Emes Ve-Emunah

A Very Short Reply to the Many Substantive Comments on my Article: An Initial Analysis of Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch’s Teshuva on the Beth Din of America’s Prenuptial Agreement

by Rabbi Michael J. Broyde

Thank you to many people who made substantive comments. I share a brief reply to the many substantive thoughts voice in the comments section. (I have not repeated any of citations that are found in the original article.)

Before I reply, I want to encourage all to listen closely to shiur by Rabbi Mordechai Willig שליט"אon this matter. (One of the commentators also mentioned it.) I believe that everything I have written is consistent with his remarks and Rabbi Willig says many other interesting things as well that I did not touch on. Rabbi Willig remains a fountain of wisdom in this (and many other) areas. Let me add that Rabbi Willig states directly in his shiur – based on his own and direct conversations with Rabbi Sternbuch שליט"אhimself – that Rabbi Sternbuch’s view is NOT (as one commentator claims) “that any payment that is triggered by the failure to give a divorce is in essence a penalty” but rather that the payment that is triggered by the PNA has to related to the proper amount of support due in financial reality, given the economics of the community and person. That is both the only reasonable way to read the teshuva and is now attested to by Rabbi Willig as something Rabbi Sternbuch said directly to him as his own view as well.

The remaining substance of the many comments fits into four categories.

First, some argue with my read of the economic fact in the Modern Orthodox community which uses the BDA prenup. I reproduce below what is referred to an Apendix A in the paper, which was not posted in the prior version and was written by Professor Leon Metzger. I think it makes it clear that for large segments of our community, around $150 a day is reasonable support measure for housing, utilities, health care, car costs and insurance, personal care, housecleaning and clothing.

I recognize, of course, that both around the United States and outside the United States, these numbers will change, but as the chart below shows, $150 a day is a good starting number and halachicly reasonable. As I note in my comments, I have no particular problem with changing this formulation to “construct a new document in which the spousal support provision was not set at a fixed number, but was instead indexed to some official government averages for income and cost of living in the time and place in which the couple was domiciled prior to the dissolution of their marriage.”

That number might be higher than $150 a day of course in some locations. My sense is that secular courts have a preference for precise and non-liquidated damages, which would make this formulation more complex. On this chart with its 38 locations calculated, only South Bend Indiana is below $100 a day and the overwhelming majority of locations are above, or at, or very close to $150 a day (including, Silver Spring, all of the Manhattan locations, Queens, all of the Brooklyn locations, Monsey the Bronx, West Hempstead, the Five Towns, Teaneck, New Rochelle and Scarsdale).

It is important to add that the halachic rule (See Tur EH 70 and Shulchan Aruch EH 82:3, 89:1 and many other places) is that the wife is entitled to support at either the level of the husband’s standard of living or the wife’s pre-marriage standard, whichever is higher. (Thus, when a man from South Bend, Indiana marries a woman raised and living in the Upper East Side of Manhattan, and they live in South Bend, the rate of $150 a day is completely proper.)

Second, many ask what to do in cases where for one reason or another the woman is not entitled to support as a matter of halacha (such as she is a moredes) and yet the BDA Prenup mandates support. There are two primary answers, each important and independent of the other (and a third that is less relavant).

One approach is of the Tzitz Eliezer I quote here from my book (page 51) “Marriage, Divorce and the Abandoned Wife” at page 51:

Indeed, this policy is noticeably different from the policy of the rabbinical courts in cases where the woman is a moredet (a "rebellious wife") and thus, according to most authorities is obligated to be divorced. In the case of a woman who is a moredet (such as, in the case Rabbi Waldenberg addresses below, an adulteress), a husband has no right to both decline to support her and decline to divorce her. As Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg notes:

[When a woman has improperly abandoned the marital abode (is a moredet)], she forfeits her (marital) . . . rights and other financial claims against the husband. However, on the other side, the husband must [chayav] divorce her and may not keep her connected to him.[1]

Waldenberg states that the ruling (psak) of the Israeli rabbinical courts, with which he agrees, is to require support payments to be paid even to a spouse who improperly abandons the home and is an adulteress, when a reasonable time has elapsed and the husband has not ended the marriage by writing a get. Indeed, in the case of a moredet, no less an authority than the Pitchai Teshuva (Even Haezer 154:4&7) notes that the accepted practice is to make the husband support his wife (until he gives her a get) specifically to encourage him to give a get and not to compel a woman to remain in a "dead marriage," even if the marriage "died" because of her misconduct. Similar sentiments can be found in the name of many poskim, including such luminaries as the author of the Noda Beyehuda, Rabbi Akiva Eiger, as well as the authors of Chatam Sofer and Beit Meir; this view is the normative halachic posture, even if it is contrary to the assertion of Tosafot.[2] Payments are not designed to support the women, they are designed to encourage the giving of a get.

Second, since the BDA Prenup is an arbitration agreement, the bet din panel hearing this matter could decide not to order the payments, in a situation in which the totality of the circumstances would cause the dayanim hearing the case to favor such a resolution. It is exactly the job of the rabbinical court that is hearing any given case to determine that such payments are proper and to order them in a proper time frame. The BDA Prenup gives the panel hearing the case such discression and authority, and when such payments are ordered, it is because the panel determined that they are appropriate.

(Also the BDA prenup explicitly notes that if the parties agree to submit the whole matter to the BDA, marital fault may be a factor, making this even clearer.)

Third, is the question of what to do when the husband fits either into a socioeconomic patern that makes the payment of $150 not a proper reflection of the amount he owes her given their standard of living, or the payment is a proper reflection of the amount he owes her, but beyound his actual ability to pay now. [There are two ways this could happen. The first is that $150 a day reflects her standard of living prior to marriage )see above) – and he can not afford her premarriage standard of $150 a day. The second is that he can no longer afford the standard of living they jointly had while married due to changes in his earning ability post-seperation.]

In a case in which the proper reflection of their standard of living is less than $150 a day (such as in South Bend, Indiana, according to the chart), the answer is clear and is directly stated by Rabbi Willig in the above shiur. THE BETH DIN OF AMERICA WILL REDUCE THE PAYMENT LEVELS TO REFLECT THE ACTUAL STANDARD OF LIVING OF THE COUPLE.

This is not something new or unusual or a concession. This is a support agreement and not a liquidated damages agreement and support must reflect the actual reasonable support.

The second case is much more interesting: A more than reasonable claim could be made that if the correct amount of the payment is actually $150 per day, but the husband geneuinely can not make such a payment due to his post seperation poverty, there is no illicit coercion at all, and what the husband ought to do in a case when the payment is proper, is give the get. The decision to avoid a marital debt rightfully owned by giving a get is not a get meuseh at all.

Fourth and finally, it is important to emphasize that the BDA Prenup is not a communal decree, but is a contract signed by the parties withot coercion and of the free will of both sides. Many – maybe most – Orthodox Jews do not use this or any other prenuptial agrement. The community of those who will not do a wedding without any prenup being used is far from the majority of the Orthodox rabbinate and no agreement beyond a ketubah is mandated as a matter of halacha. This agreement, with all of its various clasuses is selected by the husband and wife and binding as a matter of halach because they agreed to it and wanted it.

The assertion that this or that specific provision of the BDA Prenup is a matter of dispute in Jewish financial law is perhaps sometimes correct. But the BDA Prenup states explicitly that “As a matter of Jewish law, the parties agree that to effectuate this Agreement they accept now (through the Jewish law mechanism of kim li) whatever minority views determined by the Beth Din of America are needed to effectuate the obligations, procedures and jurisdictional mandates contained in this Agreement” and that is a very powerful tool to address matters of Jewish financial law. Having realized that this agreement is a valid contract – and not some imposed agreement – allows one to accept clauses as proper because the parties accepted this as governing their agreement.

Of course, those of you who want to follow up with me, should know that my email address is not hard to find and I welcome your comments to me directly.

[1]Tzitz Eliezer 18:58. This psak can also be found in Peskai Din Rabaniyin 1:238 and 9:171 as the psak of the rabbinical courts of Israel and is defended by Rabbi Herzog and others in the appendix to volume 2 of Otzar ha-Poskim. Particularly the analysis found in 9:171 supports the contention that the moredet issue is not significant, since a get should be given even to a moredet.

[2]Tosafot, Zevachim 2b s.v. stam. The approach of Tosafot is rejected, or limited to a case where the woman does not want to be divorced, by a breadth of authorities, including Noda Beyehuda, Tenyana Even Haezer 12, Rabbi Akiva Eiger, Derush Vechedish, teshuvah at the end of the ketavimsection, Chatam Sofer, Nedarim 89a s.v. berishona (cited in the preface), Beit Meir Even Haezer 117, Pitchai Teshuva 154 (4&7) and it can be implied from Aruch Hashulchan Even Haezer 178:25-26. See the short article by Rabbi Yakov Moshe Tolidano in the appendix to Otzar ha-Poskim (2:16); he avers that the approach that requires a husband to support his wife who is a moredet, and thus not technically entitled to support, in order to encourage the writing of a get by the husband, is the normative halachah without a doubt.

Some formerly religious Jews at Mosihe House (The Jewish Week)

One of the things I talk about often here is the fact that there are so many Jews that go ‘Off the Derech’ OTD. This is when a religious Jew decides he no longer wants to be religious. As noted here many times, there are a variety of reasons this happens. Sometimes it is an intellectual decision as was the case with Shulem Deen.

Other times it might because of a dysfunctional religious family situation that ‘teaches’ a child that being religious leads to dysfunction. Still other times it might be because a child was sexually abused and treated miserably by his or her community that disbelieves them - vilifying them as outcasts who lied about the ‘respectable’ person they accused of the abuse.

Modern Orthodox (MO) Jews that go OTD have additional reasons for doing so. That there may be a large number of MO Jews that go OTD is a problem beyond the scope of this post - the solutions for which are more complex. Ironically though, the Modern Orthodox lifestyle may be part of the solution for the Charedi OTD problem.

One of the more prevalent reasons is that some young people in the world of the right go OTD is that they just don’t fit the mold that their community requires of them. In some cases that means not being able to compete at the increasingly oppressive and competitive levels of religious education at the schools they attend. In other cases it might just be that they cannot live up to the strictures imposed upon them by the particular sect or group they belong to. Or a combination of both. Especially since they see what the so-called outside world has to offer them and can’t quite understand why they are so completely shielded from it. (Obviously this reason does not apply to Modern Orthodox OTDs)

This problem is most acute in the Chasidic world where their rabbinic leaders go to great lengths to isolate their people from the outside world. And to a lesser extent this applies to the more Yeshivishe world too. But the more isolated, the more it applies. Living in isolation from the rest of the world is the definitive state of Chasidic lifestyle.

But that technique doesn’t work that well anymore. The internet and smart-phones have changed everything! Be that as it may, I believe that this rather large group of OTD young people are the ones that can be convinced to voluntarily return to religious observance.

The strictures that causes these people to go OTD can be corrected by offering them an alternative lifestyle that still enables them to get what they are looking for while remaining observant. The obvious lifestyle I am referring to is a Modern Orthodox lifestyle. While that would seem like a logical first step for a Charedi youth is affected with the strictures of his own community, that ‘step’ is almost always skipped.

Unfortunately the reason for that is in part because the Chasidic lifestyle in which they were raised is so unlike modern Orthdodxy - they feel like aliens from another planet in such an environment. The feeling might be reciprocal from the MO community to them. It is also true that Chasidim are indoctrinated to believe that being MO is tantamount to not being religious at all. It is therefore not surprising that modern Orthodoxy has not been considered a realistic option for them. So they just go completely OTD.

While the secular world is equally not compatible for them, they have no place else to go. Which is perhaps why there is so much depression, alcohol, and drug abuse, and even suicide among these young OTD people. They have rejected their former religious community - and have been rejected by them.

Along came an organization called Footsteps that has helped them make the transition from being Orthodox to being secular – with a goal of mainstreaming them into the secular world.

This organization may have saved many lives. But they have been accused of being an anti religious organization that deliberately disabuses their ‘clients’ of any thoughts about returning to religious observance. Leaders of Footsteps deny that and say that they are not anti religious. They claim to not deal at all with religious observance at all and could not care less about it one way or another. They simply want to help people transition into a productive and positive lifestyle in the secular world that they have now chosen to live in. That the vast majority of their clients choose not to be observant is irrelevant to Footsteps.

I had lamented in the past why there was no ‘religious ‘Footsteps’ that could convince these young people that there is another way where they could have it all’. They could be observant and participate in much of the culture legitimately without violating Halacha (unlike what they have been indoctrinated to believe by their former communities). One such organization was founded by one of my heroes, Allison Josephs. It is called ‘Makom’ and is designed to do exactly what I just described: offer an alternative lifestyle that will give them much of what they desired but were denied in the past.

Now there is another initiative created by the quintessential Kiruv organization, Chabad. In the past they were almost exclusively focused on outreach to secular Jews with little or no background. But they practically ignored those among them that went OTD.

