Emes Ve-Emunah

by Rivkie Greenland, Guest Contributor

Bubbie Tzirel and my daughter Rivkie at her wedding (1998)

There is one thing about my generation that is unlike any other in recent times. Most of those of us whose parents were victims of the Holocaust did not have any living grandparents. And there were a lot of us!

As a child of the Holocaust I never knew my grandparents and neither did most of my childhood friends whose parents were also survivors. Growing up, I remember wondering what that was like and being rather jealous of the few friends whose grandparents were alive.

As noted yesterday. My mother-in-law passed away late Sunday afternoon. She was a Holocaust survivor that went through the literal hell that all survivors did. But survive she did. Unfortunately her parents (my wife’s grandparents) did not.

Although we children of the Holocuast had no grandparents, our own children did. My daughter Rivkie describes what that was like. Here is the eulogy for her grandmother, Cyrla (Tzirel) Sauerhaft:

"I grew up with 4 grandparents. And, until I was 20, I had a close relationship with all 4 of them. Even when I got married, we had 7 out of our 8 grandparents at our wedding—three of whom were holocaust survivors. I don't think I realized until today, just what a rarity that was, which I completely took for granted.

Yesterday, the last surviving of my grandparents, Tzirel bas Avraham Meyer, my mother's mother, a holocaust survivor, who had just celebrated her 100th birthday a few months ago, was nifter late yesterday afternoon. She lived through the horrors of the Lodz Ghetto, Auschwitz, Bergen Belsen, and together with her two sisters were the only remaining members of their family.

But, if you knew my Bubbie, you knew that she was quite a strong willed and determined women, and remained that way until her very last day. Together with my Zadie Mordechai, ZL, they raised two daughters in Detroit, Michigan (Oak Park-our home away from home growing up), sending them to Bais Yehudah to receive a Torah education - sacrificing everything for their yiddishkeit and the yidishkeit of their future legacy.

Today, BH, they are survived by their two daughters, 8 grandchildren, and 40 great grandchildren.

After all my grandparents had been through I was never fully able to understand the strength and courage it took for them to have the will to keep life going and to be strong and remain faithful in serving Hashem.

My mother told me today, that years ago, at one of the pesach sedarim, (always together with cousins and grandparents) my Zadie stopped and looked around at us all and said "Kik vus ken zein fin ein mentch: Look what can happen from one person."

May Bubbie Tzirel bas Avraham Meyer, together with Zadie Mordechai, a"h be a malitz yosher for the family and all of klall yisroel.

The funeral for my bubbie a"h, will take place in Eretz Yisroel, on Har Hamenuchos, on Wednesday at 3:00 pm. Shiva will be in Chicago, at my mother's home starting Thursday at noon through Tuesday morning.

Baruch Dayan Haemes.

May we all be zoche to only have and share in smachot."

Image from Shona's Site

I am a feminist. That’s right. You read that correctly. And yet, I have been accused of being misogynistic and have been the recipient of some truly harsh criticism by some of the more strident Jewish feminists. Feminists that consider the valuable ideal of feminism above the higher ideal of Torah based Jewish tradition. To them, when I say I am a feminist, I get laughed at.

But I am a feminist in the classic definition of the term. I believe that women and men should be treated equally in areas that do not violate Halacha or our traditional values. Equal pay for equal work is a long held belief of mine. As is treating men and women equally in social settings. Respecting people based on their character rather than on their gender is something in which I firmly believe.

What may not be so well known about me is that I have some of the same questions ardent feminists do. Certain aspects of Judaism seem to favor men over women. For example, I have long standing question about a Bracha I make every single morning thanking God for not making me a woman.

Why?! I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer to that. But I make the Bracha every day because that - along with the other Brahcos we say each morning - is what Chazal established for us. I do not believe they were misogynistic. But I still don't know why that Bracha was established and it still bothers me.

Which brings me to an article written by Sruli Besser in Mishpacha Magazine. He opines about being relegated to a second class citizen – having to miss his daughter’s high school graduation ceremony and being allowed only to attend a reception afterward – separated by a Mechitza. His point was that for the first time he knew what it must feel like to be a woman behind the Mechitza. And he didn’t like it. He concluded by placing women on a pedestal saying that they are far better at taking second place than he – and his fellow males are.

I never thought much of the tactic of putting women on a pedestal to show how great Judaism treats its women. Because I don't think women want to be placed on one. They want to be treated the same as men. Not better. Not worse.

In response to that Alexandra Fleksher has written a piece on Cross Currents that appreciated Sruli’s candor - praising him for opening up the conversation about how women really feel about their place in Judaism. But then she was upset his response to criticism of it. Here is how he put it:

Been a fun day on my timeline…I feel bad for those who are enraged, and worse for those for whom mainstream Orthodoxy isn’t working, who want me to vent at the system, to fulminate about the injustices… ‘Haters are gonna hate and those looking to get offended will never disappoint.’ …the column is a lighter look at the foibles and realities of our beautiful, glorious, functional, stable, happy frum world. That’s my view. If you want a dark underside and hidden agenda to rock the chareidi boat and a secret ally in your battle to save us from ourselves, I’m not your guy…The column wasn’t a dog-whistle to Orthodox feminists...

That was an unfortunate response. Because as Alexandra points out, the women that responded were not exactly members of JOFA:

Mr. Besser didn’t realize that there exists a whole segment of passionate, dedicated, and happy Orthodox women, many of whom are rebbetzins, teachers and kiruv workers, who do feel like second-class citizens when it comes to certain accepted social practices of late in our circles. They associate with the yeshivish/chareidi world or the right-of-center world.

She then excerpted a few justifiable responses to that comment. All of which I agree with.

The fact is that the actual situation that generated Sruli’s column and Alexandra’s reaction is based on stringencies that did not exist in America (nor in many places in pre-war Europe). It could have been avoided. One thing Sruli mentioned was that his illustrious father (Harav Yechezkel 'Haskel' Besser – an Agudah leader for many years) happily attended his own daughter’s graduation without the slightest of reservations. There was never a Tznius issue about such things in the past.

But in our day there is an actual Frumkeit completion in right wing circles. I had the same experience Sruli did with my granddaughter at her 8^th grade graduation. The school she attended is Beis Ya’akov – founded by the Veitziner Rebbe – a Satmar Posek of international renown. It eventually became the mainstream right wing Beis Yaakov of the Yeshivaa world. Fathers had always been allowed to attend their daughter’s graduation until just a few years ago.

I wondered why the change and I was told by one of the parents there that some of the school’s parent body had moved here from Lakewood. And they felt that the school needed to ‘up’ it’s modesty standards to those of Lakewood where forbidding men to attend their daughter’s graduation had long ago been established. The policymakers of the school agreed. As if to say that Sruli’s illusttrious father’s was not quite Frum enough by the much higher standards of our day.

This is what happened to mixed seating weddings in the 70s. Which used to be the norm and is now all but forgotten in the more right wing circles. And even in some - not so right wing ones We are now experiencing the fallout of continuing along this path. A path that in my view is destructive.

And there is nothing anyone can do about it.

Which is sad. Much of the second class citizenry that women experience today can be traced back to the chase for Frumkeit. We need to stop doing that. That a Mechitza is Halachicly required in a Shul does not mean we should be extending it to every single part of our lives. We live in a society where men and women interact frequently with each other in all manner of societal endeavor. That is our norm.

Which is why hundreds of years ago the Levush famously Paskined that we no longer consider mixed seating a wedding to be immodest. We can therefore consider such settings worthy of residing in God’s abode. While Erva (nakedness) is fixed in Halacha, modesty beyond that is subject to the time and place in which we live. That was made clear by the Psak of the Levush.

There is absolutely no reason to relegate anyone to 2^nd class status because of excessive modesty concerns. There is no real reason - in our day and our world - to separate the sexes outside of a Minyan in a Shul. Relegating women to 2^nd class citizenry as an act of modesty to show how Frum we are is not being Frum at all.

Rabbi Y'soscher Katz (TOI)

I actually like Rabbi Y’soscher Katz. Even though I am in profound disagreement with his Hashkafos, I believe he is sincere in his views and has in the past argued very forcefully in favor of them. That said I cannot believe what he has done in a recent article in the Times of Israel.

Rabbi Katz uses the recent arrests (for government fraud) of Charedi Jews in Lakewood to advance his own agenda.

Now I have no problem with people advancing their own agenda. If they have a cause in which they believe, then of course they are going to want to advance that cause with what ever means are at their disposal. We all do that. That’s what fighting for our ideals are all about.

But when someone distorts the truth and then exacerbates the problem with false claims blaming what those individuals did on their Halachic process, it becomes a Chilul HaShem all by itself. Especially when the person doing it is the chair of the Talmud Department of YCT.

I have not been reticent about my own criticism of what those prominent and supposedly religious Jews in Lakewood did. It is a Chilul HaShem of major proportion to hide income of over a million dollars so that you can collect welfare checks. Not to mention how stupid these supposedly bright Jews were – thinking that they would never get caught. Even if there are more people in Lakewood arrested for doing that, I am sure the percentage will be extremely low. Not that it won't increase the Chilul Hashem. It will.

But in no way is what these people did to be blamed on what Rabbi Katz says it should be. Because in effect it casts the entire Charedi community as a bunch of conniving crooks that see nothing wrong with stealing from non Jews.

This kind of misleading interpretation of how Charedim determine Halacha plays right into the hands of every antisemite in the world. And since Charedim make up the majority of Orthodox Jews in the world – articles like this are a goldmine to neo Nazis. In case you’re wondering what he said that is so egregious here is an excerpt from his article:

(Their) attitude towards stealing from the government is partially informed by the belief that halakha is static… An unadulterated read of halakha may in fact permit this kind of cheating. Many poskim assert that gezel akum (stealing from idolaters) is technically mutar...

Among others, he cites the Rema (a Halachic commentary of the Shulchan Aruch that Ashkenazi Jews follow). And claims that we can extrapolate from the Rema’s words that stealing from non Jews is technically permitted. But any fair reading of that Rema in no way indicates that stealing from non Jews is permitted. The major Poskim of our day forbid it! Dina D'Machusa Dina - the law of the land is the law. That is iron clad Halacha.

In what way does Rabbi Katz think he serves the Jewish community by trumpeting to the world that according to Halacha, stealing from an idolator is technically permitted? Does he think that Lakewood’s Poskim go around telling their people that they should steal from the government? Or even that they might say you shouldn’t with a wink and a nod indicating that if they can get away with it they should?

That is ridiculous. That some people in that community might think it is OK is a function – NOT of Halacha, but of a residual mistrust of antisemitic European governments carried over from their immigrant parents and grandparents who lived under it.There - and in those times - Jews were persecuted and needed to do things like participate in a black market just to make a living. It is a gross mistake for them to extend that to America.

I do fault their leadership for not doing a better job in educating thier people that 21^stcentury America is not the same thing as pre Holocaust Europe. But to publicly say that there is some sort of secret attitude transmitted that according to Halacha one may technically steal from non Jews is not only a lie, it is a massive Chilul HaShem!

Why did he do that? As I indicated - there can be only one reasonable answer to that question. He did it to forward the agenda of Open Orthodoxy. Implying that if we don’t follow his lead and continue to interpret Halacha in the static ways of the past we will all remain a secret bunch of crooks.

