back your captivity and have mercy upon you, and He will gather you in from all the peoples to which Hashem, your G-d has scattered you. 4If your dispersed will be at the end of heaven, from there Hashem, your G-d will gather you in and from there He will take you. 5Hashem your G-d will bring you to the Land that your forefathers possessed and you shall possess it; He will do good to you and make you more numerous than your forefathers. (Devarim 30:3–5 3)
I have asked many people to explain the three words “מאבתך והרבך והיטבך – He will do good to you and make you more numerous than your forefathers.” For some strange reason they couldn’t say anything that made sense. 

Historians estimate that the Jewish population of Eretz Yisrael during the Second Temple period peaked at 2,350,000. The rest of the Jewish people, numbering around 7,000,000 were in Bavel and Asia Minor. Modern Eretz Yisrael achieved that number 2,350,000 before the Six Day War and has been rising ever since. There are now 6,500,000 Jews here, kein yirbu. 

I am fond of quoting an article that appeared in the Jerusalem Post in 1990. The author predicted that by the end of the century a man, woman or child will step on the tarmac at Ben Gurion Airport and a dramatic milestone in Jewish history will have been reached. At that moment the Jewish community of Eretz Yisrael will become the largest Jewish community in the world. The last time Eretz Yisrael held that distinction was during the period of the First Beit Hamikdash!! I usually admit to my audience that I am not so brilliant that I remember an article from 1990 – it’s just that I wrote it. מאבתך והרבך והיטבך the three-word promise of Hashem has been fulfilled. 

How can Etyan say that the land does not impact on the character of the people when Rashi says on the pasuk in the second parshah of Shema “You should place these words of mine on your heart”? Even after you will go into exile be distinguished through the performance of commandments such as putting on tefillin, making mezuzot, so that they should not be new to you when you will return (Devarim 11:18). 

The Ramban (Vayikra 18:25) quotes the pasuk from Devarim and explains “that they should not be new to you when you return” and adds “because the essence of all mitzvot is for those who live in the land of Hashem, therefore the Sifrei says, “Yeshivas Eretz Yisrael shkula kchol hamitzvot – the mitzvah of living in Eretz Yisrael is equal to all the mitzvot.” Study that Ramban well. 

I assume that by now it is unnecessary to quote all the pesukim in Tanach about kibbutz galiyot. 

Further Kobre writes “not ranking on some non-Jews’ list as the world’s eighth strongest power.” That too is as unimportant as “a common land” in Kobrespeak. 

Kobre doesn’t begin to understand the awesome religious meaning of that fact. That list of eight includes China, Japan and India. What Israel achieved in 69 years or less took them thousands of years. Germany and Russia needed about five hundred years, and America about a hundred and fifty. That’s not all. Israel is the smallest country of them all with the smallest population and has nowhere near the natural resources of the other seven. 

Furthermore Israel made it while being in a constant state of war, surrounded on all sides by sworn enemies. Jews had no military experience for 1900 years. According to Janes, Israel’s air force is the best in the world. I don’t have the words with which to describe the incredible nature of that accomplishment. 

A thinking Jew has to ask himself, “Well, how did it happen?” The answer is simple yet profound. For 69 years the Ribbono Shel Olom has been fulfilling his promise, a promise we say so many times. We sing it (I love Carlebach – I cry when I sing it) Hashem oz l’amo yitten. He is working 24/7 to make us a mighty nation. He has done it. He wants the world to see His people in His land as a strong, mighty and powerful nation. The past 69 years have been a constant, incessant, outpouring of Hashem’s strength to His people. The power of the Israeli army should be a religious inspiration to every Jew. A clear manifestation of His presence in our midst in Eretz Yisrael. 

Kobre doesn’t get it. I would have him write one thousand times, “Hashem oz l’amo yitten” until it begins to penetrate his neshama. 

I also object to his obvious snide remark about “a non-Jews’ list.” First, that’s Hashem’s whole purpose, that non-Jews should see us as strong people, which is a Torah value. (See the great Meshech Chochma in Parshat Chukas 21:2. It’s an eye opener.) 