That has apparently changed with a ‘vengeance’! Moishe House, once geared toward reaching out to secular Jews has been re-tooled to reach out to OTDs. And as if to corroborate Footsteps own narrative about not being anti religious, they have partnered up with them. From the Jewish Week:

“We have always appreciated and admired Footsteps. This felt like the perfect opportunity to specifically engage more folks from that community,” (says Moishe House founder and CEO David Cygielman)...

Moishe House, one of the fastest-growing outreach initiatives for Jews in their 20s, announced its newest house last week in the hip Brooklyn neighborhood, but this time with a twist: the house is staffed by four young Jews who recently broke with their ultra-Orthodox pasts.

“Most of our members live in Brooklyn, as well as most of our potential members — we expect that this house will not only serve official Footsteps’ members, but others who have left the ultra-Orthodox community for whom this space might be more resonant,” said Rachel Berger, director of community engagement for Footsteps, a nonprofit that helps Jews who have chosen to leave their chasidic or black-hat communities.

The pluralistic organization, previously geared primarily towards the unaffiliated, now aims to serve the growing “off the derech” community — a self-identified and growing group of Jews who have split with Orthodox pasts.

I could not be more pleased. There are now 104 Houses in 26 countries. I guess Chabad woke up when they realized just how many of their own have left the fold. Most of these residences are geared towards expatriate Lubavitchers although they are open to OTD Jews from all kinds of Charedi backgrounds. And apparently they mbrace modernity as a means to show their ‘clients’ that they can indeed have it all.

How successful are they? I don’t know. But it is interesting that Chabad now has a goal to create a Modern Orthodox faction out of formerly OTD Chasidic Jews. Will they will fully embrace these newly structured returnees - just as they do their newly religious fully Lubavitch formerly secular Jews? I don’t know that either. It will be interesting to see how this develops. In the meantime, good for Chabad.

Walking to shul in Monsey

"How goodly are your tents, O Jacob, Your dwelling places, O Israel!" This wonderful blessing about the Jewish people expressed in the Torah (Bamidbar 24:5) by Balaam is not one you will likely hear today. At least not about Orthodox Jews in certain areas of New York and New Jersey. This is not to say that Orthodox Jewish homes aren’t individually beautiful. Many of them are. But as our numbers increase, so do our dwelling places. And as those grow, so does the enmity of some of our new or potential neighbors. Bethany Mandel describes just such a situation in the Forward:

Recently, residents of Mahwah, New Jersey, noticed utility trucks driving around town, attaching strange-looking PVC piping to telephone poles. Soon they learned their purpose: the establishment of an eruv, a mysterious boundary that makes it possible for Torah-observant Jews to carry objects on the Sabbath.

It’s a crucial step in making a neighborhood inviting to would-be hasidic buyers — which is exactly what worried the residents of Mahwah, who formed a Facebook group called “Mahwah Strong” to “voice their concerns over the installation of an Eruv and the impact it could have on our community.”

At first glance this might seem like a typical ‘snobbish’ exercise of ‘soft bigotry’ to keep the Jews out of their neighborhoods! Surely putting up an Eruv – if done properly - is not usually anything that will blight a neighborhood. Most people wouldn’t even notice it unless it is pointed out to them. Eruv construction tries to utilize natural boundaries whenever possible. So why do they protest it?

It isn’t the Eruv they are protesting. It is what that Eruv symbolizes to them. An onslaught of change so drastic that it will not only change the character of the town but will affect the way government funds are allocated to important public facilities like public schools.

I’m not sure it’s is correct to say that Mahwah Strong is based on an innate hatred of Jews. As Mandel notes there is a Reform Rabbi that has joined them in opposing the Eruv. What they really oppose is the kind of change their neighborhood will likely go though. Which is what often happens when Orthodox Jews move in an large numbers. It is about the drastic cultural change that will result and more importantly the financial change that will affect the welfare of the secular residents.

One need not go too far from this New Jersey community to see what that kind of demographic change has done to towns where this kind of thing has already happened. The now proportionally much smaller secular demographic in places like Monsey and Lakewood suffer from that.

Monsey’s public schools needed to tighten their budgets by eliminating non essential enrichment courses.

That was the result of a legal maneuver of the now majority Orthodox population who voted Orthodox Jews onto their school board. They legally redistributed much of the funds allocated by the government to their own parochial schools. True,they had every right to do that. They were entitled to those funds as mandated by law. Funds that were not allocated to them by the previous secular board.

The financial burden on tuition paying parents (especially those with large families) is so great, that Orthodox residents are grateful for whatever financial relief that public funds will give them. Nobody did anything illegal. But at the end of the day the public schools suffered.

This is one thing Mahwah is afraid of. But it isn’t the only thing. One of the most problematic results of an explosion of new residents into a small town does is the rapid growth of the construction of new homes to accommodate that growth. The cheapest way to do that is to build multi unit dwellings, large and ugly buildings containing many condos per building.

Thus changing the pleasant look of suburban neighborhoods filled with single family homes with attached two car garages and large front lawns into one that looks more like a tenement slum albeit with newer buildings. Adding unprecedented traffic congestion and shortages of places to park. It is so bad in places like Monsey and Lakewood that even many of the Orthodox residents are upset!

Furthermore the ambiance of what was a once small quiet secular town is changed into the hustle and bustle of Orthodox Jewish communities filled with grocery stores; restaurants and shops geared to them rather than to the secular public. This is what happened to Lakewood and Monsey.

Looking at towns those and seeing all the above mentioned changes that took placed there, I don’t think you can consider opposition to that as antisemitism.

For the observant Jew, these places might be idyllic. What better neighborhood to live in than one that in a suburban setting that is geared to Orthodox Jews?! Where all of your neighbors are shomer shabbos and there are a variety of shuls to go to. All within walking distance from your home. No matter what part of that town you live in there will more than one shul or shteibel near your home. And shops to shop from for all your Orthodox needs.

But think what that must look like to a secular neighbor that saw a once idyllic quite secular town geared to a secular lifestyle with pleasant traffic patterns and plenty of parking spaces - now having to put up with those all of these changes! I do not blame them one bit for opposing it. If I were in their shoes, I would oppose it too.

As Mandel points out Jews have the right to live anywhere they choose in this country. It is discriminatory to bar members of a particular demographic group from moving into your neighborhood. No different than opposing black people from moving in. So on technical grounds the growth of influx of Orthodox families – no matter how large - into any town is perfectly legal. Barring them from doing so is against the law.

While the need to expand our borders is great because of our own demographic explosion, one should take into consideration what that growth means to the residents of a town who see you as coming in and taking over. Thereby changing the character of the town from being secular to being Orthodox.

Put yourself in their shoes before you yell ‘Antisemitism’! Because even if that is the real motivation in some of the opposition, it clearly is not what motivates all of it. As these kinds of things increase, the actual antisemitism may increases as well. We would do well to remember that as we pursue our legitimate rights to live where we choose.

Shas Party head and Interior Minister, Arye Deri (JTA)

One has to consider the source. Which in this case is Shas Party head, Aryeh Deri who now serves as Israel’s Interior Minister. He is a convicted criminal having served time (3 years in an Israeli prison) for of bribery, fraud and breach of trust.

That his party has chosen to resurrect his political career as its political leader is a stain on their record. Skilled politician though he may be. The price of political party choosing a criminal to lead it - who thought nothing of abusing his political position to commit fraud - is too high.

Normally I would ignore him as an unpleasant fact of life. But he has opened his mouth recently and condemned a community of religious Jews more committed to his country than he ever will be. From JTA:

The head of the Sephardic Orthodox Shas party called members of the Religious Zionist movement “borderline Reform,” an insult among his haredi Orthodox constituents.

“Even the ‘knit kippot’ today, as some know even in very large communities, mainly in the center of the country, they’re already borderline Reform,” Aryeh Deri said earlier this month at a conference of a haredi Orthodox rabbinic organization, Benoam. The remarks were captured on video and broadcast Monday on Israel’s Channel 2.

“Knit kippot” refers to the crocheted kippahs worn by the more modern Orthodox community.

It’s true, there are more kippot” in these communities than in American Reform synagogues, Deri went on. “It looks different, it’s more Israeli. But it’s still borderline Reform.”

And from Arutz Sheva:

Members of the Religious Zionist community, who tend to represent a less insular form of Orthodoxy than haredim, have been critical of the haredi Chief Rabbinate’s strict control of marriage and conversion issues in Israel. Modern Orthodox Jews in Israel are less likely to support yeshiva exemptions from army service and expensive subsidies for large families.

Deri also attacked Tzohar, a rabbinical group that has sought to make the Chief Rabbinate more user friendly and which has opposed a more stringent conversion law proposed by Shas.

“Together and in collaboration with the Reform, because they know their intention is to destroy [the Chief Rabbinate], they benefited from the baseness of others who were slandering the rabbinate and searching for faults in it,” Deri said. “They [do] everything for free, welcoming, lenient and all that, but we all know the truth.”

"Even those with knitted skullcaps (religious Zionists), in very large communities, are already on the edge of the Reform Movement," Deri said at a closed conference Monday.

To their credit, Tzohar’ responded’ with the following:

"these things are not worthy of a response, both because of their content and because of who spoke them."

Damage control is one of the hallmarks of a good politician. Deri has ‘explained’ his comments by saying that he was speaking only about those elements that are on the left most fringe of Modern Orthodoxy. He added that even many Religious Zionist rabbis have expressed similar thoughts.(Modern Orthodoxy is where most Religious Zionists find their cultural home.)

It was a nice dodge. But it doesn’t mitigate his original smear of a community of which I – as a Kipa Seruga wearing Modern Orthodox Jew - am a part of.

It is no secret that I too have my issues with the extreme left, and have spelled them out many times. I too fear that the extreme left (which is referred to by some as Open Orthodoxy) is on the same dangerous path once taken by the Conservative movement – for similar well intentioned reasons. Which is to reach out to Jews influenced by the culture in which they live and speak to the issues raised by that culture.

It is only the methods the extreme left employs in trying to do so that I (and rabbis from across the board of all of Orthodoxy) believe can all too easily lead to the same slippery slope Conservative Judaism fell into.

But certainly most Kipa Seruga wearing Jews are not in that category, including Tzohar. Although they were created in response to a growing disaffection with a Chief Rabbinate that has moved to the right - to the best of my knowledge Tzohar does not reflect the views of Open Orthodoxy. I have for example been told that in all cases where people come to them for conversion to Judaism, it is done in conjunction with the Chief Rabbinate. That some people might gravitate to Tzohar is because they are seen as a kinder and gentler option and easier to deal with than the Chief rabbinate.

And even Open Orthodoxy is not Reform. Reform Judaism rejected Halacha completely. Only recently have they started to advocate observance as a wise but not required way to express one’s Judaism.

Open Orthodoxy still requires full adherence to Halacha as expressed in the Shulchan Aruch and its commentaries. Their controversy is in how they respond to modern sensibilities in ways that challenge long held tradition. And in how they might tweak interpretations of Halacha towards that end. (As did Rabbi Shlomo Riskin recently by claiming that homosexuals are not responsible for actions that are clearly forbidden by the Torah because their nature forces them to behave that way.) While these kinds of ‘interpretations’ are rejected by mainstream Orthodox rabbis of all stripes, I don’t think we can yet say that Open Orthodoxy is not Orthodox. At most we can say they are going in that direction.

But Deri has decided that that those of us that wear the Kipa Seruga are all the same. We are just a bunch of borderline Reform Jews. His ‘explanation’ notwithstanding. That’s nice. But like I said, consider the source.

Image from Arutz Sheva

Any residual respect I may have had for the Women of the Wall is now history. Even though I was in profound disagreement with them, and believed that much of their motivation was a slavish loyalty to egalitarian ideals, I conceded the possibility that many - perhaps even most - of these women were genuinely interested in serving God in their own peculiar way.

As many people have noted, no one can really know what the true motives are behind what these women do at the beginning of every month. And it was wrong – and even a Chutzpah - to assume only the worst. As a Jew I have an obligation to be Dan L’Kaf Zechus… to judge them favorably. But that is now almost impossible to do. If there was ever any question about the real intentions of these women, what happened this time should erase all doubt.

From the Arutz Sheva:

While in the past, Women of the Wall activists have attempted to smuggle the scrolls in duffle bags, allegedly using IDF soldiers among others to sneak the items past plaza security checks, on Wednesday, guards at the entrance to the plaza found activists had concealed Torah scrolls underneath their clothes.

Following the revelation, Rabbi Shmuel Rabinovitch, Rabbi of the Western Wall area, blasted the group, calling the smuggling attempt “a desecration”.

“Today, on the first day of the month of Elul, all of the red lines were crossed. They [Women of the Wall activists] smuggled holy Torah scrolls which were wrapped around their bodies and hid whistles in their private places, and for what? For the sake of a civil war at the Western Wall.”