Of course he does not say that verbatim. But by sayings that the Halachic process should evolve as society evolves, he implies it.

Is it fair to say that Rabbi Katz’s view of Halacha is in essence the same the Conservative movement? Not exactly. In fairness he cites the pitfalls of both remaining static and changing Halacha:

While such extreme fidelity to the letter of the law seems anathema to most of us, there is a good reason why certain communities refuse to let interpretation of halakha be informed by history and changing realities. Letting halakha dialogue with history, they believe, is a dangerous enterprise because its contours are amorphous and boundaries unclear. One does not know where history’s modification of halakha will meander…

What should then one do? Should one champion a halakhic system which is in dialogue with history, occasionally allowing itself to be clarified and qualified in consonance with new knowledge and more sharply articulated social mores? Or does one embrace and preserve halakha in its pristine original form, ignoring any external attempt at moderation and qualification?

Unfortunately, there is no definitive answer. Living the observant life puts one at a crossroad of two danger-filled paths.

While admitting dangerous pitfalls of both and saying that there is o definitive answer - blaming the fraud on a static view of Halacha makes it clear where his heart lies.

Halacha does not change. Only its application does. We do not adapt Halacha to fit the times. We apply it. Meaning the finest Halachic minds of every generation will apply Halacha to any and every modern day situation. But they will not change it. By giving his dichotomy equal status Rabbi Katz has crossed the line into territory that even liberal Orthodox Jewish philosopher, Dr. Eliezer Berkovtis would not tread. And smeared an entire community in the process.

It is sad that a sincere individual like Rabbi Katz has decided add to the Chilul HaShem just to bolster the Open Orthodox agenda. I am disappointed.

Image from My Jewish Learning

One of the things I have always wondered about was why female rabbis in the Conservative movement wear a Kipa. I don’t recall the exact answer I was given by a female cousin of mine that was ordained by Conservative Judaism's flagship institution, JTS. But I believe it had something to do with having the same Halachic requirements as men who become rabbis do. (Not that this makes any sense to me. But I digress.) Nevertheless, I thought it quite odd to see a woman wearing a Kipa… even if she is a rabbi. I still feel that way.

The Kipa in Jewish law is indeed a Halacha or Minhag (custom) designed specifically for men. The exact reason for that has always been a bit unclear to me as well. But the best answer I can give as to why we men are required to wear one is to have a constant reminder that there is Someone (God) above us. And behave accordingly. Why women are not required to do so for the same reason is yet another thing that escapes me.

There is also some question about whether wearing a Kipa is a Halacha or just a very strong Minhag that is treated as Halacha. In the times of the Gemarah, the common religious Jew did not cover his head. Only the more learned and holy men did. Today it has become universal for men to cover their heads. Although not necessarily with a Kipa. Any covering will do. A fedora works just fine as does a baseball cap or football helmet.

It is also a rather well known Teshuva (responsum) by R’ Moshe Feinstein that if an employer requires an employee to be bareheaded on the job – he may do so. (There were many jobs like that in the past. Today, most employers do not require it anymore. In the multi cultural society of today’s America there are people at work in all kinds of jobs with all kinds of head coverings.)

Whatever the case may be, there is no doubt about one thing. The Halacha (or very strong Minhag as it were) is for a man to cover his head. A Kipa is just a convenient way to do it.

This brings me to an article in JOFA’S Torch. I couldn’t help but have a feeling of ‘Nebech’ as I was reading it.

The writer, an Orthodox woman by the name of Sharon Weiss-Greenberg, pays homage to a very bright woman named Linda (she gives no second name) who wears a Kipa whenever she is involved in anything holy. Such as studying Gemarah and some of its commentaries with her Chabura: a group of women from diverse religious backgrounds that study together.

The holiest of women in our day do not cover their heads. (Unless they are married – for entirely different reasons). This apparently did not matter to her. Linda sees wearing a Kipa as a holy garment that gives honor to the Mitzvah she happens to be doing.

I can understand and appreciate Linda’s belief that wearing the Kipa itself is an act of piety. I can even admire the fact that she wants to honor all of the holy things she participates in by wearing a Kipa. But the fact is that a Kipa has no intrinsic Kedusha. There is nothing about a Kipa that is holy. It is merely a convenient head covering for men that has no application for women. That Linda sees it that way means that she is woefully ignorant of that fact or doesn’t care.

Either way she vests it with a holiness that does not exist. And even if she would point to the fact that men are required to wear Kipa, that simply isn’t true. As I said, it isn’t the Kipa that is important. It is covering the head.

So that when the writer laments the fact that Linda was denied her desire to wear a Kipa at the Kotel, Linda was not denied the opportunity to achieve the highest spiritual level a human being can at the Kotel even without a Kipa. Even if one might say that a woman covering her head has some spiritual value, she could have done it with a hat. That she insists on wearing a Kipa means that she believes it has Kedusha that it does not really have.

That being said, if I would have been in charge, I would have allowed her to pray at the Kotel wearing her Kipa. But I would have been saying ‘nebech’ to myself the whole time.

Image from the Forward

Between what is going on in the world of Lakewood and the world of heterodoxy, I almost feel like throwing in the towel. It seems like a hopeless situation at both ends.

A recent article in Asbury Park Press reported that 6 more couples will be facing fraud charges. Some of whom are prominent names in the Torah world. Again. To date there have been 26 Orthodox Jews on Lakewood charged defrauding Government in a variety welfare programs. The sight of religious Jews men with their kipot and beards, and women dressed in the typically meticulous religiously modest fashion was a hard thing to watch. As Billam proclaimed in last week’s Parsha, we are a people that dwells alone - apart from other nations and judged separately.

We are indeed! And the sight of people who are supposed to live by a higher standard being charged with a fraud is one of the saddest sights I have even seen on a video in that APP article. These are the kind of people I normally look up to with pride as models of religious observance and devotion to God. I’m sure that in many ways they are. Unfortunately in at least one area, they are not. Far from it. To see them in this situation was depressing, to say the least.

I have already addressed the Chilul HaShem images like this make and the fodder this feeds to all of the antisemites in the world. Indeed it did. From APP:

Last week's arrests also sparked a wave of anti-Semitic sentiment, with people writing hateful messages and comments on social media. Last weekend, the hate speech moved off the Internet and into the streets. Hate fliers spread around the township and a white sheet with an anti-Semitic slur hung over a Holocaust memorial at a Lakewood synagogue.

I hope this is the last we will be seeing of religious looking Jews being charged with fraud. I’m glad to see that Lakewood is finally trying to do something about it:

Rabbi Moshe Weisberg, a member of Lakewood's Vaad, or Jewish council, said the organization would hold seminars later this year to help educate the community about the rules for full financial disclosure when it comes to applying for and collecting public assistance.

It’s just too bad that they waited until something like this happened instead of teaching them the ethics that would have prevented them from even considering before they even considered it. I just hope that these seminars are about more than compliance with the law. I hope they teach the underlying ethics and establish a universal policy of transmitting these ethics in their schools.

And then on the other side of the religious spectrum of American Jewry - there is the intermarriage problem and the way that heterodox movements increasingly want to deal with it as noted in a recent artilce in the Forward. This is not news. Polls are showing that in non Orthodox circles the problem is so huge, (at a 71% intermarriage rate) that there have been calls to take an entirely different approach to it than the rejecting intermarried couples. Which has been the norm until recently. Even some rabbis on the far left of Orthodoxy have suggested that. As was the case with recent YCT ordainee, Rabbi Avi Mlotek.

The argument is that if we don’t, they will be lost forever. I think that’s probably true in most cases. But aren’t they already lost? If marrying a non Jew doesn’t mean they are lost to Judaism, I don’t know what does.

True that in some cases the children are raised with a Jewish identity. But if the mother was the not Jewish, that only makes things worse. Because that child will think they are Jewish but will be no more Jewish than the pope. The law of averages tells us that at least half of the children of an intermarriage won’t be Jewish. So what good is it to accept these people?

To Reform Judaism, it doesn’t matter since they changed the way a Jew is defined. Which is not Halachic.

But the Conservative movement which clams to be Halachic might answer that they will work toward an eventual conversion of the non Jewish spouse and their children. (If the non Jewish spouse is a woman her children will not be Jewish).

The problem is that Orthodoxy does not recognize Conservative conversions for a variety of reasons that are beyond the scope of this post. Which means that even if they would be wildly successful in converting these non Jews ( a dubious proposition at best) they will be creating a population of people that think they are Jewish but are not. Thus causing a major problem of exponentially growing population that will not recognize as Jews - another growing population of people recognized as Jews by other denominations.

Acceptance of intermarried couples will therefore be the antithesis of the result we hope to achieve. We will not only be experiencing a massive defection of Jews that we are now, we will be creating a huge mess that will cause untold confusion about who is legitimately Jewish and who isn’t.

This does not mean to say that we shouldn’t try to do something to hold on to our people. It might even be prudent to try and somehow reach out to intermarried couples without welcoming them into the community. I’m not sure how that could be done. Or how successful that might be.

Surely sitting Shiva on an intermarried child may no longer be the best way to deal with intermarriage as a community. But neither is welcoming an intermarried couple into it.

We need to find better ways to deal with this problem because it pretty clear to me that doing nothing won’t help. But including them as part of community might be worse. Which is why this whole thing is so depressing.

Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel, David Lau

As if the Israeli Chief Rabbinate needed yet another blow to its credibility, yesterday the Jerusalem Post published what it said was a list of 160 Diaspora rabbis blacklisted by them. Meaning that their testimony with respect to the marital or Jewish status of any Jew will be rejected. The list even included some Chabad and other Orthodox rabbis.

Fortunately, the reaction from Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi was immediate:

Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi David Lau, however, strongly denounced the blacklist, stating that he had no knowledge of it until Sunday, and that it was the work of the clerk in charge of the Marriage and Conversion Department, who created it without proper authorization.

In a letter to Chief Rabbinate director-general Moshe Dagan, Lau said he was “astonished to discover this list,” that it was “unthinkable” a clerk would create such a document of his own accord, and demanded that the clerk be reprimanded.

I don’t know how much damage control he accomplished. But I’m glad he had this reaction. I don’t, however, think he has gone far enough. A reprimand?! That ‘clerk’ should be fired post haste! Nor do I even agree that a list like this should even exist. Which is another troubling aspect of Rabbi Lau’s statement. He implied that such a list may be appropriate but that the clerk who compiled it did so without authorization.

This is not to say that the Chief Rabbinate cannot have standards. Of course they should. Judaism is not a free for all where anyone can say they are Jewish even if they were not born of a Jewish mother, had no conversion at all and just decided one day to claim it, or converted improperly. What is and isn’t a proper conversion is the Chief Rabbinate’s right to decide.

This is why I supported the creation of standards and the agreement with the RCA whereby the Chief Rabbinate accepts any conversion done that follows their newly established conversion (GPS) protocols. As I've said many times, stetting up clear standards was necessary in order to counter the many sham conversions done even by some Orthodox rabbis in the past. That is now far less likely to happen now.

Whether these new standards can be tweaked to make them more compassionate and fairer – or how to view legitimate conversions of the past is beyond the scope of this post. Although I do believe there needs to be some revisions – the point is that the conversion process needed tightening up. That was done.