Has Kobre forgotten the pesukim in Hallel: 
הללו את ה'כל גוים שבחוהו כל האמים כי גבר עלינו הסדו ואמת ה'לעולם הללו יה. 
Praise Hashem, all nations; praise Him, all the states. For His kindness has overwhelmed us, and the truth of Hashem is eternal. Halleluyah. 
Kobre becomes all good hearted when he writes, 
“Of course we should hope and pray that Israel’s economy thrives and feel great when it does – and then the Reason (get the capital “R”) for it, too.” 
Kobre reduces the thriving Eretz Yisrael to “parnassah for Jews.” He’s far off the mark. He has missed the magnificent and majestic prophetic process playing itself out in real life so carefully orchestrated by “the One who foretells the generations from the very beginning.” 

Two years ago I had written a response to an abusive letter to me by a recognized spokesman for the “religious” world. I had said in a shiur, “If you want to speak to the Ribbono Shel Olam go to the Kotel, but if you want to see Him, go to Shuk Machane Yehudah.” The following is from that letter which I had asked my son-in-law Yehuda Goldreich to put on the web. That day it was reported that three yeshiva students had been kidnapped. Immediately I contacted Yehudah and told him not to publish the letter because then was the time for unity and prayer not debate. Here it is now. 

* * * * * 
The Tomatoes 

Rabbi, you write: 
"It should likewise be pointed out Rabbi Gold's exaggerated words, upon being inspired by the abundance of produce found in the Machane Yehudah market: 'If this is golus then I can't begin to imagine what geulah is.' An abundance of fruits and vegetables is indeed a blessing; however, the final redemption will be exalted and spiritual, with material abundance being a mere by-product. Until then, it would be wise to seek and find Divinity in the world of Torah, whose growth and develop[ment] is infinitely more astounding than that of the tomatoes and cucumbers in the market." 
I must introduce my remarks with a thought, a story, and my deep feelings. 

The Thought – After the League of Nations in 1922 voted that Eretz Yisrael should be a homeland for the Jewish people, Reb Meir Simcha HaKohen of Dvinsk, The Ohr Sameach, wrote a letter encouraging Jews to participate in the building of Eretz Yisrael and that the mitzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael is in full force. 

At the beginning of his letter he writes that in the desert Jews committed two sins, the sin of the egel (the golden calf) and the sin of the meraglim (the spies). The former was an assault on G-d Himself, the latter was a blow to Eretz Yisrael. On His own honor He was mochel but He was not forgiving for the disgracing of Eretz Yisrael, therefore He said that because of the sin of the meraglim the entire generation shall all die in the desert. 

Rabbi – you unjustly attacked me a number of times in your letter. I can handle that – but when you trivialized the tomatoes of Eretz Yisrael, you just went too far. For that sin I'm not mochel. 

I heard the following story in the 1950s. A chosid had come from Chutz L'Aretz to visit the Belzer Rebbeh and brought a tray of fruit. When he presented his gift to the Rebbeh he refused to touch them and said to the poor chosid – "Ask forgiveness from the fruit of Eretz Yisrael that you shamed." 

Rabbi – you have shamed me. I can be forgiving. You denigrated the tomatoes of Eretz Yisrael – for that I am not mochel. Since you refer to my agvaniyot as "material abundance" it is obvious that you don't have a clue to what the produce of Eretz Yisrael means. The Bach says that the Shechina, the Divine Presence, enters the Jew through the produce of Eretz Yisrael. They are the conduit to bring sanctity. That's "material"?? (See Tur, Orach Chaim, Siman 208). 

Rav Kook writes that "The produce of Eretz Yisrael brings 'internal sanctity.'" Be careful, he warns, of food from out of Eretz Yisrael. If one longs for Eretz Yisrael, then even his golus-produce gains in sanctity. "It is a mitzvah to taste with one's full mouth the delight and sweetness of the brilliant and fresh sanctity of (the fruit) of Eretz Yisrael. I could go on and on. The tomatoes are spirituality, ruchniyut, not gashmiyut. 