I could not agree more with Rabbi Rabinovitch. So married are they to the goal of equality with men that they are willing to pursue it by desecrating a Torah - hiding it under their clothing. This is clearly not about serving God at all. That anyone might think so after this is delusional.

For their part, the Women of the Wall deny this ever happened. But security guards there have no dog in this hunt. if anything a secular guard might be more inclined to agree with their egalitarian goals. I believe them.

I guess that these women realized that sneaking Sifrei Torah (Torah scrolls) into the Kotel in duffle bags wouldn’t work any more. So they figured they’d try to do something new and clever. It was clever. But it also exposed a motive that had nothing to do with their Godly mandate to be a holy people. Holy people do not hide Sifrei Torah under their clothing so they can sneak them into places they choose to pray.

Making matters worse is the following:

Women of the Wall responded, "The Kotel Rabbi is better off thinking less about what’s under women’s clothes, and more about what’s in their minds.

The not so subtle implication is that the Kotel Rabbi is just a ‘dirty old man’ - thinking about what is under women’s clothing. I guess it is not beneath them to smear their opposition by inuendo.

What they also don’t seem to realize is that acts like this shows exactly ‘what’s in their minds’: Making egalitarian statements at the Kotel regardless of the desecration it entails to one of the holiest objects in Judaism!

The claim that all Women of the Wall want to do is ‘pray respectfully according to their custom in the women’s section’ is laughable after this incident. Furthermore, that they have criticized Rabbi Rabinovitch for preventing them from ‘doing what every boy and man are allowed to do in the men’s section’ further exposes their feminist agenda.

Now supporters of feminism might say, ‘So what?!’ What’s wrong with feminism? Why is that not an ideal worth fighting for? …even in Judaism?

I have addressed that question more times than I can count. All I will say about it now is that Judaism is not about egalitarianism. It is not about making men and women equal in every respect. It is about the obligation to do what God expects us to in order worship Him properly. Not about how we choose to worship Him. I could for example never do the sacrificial service on the alter in the Beis Hamkidash no matter how much I feel it would enhance my devotion to God. Only a Kohen may do that.

Although some matters of service to God are discretionary, and women may do them – or are even encouraged to them - not everything that one wants to do – should they do. In those matters we seek clarity and guidance from tradition. We do not dismiss tradition just because it is no longer in vogue. But don’t tell that to the Women of the Wall, by gosh they are going to do whatever it takes to pray according to their custom, (which never existed as a custom until our time).

But let us even say that feminists seeking egalitarianism at the Kotel are right. OK. But let them be clear about their motives so that we can all know what the dispute is really about. To claim this is only about serving God in a way that is most meaningful to them is either a blatant lie, or something that at least some of them have talked themselves into.

And finally to say that Rabbi Rabinovitch of represents an extreme minority is at best misleading. While it might be true that most secular Israelis support their egalitarian goals - that is support made in absentia.

The fact is that the vast majority by far that goes to the Kotel to actually pray (and not as a tourist attraction) and upon whom this has a direct impact do not support them. They may not all shriek about it. Or even vocalize it. They may just look aside. But there is no way that the majority of people that utilize the Kotel for holy purposes side with the Women of the Wall.

This was demonstrated a while back when hundreds if not thousands of young seminary girls were asked by their seminary heads go to the Kotel to pray in traditional ways at the same time that the Women of the Wall were scheduled to be there. They showed up there in overwhelming numbers in order to show their opposition.

The bottom line here is that we have to call a spade a spade. Let us recognize what this is really all about and them we can discuss it intelligently.

Charedim in college - an increasing phenomenon

Charedi society is the most dynamic society in Israel.

So says Eitan Regev, an economist and senior researcher at the Taub Center for Social Policy Studies in Israel. Not that this should surprise anybody. If there is any segment that has grown both in numbers and influence in Israel, it is Charedim.

But what is also true is that it has not only changed drastically over the last few decades, it is still changing. Perhaps this time for the better.

First let me say that the growth of number of people that study Torah among our people in the late 20^th and early 21^st century is unparalleled. I don’t think there have even been as many Jews studying Torah full time as there are today. Especially in Israel.

We can certainly pat ourselves on the back about this, as well as (in the case of Israel) expressing gratitude to the State of Israel for this phenomenon. The decades long government support for that is one of the primary factors in achieving this milestone. As Regev notes:

The major turning point took place when Begin came to power in 1977 and the ultra-Orthodox parties joined the coalition for the first time. As part of the coalition agreements, the “Torato Omanuto” law (literally meaning “Torah study is his art”) was greatly expanded. This law exempted yeshiva students from military service – and granted them generous stipends – on the condition that they would not work and would dedicate their time solely to Torah studies.

That is still pretty much the status quo – despite efforts by recent government to modify or qualify that support.

Let me be clear about the importance of Torah study. As the Mishnah in Peah (1:1) tells us, Talmud Torah K’Neged Kulam. Torah study is the most important Mitzvah - an absolute good that we should all do as much as we can. No one should dispute that.

The only question is how many of us should do it full time to the exclusion of everything else to the point of ignoring our material welfare. Which often comes at a cost of hurting our spiritual welfare as well.

This makes that abovementioned statistic one of questionable value. This is not to say there should not be those among us that do study full time. Clearly there should. We need world class Roshei Yeshiva and Poskim both of whom require a lifetime of Torah study – and more (…at least for Poskim. The lack of ‘more’ in some cases detracts from those Poskim that don’t have it - for reasons that are beyond the scope of this post).

As I’ve said many times, I do not believe all men should be guided into a lifetime of full time Torah study as they are today. But that is exactly the Charedi paradigm. Charedim are persuaded from a very early age towards a goal of full time Torah study for as long as possible. And to that end they have eliminated all other ‘distractions’ including but not limited to secular studies. Which leaves them with no preparation for the work place at all.

While it is true that many Charedim can catch up. Many don’t. Or can’t. Which leaves them with few options to find jobs that will enable them to support their large families. Bearing all this in mind, here are some statistics that show how things have evolved since the government greased their way:

The share of Haredi men attending advanced yeshivas jumped from 56% (among the older generation) to more than 90% (among the younger generation) and the average duration of study in the yeshivas increased significantly to about 20 years. Birth rates among Haredim rose as well: from 6.5 children per family in 1980 to 7.5 children in 2000.

Picking up some of the slack are women. They are now often the bread winners. They are the ones that ‘work with the sweat of their brow’ – the ‘curse’ given to Adam and all of his male descendants after the sin of eating fruit from the ‘tree of knowledge’. Women now have double duty. The pain of child birth (and child rearing) and the formerly male responsibility of supporting the family.

What may surprise many people is that the Charedi world was not always structured this way:

(I)n the past, a significant percentage of Haredi boys (especially among the Sephardic Haredim) studied core curriculum subjects, such as math and English, in high school. However, the data show that the formation of the “society of learners” gradually led to the abandonment of secular studies and their removal from Haredi boys’ education. These changes contributed to the gradual adoption of a new narrative that sanctifies religious study and a spiritual lifestyle and utterly renounces the world of employment and secular studies.

As I’ve said many times the current system is not sustainable as is. You can’t have 90 percent of your male population studying full time in Yeshivos (post high school) for 20 years without significantly impacting the material (and thereby spiritual) welfare of the entire community. This has caused a change for the better:

In recent years, employment rates of Haredi men have risen to 51% and those of women have risen to 73%. Thus, we have actually returned to the equivalent of one and a quarter persons in full-time employment per Haredi family, on average – as it was during the late 1970s – though divided differently between the genders. Birth rates have also returned to their previous level (6.5 children), yet today, these Haredi mothers are also the primary breadwinners.

Between 2008 and 2014, the number of Haredi students in academic colleges and universities tripled and today stands at about 11,000 students – one third of whom are men.

This is all good news. This kid of change was inevitable. It still however leaves over the question about those that are not able to catch up in their secular studies to succed in colleges and universities. That is one area that still needs to be addressed. The way to do that is to go look back to the time Charedim studied core curriculum subjects, such as math and English. Just the way they still do in most Charedi Yeshivos in America. Something I have strongly advocated here many times.

Alas, this has been successfully fought by the Charedi leadership. Unfortunately I don’t see things changing. Which means that there will remain an unnecessary level of poverty in the Charedi world that could change if only some common sense would prevail.

HT: emet l'amito

Students - early in Beis Yaakov's history (Lehrhaus)

Let me begin with full disclosure. I’ve known Dr. Leslie Ginsparg Klein for a long time. She is brilliant young woman who is unafraid to tell the truth. No matter where it lands. She also happens to be my daughter’s sister in law.

Dr. Ginsparg Klein has written an article in Lehrhaus that explodes some of the myths surrounding Sara Schenirer and the Beis Yaakov Movement she founded. She does so armed with indisputable facts.

Most Orthodox Jews know that Sarah Schenirer pioneered Jewish education for women in the early 20^th century. Prior to her efforts there were few if any schools for girls and young women in Orthodox circles. Women were mostly educated in the home. And that was mostly about how to perform the Mitzvos relevant to women and how to perform their domestic duties – which mostly involved raising children and home making.

Their observance of Halacha was learned entirely by what they saw in the home. When the enlightenment eventually breached the ghetto walls of Eastern European Jewry women started to get formally educated outside of the home. Being exposed to streams of thought outside what they learned in their homes and experiencing the inviting nature of a secular lifestyle led many of them to assimilate and go OTD.

Sarah Schenirer saw this happening and realized that without a formal Jewish education for women there would be serious damage to our future as observant Jews. The resistance to changes in tradition was then, just as strong as it is now. But Sarah Schenirer was not deterred. She began a mission to change tradition by creating Beis Yaakov - school system of formal education for women. That eventually mushroomed into what we have today. There is hardly any girl in the Charedi world that has not attended a Bais Yaakov or similar girls school. All with the full blessing of the vast majority of the rabbinic leaders of our day. It is now an established and well respected fact.

Today’s Orthodox Jewish Feminists often cite her as an example – and even role model for further advancement of women in our day. The retort form the right in rejecting their argument is that Schenirer did not move without the explicit endorsement of ‘Daas Torah’ as expressed by the Gedolei HaDor of her time.

This is the narrative one constantly hears. It is based on many biographies of Sarah Schenirer that reports of her loyalty first to the Gedolim and only after consulting with many of them (the most famous among them being the Chafetz Chaim) did she proceed. This version says Ginsparg Klein is the account given by two prominent Orthodox Jewish writers, Rabbis Chanoch Teller and Peysach Krohn.

But as Ginsparg Klein documents, this is a false account. Sarah Schenirer began her movement without the approval of any on the Gedolim of her day. She saw a need and began filling it. It grew at a grass roots level. The only rabbinic leader that said anything positive at all about it was the Belzer Rebbe, from whom her brother, a Belzer Chasid, urged her to get approval.

After her brother’ s plea to the Rebbe on her behalf about the need for change, she heard the Rebbe utter two words: Bracha V’Hatzlacha. (Blessings and good luck). The Belzer Rebbe did not, however, send any of his daughters to these new schools and never made any public endorsement of it. She nevertheless began her mission to formally educate women immediately after hearing those two words. There was no other rabbinic endorsement beyond that when she began her quest for formal education of women.

What about the famous endorsement of the Chafetz Chaim? Is that a lie? No. He did endorse this new school system in a famously published letter. As did other Gedolim of that era. But as Ginsparg Klein makes clear this did not happen until well after the fact. Until that time the rabbinic establishment including the Chafetz Chaim was firmly opposed to it, . There was no epiphany of Hora’as Shah – where the rabbis on their own thought that it would be a good idea to initiate women’s formal education. Approbations came well after the Bais Yaakov system was established and running successfully.

Ginsparg Klein excerpts the written words of Shenirer’s successor, Rabbi Yehudah Leib Orlean who wrote the following about what really happened:

The matzav of chinuch habanos that Sarah Schenirer encountered in Poland was like a rocky, uncultivated field. Although she was about to attempt something that had never been done before, that had no model in our Mesorah, she knew it was crucial. And so she began to build from scratch, transforming her movement from its modest beginnings to a powerful empire ... the people she turned to for assistance, especially in the beginning, turned her away. They had no idea what was happening in the streets. They had no concept of the catastrophe befalling our nation. But Sarah Schenirer was determined, and again and again she persuaded, cajoled, explained and clarified, awakening the slumbering leaders from their blissful dreams and begging them to accept the only solution that could divert disaster.

Eventually Agudah whose rabbinc leaders were some of the Gedolei HaDor of that era (including the Chafetz Chaim) did support the Beis Yaakov movement. But Agudah only sought rabbinic approval to ‘silence the critics’.

Letters of approbation often used to show that she had support before she began were written well after the movement was established - as the dates on those letters show. The Chafetz Chaim’s letter of approbation (often cited as proof that she consulted the Gedolim first - was actually written over 10 year after the movement’s founding in 1933!). R’ Zalman Sorotzkin wrote his approbation six months after her death!