Lists like this serve no good purpose. They only end up antagonizing – not only the black-listed rabbis, but their constituencies as well. And it feeds the perception by their many critics that the Chief Rabbinate has only one purpose: the pursuit of power at any cost. Even a cost of destroying lives.

Which would be the result of such a blacklist. Because it would mean that a lot of legitimate conversions that have been done in the past would come under question. People who firmly believed they were Jewish via an Orthodox conversion would wonder if they really are. As would their friends and neighbors.

Marriage prospects for their children would be severely crippled. Even many generations later the children and grandchildren of a woman who had a legitimate conversion under a black-listed rabbi will wonder if they will be accepted as Jews. No matter how religious they are. Even they are sitting in Kollel!

It could ruin marriages if a Kohen was involved (If for example a Kohen finds out his wife’s mother did not covert properly, his wife is not Jewish and conversion won’t help. A Kohen may not marry a convert. If he does – they must divorce. I can’t imagine the grief that would cause to him, his wife and his children.)

It’s bad enough that these kinds of problems come up anyway even under the best of circumstances. But a list like this could easily exacerbate the problem and increase it exponentially over generations.

As of now, the Chief Rabbinate is probably at its lowest point of popularity. Which is probably an understatement. It seems that nobody respects it anymore. Some people are calling for it to be abolished. Although I can’t say that I really blame them, I am not one of those.

As I have stated in the past - a Jewish state needs a rabbinate to define and guide its Jewishness. Only the most knowledgeable rabbis should be involved in that process. Its ways should be the pleasant way of the Torah. Not the heavy-handed judgmental ways in which they behave now. That is the only way they will ever regain the respect of so many people who have lost respect for them.

The current rabbinate has a long way to go to fulfill its important role that way. Only it seems to be moving backwards. My hope is that this event will make them re-think how they operate – and become more user-friendly and compassionate. The time has come to stop being reactionary. The time has come to stop alienating people.

The Chief Rabbinate must change its ways and rid itself of anyone in its infrastructure – like this clerk – whose has shown no human compassion for fellow Jews and whose tactics have done nothing but further alienate their Chief Rabbinate’s critics. Only then will they have even the slightest chance of regaining the respect that a body like a Chief Rabbinate should have.

Typical scene of mostly Orthodox Jews at the Kotel on Chol HaMoed

How much does the average non observant Jew really care about getting an egalitarian space at the Kotel? One has to wonder whether the common secular Jew cares at all about praying at the Kotel. What does it look like at Robinson’s Arch? How many people have visited that part of the Kotel for religious purposes?

The answer to these questions can, I think, be found in 2 separate articles written by 2 different people in two different publications.

The first was in Arutz Sheva which featured a video of what seems to be a Dati Leumi (modern Orthodox ) fellow that earlier today, on the fast of the 17th of Taamuz, walks through the beautiful plaza at Robinson’s Arch. No one was there. Not a soul. Not a Reform Jew. Not a Conservative Jew. Not even one of their rabbis.

The fast of the 17th of Tamuz commemorates the day that the walls of Jerusalem were breached by the Roman armies. It was the beginning of the end of the second temple era which was finalized when the Romans burned the 2nd temple to the ground on the 9th of Av. Which will be commemorated 3 weeks from now.

The Kotel which is the outer retaining wall of the courtyard surrounding the Temple was the only thing left standing. If one goes to the traditional Kotel one will find many people praying on both the men’s and the women’s side of the Mechitza. Robinson’s Arch - zero. Why is that?

The answer to that question can perhaps be found in an oped featured in Ha’aretz. I do not normally excerpt almost an entire article as I am about to do here. But I don’t think that any attempt to paraphrase her will do justice to the words expressed by Ha’aretz contributor, Irit Linur a secular Jew in Israel. So I will let her speak for herself:

Like many secular Jews, I am not particularly interested in the Kotel…

(Upon a ‘surprise visit’ to the both the Kotel and Robinson’s Arch she noticed that there…) was (a) difference in the number of visitors to the two plazas. There were thousands of people in the Western Wall plaza on a regular weekday. There was just a cat in the mixed section. In light of the outcry that arose around the nixing of the Kotel agreement one would have expected to see thousands of Women of the Wall, imbued with religious spirit, alongside bar mitzva ceremonies in which grandma need not stand on a chair to get a peek at the men’s section. However, the mixed section was practically abandoned.

A few meters away, the Western Wall is teeming with Jewish life, despite the long – and gender-segregated – security inspection line. It is full of life because for hundreds of years its natural guardians – the Orthodox – preserved its holiness. They engage in it, with texts that are hundreds or thousands of years old, and a rabbinic hierarchy, and tradition and strict rules that if they change at all, change s-l-o-w-l-y. And they are engaged in the daily observance of commandments and prohibitions that not everyone can rationally explain, and some of them are unacceptable.

And even those that are acceptable can be deceiving: Orthodox Jews’ strict observance of Shabbat does not stem from an adherence to socialism or primordial support for workers of the world but rather a godly commandment. Orthodox Jews avoid schnitzel with butter even though they know chickens do not produce milk. And the Kotel is most definitely holy because anyone who keeps chicken and milk separate is exactly the type to find holiness in stones.

The obsession with holiness is sometimes annoying, perhaps even arrogant, so particularly witty secular Jews can mockingly call God “an imaginary friend” or compare him to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But when faith in an imaginary friend begets the Bible, a people and a 2,000-year-old culture as well as a moral system that ignited Western culture, you can drop the smugness with which people brag about their atheist purity. And let’s admit the truth: Not keeping commandments is much easier than keeping them.

Some will say that even without commandments secular Jews are no less Jewish than religious ones, so they should be equal partners is determining the character of the Kotel. It is correct in principle, but there is meaning to keeping your religious traditions, or at least recognizing them, before pretending to make religious rulings.

I, for example, am a typical product of state secular education. I was surprised to discover in my first year of university that the Rambam was a world-famous philosopher and not just another baba from the graves of righteous Jews. Thus, I still don’t feel ready to write a prayer equal to the Aleinu, or to prove that God is totally cool with driving on Shabbat and with a female rabbi. You have to wait 500 or 600, or even 2,000 years for that.

And if we insist on secularism as a value, it’s hard for me to understand the accompanying insistence on sitting on the tribunal, free of religion’s bonds, and shouting out directives to a Jew who fasted not only on Yom Kippur but also on… nu, remind me … oh, right, Gedalya…

We are arguing with these people about Judaism, and what is the right Judaism, and how Judaism should be, while we are armed with ignorance that we acquired through state secular education, a very partial study of the Bible…

You don’t have to be religious to recognize the religious contribution to turning the Kotel into much more than an archaeological site. Religious Jews made the Kotel holy long before we extended Israeli sovereignty over it, including periods in which praying there was dangerous.

Excuse me, but I don’t believe a sudden outburst of holy lust has overcome us. It looks to me like the disappointment of those who fully believed you could have a Jewish state without Judaism, and perhaps an overreaction by those whose enlightened sensitivities are repulsed by any level of religious feeling.

The fight over the Kotel isn’t really about Reform Jews. They are a marginal group in Israel. They may be a – not especially effective – barrier against mass assimilation. However, Israel is the only place in the world in which you can be a Jew and, without fearing for the Judaism of your grandchildren, cast off the burden of commandments and still feel as Jewish as Moses. None of this could exist without religious Jews. As a secular person, I believe that if we run the Kotel according to secular standards, it will look less like a holy site and more like a parking lot. Fortunately, the Orthodox will keep praying there even then.

H/T Jerry Gottheil & RYS

Breaking new ground? Picture of a woman in Mishpacha Magazine

‘Of course it’s Mutar.’ ‘Just don’t quote me.’ This is unfortunately the leadership style of some (if not all) of the Charedi rabbinc leaders in our day. I can’t even count the number of times I have heard one or more of the members of the Agudah Moetzes say something like this on one issue or another.

Where, oh where are the Rav Ahron Soloveichiks of our day?! He was fearless in his Avodas HaShem (serving God). If he believed in something he spoke his mind – caring not a whit what others might think. And he wasn’t alone. There were many others like him. (Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky and Rav Yitzchok Hutner come to mind.) That doesn’t seem to exist anymore. And it just happened again on an issue that is seriously harming Judaism: the erasure of women from the public sphere.

Adina Miles just published a post on Instagram (republished in the Forward) that tells of her quest to reverse the trend of not publishing any pictures of women. As she notes:

With the internet in everyone’s pockets, we are raising a generation today that is faced with more influence from the outside world than ever before. If girls can’t see visible role models within the mainstream publications, they will turn to other more dangerous places.

And yet the trend to erase women has been catching on with increasing frequency these days. The Charedi ‘glossies’ do not do not publish any pictures of women at all. The one time one of them (Mishpacha) tried by using a very distorted picture of Hillary Clinton on their cover, they got hammered by a rival Charedi publication (Hamodia). Although they stood by their decision to publish it, they have since then not done anything remotely close to it. Until now. Sort of.

Mishpacha finally did publish a picture of a woman in last week’s edition. It is one of a woman dressed in a Burka and is part of an illustration in the first chapter of a story serialized by Ruti Kepler.

Progress? Hardly! A quick read of this first chapter makes it seem like she is trying to ‘normalize’ abnormal modesty standards. Or at least trying to soften the image toward some sort of acceptability of it. I guess we will have to wait and see how the story ends.

Man? Woman? Gorilla? Who knows what is under that literal tent! But that’s OK. Because it’s all in the service of ‘modesty’. And despite a few Charedi rabbis speaking out disapprovingly after being interviewed about it a few years ago, there has been little else done since to discourage it. In fact it seems like the number of Burka wearing women are actually increasing along with magazines like Mishpacha normalizing it.

And as Adina Miles notes, the role models young children now have for how a woman should look are the immodest images they carry in their pockets. Or in popular mainstream magazines whose only picture of a woman is one wearing a Burka

Is this the kind of Chinuch our children should be getting? This is OK with the rabbinic leaders of the right?! At least to the extent that they don’t want to be identified saying anything negative about it? It would seem so.

One of the things that people with the slightest bit of common sense (both men and women) have been pointing out is that by focusing on the reasons for modest clothing they are actually sexualizing them. Even when they are very young – long before they even hit puberty.

Self described lapsed Beis Yaakov student, Shoshanna Schechter-Shaffin tells her story in the Forward:

One day last week, Elianna came home from her day camp run by the local modern Orthodox community, and informed me that her (female) counselors had told her that she needed to wear a t-shirt over her bathing suit when she is being transported to the swimming pool.

As someone who generally believes in the value of modesty as a form of appropriate decency and etiquette (we are in the South, after all), wearing a swim cover up when out in public appeared like a perfectly reasonable request to me.

What she said next sent a shock wave through my feminist- Gender Studies professor -progressive Jewish brain; “When I asked them why, the counselor said I had to cover up in case any of the men saw me.” As a little girl who still undresses without care in front of her younger male cousins, Elianna has no concept as to what “in case any men saw me” means.

In that very moment, an 18-year-old recent high school graduate, imported for the summer to our open-minded community in Richmond, Virginia from Brooklyn, New York, took my innocent and naive little girl and inappropriately oversexualized her into a possible temptation for the “uncontrollable” heteronormative male sex drive.