But there's much, much more. My tomato talks to me and tells me a tale of such drama and pathos. 

I'll tell you what my agvaniyah says to me. Rabbi Ploni, from here on I hand over the letter to my tomato. 

My tomato to Rabbi Ploni: 

"After the destruction of the Second Beis Hamikdosh a message came from Heaven to all the flora and fauna of Eretz Yisrael to stop growing. The word went from cedar to hyssop, to vine, to olive, to flowers, to grain, to all plant life – The Ribbono Shel Olom has decreed that we stop growing until we receive new instructions. We were told that only when Klal Yisrael begins to return from golus will we come back to life. We were all very sad to see our people going off into exile – but we heeded the 'Dvar Hashem.' 

As He said in Bechukotai – 'And I will make the land desolate.' We were told not to respond to enemies of Israel who will enter the land, and we obeyed – Romans, Byzantines, Moslems, Crusaders, Tartars, Saracens, they all came and we did not respond to their attempts to bring us to life. We were told that we would be informed in good time before Klal Yisrael begins to return so that we could wake up from our long slumber. 

"Rabbi Ploni, don't you know the Gemorah in Sanhedrin 98?: 
ואמר רבי אבא - And R' Abba said אין לך קץ מגולה מזה -  There is no clearer indication of the "End" than this, שנאמר – as it is stated: ואתם הרי ישראל ענפכם תתנו ופריכם תשאו לעמי ישראל בי ...לבא קרבו – But you, O mountains of Israel, you shall shoot forth your branches and bear your fruit for My people Israel, etc. [when they are about to come].
"Rashi comments that when Eretz Yisrael gives out its produce in abundance that is the greatest sign that 'the end – the keitz' is coming. "

Cecil Roth wrote that the years after the destruction of the Beis HaMikdosh there was severe drought in Eretz Yisrael – you know why? Because, in keeping with the Divine Order of the day we all began to go into hibernation. We didn't know that it would last for nineteen hundred years. We hoped that it would be for only a brief period of time. 

"During that long period there were moments at which we thought that the end of our sleep is coming. We thought that our children are coming home. In the twelfth century we heard reports that 'they are coming.' The rumor went underground from root to root, the cedar to the hyssop, the vine to the olive, the tomato to the cucumber – we heard that they are coming home. Then we learned to our utter dismay that 300 Baalei Tosafot from the Rhineland arrived but no more. 

"We had other false alarms. The Ramban in 1267, Rav Ovadiah miBartenura in 1492, Rabbi Yehuda Hachosid and his followers in 1700, the students of the Baal Shem Tov and the students of the Vilna Gaon, but we did not receive the message from Hashem. So we waited, we hoped, we prayed. Then, toward the end of the 19th century rumors began again beneath the surface of the earth. There was a report that after Mark Twain left Emek Yizrael that there were angels telling blades of grass: 'grow, grow.' We were skeptical at first. We didn't want to be disappointed. 

But the reports became increasingly urgent. Birds flying overhead, clouds cruising the skies said, 'They are coming.' You should have seen (but of course you couldn't) what was going on beneath the surface of Eretz Yisrael. We were all cautious but excited. More and more reports of sightings were coming in. 'They are coming – they are coming home'– and then the word came directly from Hashem:

                           אתם הרי ישראל ענפכם תתנוי ופריכם תשאו לעמי ישראל כי קרבו לבא 

'They are finally coming home! Grow! Respond to the work of their hands! Don't check their tzitzis, it makes no difference whether they are religious or not. Grow – they are My children and they are coming home. Grow even in Shemittah, if it's with the Heter Mechira. Grow, give out your fruits. Grow.' 

"You should have seen the joy and jubilation beneath the surface. You didn't know but we knew. You should have seen how they all started waking up from the 1,900-year slumber, stretching their roots, yawning, smiling. I had not seen such activity in millennia. We were told by the Ribbono Shel Olom that we are commanded to turn little, dry, arid, dusty, nearly dead Eretz Yisrael into a verdant, fruitful, agricultural world super power. And we did it with joy (Google: Israel Agriculture – Wikipedia – It will blow your mind away. Trust me, do it.) 