This clearly contradicts the contemporary Charedi notion that Daas Torah must always be consulted before attempting to change tradition. And that it has always been that way. Clearly that was not the case with the biggest and most innovative change in tradition of the 20^th century. Change was initiated at a grass roots level by a single individual that saw what ‘Daas Torah’ did not quite see.

Does that make the claim of today’s Orthodox Jewish feminists that Sarah Schenirer is indeed their progenitor? Is she the quintessential Orthodox Jewish feminist? I think it is fair to say that she was the Orthodox Jewish version of Susan B. Anthony . She ‘bucked’ the system and succeeded.

At the same time, I don’t think it justifies in any way the kind of egalitarian goals that are sought today. There is a huge difference between what motivated Sarah Schenirer and what motivates today’s feminists. In Sara Shenerir’s case she saw a legitimate existential threat – before the rabbis of her time did. She went ahead with he mission without their support. Her success opened the eyes of the rabbinic leaders of her day and they eventually came around.

Today’s feminists are not motivated by an existential threat. Even if their motivation is sincere, They are clearly not motivated by an existential threat. Nor is it likely that the changes in tradition they seek - such as the ordination of women - will ever receive the approbation of any of today’s rabbinic leaders. Even after the fact the way the Beis Ya’akov movement did. Not even the more moderate Centrist rabbinic leaders have done so even well after a school for women's ordination (Yeshivat Maharat) was established. If anything opposition has increased!

So while it’s true that Sarah Schenirer is a pioneer and role model for successful grass roots change that did not initially involve ‘Daas Torah’. She is not a role model for the kind of egalitarian change modern day Orthodox feminists seek. I don’t think there can be any doubt about that.

The Chasidic Jews of Williamsburg. (Pew Forum)

Orthodoxy is the future of Judaism. That is the only realistic conclusion that can be drawn from yet another analysis of the 2013 Pew Report , ‘A Portrait of Jewish Americans’. The statistics indicating that are stark. From the Pew Forum:

(T)he median age of Orthodox adults (40 years old) is fully a decade younger than the median age of other Jewish adults (52). Despite being younger, more than two-thirds of Orthodox adults are married (69%), compared with about half of other Jewish adults (49%), and the Orthodox are much more likely to have minor children living in their household.

On average, the Orthodox get married younger and bear at least twice as many children as other Jews (4.1 vs. 1.7 children ever born to adults ages 40-59). And they are especially likely to have large families: Among those who have had children, nearly half (48%) of Orthodox Jews have four or more offspring, while just 9% of other Jewish parents have families of that size.

Moreover, nearly all Orthodox Jewish parents (98%) say they are raising their children in the Jewish faith, compared with 78% of other Jewish parents. Orthodox Jews are much more likely than other Jews to have attended a Jewish day school, yeshiva or Jewish summer camp while growing up, and they are also more likely to send their children to these kinds of programs.

Nothing really new here. But I can’t help noticing again that, sadly, the handwriting is on the wall for heterodoxy as they continue to struggle for existence. Sadly because -as the article notes, 12% of the current Orthodox Jewish population came from the Conservative movement.

Without heterodox movements the march of American Jews towards full assimilation will surely accelerate beyond the already astounding rate. While heterodox movements have in my view contributed mightily to that acceleration, they have at the same time tired to instill some semblance of Jewish identity into their members. But their willingness to overlook the importance of the most important feature of Jewish identity, adherence to Halacha – often substituting worthy (but not particularly Jewish) social causes in their place has not served them well. It has resulted in the mass migration out of Judaism we have today.

This is also not news. Nor is it news that the Conservative Movement is now attempting to rebrand itself - or their's and other heterodox movements are attempting to get recognition by the Israeli government as a means of reconstituting their numbers.

One thing that is interesting to note about this is the political makeup of the growing Orthodox Jews versus the shrinking of non Orthodox Jews:

(O)ne important subgroup clearly does not fit the picture of a relatively secular, liberal-leaning, aging population with small families. Unlike most other American Jews, Orthodox Jews tend to identify as Republicans and take conservative positions on social issues such as homosexuality. On average, they also are more religiously committed and much younger than other U.S. Jews, and they have bigger families… Other U.S. Jews lean heavily toward the Democratic Party, but the opposite is true of the Orthodox.

This explains why the vast majority of Orthodox enclaves like Lakewood, New Jersey voted heavily for Donald Trump. While he is not really a conservative ideologue neither is he liberal. Orthodox Jews saw the last election as an opportunity to thwart the increasingly liberal and more permissive society that counters their religious values by voting for someone they saw as an antidote to that.

They ignored Trump's own moral failings listening only his establishment rhetoric. Which included seemed to espouse more conservative values. conservative values tend to more reflect religious values. This is why Orthodox groups have more in common with evangelical Christians that they do with non Orthodox Jews that are heavily liberal.

While there are individual differences between groups such as Modern Orthodox and Charedi Jews, there is a common features among all Orthodox Jews that explains their growth: Their commitment to Halacic observance and their greater likelihood to give their children a formal Jewish education.

This does not mean that Orhtodox Jews do not have their own rates of assimilating out. They do. Taking the Pew numbers at face value, fully 52% of Jews raised in an Orthodox home assimilate out of observance. That Orthodoxy remains the only growing demographic is quite a statement in light of that.

Hiw can one explain that? I think it is because we tend to have more children by far than heterodox familes. And because we are pretty successful at outreach. Additionally my own thinking is 52% is an inflated nubmber based on how Pew defined Orthodox Jews. They simply asked each respondant how they were raised. My guess is that a large number of them had non observant parents that were nominally Orthodox by belonging to an Orthodox

My own experience growing up in Toledo will testify to that. There were 3 Orthodox Shuls in Toledo then. But only 3 families were observant. And yet membership to those Shuls were huge... perhaps in the thousands in total. Children in those families did not receive any formal religious education outside of an afternoon Hebrew school that they hated to attend. It is highly unlikely that any of them are today observant.

In any case, this is a fascinating article to speculate about. Which I just did.

R' Asher Lopatin - seen here with R' Y. H. Eichenstein from his days in Chicago

If anyone wants to know how to be a Mentch, one need not look further than Rabbi Asher Lopatin. For those that are ‘yiddishly’ challenged, the word Mentch in this context has no English equivalent. The technical English translation of Mentch - is man. But as it is more commonly used it means much more than that. It describes a man of refined character, a high sense of ethics, compassion for his fellow man, and great humility. A man that will treat everyone with respect regardless of their background or personal circumstances. A man whose good character defines him more than his appearance or material success. I’m not even sure that covers it. But being a Mentch certainly describes R’ Asher. In spades.

Rabbi Lopatin has just announced that this will be his last year as President of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah (YCT). In doing so he took pride in the accomplishments under his leadership. Many of which I have had profound disagreement with. I have even expressed my disappointment with what ended up being a hard turn to the left, when I had expected him to put the brakes on that when he took the helm.

In taking that approach he has gone way beyond what is acceptable to mainstream Orthodoxy. And thereby has done damage to his own cause which is to open up the tent of Orthodoxy to more Jews. But he truly believes in what he is doing in taking controversial steps in that it prevents Jews that might otherwise gravitate to heterodoxy and instead stay within the Orthodox tent. Reaching out to those Jews is something we should all support. But it is the lengths to which he has gone that are problematic. Which has generated widespread disapproval of this version of Judaism by all of the mainstream Orthodox rabbinic leadership. In some cases considering it outside the pale of Orthodoxy!

Even though he has the best of intentions and holds that every step he took was L’Shem Shomayim, intentions cannot and do not define the parameters of what’s acceptable in Orthodoxy. As I’ve said many times- the founders of the Conservative movement has similar motives. They wanted to conserve Judaism as a response to Reform. But the way they did it put them on a slippery slope to where they are now – a movement that pays little attention to the observance of their members. Which has resulted in the beginning of their end. More of their members than ever are opting out of Judaism altogether. At breakneck speed, it seems!

So, yes I have had my differences with him and have strongly criticized some of his innovations and public comments. But that does not take away from his pure unadulterated sincerity and Mentchlichkeit. (Yiddish for the state of being a Mentch).

I first heard about R’ Asher when Yeshivas Brisk honored him at one of their banquets. He was a Rhodes Scholar who had ‘fallen in love’ with my Rebbe, Rav Ahron Soloveichik - and wanted to study under him at his Yeshiva. R’ Asher went on to get Semicha from Rav Ahron and Yeshiva University (YU) as well.

I became an admirer of R’ Asher when he was a Rabbi at a Modern Orthodox (MO) Shul in the Lakeview neighborhood of Chicago. That is a neighborhood very similar to New York’s upper West Side where a lot of MO singles live. He built a Mikva in the neighborhood, put up an Eruv... and through his personal charisma he quickly built up that Shul from a very small membership to one that was overflowing.

He treated every single member like they were the most important person in the world. He made sure that every member of his Shul had a place to eat a Shabbos meal. Every single week. Never was anyone left out.

As one can imagine, every rabbi has his challenges. Serious questions in Halacha come up all the time that require greater expertise than a typical pulpit rabbi might have. Rabbi Lopatin was no exception. As a man of both great integrity and humility, he knew his limitations. He therefore consulted his Rebbe, Rav Ahron Soloveichik whenever he had that kind of question.

I don’t know who he turned to after Rav Ahron’s death. But I don’t think he has been the same ever since. This is pure speculation on my part - but it seems like his empathy for others is his Achilles heel. Causing him to make decisions that Rav Ahron would not have approved of. He just does not know how to say no.

As noted, R’ Asher is also a man of great humility. Self-aggrandizement was not in his vocabulary. No matter how harsh my criticisms of his decisions were, he understood where I was coming from – even while disagreeing with it. He did not hold it against me - knowing where I was coming from and why I said what I said. How many people can do that?

I don’t know what’s next for Rabbi Lopatin. He has so much to offer Klal Yisroel. Perhaps outside the bounds of a Yeshiva whose parameters he felt necessary to uphold and expand, he can find a more mainstream niche – a way to apply his ethics and humility to the benefit of all of Klal Yisroel. But whatever his choice for the future is, I wish him well.

The late R'n Esther Jungreis - always fashionable yet modest

I am a little uncomfortable talking about women’s fashions in the context of modesty. But that has never stopped me before. After reading a series of articles in the Forward I thought I may as well throw in my own 2 cents. So here goes.

I have to disagree with Michelle Honig. She writes in a Forward article about the current trend among Orthodox women to wear what is called a ‘shell’. This is a piece of clothing that is generally skin tight, and covers up the arm to at least three-quarter length and whose neckline is in accordance with Orthodox Jewish standards of modesty.

Wearing this piece of clothing allows observant women to buy just about any style of clothing they wish, no longer having to worry about whether it covers up enough of the body to meet Halachic modesty standards. Fashionable sleeveless dresses low plunging necklines are now an option if worn over one of these shells.

Ms Honig hates this trend. Here is how she puts it:

(It’s) impossible to look good in a shell. It’s not stylish, it’s not flattering and it cheapens every look. It’s rarely, if ever, used with intention, beyond the intention of making something modest. It’s a lazy approach to dressing, where creativity in dressing falls by the wayside. Wearing a shell makes dressing modestly a mechanical, mindless process, and sucks the joy out of getting dressed.

OK. I will give her the fact that shells are rarely used as a fashion statement. But that is where my agreement ends. Shells are used to conform to Halacha. My wife and three daughters all use shells. The ‘layered’ look that these shells present does not really make them all that less fashionable. At least to my untrained eye. Or to any ‘eye’ that is not focused on the minutia of fashion. All it does is make them more modest and in compliance with Halacha... and often very attractive and yet modest at the same time

Emily Schneider responded to Ms. Honig in her own Forwardarticle. Here in part is what she said:

Why would restrictions imposed by men be necessary in order for women to dress creatively? What legitimacy, in fact, do such restrictions hold?

By critiquing minor aspects of tznius, like shells, women may claim to have a degree of control over their bodies and how they choose to cover them. Yet adhering to normative modesty codes, by definition, cedes this control.

Any alleged “creativity” involved in selecting an outfit which will not offend or disturb Jewish men is a sad and minimal compensation. Mild complaints about minute details only grant tacit legitimacy to this system…

However a woman chooses to adhere to modesty, shells or not, the rules she complies with are predicated on male anxiety about women’s bodies and the potentially dangerous responses which the sight of women’s bodies may provoke.

Ms. Schneider says that women are dominated by a patriarchal society that fears its own illicit thoughts – thereby imposing unfair restrictions upon the way women dress – thus limiting women’s freedom.

What Ms. Shneider seems to ignore is that fact that those fears are quite real. A holy society ought to avoid instances that lead to erotic thoughts in men. And it is no secret that men react to the visual. Exposure of female skin often generate erotic thoughts in men. The more skin exposred the more likeihood of those thoughts..