Young girls being taught that hey are temptresses when they are barely out of diapers. Boys are getting that message too.. And there is not a single leading rabbinic authority that I am aware of that has publicly stated that this is not the Jewish way… not the Torah way. The irony is that in so many cases they believe that they are teaching young people the opposite. They believe they are mimizing the focus on sex when they are in fact they increasing it.

As Shoshanna Schechter-Shaffin points out, the 18-year-old counselor that mentioned this is not at fault. This is how she has been indoctrinated.

That there is an over focus on modesty in the way women should dress is an understatement. It is breaking new ground and altering centuries old tradition.

As Adina Miles notes there has always been universal agreement by Poskim that a woman’s face is Tzanua by its very nature. No matter how strict any group is about issues of modesty in dress, women’s faces were never an issue even to the Eida HaCharedis or Satmar. But now the face of a woman is never being published in mainstream Charedi magazines. And Burka ladies that cover up head to toe with a Burka are apparently being normalized. All in the name of eliminating the focus on sexuality. While in fact doing the opposite!

Is there no one among the rabbinic leaders of the right that will stand up and once and for all say in public loud and clear, ‘Enough’?! Do they not see the damage their reticence to speak publicly is doing?

Image from Bishvilaych

One of the most troubling things I have noticed over the years is the inability of people with one set of ideals to hear what people with another set of ideals are saying. It would be a far better world if we just listen to each other and try to understand where those with opposing views are coming from. There doesn’t have to be agreement. We all have our ideals and we fight for what we believe. I am certainly one of those.

But what I try to do is hear what people that disagree with me are saying and respect their views. Sometimes I can even change my views if the opposing view makes more sense to me that the one I originally had. Perhaps that’s why I often find myself straddling a middle course on so many issues

In the course of conversation that takes place by people that comment on my posts, I rarely see that kind of understanding. Or even civility in some cases. Instead I see stridency on both sides of an issue, sometimes crossing the lines of polite discussion into venomous personal attacks.

I believe that this is one reason we do not have Achdus in Judaism - not even in Orthodoxy. As I’ve said numerous times, agreement is not the goal of Achdus. The goal is to repect other points of view even when there is disagreement.

I bring this up in light of a discussion on Sruli Besser’s Facebook page. It involved a discsussion about how the Charedi world treats their women. Shoshana Keats Jaskoll made the following comment in a Times of Israel article dealing with breast cancer:

In Judaism, those who make policy for the entire community are men. Men, by virtue of being men, don’t experience Judaism as women do. This is natural.
What is not natural, however, is not listening when women describe their experience and ask for change. Communal and rabbinic leaders simply do not consult with women. They don’t allow for serious input from them, and they don’t hear from them about the consequences of communal policy and priorities. Thus, women’s needs come after a long line of other considerations and as a result, policy doesn’t take them into consideration.

Shoshanna then goes into detail about a whole host of issues where women are negatively affected because of that – including in areas of women’s health. This generated responses from the many on the right essentially accusing her of Charedi bashing.

One can agree or disagree. But the response from both sides showed zero attempt to try to understand or see the merit of the other side. Almost everyone just promoted their own point of view without granting even the slightest bit of legitimacy to what the other side was saying.

But there was one response that didn’t do that. It came from Alex Flesher. She is not Charedi, but has expressed views that are often consistent with the Charedi point of view. (As she did on her Cross Currents post on the movie, Wonder Woman.)

I posted an article about the reaction of these two women stating that despite their similar backgrounds their views about the movie could not be more different! Shoshanna and Alex debated their views commenting on both my blog and on Cross Currents. But then she came to a realization. I will let her speak for herself (from Sruli’s Facebook page):

I decided to really try to look at it from her perspective. And I realized that her views on shmiras einayim (the topic of my article) and possibly tsnius in general are different than mine because of the environment that she currently lives in. She is witnessing all sorts of extremes in RBS and I'm happy go-lucky in my midwest town in the U.S where no one is saying boo to me in my jean skirt.

So I shared that with her. And she really appreciated it and from then we have had some very nice shared dialogue where we've learned more about each other and are focusing on what we agree on. It was actually quite liberating removing those labels, trying to understand the other, and start finding ways we could have a positive discourse. I truly believe Shoshanna Keats-Jaskoll has some valid takeaways from her article…

This is what I am talking about! This is the kind of Achdus I am seeking. We need to understand what the other side is saying and respect it; learn from it; and even change our views if it make sense to us. But changing our views is not the goal of Achdus. Just appreciating where others are coming from.

If you are Charedi, then it would be helpful to look at the Hashkafos of Modern Orhtodox and try and undrrstand them. And if you are Modern Orthodox it would be just as helpful to try and understand Charedi Hashkafos. There is just too much blindness about the value of any other views other than your own.

I tend to see value in both sides of an issue - even as I see problems in both. I know that the great Centrist leader, Rav Aharon Lichtenstein respected great Charedi leaders like Rav Yitzchok Hutner and Rav Sholmo Zalman Auerbach. I believe the reverse is true as well. Even though they disagreed Hashkafically.

I only wish there were more leaders like them today. Unfortunately I think the trend is away from that as the world of Orthodoxy becomes more polarized than ever. That is clearly reflected in the discussion that took place on Sruli’s Facebook page as it is almost daily between people commenting on my posts.

My hat is off to both Alex Fleksher and Shoshanna Keats Jaskoll (who said ‘you’re such a mensch’ after reading Alex’s lengthy comment from which I excerpted). If we could all do that, Achdus may actually be possible some day.

Temple Shalom in Chicago

Truer words have not been said: “I’m A Reform Rabbi, And I’m Not Going Anywhere.” So said Rabbi Howard Goldsmith. Well, that’s almost right. I would just apply it to his movement, not him. Reform Judaism is not going anywhere. It is becoming less Jewish with each passing day. If it’s going anywhere it is going toward extinction. At least as anything legitimately called Jewish… as their definition of who is and isn’t Jewish has departed from all traditional definitions. I do not say this with any sort of glee. I just see it as a fact.

That they do not require any ritual Mitzvah observance has contributed more to the secularization of Jews in America than any other single thing. ‘Unaffiliated’ is how most American Jews answer when asked which denomination they belong to. That can be traced in major part back to the tenets of Reform’s founding fathers. It is also the reason the Reform Movement has expanded its ‘tent’ of membership to Judaism. Which makes it even less Jewish than it was before.

How ironic it is that a Reform Rabbi is so taken by the Jewish State. One of the founding tenets of Reform Judaism is the rejection of the return to Zion (Israel). Something we Jews have prayed for since the second temple era. And something Orthodox Jews still pray for daily. Reform Judaism erased any mention of it from their liturgy - and called their synagogues ‘temples’ to show that we don’t need the temple in Jerusalem any more. Reform temples in America have taken its place. Israel was considered an irrelevant detail of Jewish history with little value to Jews of our day.

That Rabbi Goldsmith now loves Israel is a good thing. Times change. People change. And the Reform Movement changed. I’m actually pleased that he has fallen in love with the country. Although I’m not in enamored with the socialist image of the Israel’s founding fathers upon which he bases his love - loving Israel in any context is progress.

Before anyone jumps all over me for my apparent intolerance and lack of understanding, that is not what is going on in my mind. I actually feel sorry for this man. He is clearly an idealistic individual with altruistic intentions. It’s not his fault that he believes that Judaism does not require any Mitzvah observance. I will even give him the benefit of the doubt that he keeps many of the Mitzvos. That has been the trend in recent years. The Reform leadership has changed direction.

In its heyday, Mitzvah observance was practically forbidden. When I was a child, I recall my father telling me that the rabbi of the Collingwood Avenue Temple in Toledo required Jews to remove their head covering when entering the sanctuary. Reform leaders now realize that shunning all observance has left Reform Judaism - Jewish in name only and bereft of any real Jewish meaning. It has resulted in their membership wondering what it is about their denomination that makes it different from any other altruistic group pursuing social justice.

So they have done a 180 and now support doing as many Mitzvos as possible. That is a plus. But without a mandated commitment, Reform Judaism leaves in place the ability to move easily from Reform Judaism to being unaffiliated and intermarriage.

There are those who might say that Orthodoxy does not have the exclusive right to define who is and isn’t a Jew or what Judaism actually means. They are entitled to their opinion. But the fact is that Judaism has survived throughout history precisely because it was defined basically the way Orthodoxy is defines it now.

While there may be some legitimacy to claims that the way Orthodox rabbis rule today has in certain instances departed with how rabbis have ruled historically - there is not a scintilla of doubt about the fact that it has been Halacha and tradition that has kept us Jewish historically. Can anyone imagine what Judaism would look like today if Reform Judaism would have taken hold instead of rabbinic Judaism? You don’t have to imagine it. I’ll tell you. It would not exist at all in any - even remotely recognizable way.

Rabbi Goldsmith had the misfortune of not having been raised in an environment that sees the importance of required Halachic observance. That’s why his sermons dealt so much with supporting Israel. Israel has indeed been the main subject of heterodox sermons when they weren’t about social justice issues.

Although I’m sure he does not want my sympathy and might reject everything I say – considering it insulting, I nevertheless I actually feel bad for him (even as I understand why he would be upset). He is sincere and feels unjustly rejected by Israel. I can’t really blame him for feeling that way.

But the fact is that he is not rejected at all. Only his movement is. He is as welcome to Israel as any Jew. He is also as welcome to pray at the Kotel as as any other Jew is. That he wants to do it together with women is just a product of his indoctrination. Israel - including its Charedim - welcomes all Jews. The only thing the Charedim and most other Orthodox Jews reject is the legitimacy of his denomination.

As noted here recently be a secular columnist in Ha’aretz, most Jews could not care less about the Kotel – other than as a tourist attraction. There is no groundswell of secular Israelis clamoring to pray at the Kotel in any incarnation: Reform, Conservative, or Orthodox. This is all political. A tactic being used by heterodox rabbis to gain some sort of recognition for their denominations.

I believe that all denominations are all headed for demise. Including Orthodoxy. At some point in the future only observant Jews will be able to be counted upon to perpetuate our people. We will all just be Jews. Not members of a specific denimination. Just as has been the case historically. The rest will unfortunately be lost to assimilation sooner or later. This is not a good outcome at all. But it is a real one. The sooner Rabbi Goldsmith realizes that, the sooner he may come to realize the importance of ceding control to Orthodox rabbis is the only way toward the future. I think that deep down he might even know that.

A Reform egalitarian prayer service at Robinson’s Arch

Rabbi Nachum Eisenstein is one Orthodox rabbi that I believe has caused more damage to Orthodox Judaism than just about any other Orthodox rabbi. His name is practically synonymous with the ban on Rabbi Natan Slifkin’s books issued by his mentor, Rav Elyashiv.

That ban has done incalculable harm to fellow Orthodox Jews - driving a wedge between many modern Orthodox Jews and Charedim. As have so many other things he has had a hand in. I am therefore loathe to agree with anything this man says about any subject. And yet I find myself mostly in agreement with him on a subject on which he was recently interviewed.

By the same token I find myself in disagreement with Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, someone that I consider a hero. While I still do consider him a hero on so many levels, he has made some comments in recent years on a variety of issues that trouble me. The latest of which is his apparent support of heterodox movements:

"First and foremost, [Diaspora Jewry can teach us] the idea of pluralism…I see the Reform and Conservative as my partners and as part of Israel...