"I (remember, it's my tomato talking) don't understand how Jews don't realize that we are the bearers of a message that G-d wants all His children home (study that Gemorah in Sanhedrin again)." 

* * * * * 

Kobre has succeeded in trivializing all the manifestations of Hashem’s Presence in our midst. Strong healthy economy, abundance, military prowess – all mean nothing to him. And what is wrong about “hearts swelling with national pride, etc.”? There is a total absence of G-d from the modern miracle of Eretz Yisrael in Kobre’s thought. The awesome fulfillment of so many prophecies is lost to him. 

It has been my misfortune to have just read Kobre’s piece in issue 656, which reveals that he has no longing, yearning or desire to live in Eretz Yisrael. It all is the result of what he recently wrote, “then some people made a state.” Hashem’s greatest gift to a bleeding, battered, decimated people emerging from Auschwitz is reduced to “then some people made a state.” All the pieces of Kobre’s perverted hashkafa are falling into place. There is more. Many years ago I predicted that the incessant finding fault with “the medina” will eventually morph into a rejection of Eretz Yisrael itself. The sin of unbridled rejection of the state has its own built-in punishment. My prediction has proven to be prophetic. 

In issue 656 Kobre writes the worst piece I have ever read. I wonder whether I should rent my garments. 
There’s more than a kernel of truth in the story told of a Jew who, flush with spiritual inspiration, decided he’d had his fill of the tumas eretz ha’amim and would instead make the Holy Land his home. He quickly wound up his affairs, gathered his kin and set out on his journey, his Russian hometown now a mere memory. Entering Yerushalayim, his heart quickened as he made his way swiftly to the Kosel Hamaaravi, the focal point of every Jew’s prayers. 
But strangely, as he prayed passionately for the first time before the ancient stones, he sensed a presence beside him. He looked up and – lo and behold! – it was the yetzer hara, right next to him at this holiest of sites. Stunned, all he could mutter was, “B-b-but I thought I left you behind in Russia!” Came the swift reply, “Silly one – who do you think brought you here?” 
Kobre must ask his gedolim if there is a way to do teshuva for such absolutely despicable trash. 

I have a great deal more to write, about Kobre’s articles but this latest one has wiped me out. I am going to take a break and begin to cleanse and purify myself in preparation for Yom Haatzmaut and the 50th Yom Yerushalayim. 

G-d willing, bli neder, there will be a continuation. 

While reading and thinking about the Kobre papers I was haunted by a still small voice telling me that it rings familiar. Then one morning in the middle of davening it came to me like a flash – the meraglim. That’s exactly what they said, that if we have Torah who needs a land. 

In 1907 HaRav Avrohom Yitzchak HaCohen Kook wrote that what he called “meragliut” or in our idiom “meraglimhood” or “meraglimism” is alive and well. It sure is. Just read Mishpacha. 
↧

When Violating Halacha is Required

April 21, 2017, 8:46 am
$
0
0
The Kushners on Sukkos
First things first. Ivanka Trump is Jewish. There should be no question about her status as a Jew. She was converted by a rabbinic court which – if I understand correctly - had Rav Hershel Shachter’s imprimatur and has been officially accepted publicly by Israel’s Chief Rabbinate. 

Some people have questioned whether her conversion was sincere since she has been seen and even photographed wearing clothing that would not be considered modest by any Orthodox Jewish standard. But even leaving aside issues of Halachic modesty and the various interpretations as to what is and isn’t considered modest clothing according to Halacha, there is the far more serious charge of violating Shabbos. Which she has been seen doing ever since her father, Donald Trump was elected President.

The Gemarah tells us that if someone goes through the procedure of conversion –  which at the moment of their conversion requires acceptance of all Mitzvos (even if they don't know what they all are),  immersion in a Kosher Mikva, and for a man a cricumcision - then even if  they immediately proceed to purposely violate Halacha, they are still considered to be a Jew albeit a ‘sinning Jew’. This is an undisputed Gemarah.