No one has explained this better than Penina Taylor. She responded in her own Forward article to both Honig and Schneider:

The opinion that Schneider expressed in her piece, that dressing modestly is a set of restrictions imposed on women by men, is closely related to a commonly held but completely false premise – the idea that exposing one’s body is an expression of empowerment and covering one’s body is a result of male oppression of women.

Of course, in order to come to this conclusion, one must overlook the fact that Western women’s fashion has pretty much always been dictated by men, and has always attempted to expose, or highlight, women’s bodies to a greater degree than men…

From very early on, women have been convinced (read: sold a bill of goods) that flaunting all is an exercise of freedom. That covering one’s body is an indication of shame, and that “if you’ve got it, flaunt it”, and anything else is a sign of oppression or domination.

Psychologists and neuroscientists have long explained that there is a fundamental difference between the way men’s brains are wired and women’s brains are wired when it comes to sexual arousal. Keeping religion entirely out of the picture, it has been proven that men are primarily aroused by visual input whereas women are primarily aroused by touch. That’s not religion. That’s science.

With this in mind, we can better understand the reasons for modesty laws. This is not to say that men don’t have their own responsibility in this regard. They do. It is incumbent upon men to avoid those circumstances that will lead to erotic thoughts. But that does not mean that women should be free to expose as much skin as they want any time and any place they want. There are common sense reasons for modesty. As a society we should all try and do what we can to be a holy nation.

For men that means avoiding scenarios that induce erotic thoughts. For women it means dressing modestly in order to minimize those thoughts in their encounters with men. But being modest need not mean avoiding fashionable clothing. Which brings me back to shells. I believe shells have been a tremendous aid in keeping us a ‘kingdom of priests and holy nation’ and enabling women to dress as fashionable and modestly as they can.

Miriam and Adam Ballin

The Jewish community of Houston has not been spared from Harvey’s wrath. According to the Jewish Week, 71% of Houston’s Jewish community has had serious water damage. Although the neighborhood of at least one Shul, the Young Israel of Houston has been largely spared. So says its Rabbi, Yehoshua Wender, in remarks he sent out to members of his Shul. Which Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein has reproduced on Cross Currents.

But even they have been affected. There is a food shortage in Houston. A Hebrew Theological College high school (FYHS) alumnus that lives in Dallas has responded. From an HTC e-mail:

Rabbi Aryeh Feigenbaum, FYHS alumnus and Rav of Ohr HaTorah in Dallas, TX is working with Dallas caterers, the local Vaad and several Dallas shuls to provide the Houston community with a thousand hot meals a day for the next three weeks. If you would like to help out click here:

As great as this tragedy is for the citizens of Houston, one of the positive things coming out of it is how great the American people are. Volunteers of all stripes from all over the country have traveled great distances with all manner of boats and other aquatic equipment to rescue the lives of people they have never met. Some of them risking their own lives in the process.

It did not matter to these heroes what the politics of the victims they rescued were. They didn’t ask who they voted for in the last election. It didn’t matter what their race or religion were. Not for the rescuers or the rescued. It was one huge effort by a disparate group of people whose only concern was to rescue lives – putting their own lives at risk in doing so.

Many of us will react to a selfless heroic act of a Jew by declaring to God, ‘Mi K’Amcha Yisroel?!’ ‘Who is like Your people, Israel?!’ My answer might be that when it comes to selfless heroism, Americans are!

But as is also the case Jews do live up to their above billing and have responded. As always Israel if there in the form of IsraAID, a non-governmental organization . The JUF has set up a fund for victims. As have Orthodox institutions like Chabad, the OU/RCA, and Agudah. Next time someone says that Orthodox Jews only care about their own, point them in this direction.

There is one Charedi woman that stands out in all of this. Her name is Miram Ballin. She personifies what a Kiddush Hashem should be. From the Jewish Journal:

Wednesday evening, Ballin left her husband to watch their five young children and headed to southeast Texas, where she and six other Israeli mental health professionals will help locals cope with the flooding. Their work will be guided by hard-won experience responding to local emergencies, including dozens of terrorist attacks.

“I just feel it’s necessary and needed, and simply the right thing to do,” she said. “When we have 150 people who have been trained to deal with exactly this, not to send them to Houston to help out is I think wrong.”

She is not only a hero for taking this initiative. Miriam earned a certificate in family therapy from Bar Ilan Unviersity. But her story doesn’t begin there. She was brought up in a Reform home in Houston, became more observant in high school and met her husband (who is an MD and himself Charedi) in college. They both immigrated to Israel in 2011.

Charedi rabbis gave her a lot of flak for wanting to become a medic. Nevertheless:

Ballin became the first woman medic for United Hatzalah, whose leadership she said embraced her ambition… In April, Ballin again worked with United Hatzalah leaders to start the Psychotrauma Unit. Her husband, Adam, a 35-year-old family physician at Hadassah Medical Center, is also a volunteer medic and member of the unit. The service now has over 150 female volunteers

In addition to her day job as a family therapist, Ballin, 33, is the head of the Psychotrauma Unit of United Hatzalah, a mostly Charedi volunteer emergency service based in Jerusalem. She spearheaded the creation of the unit last year amid a wave of Palestinian violence to provide psychological support to those experiencing potentially traumatic events.

The unit’s 200 or so members include medics, psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers who are trained by some of Israel’s leading experts on the psychology of crises. They have responded to dozens of terrorist attacks, as well as forest fires, car accidents and other medical emergencies.

Perhaps the most outstanding characteristic of Miriam Ballin is her conciliatory approach to the Charedi world. Rather than asserting her rights as a woman and complaining how anti woman the Charedi world is she instead consistently shows her sensitivity to the concerns of even the most extreme Jews among them. She has for example pledged that she will never answer a call to go to Meah Shearim. (I just hope that if it involves a life threatening situation, they do not act like the ‘Chasid Shoteh’ of the Gemarah that refused to save a naked woman’s life because of modesty issues.)

What a wonderful example for us to follow. Thank you Miriam for being who you are and once again giving me the opportunity to say: Mi K’Amcha Yisroel!

Update
This post has been updated to correct an error I made about the extent of Harvey’s devastation to the Houston Jewish community. I misread the message issued by Rabbi Wender (published in Cross Currents) to his congregants. I apologize for the error. Thank you to the reader who pointed it out.

Rabbi Arie Folger meets with Pope Francis

Father Coughlin is dead. And so is the former antisemitic approach he had to the Jewish people sourced on the former theology of his Church. Father James Coughlin was a popular Catholic Priest whose radio program broadcast antisemitic commentary during the 1930s. He even supported some of Hitler’s policies toward the Jewish people in Europe during that time. Although extreme in his negative attitude about the Jews, it was not that far off from the official attitude of the Catholic Church of his day - sourced in their theology about us. Until the sixties the Church did not view the Jewish people in a favorable light. We were accused of Deiocide! Centuries of persecution resulted from that. But all this has changed dramatically since the Holocaust.

One of the most remarkable events of my lifetime has been what happened 20 years after the Holocaust at Vatican II. In a policy statement entitled Nostra Aetate - the Church reversed its attitude towards Judaism and its relationship with the Jewish people. After centuries of delegitimization, persecution, and attempts at conversion by force, they have done a complete 180. We are now a brother religion whose people remain the chosen of God. They no longer persecute us, but rather have sought to mend fences between us towards a better relationship that promotes to the world the common moral teachings of our bible – ( the Torah, Nevi’im, and Kesuvim) which we share with them as part of their bible.

In the modern era, we will often find ourselves on the same side – fighting for the same values.

The same things has happened in the Fundamentalist Protestant Church. Even though Protestants reformed some of the teaching of the Catholic Church from which they split, they held on to its attitude towards Judaisms and the Jews. But now - where they once despised us or tried to convert us, they now love us and support the State of Israel more than most Jews do.

Ahhh… but there are still skeptics. I guess centuries of persecution with do that to our national psyche. There are many Jews that still believe that nothing changed. That its just a sophisticated ruse. That for Christians and Catholics - all of this ‘love’ is really all about converting us. And that nothing has really changed at all.

Fortunately that attitude is decreasing and being replaced by a more realistic one. Interfaith relationships are at an all time high. People like Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein have helped to change the attitude and approach Fundamentalist Christians have about us. And people like Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein who is the director of Interfaith Relations for the Simon Wiesenthal Center will testify to that change as well. Like me - they are no longer skeptical about the motives of either the Catholic Chruch or Fundamentalist Christians.

None of this is news. I have addressed it all before. I bring it up now in the context of a recent and perhaps historic visit to Pope Francis by a delegation of rabbis. Led by Vienna Chief Rabbi Rabbi Arie Folger, the delegation included representatives of the Conference of European Rabbis, the Rabbinical Council of America and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. They presented the Pope a declaration they called ‘Between Jerusalem and Rome’ which reflects on the fifty years since Nostra Aetate and Vatican II. - the point at which the Church changed centuries of negative theology about us into a positive theology.

It refers to the Catholic Church as “partners, close allies, friends and brothers in our mutual quest for a better world blessed with peace, social justice and security”.

One can read the full description of that event here. The Pope has responded via a Catholic website called Vatican Radio. His words are truly remarkable. Here is part of what he said:

In our shared journey, by the graciousness of the Most High, we are presently experiencing a fruitful moment of dialogue. This is reflected in the Statement Between Jerusalem and Rome which you have issued and which you present to me today. This document pays particular tribute to the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration Nostra Aetate, whose fourth chapter represents the “Magna Charta” of our dialogue with the Jewish world. Indeed, the ongoing implementation of the Council’s Declaration has enabled our relations to become increasingly friendly and fraternal. Nostra Aetate noted that the origins of the Christian faith are to be found, in accordance with the divine mystery of salvation, in the Patriarchs, in Moses and in the Prophets.

Pope Francis emphasized that this documented recognizes that our theological differences are profound. But…

“despite profound theological differences, Catholics and Jews share common beliefs” and also “the affirmation that religions must use moral behavior and religious education - not war, coercion or social pressure – to influence and inspire”. This is most important: may the Eternal One bless and enlighten our cooperation, so that together we can accept and carry out ever better his plans, “plans for welfare and not for evil”, for “a future and a hope” (Jer 29:11).

On the occasion of your welcome visit, I would like to express to you and to your communities beforehand my best wishes for the Jewish New Year which will begin in a few weeks. Shanah tovah! Once more I thank you for coming and I ask you to remember me in your prayers. Finally, I would invoke upon you, and upon all of us, the blessing of the Most High for the shared journey of friendship and trust that lies before us. In his mercy, may the Almighty bestow his peace upon us and upon the entire world.

All I can add to that is to say, Amen. And to hope that this can change the hearts and minds of those who have till now remained skeptics.

Trump rally (Cross Currrents)

One of the reasons I am such a big fan of Rabbi Avi Shafran, is that, like me he is a seeker of Emes - Truth. Although we do not always arrive at the same conclusions about what Emes is, that does not diminish the fact that we both seek it as an absolute good. And that as a result we both sometimes take unpopular positions

Seeking truth does not always produce concrete conclusions about what it is. In fact, I would say that often it ends up in not being able to be determined. This often happens to me when there is evidence supporting both sides of an issue. I often find myself conflicted listening to both sides of an argument. Even at those times where I take a position on things, I remain with a measure of doubt about whether my views are right in light of the arguments against them. To me, the essences of truth is intellectual honesty and not blind obedience to a particular side. There is a lot of grey in this world, perhaps more so than there are things that are clearly black and white.

Rabbi Shafran has made a similar argument in an essay published in Hamodia (republished on Cross Currents). Using the current political climate, Rabbi Shafran makes this very point. He see a lot of grey – as do I. To put it the way he did:

(I)n most cases, things are not entirely as they are portrayed by either the New York Times’ editorial page or talk radio personalities. And only a careful hearing-out and honest consideration of all sides of an issue, be it immigration or free trade or Confederate statues or even a potential peace process in the Middle East, has a chance of yielding an informed, objective position. Mindless team spirit is no path to emes. Sometimes, even, as conservative columnist David Brooks recently observed, “The truth is plural.”

I could not agree more. The sad fact of life is that Rabbi Shafran is himself the victim of some truly venomous attacks based on his principled opinions - when they depart from popular partisan Orthodoxy. So much animosity is directed towards him that it almost doesn’t matter what he says about any given issue. If his name in mentioned in any context – as it is here – one can be assured that he will be attacked – reminding everyone how evil some of his opinions were on a given issue. Partisan orthodoxy almost demands smearing your opponents.

I’m sure that will happen again here. In part some of that animus comes from an antipathy for Agudah, for whom he is chief spokesman. Bashing Agudah is part and parcel of a left wing political Orthodoxy that refuses to see them as a force for good – successfully representing for decades the interests of all religious Jews in this country –regardless of Hashkafa. That is completely ignored.

I for one recognize the valuable contributions of Agudah. Even as I have disagreed (sometimes strongly) with some of the policies they have on certain issues. But disagreement should mean disrespect nor should it mean a black and white rejection. Truth – as I said is rarely black and white.