I really do not understand how this student of Rav Soloveitchik (the Rav) who in the past did not make a move without consulting his teacher and mentor, could say something that is in diametric opposition to his views.

It is rather well known that the Rav did not permit any of his students to participate with heterodox rabbis except in matters of communal welfare. In theological matters, he forbade any participation because he considered them an illegitimate representation of Judaism. On this point the Rav was no different than Rav Aharon Kotler. And yet in calling them partners Rabbi Riskin seems to be rejecting his mentor’s clear directive. That said I do not disagree with him about this:

"There is a reciprocal relationship between Diaspora Jewry and Israel, which is very important, even vital for us,"

Yes, there is. And it is important to maintain it. The only question is what the cost might be. The relationship cannot come at the cost of sacrificing our ideals. We can’t say that something is Kosher if it isn’t. Even if it would cost us good will.

First the claim that their conversions should be recognized while at the same time welcoming intermarried couples – and even performing intermarriages is an outrageous demand that any rational person that recognizes the basic tenets of Judaism - would reject. And then there is the Kotel issue.

Until this controversy arose, there were no issues with respect to welcoming every Jew into Israel with open arms. That hasn’t changed. It doesn’t matter to which denomination a Jew belongs Nor how observant they are. If a Jew comes to the Kotel there is no litmus test about observance or belief. Or even if they are Jewish. Ever since the return of the Kotel into Jewish hands thousands of Jews from all denominations have come to the Kotel; respected the rules; and in many cases found it to be inspiring experience even without it being egalitarian.

What is happening now is that their leaders are insisting that their egalitarian standards be respected and recognized. Most of Reform and Conservative Jews did not have this issue on their radar at all - until their rabbis made it one. And as noted here a few days ago, most secular Israelis could not care less about praying at the Kotel – even in an egalitarian setting. Which (as mentioned in the past) they already have in the little used portion of the Kotel called Robinson’s Arch. It therefore seems obvious to me that the Kotel is little more than a tool being used for purposes of recognition. And Rabbi Riskin seems to be supporting that. Perhaps he was responding to this:

“We love the State of Israel and will continue to do. But we will not sit idly by while the State of Israel delegitimizes us and frankly says to the Jews of North America and the Jewish of the world, ‘You do not matter,’” Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the head of the North American Reform movement, said June 26 at the Knesset.

No, Rabbi Jacobs. The State of Israel does not say that at all. Nor do even the Charedi parties. It is not the Jews of North America or you they reject. It is the false ideology of Reform Judaism.

I cannot understand how a man like Rabbi Riskin can compromise the ideals he has worked for all of his life, ideals his mentor strived for – all for the sake of support from Diaspora Jewry. We need the support. But the price he is willing to pay is too high.

Which brings me to Rabbi Nachum Eisenstein. It galls me to say it, but in large part I agree with him:

“The reason why Judaism is the only religion that survived throughout thousands of years and all the massacres and all the attempts to destroy it is that the ours is the only religion that has always been the same, the way it was given to us on Mount Sinai,” Eisenstein said in an interview. “Who gave you, the Conservative and the Reform, the authority to make up a new religion?”

Eisenstein said ultra-Orthodox opposition to the Western Wall deal was fundamentally about staving off state recognition of non-Orthodox Judaism. The Western Wall agreement also called for an interdenominational Jewish committee to oversee the non-Orthodox section, which ultra-Orthodox critics felt gave non-Orthodox movements an unprecedented say in Israel’s religious affairs.

Adding to this is Shas Kenesset member Rabbi Ayeh Deri. And although he too is not one of my favorite people, here he speaks the truth:

“We have nothing against Jews in any place they may be. They are all our brothers,” he said. “Our fight is against the approach, this ideology which is attempting to bring a new Judaism here, is trying to destroy everything that we built here over the years.”

So there you have it. This is little more than a fight over legitimization of violations of Halacha that are increasingly being accepted by heterodoxy. And no Orthodox rabbi could ever agree to that.

French President Macron and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu

There are those that will argue that being anti Zionist does not mean one is antisemitic. On the surface this seems like a fair statement. But is it? Not according to the newly elected French President, Emmanuel Macron. And I generally agree with him.

But what about that? Why isn’t it possible to be opposed to State of Israel and yet have no issue with the Jewish people? I think that’s because Israel is defined as a Jewish State. And even though the State does not necessarily represent all of my Jewish ideals – which are Torah based – nor does it represent all of the Jewish people - Israel is nevertheless seen that way by much of the world. If I am not mistaken, Israel now has more Jews living within its borders than does the United States or any other country. It’s hard not to see being anti Israel as not being antisemitic.

This does not of course mean that one can’t be critical of the Israeli government. Clearly there are many Jews critical of the government, including – and perhaps especially –some of its own citizens. But when one says something like Zionism is racism – as did the UN years ago, it can only be seen as a thinly disguised form of antisemitism. (While the word ‘semite’ technically includes Arabs, current usage of the word ‘antisemite’ refers to being prejudiced against the Jewish people.)

It’s nice to know that the new French President understands the distinction between being critical of some of Israel’s policies and being anti-Zionist. Especially – as the World Jewish Daily notes, France has been pretty pro Palestinian in recent years:

At a Paris event marking the Holocaust with Israeli Prime Benjamin Netanyahu, Macron pledged, "We will never surrender to the messages of hate; we will not surrender to anti-Zionism because it is a reinvention of anti-Semitism."

This new approach is heartening in light of the wave of recent antisemitism in France. It has become so bad that immigration from France to Israel is unprecedented. Prime Minister Netanyahu has done his best to publicly encourage it, telling Jews to leave France because of it - and make Aliyah (immigrate) to Israel!

A lot of people thought it took quite a lot of Chutzpah for a sitting Israeli prime minister to insult an ally by urging French Jews to leave France en masse and come to Israel.

I suppose it did. But what followed is a passionate plea from then French Prime Minister Manuel Valls saying words to the effect that France without Jews – is no France at all. I guess that the French leadership finally saw the threat of a massive exit of so many Jews from their country was very real and that antisemitism was what was causing it. And they did not like it. The last time they saw that happening was when they contributed to it during the Holocaust! Not a piece of history French political leaders are proud of. At least most of them.

The only question is, will it last? Or will antisemitism continue to be a major problem there? We shall see. But in the meantime, I’m glad President Macron uttered those words.

Image from The Atlantic

A short while back, a friend of mine who is a passionate supporter of the egalitarian space at the Kotel admitted to me that when he visited the Kotel he chose to experience the Orthodox controlled section saying that it was more inspiring to him then it might have been at the egalitarian space.

This did not lessen his strong support for that space. But it does tell me that Orthodoxy has a lot to offer even those of us that are on the left of Judaism.

Which is why reaching out to fellow Jews of all (or even no) denomination is so important. I would go even further and say that it is critical that we increase such outreach. There has never been a more important time to do that in recent history than right now.

There is no longer any doubt about the rapid decline of Conservative Judaism. To put it the way Emma Green did in The Atlantic:

Of all the American Jewish denominations, Conservative Judaism appears to be shrinking the fastest: As of 2013, only 11 percent of Jews under 30 identified as Conservative, compared to 24 percent of Jews over 65, according to Pew.

This is old news. What is not so old is what they are trying to do about it. And how Orthodoxy should react.

The Conservative movement was founded in response to a melting pot America where the challenges of assimilation were overwhelming. One might say that they saw themselves as an outreach movement (known in Orthodox circles as Kiruv). Their goals were noble, but their methods were wrong on at least two levels.

First, they ignored the importance of Halacha even while claiming fealty to it. Conservative Rabbi Daniel Gordis noted that this claim stopped being valid when the movement started allowing Jews to drive on Shabbos in the 50s . He calls such claims intellectually dishonest .

The second problem is that it is counterproductive to what you are trying to promote. Judaism is about our obligations to God which are spelled out in the Torah and interpreted by our sages and rabbis throughout the generations. It is not about abrogating those laws which you no longer think are relevant. It would be like telling a baseball player he can join your team and allow him to violate the rules of the game. Except that our rules were established by Someone a bit more important that Abner Doubleday.

The Conservative Movement is grappling with exactly an issue like this. Intermarriage has long been taboo even according to them. And there are still strong arguments being made against it. Which sound almost like the Orthodox arguments against it:

“To bless an intermarried union is … to in some way betray the very thing that I’ve given my life to, which is to try to maintain the Jewish tradition,” said David Wolpe, the senior rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles. “It may be beautiful, it may be loving, it may be worth celebrating on a human level. But on a Jewish level, it’s not fine, and it can’t be made fine.”

But as Rabbi Gordis notes, that train (i.e. that Halachic argument) has ‘left the station’. Intermarriage is now the hottest topic on the Conservative table. In a misguided attempt to revitalize their movement many of their more liberal rabbis are either performing them already or are advocating doing so to save the movement.

I guess they haven’t learned from their past mistakes. You can’t take the Judaism out of your movement and expect people to stay Jewish. There has to be core standards. If you keep moving the needle, you don’t really have any.

Nonetheless there is a need to reach out to the increasing number of unaffiliated Jews. How do you reach out to a group of people who - because of our culture - consider it racist to forbid intermarriage? I have no good answer for that. But I do know there are many fine Orthodox outreach organizations that are able to appeal to these very same Jews. (Just to name a few, Chabad, NCSY, and the Chicago Torah Network.)

But that still leaves a lot of Jews that cannot accept the standards of mainstream Orthodoxy. And yet have a desire to have a more spiritually fulfilling life. They are people with liberal values, some of which seem to contradict the traditional values of Orthodoxy. Such as egalitarianism.

This is why we need a left wing in Orthdoxy. One that used to be able to appeal to those values while remaining loyal to Halacha and tradition – even while pushing some of the traditional boundaries. For example. Rabbi Avi Weiss had some innovative ideas about how to accommodate egalitarian views by creating a Shul environment that had an egalitarian spirit without compromising Halacha. Although it broke with the traditional design of an Orthodox Shul, it did not cross lines that put it outside of Orthodoxy. He was able to reach out to that kind of Jew. Even though I would be very uncomfortable davening in a Shul like that, I strongly supported it since there are a lot of modern Jews that it did appeal to.

Which is why I am so disappointed by what has happened to the left. Rabbi Weiss, has crossed so many lines that he is no longer accepted or even tolerated by mainstream Orthodoxy. I am not going to go into in detail here. I have done that more times than I can count. I am just expressing my dismay over what has happened to the left by the creation of an Open Orthodoxy (OO) that has gone too far.

It would otherwise be ideal for many modern day unaffiliated Jews seeking genuine spirituality without sacrificing their modern ideals. If only OO would have stayed within acceptable bounds, I would be their biggest supporter. The rabbis of the Conservative movement want to reach out by changing the rules. That would not be acceptable to an intellectually honest person seeking spirituality any more than a good baseball player would be attracted to the game of baseball that changes the rules to accommodate his particular preferences. Because that would make baseball seem inauthentic. And it would be.