That said, 20th century Gadol (and to many the Posek Hador of his time), Rav Moshe Feinstein ruled that in our (his) day when there are so many sham conversions with questionable religious courts and where sponsoring rabbis knew the convert would not be observant - converting only for purposes of marriage… then one can judge a person’s sincerity by how they behave Halachicly immediately after the conversion.

For example if a woman is converted before her marriage to a Jew and then she and he fiancé celebrate the conversion by going to McDonalds and eating cheeseburgers, there could be ‘no greater proof’ than that, says R’ Moshe, that the conversion was not sincere, a sham,  and therefore invalid. I never fully understood how R’ Moshe’s ruling squares with the above-mentioned Gemarah. But in Inavka’s case it doesn’t matter since the conversion was done by a trustworthy court; with a world class Posek in Rav Hershel Shachter participating.

So the question is not whether she is Jewish but whether she – or even her husband, Jared, is considered Orthodox. How can they be, one may ask? Now that they are so much in the public eye, they have both been observed and photographed violating Shabbos, the sine qua non of Orthodox Judaism.

Is it possible under any circumstance to consider them Orthodox? What about the Shabbos violations? Doesn’t that automatically disqualify them from being observant since in our day? 

The answer is not so simple. There are circumstances where violating Shabbos is not only permitted, but required. Famously one of those circumstances is Pikuach Nefesh – saving someone’s life. If Shabbos must be violated in order to do so, one MUST violate it. A less famous but equally legitimate form of dispensation for violating Shabbos is something called ‘Karuv L’Malchus’ – being ‘close to the king’. In such circumstance such closeness can strongly influence the kings decisions in matters that affect the Jewish people under his control. The Gemarah discusses such scenarios and history has had instances where this dispensation has been applied.

Ben Rothke has written a very thoughtful piece on this very subject on Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer’s blog YGB.  

I am certainly not an expert on the subject. In fact I know next to nothing about the parameters of such dispensations. The problem is that there are few if any people today that do, it seems. Nor has there been much (if any) responsa on the subject of who and what would qualify for it today.

It can certainly be argued that no one is closer to the American President (king) than Ivanka and Jared Kushner. If that law were applied to anyone - they would be the ones. They are not only ‘close’ to the ‘king’ - Ivanka is his daughter and Jared his son in law. According to many observers, they are the President’s closest advisers.

But is the President the same as a king? A king surely has more power than a President. How ‘close’ to power must one be? And how powerful must that ‘power’ be in order to get that dispensation? Halachic dispensation granted via being Karuv L’Malchus may not be applicable to a President since he cannot order executions of individuals the way a king can. 

On the other hand a President can surely affect the well being of the Jewish people to the point of Pikuach Nefesh. Does that fact meet the parameters required for the application of this dispensation? 

Those that defend the Kushners’ violation of Shabbos have claimed that they had rabbinic dispensation for it. To the best of my knowledge no Orthodox rabbi has come forward and acknowledged that it was he that gave them the dispensation. But if one rabbi did, how far did it go? And was it really in accordance with Halahca? 

For example the Kushners were seen riding in a car on Shabbos (Friday night) on the way to one of the inaugural balls.  Does that qualify for dispensation of Shabbos observance? It can  be argued that riding in  a car on Shabbos when a non Jew is driving is not technically a violation of Shabbos – if someone opens and closes the door for you. Which is almost certainly the case with Jared and Invanka.

But even if that were a technical violation in the circumstances of an inaugural ball, it could be argued that not attending would have adverse consequences on the influence they might have on the President which could affect his decisions on matters vital to the Jewish people.

As Ben points out, there is little or no precedent on how a Posek should rule in this instance.

I recommend reading Ben’s excellent review of those issues. I also recommend that Jared and Ivanka not be judged based on what many perceive are blatant violations of Halacha. Because they may actually not be in violation of it but rather in compliance of it based on their particular situation of being Karuv L’Malchus.
↧
Viewing all 3622 articles
Browse latest View live
Search