In this article he articulates the destructive place in which even many Orthodox Jews now reside in this respect. It is almost as though intellectual honesty has been abandoned. People are either listening to Rush Limbaugh or the New York Times – each believing that the words they hear read in their ‘bible’ or ‘modern day biblical figure’ is the truth incarnate to the exclusion of any argument from the other side. Every opposing view is illegitimate.

I see it all the time – even among some of my closest friends. This became most evident during the last Presidential election - and continues today. To the Trump supporters, he can do no wrong. The ‘Fake’ new media lies about him. He is a great American being vilified by his enemies and prevented from implementing all of the great promises he made during the campaign. To the Trump haters, he can do no right. Every word he says is spun in negative terms. Using the ‘respected’ media reporting about him as ‘proof’ of how terrible he is.

The same thing is true about Trump’s predecessor. Obama is seen as the devil by Trump supporters and as one of the most honorable President s in American history by Trump haters. There is no room for grey on either side for either man. This is not a search for truth. This is blind obedience to partisanship.

This doesn’t mean one can’t decide they agree more with the polices of one man versus their opponent. Because that too is in line for a search for truth. One must decide whose views most closely align with their own and the support them. But one must also recognize the negatives of one’s own candidate and recognize the positives of the other. This is my approach to both Obama and Trump.

Unfortunately the momentum among even my own Orthodox coreligionists is towards the extremes – and rejection and smearing of opponents. This is the opposite of seeking the Truth. It is an abandonment of it. Which makes the search for Emes more elusive than ever.

Typical look of a Kollel

The handwriting was on the wall. Now it is a sad reality as demonstrated in Rafi Goldmeier’s blog, Life in Israel. The idea of creating a society where men do not work – and rely on the generosity of others to survive is how the current Kollel system in Israel works.

This is a universal system. Meaning that all men are encouraged to follow the path of full time Torah study for as long as they can. In many (probably most) cases they continue to do so well after they are married and have many children. Families consisting of ten children or more are not uncommon. All of which are encouraged to do the same. Men are encouraged to study Torah full time and women are encouraged to marry them as the ideal mates. And them to help support them by entering the workforce instead of their husbands.

As I have said many times, this kind of system cannot survive. It is unsustainable. And as families grow exponentially with each generation this becomes even clearer. Women are asked to not only support their families, but to do so at lower pay than men doing comparable work. While that is clearly unfair and even sexist, it is a fact of life that cuts across all segments of society in the civilized world.

Women are also asked to raise the children and do all the other household tasks expected of women. This is certainly true in the Charedi world. To say this is an unfair burden is an understatement. Nonetheless, most of these women are indoctrinated to do all of this willingly as a sacrifice enabling and even encouraging their husbands to continue their full time Torah study without any distractions or interruptions. For which they will share with their husbands an eternal reward.

Obviously the income that these devoted Kollel wives provide is no where near enough, Especially since some rabbinic leaders have discouraged them from seeking the kind of higher education that would give them better jobs and more income. Many of these women settle for jobs as religious school teachers for girls.

How do their large families survive? There are other sources of income. Such as government stipends. But that is not universal and in any case not enough of a supplement to sustain them. So they depend on private sources.

In the past, (and in many cases still) parents and in-laws provide a young couple with a stipend for a few years. But that is not indefinite. And an unfair burden on parents that hoped to one day retire - but must now keep working to support their children. Not to mention the fact that these parents and in-laws usually have more than one child they want to help out in this way.

While some parents can afford to help (barely in many cases) others have to strain to do so, doing things like second mortgaging their homes or cashing in their life insurance policies. Retirement becomes an elusive dream as parents must work well past retirement age until they are physically unable to do so.

Another means of support is through the philanthropy of wealthy Orthodox Jews who have bought into the system.

As I’ve said many times, I don’t see this as a viable model. A system that relies on so many intangibles and uncertainties while growing exponentially with each successive generation cannot survive.

Charedim in Israel are beginning to realize this as they are leaving Kollel in greater numbers and beginning to enter the workforce. Many of them seek the education and training required to enable them to better support their families.

Most of them are able to catch up to their non Charedi counterparts who have had the advantage of getting a good secular education (of which they have none). Unfortunately many of them can’t catch up, and therefore are relegated to dead end jobs that don’t pay much.

What about philanthropy? Is there not enough wealth among Charedi Jews to help solve the problem? Are there not many multi millionaires and even billionaires that can come up with the necessary funds to help sustain them – and thereby enabling them to stay in Kollel longer?

I don’t know. But my guess is that there aren’t anywhere near enough. But even if there are, there will not be a parallel exponential growth of philanthropy dollars to exponential growth of the Charedi population itself. It is also an unfortunate fact of life that some philanthropy dollars are sourced in legally questionable business enterprises.

Which brings me back to Rafi’s post. Therein he describes the financial plight of one Kollel system that may be a harbinger for the future of other Kollels:

The chain of kollels in Israel led by Rabbi Weissbord has been in big trouble for a long time. They have not paid their avreichim for 10 months. Some kollels have closed, some avreichim have started to leave their kollels for other places…

A week or so ago it was announced that Rav Shteinman helped bail Weissbord out and helped find a donor to cover all his debt and pay the avreichim what he owes. it was hailed in the Haredi media as a tremendous salvation and a miracle. (emphasis added)

A source of Rafi’s involved with that Kollel reported the following:

A day or two later they were told the money has been held up in the USA on suspicion of money laundering. This guy wired all the money (about $4,500,000) in one shot and it was stopped…

(He) also tells me that the kollel is still in trouble because while this, even if the money ever gets released and comes through, will cover the debts from the past, they have no idea how he will pay their stipends in the coming months.

Ein Somchin Al HaNeis. Relying on miracles is not the way Jews are supposed to lead their lives. That this ‘miracle’ is now under a cloud – and will not even help sustain these Avrecihim even if that cloud is removed is surely a demonstration of this principle.

Unless and until the Charedi rabbinic leadership relents and finally allows some form of preparation for the workplace to take place in their schools (as most of the Charedi schools in America do)… and changes their attitude to a more favorable one about working for a living, this problem will only get worse. Relying on centenarian rabbis (no matter how great those rabbis are) to put in a good word with God may be a legitimate means of seeking miraculous relief. Prayer certainly helps. But it should certainly not be relied upon as a solution for the future.

Rabbi Menachem Bombach (Forward)

Sometimes I wonder whether there is any sanity or intelligence at all in the more extreme ends of Orthodoxy. The uncivilized – almost primitive behavior of those factions defies both of those very important human qualities.

Avital Chizhik-Goldschmidt cites two examples of those kinds of extremists in a Forward article on subjects that have been the focus of much discussion here: Education of Charedim in Israel, Meah Shearim type extremists, and followers of Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach.

These extremists are at it again - demonstrating (with a vengeance) against departures from their educational norm. An issue that is near and dear to my heart.

For me, Menachem Bombach is a hero. One that should be supported and honored. Because he has done what I believe is of paramount importance to the future of Charedi community in Israel. More specifically the Chasidic community from which he hails.

In the heart of Beitar, one of the most religiously right wing cities in Israel, Menachem Bombach has successfully established a Charedi high school that offers a full complement of secular subjects. A curriculum that includes Bagrut, the Israeli version of the New York Regents exam.

It is particularly relevant that it is Bombach is the one doing it. Meanchem is not some outsider who got on his high horse and galloped his way into other people lives to force his own values on them. He is one of them, having been raised in Meah Shearim. He is the son of a Satmar father and an Eida HaChardis mother.

Nor is Menachem some off the derech (OTD) expatriate Chasid with a vendetta or mission to destroy his former world. He is not from a dysfunctional family. He was not a bad student. He did not have any kind of learning disability. He was not socially awkward; did not fall through the cracks and has not abandoned his roots. He is fully observant and remains Charedi in both culture and custom. He loves his community dearly:

“Haredi society is a very good society,” he explains. “There is so much idealism here, it is truly a world of chesed (acts of kindness), a miraculous world….”

But in recognizing the dire needs of his community, he did something about it. He created a school faithful to Charedi norms in every sense except one: giving his students an opportunity for a far better future. Menachem’s school also recognizes the sacrifices of Israel’s defense forces in the form of prayer for fallen soldiers on Israel’s Memorial Day.

This is what the Charedi world in Israel needs a lot more of. Unfortunately this is not how their leadership sees it, nor any of their publications. They see it more the way Israel’s Yated Ne’eman does - which recently branded him a ‘spiritual muderer’!

That attitude is practically inborn in the more right wing Charedi world of Israel. It is in their mother’s milk from which they are weaned. The zealots among them have not been reticent in expressing their mindless protests in their typically disgusting ways. After all (they probably reason) how else should a ‘spiritual murderer’ be treated? Which results in the behavior described by Chizhik-Goldschmidt:

His apartment door and lock have been smeared with tar several times; his neighborhood was covered in pashkevilim, posters, denouncing him as a Haredi imposter and calling on him to “return to Tel Aviv”. And when he was recognized upon a visit to his childhood neighborhood Mea Shearim, locals threw bottles and diapers at him, tearing off his yarmulke.

And who are these people? Where do they come from? Despite the fact that Beitar is so strongly Charedi the protesters are not residents. They are the from the extremes of the Charedi world that I referred to above:

The zealous demonstrators, Bombach explains, are not Beitar Ilit locals. They’re imports — either residents of Beit Shemesh, who originally came from Mea Shearim, or Lithuanian Jerusalemite Haredim, who are affiliated with Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach.

Menachem Bombach is a profile in courage. He is a sees a problem and does not just talk about it. He does something about it against great odds and tremendous opposition. He successfully embarked on a path of improvement for his community full steam. Looking neither at his detractors nor his antagonists. Caring not a whit about what a popular Charedi newspaper says about him. He is focused on his task and has his eyes on the prize: a better future for his people. God bless him.

Rabbi Shlomo Amar at the Kotel (Jerusalem Post)

Reform Jews are my brothers. They are every bit as Jewish as I am. I love them all as I do the rest of Klal Yisroel. What I reject is their version of Judaism. Reform Judaism is in diametric opposition to the word of God as recorded in the Torah. God directed His chosen people (us) to follow all of His directives as interpreted and protected by the sages in the Talmud. Which has all been redacted in the Shulchan Aruch. This is better known as Halacha.

The founding fathers of Reform Judaism abandoned Halacha… relegating it to the ash bin of history. They believed that the enlightened Jew of the modern era no longer requires following Halacha.

In our day the practices (or lack of them ) by Reform Jewry is mostly not their fault. It is not even the fault of their rabbis. This is how they have been indoctrinated for many generations since the days of their founders. Today’s Reform Jews didn’t abandon Halacha. Their founding fathers did and transmitted that ethos to their flock generationally. Today’s Reform Jew never observed Halacha to begin with to now abandon it.

This has led to some of the conflict we are witnessing today in Israel. A conflict whose battles are being fought at the Kotel. I think it is obvious that for the Reform movement this conflict is about recognition. Their insistence on a egalitarian space at the Kotel is really about recognizing their legitimacy. It surely is not about getting a egalitarian space. They already have one. What they want is to put that space on par with the Orthodox space. And to create an authoritative body consisting of Reform, Conservative and Orthodox rabbis.

There is no Orthodox Rabbi in the world that could possibly be a part of an authoritative body that consists of rabbis that reject the Torah’s mandate of Halacha. Because by doing so he would be seen as legitimizing non observance as an alternative way of serving God. Which it clearly is not by any Orthodox standard.

I therefore understand the opposition by Orthodox rabbis in Israel to this particular agreement. Had it just been an agreement to expand what they already have and provide easier access, I don’t think there would be any significant objection. Which is what the Kenesset compromise was originally thought to be. It was passed without protest of the religious parties. The whole thing blew up over legitimization. No one should blame Orthodox rabbis for opposing it.

That said, I can’t really blame the Reform movement for seeking legitimacy. What movement that calls itself Jewish would want recognition from the Jewish state? But there is a bit of deception in their methods as their arguments never mention their real motives. They keep talking about denying rights to a Kotel that belongs to ‘all of the Jewish people - not just the Orthodox’. They keep saying that Orthodox extremists seek to deny Jews from praying in the manner they choose. None of that is true. No one denies them that at all. Not even Christians are denied prayer at the Kotel. An egalitarian space exists and they can pray there in any manner they choose.

It is a shame that there are those on the extreme left of Orthodoxy that seem to side with Reform – against the Orthodox mainstream. I know they wish to be ‘open’ to all Jews - and to give them what they want as a means of reaching out. But the price of recognition is too high. You cannot legitimize nor even appear to legitimize the illegitimate! That undermines your own legitimacy.