This is why I had hope that my friend, YCT president Rabbi Asher Lopatin would have stayed within acceptable bounds of tradition. He is as sincere as they come and it shows. If anyone is a magnet for the unaffiliated, it is him. He proved that when he was in Chicago. He took a dying shul and made it more successful than at any time in its history… appealling to the modern educated Jew without seriously crossing any lines.

This is also why an intelligent and knowledgeable man like YCT Talmud Chair, Rabbi Y’soscher Katz could be so valuable to this cause. He has basically admitted that Open Orthodoxy is a form of Kiruv aimed at the modern educated, Jew that has been acculturated to spirit of the times. The same kind of people that the Conservative Movement wants to reach out to.

I strongly support their goals. But as is the case with the Conservative movement, I do not support their methods.

We need a left wing more than ever now. The Conservative movement is failing – and grasping at the wrong straws to stay relevant – and even stay alive. Performing intermarriages is clearly not the way to retain Jews. History has shown that to keep going in the direction of lessening the standards will not retain Judaism for these Jews. It will instead grease their path out of it.

It is therefore up to Orthodoxy to do it in ways that do not compromise Halacha and do not cross the important lines of tradition. That is how the left wing of Orthodoxy used to be. Open Orthodoxy could have been that left wing. If only they hadn’t gone too far. And it seems like they may go even further down a path well trodden by the Conservative movement using the same rationale they did. Which got them where they are today. And which may signal where Open Orthodoxy will end up.

Irresponsible! (Ha'aretz)

If there is any logic to the Arab/Mulsim world complaints about what Israel did on the Temple Mount, it escapes me.

To say they are complaining is to put it mildly. You would think that Israel has thrown a bomb into their mosque instead of installing metal detectors. You would think that Muslims that pray in an area they consider holy would be grateful for the added security – instead of calling for a day of rage – as did Mahmoud Abbas. I honestly don’t get it.

There have been many articles written about this by people that have been just as perplexed as I am. One of which was by David Horovitz, founding editor of the Times of Israel where he noted:

It’s outrageous that the metal detectors are deemed unacceptable when religious sites the world over are secured in exactly the same way, for exactly the same unfortunately necessary reasons. There is high security around key Islamic sites, notably including at Mecca and Medina.

It’s not as if the decision to put install metal detectors on the Temple Mount happened surreptitiously in some sort of stealth decision to do so, Not that – that would have been so terrible. Upgrading security is the duty of any government as a means to protect its citizens.

But the fact is that Israel did it because 2 of its police officers guarding the mosque were attacked, shot, and killed by Muslim terrorists using guns hidden in the mosque. Ironically, the two police officers that were murdered were Druze Arabs! Israel rightly felt that this needed to be addressed by upgrading security. Arabs killed Arabs, Jews try to do something about it, and Arabs are enraged by it.

(How in the world can those who support BDS and claim the moral high ground, ignore the outrage of this situation? Could it be because those same people are ‘anti Zionist’ (meaning they hate Jews)? Is Roger Waters an antisemite? He may deny it and claim this is all about justice for the Palestinians. But if that were so, I would expect him not to be blinded by such an obvious truth – and say something about it.)

Why are Muslims so upset about this? I believe that this is just about not having full control of Har Habyis. Every day they are reminded that Israel rules over them and they don’t like it. Even though they do have just about full control of it… to the point of not even allowing Jews to pray there, they still resent Israel’s presence in any capacity there. Placing metal detectors is just another indication of Israel’s control. They also realize that Jews have a religious claim to that area too, Even though they discount that – and Israel has done its best to ignore it, they get plenty of reminders about our claim.

When religious people feel that one of their holy places is not fully in their control it upsets them. Any action done by people they see as occupiers is going to result in this kind of reaction.

Which brings me to a group of Jews who just have to show them ‘who’s boss’. The more extreme among them believe we should just blow up the Al-Aqsa mosque on Har HaBayis so that we can begin to re-build the Beis Hamikdash. While those people are few and truly on the fringe, they are a very noisy fringe that makes sure that the Arabs hear them.

And then there are those who insist they must go up their so that they can pray even though it is against Israeli law. And the fact that many Poskim say that they shouldn’t go up – even to the places that are technically permitted by Halacha. These people want to assert their authority over Har Habayis and make sure the Arabs know it.

It happened again – right in the middle of all this. From Ha’aretz:

The Temple Mount was temporarily closed to Jewish visitors on Wednesday at the order of Jerusalem District Commander Yoram Halevy after Jews broke visitation rules at the holy site, police said.

The Jewish visitors were expelled from the compound for bringing sacred books to the Mount and trying to pray there. After one of the individuals was cautioned, another took out a holy book, and the group was expelled.

If there is going to be a day of rage, which was called for by PA president Abbas, then these people were irresponsibly pouring gasoline on the flame – making sure that the rioters will be as outraged - and as prone to violence as possible.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Yes! Har Habayis is ours, given to us by God. It is the place where the Beis HaMkidash stood and will stand in the future. There is not a scintilla of doubt about that. But neither should there be any doubt about the irresponsibility of those zealots who are willing to make that point on the backs of all the innocent Jews that will be hurt by their exacerbation of the tension.

I’m glad that that authorities have decided to close off Har Habyis to Jews today as a result of this. In my view, it ought to be permanent.

Illustration from Reuters via the Jerusalem Post

I’m not sure whether it’s deception or just plain old fashioned stupidity. Although it pains me to say it, I think a recent statement by heterodox rabbis that was reported in the Jerusalem Post is a combination of both.

Why does it pain me? I know that many Conservative and Reform rabbis are sincere. They are true believers in their philosophies. Although I am in profound disagreement with them, I understand that in most cases they have spent the majority of their lives believing in the tenets of their denomination. They believe in what they do. I therefore completely understand their latest protest.

However, if the ‘letter of protest’ they read at the Israeli embassy in Washington is the best they can do - it shows that either they have a complete misunderstanding of how Israel treats its non Orthodox population, or more likely they are purposely making misleading charges against it.

What they seek is pluralism. Let us be clear what that means. They want Reform and Conservative Judaism to be declared legitimate denominations – right along with Orthodox Judaism. I don’t support them. But that is a legitimate demand to make of a democracy.

But they are not framing it that way. In an effort to gain wide support from non Orthodox Jews they are characterizing Israel’s refusal to recognize them as a rejection of all non Orthodox Jews.

This would be laughable if it weren’t so sad. Secular Jews are rejected?! Are they kidding? Secular Jews make up the vast majority of Israeli Jews (…although their percentages are shrinking in light of their low birth rate versus the much higher birthrate of Orthodox Jews.) To say Israel’s reneging on a plan to expand the egalitarian space is a ‘manifestation of a lack of respect for non-Orthodox Jewry both in Israel and in the Diaspora’ is such an obvious lie, I can hardly believe they said it.

What they are purposely ignoring is that most secular Jews in Israel don’t really care about Reform or Conservatvie Judaism. They are perfectly happy to be secular. To the extent that many of them are traditional means that they are to some extent traditional in the Orthodox sense of the word. They do not look to Conservative or Reform customs or interpretations of Halacha. They look to what their parents or grandparents did (in Europe if they are Ashkenazi; in the Middle East if they are Sephardi). None of which were Conservative. And if those ancestors were Reform they clearly did not look to their customs because Reform Judaism in Europe didn’t have any Jewish traditions. They ran away from them.

Now it may be true that secular Jews support the rights of heterodox movements to be considered legitimate. But that is surely not because they believe in the ideology of either Conservative or Reform Judaism. It is simply because they see Israel as a democracy which in this case is denying the rights of fellow Jews.

And yet the entire argument of these rabbis makes it seem like Israel is denying they rights of every secular Jew in Israel. And that by reneging on the deal they have betrayed the majority of Israel’s Jews, as well as the majority of American Jews. That is an obvious deception. The following two excerpts make that clear:

“These developments, offensive as they were, unfortunately do not stand in isolation but are only the most recent manifestations of a lack of respect for non-Orthodox Jewry both in Israel and in the Diaspora…”

“This... goes to the heart of whether Israel perceives non-Orthodox Jews as legitimate.”

These are lies, plain and simple, whether made intentionally or not. Had they said heterodoxy instead of non Orthodox Jews, I would have agreed with them.

To say they are upset by this is an understatement:

(I)t is painful to describe the anger, frustration, disillusionment and disappointment throughout our communities concerning the most recent developments with regard to the Kotel, conversion and the authority of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel.

Yes, I’m sure it is painful. But that should not include implied threats of withdrawing support. As does the following:

“Our communities have long been the backbone of support for Israel,” it said. “In light of those facts, it is painful to describe the anger, frustration, disillusionment and disappointment throughout our communities concerning the most recent developments with regard to the Kotel, conversion and the authority of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel.”

“…these straws have broken the camel’s back.”

I’m not buying it. Are they going to stop supporting Israel’s defense forces? Are they going to stop sending money to the Israeli poor? Are they going to stop supporting the important scientific and medical research being done in places like the Weitzman Institute and Hadassah Hospital, Technion and other universities there?

Are they just going to turn their back on Israel because their denominations won’t get official recognition?

And what about their stated goals of Kiruv towards Israel’s secular Jews? Are they going to abandon that too? Remember, no one is banning a single Conservative or Reform rabbi from coming to Israel and preaching their beliefs or opening up more of their schools.

They feel betrayed and I don’t blame them. A deal was made and suddenly withdrawn by the prime minister because of pressure from religious parties. Netanyahu, the consummate politician, does not want to lose his coalition. So he gave in to them.

For what it’s worth, he promised that this deal will be renegotiated with modifications that will be acceptable to all. I hope it is. Because the one thing I do agree with is this: “We have enough trouble with our neighbors, why do we have to fight with ourselves?”

Putin and Trump at a recent meeting in Europe

It seems that Trump is going to reverse the U.S. policy of supporting the so called Free Syrian Army. The Washington Post Reports:

President Trump has decided to end the CIA’s covert program to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels battling the government of Bashar al-Assad.

This was the strategy of the Obama Administration whose goals were to both destroy ISIS and oust Assad. While oustig Assad was is a worthy goal, I never had any confidence in it.

First, those rebels were a very small group with little chance of succeeding in a fight against both ISIS and Assad.

Second Perhaps more importantly – looking at Iraq – it was clearly a mistake to oust Saddam Hussein and replace it with a democratic government. That hornet’s nest should have been left alone, despite the fact that Hussein was an enemy of Israel, a butcher and mass murderer of his own people.

While it’s hard to justify leaving someone like that in power, there is little doubt that ISIS would never have had any success in trying to overthrow him and take over. They took over relatively easily once he was overthrown by America military might and replaced with Iraq’s version of a democracy.

When the ‘Arab Spring’ eventually migrated to Syria, all hell broke loose. Assad was not going to give up power so easily. And that has caused a civil was lasting over 6 years so far – with no end in sight. That created an opportunity for ISIS to move in and take over. Which they did in some very key cities like Raqqa. They are still there.

Assad is not very different from Hussein. He too is an enemy of Israel, a butcher, and mass murderer of his own people. There is no honor in supporting him. And yet, I feel nostalgia for the time when there was relative peace and prosperity in that country under his rule. There were no refugees fleeing the country then. Unless they were critical of the Assad regime, most Syrians were able to lead their lives in peace, prosperity, and relative freedom. This does not justify supporting him. But it may argue against trying to topple him as a secondary goal in conjunction with toppling ISIS.

This seems to be the thinking of Russia’s Putin. He has openly supported Assad as the legitimate government of Syria. As such he opposed the rebel army from the start. Russia was there to fight them as much as they were to fight ISIS. Which was of course at odds with American policy under Obama. This understandably increased friction between Russia and the US.

In an ironic reversal of roles, Democrats vilifying Russia more than Republicans are these days. So the President siding with Russia is characterized as almost treasonous. (Funny how they used to want to 'reset' the relationship with them under Obama. Now they are painting Russia (the USSR at the time) the way Reagan did during the cold war as ‘the evil empire’!) Republicans on the other hand seem rather subdued about the whole matter. Along comes Trump and stops rebel support. Seeming to now side with Putin.

There is not a question in my mind that Democrats will spin every move Trump makes into an impeachable offense and will spin everything Trump says into something nefarious or even treasonous.

All one has to do is look at Democrat and camera hog, Adam Schiff to see that. To him, Trump is guilty until proven innocent (although he pretends it’s the reverse). To Democrats it is obvious that Trump colluded with ‘the evil empire’ to sway the election his way. They are constantly saying that all the evidence point to that, even as they admit that nothing is proven yet.

As someone who voted against Trump and sill thinks he is an embarrassment to the country and wishes he would resign, I still try to be objective about this. In my view, nothing happened along those lines. Trump and company did nothing impeachable. I do believe that there were Russian hackers that tried to influence the election, and that Putin approved of it. But I do not believe he necessarily ordered it. He found out it was being done and thought it was great.

I also believe that all those meeting with Russian officials by Trump’s people were not a planned attempt to collude with them in order to illegally defeat his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Surely they can’t be blamed for trying to get dirt on his opponent from any source they could. ‘Politics’ is dirty! That’s how the game of politics is played these days. So if a Russian official comes along and offers you some dirt, why would you ignore it? Would Clinton have turned down dirt on Trump if it was offered by anyone - no matter the source?! (Not that she needed any help. Trump did a good job of providing her with dirt all by himself. But it didn't help her and is beside the point anyway).

(Democrats keep insisting (or at least hoping) that evidence will be discovered that will result in impeachment and then removal from office. Evidence that Trump and company were trying to throw the election. But I don’t think it is going to happen. I believe that the investigation led by former FBI director Robert Mueller is going to find exactly nothing that is even near impeachable.)

Now Democrats have yet another piece of evidence that Trump is colluding with the Russians. By cutting off US aid to the pro democrat rebels in Syria they accuse the President of colluding with the Russians again by signing off on Putin’s support of Assad. If you are blinded by Trump hatred, that is exactly how you will see things. Especially after that undisclosed second meeting between Trump and Putin that was not originally reported.

But as I indicated, I don’t think stopping US aid to a group that has no chance of winning a war against ISIS or Assad is such a bad move. If the priority is ISIS, there is no gain by diverting funds and attention to deposing Assad.

The truth is that Syria is such a mess, it’s hard to know what the right course of action is. It is so complicated that no matter where you turn, there are positives and negatives for the US and Israel.

Let us look at priorities. ISIS is number 1. They have to be destroyed. Although they will still be able to create havoc in the world by inspiring naive young people to join them in their fight against evil (or whatever they're selling to gain followers to their cause). Iran is Israel's biggest threat, and yet they are on the same side against ISIS. Assad is a butcher, but he too is on the side of fighting ISIS.

As noted the rebels army is not much of an army. They may be democrats (small d) but they are small in number. Not sure they could win even with our support. And even if they did, they will surely be overwhelmed by the Jihadists that are sure to follow which is what happened in Iraq. Meanwhile they are on the same side as ISIS with respect to overthrowing Assad.

As noted, Assad is a dictator and butcher. But if he is put back in power, Syria could return to some semblance of tranquility. Which is what they had before the current revolution. Remember, there were no refugees from Syria before that. Even Israel was relatively safe from attack by them based on decades of experience under Bashar and his father, Hafez.

I don't like the idea of rewarding a butcher like Assad by giving him back his country. But from where I stand, it is the least of all evils.

Truth is that I am far from an expert on any of these issues. I’m just thinking out loud.

ZAKA at the site of a Halamish terror attack

It’s impossibly hard! Impossibly hard to see pictures in the aftermath of the terrorist slaughter of a 70-year-old grandfather and his son and daughter. I cannot imagine the violent slaughter that took place resulting in these kinds of pictures. There is no excuse for the kind of violence that took place here. None whatsoever!

These victims of unimaginable terror were sitting in their homes at a Shalom Zachor – the traditional Friday night celebration welcoming a newborn onto this earth prior to his circumcision later that week. This peaceful loving and joyous event that all Orthodox Jews celebrate turned into the kind of terror that is difficult to even imagine let alone experience.

The victims: Yosef, Chaya, and Elad Salomon (Aish)

Why did this happen? There is no way of knowing for sure. But terrorist attacks like this usually have a precursor event. This time I have to lay the blame right at the doorstep of Mahmoud Abbas who called for a day of rage in response to the installation of metal detectors on the Temple Mount (Har HaBayis).

How in Heaven’s name increasing security at a site holy to both Judaism and Islam calls for a day of rage escapes me. But the Arabs surely felt it did. They say it is humiliating to Palestinians who come there to pray there - to go through a security check.

I understand why they might feel that way based on my own personal experience at O’Hare. Earlier this year I was randomly pulled from my TSA pre-check line and was treated practically like a terrorist until they realized I wasn’t. But I was actually quite pleased with what happened because it assured me that the TSA was doing their job – protecting passengers.

Any normal person would - I think - react the way I did. You put up with some occasional and random inconvenience – even a bit of humiliation - in exchange for security.

Not the Palestinians. Had they just complained about it - that would be one thing. It is understandable to complain about something like that. But to call for a day of rage in reaction to it is irrational and irresponsible. Especially knowing the history of such events - which often result in the kind terrorist slaughter that happened last Friday night.

The installations of metal detectors did not happen precipitously. It was in reaction to a terrorist attack right on the Temple Mount where 2 Israeli police officers were killed. Ironically they were not even Jewish. They were Druze Arabs that were there to enforce the peace. They were shot and killed. Had metal detectors been there, it wouldn’t have happened.

A lot of people are saying that Israel ought to stick to their guns and leave the metal detectors in place. I have to admit that this thought certainly crossed my mind. Israel should not allow itself to be intimidated. Protecting its citizens should be their number one priority. The question then becomes what is the best way to do that? What can Israel do right now to best protect its citizens with respect to the Temple Mount?

As I’ve said many times. Har HaBayis is not really in our hands. It is in the hands of Muslim clerics. As long as there is a Mosque up there that Muslims consider the 2^nd holiest site in Islam, that will continue to be the case.

I say this with a heavy – but realistic heart. Especially now that we are about to embark on a 9 day period of mourning for the destruction of the 1^st and 2^nd Temples on this very site. This is the place we Jews constantly pray to be returned to us so that the 3^rdTemple can be built. And although it was captured by Israel in 1967 to the great joy and pride of the vast majority of Jews at the time (including me) - General Mota Gur’s declaration that Har HaBayis B’Yadenu (the Temple Mount is in our hands) was not a realistic declaration. It is not in our hands. Technically, sure. It is in our (Israel’s) jurisdiction. But as a practical matter, it is still in Muslim hands. That is the reality.

There are many reasons for Jews not to go up there. One is the general prohibition for Jews that are ritually impure (which is the presumption of all Jews in our day) to alight on the Temple mount. They (we) cannot be made pure enough without the ashes of Para Aduma (the Red Heifer). While there are areas that one may technically alight up there, many Poskim are opposed to it. There is no Halachic benefit to going up there. It might be psychologically or spiritually uplifting. But that is about it.

There are those who say that going up there demonstrates our sovereignty over Har Habayis. In my view that is delusional. Muslim feelings about their rights are not diminished one iota by such things. What does happen is that it incites them toward violence. Any move by Israel in that direction does that – as was demonstrated once again by the savage murders Friday night in a day of rage declared by Abbas.

And yet they insist that stopping Jews from going up to the Temple Mount capitulates to terrorism . Perhaps they believe we should even increase our presence there. But I could not disagree more.

In my view Israel ought to deal with the reality that the Temple Mount is not in our hands. This does not mean giving up jurisdiction. But it does mean keeping Jews safe by preventing them from going up there. There is no Halachic reason to go up there now in our time. Especially since it incites the Arabs.

That is not capitulating. This is common sense and is in line with what many Poskim advise anyway. If Arabs don’t want Israeli protection there, that is fine with me. Now if it were a Halachic requirement to go up there, I would say Israel had a duty to protect us there. But since it is not, we ought to back off entirely until the messianic era.

And then there are those who do their level best to incite the Arabs every time something like this happens. Like what some settlers decided to do in response to that massacre last Friday night. They thought it was a good idea to create a new outpost on the West Bank in to honor the victims. That’s like finding out that smoking causes cancer and dealing with it by smoking even more.

They have the right to feel that way. But not at the expense of inciting more bloodshed.

Of course implementing this idea will not solve the Israeli Palestinian conflict. There will still be terrorism on occasion. The root causes will still be there. Which is over a century of indoctrination of their people to hate us. Many generations of it! The real solution to the problem is to change that paradigm.

Until that happens, nothing will change. But that doesn’t mean we can’t deal with a specific situation that arises and reduce the possibility of increased violence because of it.

Israel has an obligation to do just that. Eliminating the metal detectors ought to be accompanied by following the Poskim that forbid Jews from going up there altogether. Making it the law of the land until the advent of Moshiach.

YCT Talmud Chair R' Ysoscher Katz

A few weeks ago, I wrote a post strongly criticizing Rabbi Ysoscher Katz for an article he wrote in the Times of Israel. It was written in the aftermath of some very prominent Jews in Lakewood being arrested for defrauding government welfare programs. Although he did not say it is permitted, he tried to explain why some Orthodox communities felt it is Halachicly justified. In my zeal to counteract that notion I said the following:

…when someone distorts the truth and then exacerbates the problem with false claims blaming what those individuals did on their Halachic process, it becomes a Chilul HaShem all by itself.

I want to make a public apology to Rabbi Katz for implying that he lied. This is what I have been accused of. While that wasn’t quite what I meant I now see that when you says someone ‘distorts’ and makes ‘false claims’ - that is the same as saying they lied. That was hurtful and untrue. It surely was not my intention to inflict any kind of emotional pain on Rabbi Katz. It appears that I have.

I truly believe that Rabbi Katz is an honorable man of impeccable character and in no way do I think he lied. I just believe that he was badly mistaken for the reasons explained in my post.

While I am still in profound disagreement with what he said, I am one hundred percent convinced that he believes in what he is doing. My disagreement is ideological. In no way do I think even for a moment, that Rabbi Katz did anything intentionally wrong.

I still strongly disagree with what he wrote in that Times of Israel article. I still feel it caused unnecessary harm to our reputation as honest and ethical people. I also remain firm in my disagreement with many of his other positions. I do not retract any of them. But that should not be taken as casting aspersions on his character. To the extent that I contributed to that perception, I apologize and hope that he accepts it.