That said, I have to take strong issue with some shocking comments made by Rabbi Shlomo Amar, former Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel (and current Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem). From the Jerusalem Post, here is what he said:

“Today there was a hearing on the Kotel on the petition of the cursed evil people who do every iniquity in the world against the Torah – they even marry Jews and non-Jews,” said Amar, in comments first reported by the Kikar HaShabbat haredi (ultra-Orthodox) news website.

“They don’t have Yom Kippur or Shabbat, but they want to pray [at the Western Wall]. But no one should think that they want to pray. They want to desecrate the holy. They are trying to deceive and say that extremist haredim invented [prayer arrangements at the Western Wall].

“It’s like Holocaust deniers, it’s the same thing. They shout, ‘Why are there Holocaust deniers in Iran?’ They deny more than Holocaust deniers. In all of the Mishna and Gemara [of the Talmud], there was a women’s section and a section for men in the Temple. Did we invent this?”

Cursed?! Evil?! People who do every iniquity?! What a disgusting thing to say about people that believe as they do through no fault of their own. They are not cursed. They are not evil. And they do not do every iniquity.

Reform Jews in our day are actually encouraged by their rabbis to do Mitzvos on a voluntary basis. Many do. This is not to say that when they do, that they necessarily follow Halacha properly. But that is mostly due to a lack of education. Or an education based on the false doctrines of their founding fathers. Rabbi Amar seems to imply that not only do they violate Halacha, but that that they do with nefarious intent to the point of almost calling his own brothers and sisters, Nazis!

I also take issue with his comparison of the Kotel Plaza to the actual Beis HaMikdash. Yes, there was a separation there. But that only happened after things got crowded. At first, men and women were not divided by any sort of barrier.

Furthermore, that was only inside the Beis Hamikdash. Not on the outside of it, where the Kotel is located. It was never forbidden for men and women to pray there at the same time. That was actually the way it was done well into the 20^th century. It is true that attempts had been made to install a barrier between men and women. But they were thwarted by governing bodies of the era.

However, the fact that that men and women prayed there together at all testifies to the fact that it is not forbidden by Halacha. Had it been forbidden, the men and women would have come at separate times. That it is forbidden today is because the Kotel Plaza has been established as a synagogue where a barrier between men and women is required. But that is a technicality that has nothing to do with Rabbi Amar’s comparison of the Kotel to the Beis HaMikdash.

I know that he is passionate in his opposition. But that does not excuse the kind of venom coming out of his mouth. Not against Reform Jews. And not even against their rabbis. They are not the founders who fought against observance. These are people who were educated to mistakenly believe that their way of practicing Judaism is one among many legitimate ways to do so. They are wrong. But clearly not evil.

With comments like this Rabbi Amar’s own legitimacy comes into question. No individual that calls himself a leader of the Jewish people should ever characterize innocent Jews in such disgusting terms. Undermining Halachic observance is not their goal. That was the goal of their founding founders.

I agree with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who condemned his remarks. As should any decent Jew.

Rabbi Peach Eliyahu Falk (Wikipeda)

There is a lot of controversy about a concept called Daas Torah. A lot of it is based on misconceptions of what it really is. Because it is such an important feature of the Charedi world – which is by far the fastest growing segment of Orthodoxy, it is important to know exactly what Daas Torah is, and to examine what if any problems there are with it. There are two definitions of it quoted in Wikipedia. One is by Rabbi Avi Shafran, spokesman for Agudah - an organization defined by fealty to Daas Torah. The other is by Rabbi Pesach Eliyahu Falk, a Posek in Gateshead, renowned for his controversial work on modesty.

Rabbi Shafran:

What Da'at Torah means, simply put, is that those most imbued with Torah-knowledge and who have internalized a large degree of the perfection of values and refinement of character that the Torah idealizes are thereby rendered particularly, indeed extraordinarily, qualified to offer an authentic Jewish perspective on matters of import to Jews - just as expert doctors are those most qualified (though still fallible, to be sure) to offer medical advice.

Rabbi Falk:

That which Poskim cannot prove from an explicit source, is decided upon by a thought-process which has been tuned and refined by tens of thousands of hours of Torah study (and with elderly Talmidei Chachamim even hundreds of thousands of hours) which enables them to perceive where the pure truth lies. This process is called Da’as Torah - an opinion born out of Torah thought. Their thought-process has not been affected by secular and non-Jewish ways of thinking.

Bearing in mind that neither definition imputes infallibility to the rabbinic leaders whose opinions are seen as Daas Torah (indeed Rabbi Shafran makes a point of that) – it is nonetheless treated that way. If for no other reason than - as the most Torah knowledgeable people they are in the best position to offer the closest thing to the Torah’s view on all matters. What choice do religious Jews have but to follow their advice – seeing that it is the closest thing to God’s will available to them?!

While I understand where Rabbi Falk is coming from by stating that the best understanding of a Torah response is one that is both learned in Torah - and unhampered by other knowledge, I have to disagree with him. Clearly knowledge about any subject one is asked about is paramount in giving the right answer. For example, knowing all the Torah in the world cannot possibly tell you how electricity works. In order to Paskin correctly one must know not only Torah, he must know the Mada of the question he is asked about. This is why Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach studied the science of electricity before issuing his own opinion on how it impacts on Shabbos.

The real Poskim are those that do either what R’ Shlomo Zalmen did, or at least recognize that they do not have sufficient knowledge to issue an opinion. Whether it be on Psak or on other matters. They do not do render an opinion unless and until they get that knowledge. No one exemplified that better than R’ Moshe Feinstein, who knew his limitations and would never issue a Psak on medical issues until first discussing it with his son in law, Rabbi Dr. Moshe Tendler who is an expert in bio medicine.

Unfortunately in our day, the process of getting and disseminating the views of a rabbinic leader (Daas Torah) has been corrupted. First, by the fact that many ‘sub-par Poskim’ do not bother studying the issue about which they issue an opinion. They basically shoot from the hip and sometimes issue an opinion out of ignorance.

But even those Poskim that do the necessary research can no longer be trusted. Not because of anything they have done wrong. But because of how their opinions are obtained and disseminated. I bring this up now since an actual video exists (which can be viewed below) about this process that demonstrates this problem far better than I could ever describe. It was first shown on YWN. And the comments there pretty much sum up the reality of why Daas Torah can no longer be relied upon.

Askanim are people that are active in the Jewish community. Among them are people that do so by attaching themselves to - and serving a particular Gadol. While that is a laudable thing to do, they are often zealots in their own right with an agenda of their own. Which they try and forward (either intentionally or unintentionally) by presenting a Shaila spun in a way to elicit a predetermined answer. This is basically what happened to both Nossons (Rabbis Slifkin and Kamenetsky).

Rabbi Kamentetsky’s negative experience (the ban of his book, Making of a Gadol) was described by him in a recorded address he gave in a Shul a few years ago as one that was completely controlled by R’ Elyashiv’s Asaknim.

Rabbi Slifkin’s experience was far worse. R’ Elyashiv was told that Rabbi Slifkin’s book contained Apikurus - heresy! (e.g. the age of the universe is far more than 6000 years old). R’ Elyashiv responded by banning his books. This was done without any input from Rabbi Slifkin who tried desperately to get an audience with R’ Elyashiv to present his side.

He was rebuffed by those Askanim who labeled him insolent for even trying to present his side! (Just to cite one example of a possible defense of Rabbi Slifkin could have presented is about the age of the universe being about 15 billion years old. That is well in line with classic sources in the Torah, Kabbalah, the Gemarah, Rishonim, and Achronim. Which was ably demonstrated by a Charedi icon - physicist Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan in an address he gave to the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists. It should also be mentioned that Rabbi Slifkin was very careful to discuss the ideas in his books with other respected rabbinic leaders who endorsed his books !)

In the YWN story, Rav Chaim Kanievsky gave a one word response to a question asked to him about whether people in Miami should evacuate facing the possibility of life threatening catastrophic results from Hurricane Irma. The word was Sakana (life threatening!).

Obviously his message was that Sakana overrides almost all the Mitzvos in the Torah. This answer does not require Daas Torah. It is obvious. But in watching the video, it is almost as if he ignored the question. All he said was ‘Sakana’. The rest is all about their interpretation.

If one reads the comments to that video, one can easily see why Daas Torah is under attack. Daas Torah is controlled by Askanim. They are the ones disseminating the views of their leaders. In my view, they cannot be trusted to accurately report what their rabbinic leaders actually believe, rendering the entire concept of DaasTorah in our day a questionable enterprise.

Orthodox Jewish families in Borough Park, Brooklyn (New York Times)

One must accept the truth no matter who says it. And yet the truth is often ignored or even lied about by community leaders with an agenda that hurts their own people. All while believing it actually helps them.

The truth is that the Judaism places the highest possible value on Torah study. No knowledgeable Orthodox Jew would ever dispute this. The problem is that in Charedi circles that belief is expanded to exclude all other studies. The thinking is that since there is so much Torah to study one cannot ever complete the study of all of it. In pursuit of that goal, Torah has to be studied full time to the exclusion of everything else. Other studies will reduce the amount of Torah knowledge that could have been gained.

This was in fact the rationale used by Rav Moshe Feinstein when he was asked whether one is permitted to attend college. How then do we explain that in America at least, so many Charedi elementary and high schools have relatively decent secular studies program for a sizable portion of each day?

The answer to that is bit complex. But I think the primary reason is a that when most of the Charedi schools in America were founded, no parent would send their chid to a school that did not offer a secular education along with religious studies. So in order to get started and survive – they did that for the greater good of educating their populace Jewishly. There is not a doubt in my mind that without these schools, Orthodoxy would today be in decline rather than in ascendancy.

Since Charedim do not find anything inherently wrong with secular studies (Limudei Chol) they incorporated them into their schools through high school. Rav Eliya Svei – founder and Rosh HaYeshiva until his death of The Philadelphia Yeshiva had always defended their past excellent reputation by saying something along the lines of the following: If your going to have secular studies, it is no Mitzvah to waste your time. You might as well learn something.

Reading between those lines however makes it clear that he considered it a compromise he would rather do without. When the Charedi world got stronger and more Yeshivos proliferated – some of them not offering any secular studies, his yeshiva watered down those secular studies by among other things, no longer allowing homework.

The paradigm of not offering any seculars studies is how Israeli Charedi schools operate. In America, a variety of the large Chasidic community also do not offer secular studies. Including both Satmar and Chabad.

In Satmar and Sqvere, none of the high schools have any secular studies at all.

And although Lubavitch/Chabad has many fine schools that offer a decent secular program, that is only for the same expedient reasons that the more mainstream non Lubavitch schools did. Their late Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneersohn dictated that it is preferable – whenever possible to eliminate all secular studies and offer a curriculum of entirely religious subjects. Chabad’s elementary school in Detroit has no secular studies. And neither does their high school here in Chicago. The same is true for Oholei Torah, their school in Crown Heights.

Except for girls. Secular subjects are studied by girls in all of the above mentioned scenarios - proving that there is nothing wrong with that - and that there is even value in knowing those subjects.

I need not go into details why I believe this situation is extremely harmful to them. I’ve done that so many times that I’m beginning to sound like a broken record. Besides, it should be obvious to anyone what a lack of education does to one’s financial future.

But is is also harmful to all of Orhtodox Jewry. When there are so many Orthodox Jews that believe that secular studies should – in the ideal – never replace any religious studies it hurts us all. We are all one community that supports one another.

In the Yeshivishe Charedi world, there are still options for parents that want their children to get a good secular education. Albeit decreasingly so as the race among Charedi schools to ‘outfrum’ each other increases.

No such option exists in the more insular segments of the Chasidic world. Even though deep down, a lot of parents have come to realize that this does not bode well for their children’s future. Which is why Naftuli Moster created YAFFED (Young Advocates For Fair Education).

Naftuli grew up in a closed Chasidic environment. When he left it, he found out just how much education he was lacking. Now wants to correct that situation. He’s been trying to do so for at least two years. And he is being condemned by his former community as well as many outside of that community for doing so.

The claim is that he is no longer religious and that his real agenda is a vindictive one that seeks to destroy his former community. That is why, say Moster’s antagonists he has gone to the authorities to get action on his goal. They probably see him as a Moser, an informant who is seen in Judaism as one of the most vile people a Jew could be.

I can’t read his mind. I do not even know if he is still observant at any level. But I can certainly see that the goal he seeks is not destruction but salvation. Two years ago when this issue heated up Ezra Freidlander one of their political and public relations activists, acknowledged that a problem exists. But he claimed that it should be dealt with internally. And certainly not directed by a ‘Moser’ like Moster.

Which brings me to a recent article in the New York Times. Two years ago New York’s Department of Education said they would investigate charges that these schools did not live up to their requirement of offering a substantially equivalent curriculum to that offered in public schools.

YAFFED claims that Mayor Bill deBlasio and his school chancellor, Carmen Farina have been turning a blind eye to this. Even though they promised to take swift action, they have ignored the problem allowing these schools to continue to function as before. What about Freidlannder’s promise to change things internally? I guess he was kidding. Or lying. Or completely deluding himself. To the best of my knowledge nothing has changed.