Is this worth shedding our blood? (Illustration)

Justice it is not. To put it mildly. But that is exactly what Rabbi Ari Abramowitz called saying Kaddish on Har HaBayis. He assembled a Minyan, went up to the Temple Mount, and began saying the mourner’s Kaddish for the 3 slain members of the Salomon family. Who were brutally slaughtered by teenage Palestinian from the West Bank. Who felt that such butchery was an appropriate response to installing metal detectors at that site. He actually believes that this is what God wanted him to do. For which he believes he will be richly rewarded in the world to come.

Rabbi Abramowitz thought the same thing. He believed that he too was doing God’s will by breaking Israeli law and exacerbating the kind of tensions that moved a religious Muslim teenager to massacre 3 innocent Jews.

Rabbi Abramowitz was promptly arrested… before he even completed the Kaddish. He explained why he did that to the Jerusalem Post:

… he was moved to go to the site after having attended the funeral of the slain family members on Sunday. "It was devastating," he said. "It was clear to me that going there [to the Temple Mount] is the calling of all the Jewish people, that there could be no peace unless we made the issue about God."

On the surface that seems like a rational argument. To most people the ability of religious people to pray at their holiest site should be the right of every citizen in a democracy. When that site is viewed as holy by more than one people, it should then be shared. That is common sense. Forbidding one religion from doing so while allowing the other is indeed an injustice.

So under normal circumstances I would surely support what Rabbi Abromwitz did. And any democratic government would make sure to enforce that right.

So why does Israel forbid Jews from exercising that right? Because there is nothing normal or rational about the Middle East. Muslim Arabs believe that they have the exclusive right to pray there granted to them by God! They see any Jew going up there as challenging that right. They are particularly sensitive to it because they see Israel as an occupying force trying to control how they practice their religion in what they believe is the 2^nd holiest place in Islam. The slightest indication that Israel is doing that causes great anxiety and havoc.They could not care less that we consider Har HaBayis our holiest site.

That Israel installed metal detectors purely for security reasons is no excuse to them. And they will protest the ‘occupier’ with everything they’ve got. And encourage all Muslims to have a day of rage for that cause! That happened last Friday and spurred one devout fanatic Muslim teenager to murder 3 Jews sitting at their Shabbos table.

So why shouldn’t Israel stick to their guns and fight for the legitimate right of Jews to pray up there? Because they know the consequences of trying to do that. While it is surely the right and even the duty of any country to assure equal access to all to their holy places - it is not always the sanest policy to follow.

Sometimes ideology must give way to practicality. Especially when lives are at stake. There are times to fight for an ideology even when there is a risk to human life. And there are times not to. One must weigh what you are fighting for against the consequences.

Israel has done that with the Temple Mount. That is one hill that Israel clearly does not want to die on. Rightly so. Going there is merely a religious enterprise that is not mandated in our day at all! It is permitted by religious Zionist Poskim - forbidden by Charedi Poskim. The Israeli government realizes that this right is not worth the shedding of innocent blood that insisting on it will contribute to.

But bloodshed does not apparently get in the way of those who insist that this right IS worth dying for. All they just see a right being denied by an irrational people and their government capitulating to it.

So when there is bloodshed they do not blame any of it on a history of trying to assert this kind of right. They say, ‘They will kill us anyway!’ ‘So why not fight for even this right?!’ ‘What about the law?!’ ‘It is an unjust law and should not be obeyed!’

They actually believe that God is on their side and take no responsibility for any deadly reactions fanatic Musilms might have because of what they do.

How selfish of people like Rabbi Abramowtiz to put their own religious feelings above the safety of their own people. (Of course they will strongly deny that they have any part at all in any kind of deadly result their actions generate among fanatic Muslims.)

There was absolutely no reason to say Kaddish on the Temple Mount. None whatsoever! Rabbi Abramowitz had no personal obligation to say Kaddish for the slaughtered members of the Salomon family. That he may have been moved to do so is understandable. But he could have said it anywhere he wanted. It was only done there to ‘show the Arabs who’s boss! It was only done to show them our sovereignty over Har Habayis.

Does Rabbi Abramowitz actually believe that by doing things like this, the Jewish people in Israel are better off? Does he think the Arabs will just get used to Jews praying there and calm down after awhile? Does he believe that since one can’t reason with these people the only thing they understand is force?

True - the Palestinians can’t be trusted as things stand now. That’s why I would urge Israel not give up a single inch of land for any kind of peace deal. Gaza has surely taught us a very sober lesson about what happens when Israel gives up land. Until such time Palestinians can prove their peaceful intentions by wiping out Islamic fundamentalism (which Hamas adheres to) there can be no 2 state solution.

But that does not mean we have to exacerbate the tensions in places like Har HaBayis. (Which is why Israel is removing those metal detectors.) That people like Rabbi Abramowitz don’t realize this only prolongs Jewish suffering.

As I’ve said many times, I believe the Charedi Poskim are right on this issue. They forbid going up there at all. Israel would be wise to make that their official policy. It will not prevent all terrorist attacks in Israel. But it will surely would have prevented what happened last Friday. And even if it saves the life of one Jew, it is worth it.

Review essay by Paul Shaviv, guest contributor

Once - almost the Rebbe? Rebbetzin Feige Teitelbaum (center) - Trainer Studio

For anyone, like me, who loves to read real history of Rebbes and leaders of the intensively Orthodox communities (aka ultra-Orthodox), this has been a vintage year!

In the last few months, three outstanding books have been published – two in Ivrit, one in English, which together constitute a veritable feast of information. Since they total together almost 1,900 pages (1,500 + in Ivrit and just under 400 in English), this posting can only be the smallest amuse bouche to the meal….

Let me deal with the English volume first.

This is “Who will Lead Us?” by Prof. Samuel Heilman. It is a sociological study of the succession problems and process in five post-War Hasidic dynasties, wholly or partially based in America. Covered are Munkacs, Boyan, Bobov, Satmar and Chabad.

Professor Heilman (Queens, CUNY) is a veteran observer of the Haredi/Hassidic world. He has a very readable style, and describes the arcane twists and turns of the dilemmas in each ‘court’. In theory, succession is seamless. In practice, there are often problems. In the movements described, some of the problems have tragic backgrounds of Holocaust survival and contenders from previous rebbes’ first and second families.

In the case of Munkacs, there was ideological deviancy – the son-in-law of the vitriolically anti-Zionist Chaim Elozor Shapira was actually a supporter of Israel. The Hasidim would not accept him, and he fled to Brazil.

Later, one of his sons returned to the fold and assumed the rebistve. In Boyan, there was no heir apparent, until Nachum Dov, the grandson of the previous rebbe, whose father was a Professor, was groomed for the post from his teenage years. In Bobov and Satmar bitter struggles took place between family members, and in both cases the Hasidim split. Interestingly, Heilman refers to the fact that Feige, the widow of R’Yoelish, the first Satmarer Rebbe, seems to have briefly acted herself as a sort of Rebbe (accepting kvitlech) after the death of her husband.

Heilman, who is a controversial figure in Chabad following his previous biography of the Seventh Rebbe, looks at the transition between the Sixth and Seventh Rebbe, and the tension between Menachem Mendel Schneerson and the Gourary family.

In the course of a riveting book, Heilman makes many theoretical observations of ‘succession process’. Ultimately, the Hasidim decide, by voting with their feet. The decisions are often made on leadership appeal, charisma, family connections and personality as much as on the formal ‘rules’, insofar as they exist.

Whatever happens, Hasidic hagiography then rushes to portray the successful contender as the one who was “always destined” for the position, and to write the other contenders out of the story. He points out the paradox that to be a Rebbe in the 21st century, you have to secure your credibility by showing that you really represent the 18th century. This insight gives some framework to the affect of contemporary Hasidics.

A great read!

Next, a wonderful biography of Reb Amram Blau (1900 – 1974) the founder of Neturei Karta. This is authored by Prof. Kimmy Kaplan of Bar Ilan University, and is published by Yad Ben Zvi and Ben-Gurion University. I read Ivrit fluently, and I have to say that this is one of the very best biographies I have ever read, of anyone, in any language.

Professor Kaplan writes very clearly, and the book is a masterpiece of organization. The author takes you by the hand and leads you through the life, the thought and the ideas of this fascinating individual. It is meticulously documented, drawing significantly on the Amram Blau personal archives, whose unlikely resting place is Boston University.

Amram Blau was a principled individual, whose unshakeable opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel attracted attention vastly in excess of his following. He was aided by a certain flair for staging public protest. Otherwise, he was a modest personality. Neturei Karta was never a formal organization, and after his passing split into ungovernable, and sometimes wild, factions. He did not have the political or organizational savvy of his brother, R’Moshe Blau (d. 1946, and who deserves a biography of his own), who was the spokesman of Agudah in the Old Yishuv for many years; but Amram was world-famous.

The book treats at length the rather poignant episode of his second marriage to Ruth Ben David, a French convert to Judaism. This caused uproar, and he and his bride had to leave Jerusalem for two years. When they returned (in 1965), he was not the same leader. But his loyalty and obvious love for her is another facet of the steely character that this somewhat maverick individual displayed throughout this life.

Finally – ‘The Gdoilim’! , 950 pages of essays edited by Profs. Binyamin Brown and Nissim Leon, of the Hebrew University and Bar-Ilan, respectively. It is published by Machon Van Leer and the Magnes Press.

This is a massive collection of analytical essays of Rabbinic leaders and authorities of the 19th and 20th centuries. I have not read this cover-to-cover, but dipped into it extensively. There are short introductory essays by Shaul Stampfer and Immanuel Etkes on the phenomenon of the ‘Gadol’. This is followed by sections dealing with rabbis of pre-modern Europe; pre-State Israel, America; and post-war Israel.- twenty-eight in all. Each essay is uniform length of twenty to thirty pages, each by different authors. The names of both the rabbis (and the academics who write on them) will be familiar to anyone interested in the field.

The book is dedicated to Professor Menachem Friedman, of Bar-Ilan, who is truly the founder of the academic study of the Haredi world. The book’s final chapter is an appreciation of his scholarship and work.

I have no doubt that this posting (if Harry is kind enough to print it!) will attract the nay-sayers and skeptics in the comments. They will sneer at the idea of writing “about” all of these phenomena and personalities; and of course will cast doubt on the ability of “Professors” to understand what they are writing about (especially in the ‘Gdoilim’ volume).

They will be mistaken on both counts. As a society, we have to understand what is happening to us. The big, conceptual pictures are important. Real, accurate history is important. These books, individually and collectively, are significant contributions to the field. Good reading for the Catskills, or wherever you spend the summer!

Bubbie Tzirel

Frumkeit and 2nd Class Citizenry

Pouring Kerosene onto the Fire

Women and the Kipa

Two Worlds with Major Problems

Moving Backwards

Secular Jews and the Kotel

The Damage Caused by Silence

Seeing the Other Side

The Demise of Jewish Denominations

Recognizing Truth - No Matter the Source

Anti Zionism is Anti Semitism

Orthodoxy Needs a Legitimate Left Wing

The Illogical and the Irresponsible

The Big Lie

Trump, Russia, and Syria

Savage Murderers and What to Do About Them

A Public Apology to Rabbi Ysoscher Katz

Not a Hill Worth Dying On

Chronicles of the Haredim