What about the claim one often hears that the curriculum offered in public schools is of no real benefit to their future financial welfare? (For example what purpose does knowing American history or Euclidean geometry serve in that respect?) And the claim that they learn culturally – kind of by osmosis - what they need to know to survive?

First, it isn’t only about the particular subjects. It is about the skill acquired in studying them which are valuable in getting a higher education leading to a better job. As for their financial welfare, one need not look any further than statistics that show the Satmar Community of Kiryas Joel to be among the poorest cities in the nation. Or to look at what proportion of them get government financial aid. Or the propensity to skirt the law bordering on (if not outright) welfare fraud in some cases.

I hate to see the government get involved in religious education. Which is the claim of those that have opposed scrutiny by New Yorks Department of Education. But this is not that. This is the government doing its duty – keeping its obligation to the public to assure that all citizens are given a decent education. And to make sure that any financial aid given to them by the government is used as intended – complying with the conditions that money is distributed to them.

I’m not sure what the next step will be. But I’m pretty sure that nothing there will change, regardless of what the government does. Government officials will never stop funding them. That would be political suicide. Which is unfortunate. Since the real losers will be the children.

R' Yoshe Ber Soloveitchik, R' Aharon Kotler & Irving Bunim

I want to be clear from the outset so that there is no mistake about my views. I have profound respect for Gedolim. Who those Gedolim are may be a subject of debate among various factions within Orthodoxy. But the one thing they have in common is that their Torah knowledge is superior by far to that of the rest of us.

Not that Torah knowledge alone is enough to make one a Gadol in a leadership sense. Although they may be considered a Gadol BaTorah, they may still not be qualified to be a Gadol B'Yisroel - a rabbinic leader. There are many factors that must be met besides Torah knowledge before someone can dispense wisdom to the masses. What those factors are is beyond the scope of this post.

Daas Torah is the term used by the Charedi world to refer to the views of those leaders who qualify as Gedolim. Although the term has been subjected to lot of ridicule by some, I believe ridicule uncalled for and unfair. That term simply means ‘Wisdom of the Torah’. Orthodox Jews should acknowledge that the Torah is the word of God. Thus God’s wisdom is contained therein. The difficulty is in how to find out what that wisdom actually is. The Torah cannot possibly deal with every single issue that ever comes up even in one generation, let alone every generation. That is why those with the most Torah knowledge are best equipped to tell us what the Torah would say about any given situation.

Even though there are people that have that kind of knowledge they do not always agree on how one should deal with a particular situation. This very important fact illustrates the difficulty of knowing exactly what the wisdom of the Torah is. An example of this in a communal sense was whether Orthodox rabbis should join a rabbinic body that includes Conservative and Reform Rabbis. Rav Aharon Kotler’s Daas Torah forbade any participation at all with heterodox rabbis for any reason. Rav Yoshe Ber Soloveitchik’s Daas Torah permitted it if it was exclusively for the betterment of the Jewish people and theological issues were not involved.

One can debate the opinions of these great rabbis. But there should be no doubt that in both cases it was Daas Torah speaking. So that even though I would see Rav Soloveitchik’s views more accurately reflecting the wisdom of theTorah, I still consider Rav Kotler’s views to Daas Torah as well.

That being said, what has happened to that idea has been warped beyond recognition into something that is not Daas Torah at all. Albeit still thought to be by far too many people in the Charedi world. This does not mean that there aren’t Charedim that view Daas Torah correctly. But there are far too many whose views are so warped, that it defies imagination.

Case in point. Yesterday a Charedi friend of mine approached me after Mincha about an encounter he had with a fellow Charedi. He was asked if he heard what R’ Chaim Kanievsky said about Hurricane Irma being a Sakana (life threatening) . My friend responded along the lines that he couldn’t believe that anyone asked R’ Chaim a silly question like that and why anyone would make a big deal about a one word obvious answer. The fellow seem shocked at the response. How could he say something like that about a ‘psak’ from Rav Kanievsky?! It was as though he committed blasphemy!

(Just to be clear. This is not a criticism of R’ Kanievsky. It is a criticism of both the need to ask a question the answer to which can be given by 8^th grader - and the reaction of the Charedi fellow to my friend’s response.)

Unfortunately that incident didn’t surprise me. That’s because of how the Charedi world talks about their rabbinic leaders. They do so in terms that places them on pedestals so high that they become nearly god-like figures. Any reference to one of their Gedolim that can be perceived with even the slightest bit of criticism (even when there was none as was the case here) is grounds for questioning his credentials as a ‘Ben Torah’ (a term used to describe fellow Charedim).

This not Daas Torah. This is Gadol worship. It mimics the kind or awe Chasidim give to there Chasidic Rebbes.

The phenomenon of Gadol worship has many fathers. Not the least of which is how Agudah speaks about its rabbinic leadership as absolute and final authorities on every matter about which they express an opinion. While agreeing that they are human and fallible, they nevertheless treat them as though they are infallible. So that anything they say s to be treated as though God Himself has said it. Rendering their ‘disclaimer’ meaningless.This kind of thinking is carried over to their banquets where inevitable there will be at least one speaker will take this attitude to an even more exaggerated level.

But that is not the only factor. Biographies about about past Gedolim in the Charedi world - painting them as born holy from the womb - is practically how every biography is written. The subjects of the bios never struggle - never err even as children. They are presented as born perfect and remaining perfect throughout their lives. When Gedolim of the past are presented in such unrealistic terms – hiding any aspect of their lives that might be considered the slightest bit unflattering, it isn’t too difficult to see how anyone referred to as a Gadol in our generations are seen.

Another factor that influences how Charedi Mechanchim speak to their students about the experiences with their own Gadol. They tend to talk in the most glowing terms describing their personal encounters in exaggerated terms. I’m not sure they even realize they are exaggerating. The fact is they don’t really know more than their own experiences tell them and have no clue about how they cmae tobe who they are – whether they had any imperfections in their character they had to overcome. So a young student who may have the same Rosh Yeshiva later in life will already be in a state of awe before he ever meets him, and treat him accordingly.

As the Gadol ages and his following becomes greater the stories about him spread as do the exaggerations. When you combine all of these factors, you and up with the incident my friend described to me.

This is a very unhealthy development for Orthodoxy. As I said Gedolim deserve our respect. What they do not deserve is to be worshiped as though they are gods.

There are too many people that have the kind of reaction my friend described.

I’m sure that Agudah officials will deny that they build up their Gedolim in unrealistic terms. But I have to question them about that when at every convention they speak about their Gedolim that way. I’m equally sure that will deny thata their biographies exaggerate the greatess of their biographical subjects. But when they refuse to publish any of the himan struggles they had on the way to becoming a gadol, what other conclusions can one have than tto see them as beyond human and near godlike?!

And when Roshei Yeshiva ignore the kind of fawing their students have over them, that too encourages his attitude.

I would like to see the concept of Daas Torah revert to what it is supposed to be - respecting their views but not idolizing them. It would help if the exaggerations at conventions and omissions in biographies would stop. It would also help if Roshei Yeshiva would teach their students that they too had struggles. And actually point to mistakes they made.

And so too would it help if a Rebbe would stop exaggerating about his personal experiences and perhaps relate something human about them.

I will end with an excerpt from Rav Ahron Soloveichik's book, The Warmth and the Light, which I referenced in a previous post on the subject:

In Parhsas Ki Sisa where we have our first instance of what happens when a great man, Moshe Rabbenu, is worshipped. That kind of worship led to the Maaseh HaEgel – the worshipping of an icon – the golden calf...

How is it possible that the people who were just so overwhelmed by the Shechina and declaring ‘Naaseh V’Nishma’ – ‘We will do (the Mitzvos) and we will listen to them’ - could sink to the moral abyss of Avodah Zara - idol worship?

Rav Ahron’s answer was discussed in that post. But I think history is repeating itself for the reasons - at least in part - I mentioned here. And could be remedied accordingly.

1 in 6 women in the IDF have been sexually harassed (Jerusalem Post)

One in six female soldiers in Israel are sexually harassed. So reports the Jerusalem Post. This is an outrageous situation that ought to be remedied. The politically correct response to this is to get tough on reports of such incidences and to give harsher sentences to those found guilty of it. The problem with that is that as things stand now, accusations of even rape often end up being a ‘he said - she said’ (either with the accused saying it was consensual or denying t altogether) resulting in no justice for accusers. Only problems.

I happen to believe that when a woman says she was raped or sexually harassed she should be believed. Most of the time it’s true. Nonetheless, it’s hard to prove in a court (even if it ever gets that far) when there are no witnesses other than the participants. In fact I think that the one out of six ratio is probably low. It is probably higher but not always reported for lack of anything to gain and everything to lose.

Why is this happening? I believe the problem is cultural. And it could be remedied in a way that is politically incorrect but very effective at least as far as the armed services is concerned.

The cultural aspect of the problem is western civilization’s obsession with sexual freedom. Ever since oral contraceptives made unwanted pregnancies largely a thing of the past, sexual mores have been thrown out the window. As a child of the sixties, when this change in the cultural paradigm was initiated - I witnessed it. The clarion call of the time was ‘If it feels good, do it’. Hedonism had won the day.

Unmarried sex has become practically the norm. Even among the more moral element, engaged couples that live together is a lot more common than those waiting until after marriage to do so. The idea of saving it for marriage is practically ridiculed in general society nowadays. What was once considered proper behavior is now a thing of the past. That pre-marital sex is extremely rare among Orthodox Jews is considered an anomaly in our culture. How can you not ‘test the merchandise before you buy it?’…I often hear asked of those of us that remain celibate until marriage.

While one might say that this has nothing to do with sexual harassment of women, and that rape and harassment is about power - not sex, I beg to differ. While power may be a big part of it, sex is clearly the means of achieving it. To deny that sexual gratification has nothing to do with rape or harassment is to deny human nature.

When sexual permissiveness pervades the culture, it emboldens some men to ‘make a move’ thinking that the other party is as interested as they are. While that does not always equal sexual harassment, line are too easily crossed because of it. After all isn’t that the way things are always depicted in novels, movies, TV, and music? Sex is what sells automobiles and what sells beer. Casual sex is the norm. One would have to be in complete denial to say that it isn’t.

We live in a world that is over-sexualized. Presidents in both the US and Israel who were otherwise highly respected have been guilty sexual harassment or even rape. (Think Kennedy, Clinton, and Katzav.) Is it any wonder that army officers are guilty of it too? Or that sexual activity is so prevalent in the army? When sex is so oversold in a society it makes sexual harassment an easy slope to slide into for some people.

In my view the best remedy to this problem is to segregate the sexes. You can’t change the culture.We are all too deeply invested in it for too long a time. But you can do things to eliminate or at least reduce opportunity. Which is what the IDF ought to do.

I am kind of old fashioned about this. If that makes me sexist in the eyes of some, I can’t help it. I do not believe that women ought to be involved in combat. I actually believe that women are not generally as physically equipped to do so as men.

Yes, I know the argument. As long as the standards remain the same for both sexes and a woman can qualify she ought to be given the same opportunity as men. That sounds good and is the politically correct attitude. I do not, however, think exceptions ought to set policy. In fact if I am not mistaken I believe the general physical standards for army service have been lowered in both the US and Israel just to accommodate women. But even if the original standard is upheld, putting men and women together in an environment where hierarchy is all important, makes women in the military particularly vulnerable to sexual harassment or worse.

This is not to say that women shouldn’t have the right to serve in the military if they so choose. Of course they should. But only in the myriad of positions that are administrative and not combat.

Once you place them in combat units, they are perforce going to have to be involved with men and need to be trained to work together. That in my view is a prescription for the 1 out of 6 sexual harassment ratio. Increased vigilance and better prosecution of violators of a code of conduct between the sexes will never completely work. Especially in ‘He said – She said’ confrontations that end up letting the accused completely off the hook; leaving the accuser as a trouble maker; and making life even more miserable for her. Leaving her just as vulnerable as before.

For me this is common sense. Even if the feminist spirit of the times argues against it, isn’t it a small price to pay? Isn’t an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure?

Rabbi Michael Broyde Responds

A Very Short Reply to the Many Substantive Comments on my Article: An Initial Analysis of Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch’s Teshuva on the Beth Din of America’s Prenuptial Agreement

by Rabbi Michael J. Broyde

Footsteps and Chabad

As the Orthodox Jewish Demographic Grows

Look Who's Taking!

What Do They Really Want?

Coming Full Circle? Not Entirely

Grass Roots Changes in Tradition

More on Pew

Rabbi Asher Lopatin

Of Shells and Modesty

Harvey and a Charedi Hero

The Catholic Church and the Jewish People

The Truth Is…

Relying on Miracles to Sustain the Unsustainbable

A Profile in Courage

A Just Cause is No Excuse

Daas Torah? Or Daas Askanim?

Education Denied

Daas Torah - When Great Men are Worshipped

An Ounce of Prevention