Emes Ve-Emunah

Chasidic family in Boro Park for illustrative purposes only

I hate labels. I really do. I’ve mentioned this before. But for those that are not familiar with my view on this subject let me explain it.

One might think that just because I label various types of Jews, I am a strong supporter of using them. I am not. I use them as a matter of convenience in order to explain my own Hashkafos in contradistinction to the Hashkafos of others.

Labels tend to divide. I would prefer that there be no labels. Hashkafos should not divide us. If I believe in Torah U’Mada and someone else believes in Torah Im Derech Eretz, while yet another person believes in Torah only and still another believes in Chasidus, that should not divide us as a people. Differing world views does not mean we can’t be one people with a variety of paths towards serving God. The only time labels among us should bear any significance is when it involves a break from Halacha and/or the historic traditions of Judaism.

If someone has an ideology different from another but is still observant, maintains traditional beliefs and religious values, it should not matter what their Hashkafa is. We should all just be one unified observant Jewish people. Not Charedim. Not Modern Orthodox. Not Chasidim, Not Yeshivish. Not Centrists. Hashkafos should not divide us. But alas, they do. So I deal with them that way.

Bearing this in mind, I received an e-mail from a respected Charedi personality who has posted here before anonymously and chooses to remain that way. His views are in concert with what I just said.He finds little meaning in the articles appearing in much of the Frum media that addresses Orthodoxy, its artificial subcategories (e.g. Yeshivish, modern...). He considers them vague and without much concrete definition.

He charges that in all cases, they veer strongly away from what honestly matters: Torah and doing all of the 613 Mitzvos. Trimming this prohibits entry. As such the Conservative and Reform movements that do so become almost meaningless. He noted that in the discussions like the one in my last post there tends to be an obsession with the focus on children and youth. Omitted and ignored is what he deems to be a serious, epidemic of adults at risk.

The same people that make the shuls in Boro Park, Williamsburg, Flatbush, Crown Heights, Monsey, Monroe, and Lakewood hustle and bustle - with multiple Minyanim, Kiddushim, Simchos, and fund raising events populated by the ostensibly chareidi, yeshivish, and chassidishe adults, we are deluded into believing that there is the ideal of Yiddishkeit brimming over in abundance.

This rabbinic personality has experience that allows him to gaze with a bit more of a critical eye than many who are immersed in the religious culture of the above mentioned neighborhoods. Because of his position, he has been the recipient of confidential discussions by participants in those environments about what really goes on among these ostensibly holy families. Without specifying - it involves serious and severe violations of Halacha that are part of an accepted lifestyle.

In his view there is a near absence of Yir’as Shomayim and Ahavas Hashem that begins in our G-d free zones in yeshivas and girls’ schools, and continues throughout the lifespan where the ‘Frum’ are focused only on the chitzoniyus. It has become all about appearances. It matters more what someone wears on top of his head than what is inside of it! For so many ‘religious’ Jews, it is all about pursuing pleasures, primary and secondary drives, all of which are plainly narcissistic, and devoid of attention to the Shechina.

He therefore finds the Pew statistics and those of similar studies to be irrelevant. The answers do not lie in the numbers. The answers lie in what we do as individuals and communities to make the Shechina dwell among us.

With attention on everything else, there is so much diversion that God really gets knocked low on the list of priorities.

There is a Rav in Boro Park who has a framed sign in Yiddish that asks ‘Voss Zugt Gut? (What does God say?) He takes it seriously. But he is lost among the masses that are busy with trivia like hair length, socks and shoes, glasses frames, the number of sections on a yarmulke, and such criteria that are used to accept or reject kids from yeshivas.

He concludes with the following:

The obsession with discipline in chinuch is pathological, and makes the experience of going to school and yeshiva a contest. The individual attention to each student to help him learn to love Torah and Mitzvos is claimed at their annual dinners, but the dishonesty in that is known to all parents.

So before we worry about whether Modern Orthodox Jews are really Orthodox, let us first look at those who filter NYC water, follow strict halachos about chodosh/yoshon, spend fortunes on their esrogim, and wear the most holy forms of malbush: Are they truly Orthodox? Do they really believe, or are they just monkeys performing because they are being watched by their neighbors?

Simchas Torah is a joyous time. In Israel it combines with Shemini Atzres. So that all the dancing takes place on that day. There is not second day in Israel - unless you are a visitor from outside the country. As I am.

I’m not much of a dancer. To say the least. The phrase ‘two left feet’ could have been coined because of me. Fortunately, Simchas Torah does not require one to be any kind of talented dancer. That’s because what passes for dancing is really not dancing. It is stomping your feet as you go around in circles with a Sefer Torah. Which for me just isn’t all that exiting, again – to say the least. This may sound sacrilegious. But it really isn’t. Dancing the way it has evolved on this day is a relatively new phenomenon.

SimchasTorah celebrates the competition of the annual Torah reading cycle… and the commencement of the new one. Why should that be a cause for dancing your heart out? I don’t really think that this is what all that extended dancing is really all about.

The basic custom is to do Hakafos. And even that is a relatively recent custom dating back at most about 500 years or so. We take out the Sefrei Torah and walk around in a circle 7 times with a Chazan leading it while chanting a series of 7 prayers related to one of the themes of this particular Yom Tov – Hoshanos.

Today, that ‘foot stomping’ has evolved into a huge ‘dance’ marathon that can go on for hours before it ends. What was once at most a 20 minute custom now seems to take forever to conclude. So if this was not part of the original custom, why is it so strongy observed now? As noted above – none of the dancers are thinking ‘Wow!’ We just finished the annual Torah reading cycle.

For the truly Ehrlich, they are celebrating the Torah itself. This is the only time of year where they can dance while holding and hugging Sifre Torah. It is quite inspiring to see that, even if I can’t dance that way myself. But there are some - mostly young Yeshiva students - that take this too far and insist on violating protocol by continuing to pound their feet and sing at the top of their lungs – overpowering the Gabbai who asked them to stop! And when they succeed they smile as though they pulled off a fast one.

Those that insist on doing that might want to think of themselves as zealous Bnei Torah showing their devotion to God by wanting to dance and hug the Torah for as long as possible. That may be true in some cases. But I think there are a fair amount of them that are just self centered and want to have fun at everyone else’s expense. Most older people do not like the prolonging. They are tired, want to go home and have their Yom Tov Seudah (meal) But they often stick it out and just sit out the later Hakafos.

They continue waiting while others continue to stomp their feet endlessly to the same song. Most of those sitting are good sports, though. So they just let it happen. Thinking, ‘How could they possibly complain about these young people that so exuberantly celebrate the Torah?’ But some of them eventually leave early because it just becomes too boring for them.

What does it say about the values of those that are doing the prolonging? ...even against the wishes of the Shul Gabboim that invited them in the first place? When the Gabboim say ‘Stop’ - these young people ought to stop. What kind of values are reflected by those that consider prolonged ‘dancing’ to supersede everyone else’s desire to end it at a reasonable time and go home?

I am one of those that just leaves early. I take my two left feet and go home. But I also take with me the knowledge that there are just too many young Yeshiva students that are way too self centered. What is a great and joyous time of Simcha for some is not so enjoyable for others. Especially those a bit more elderly then them. That is not the feeling that should be left with at the end of Yom Tov. And because I am in Israel, I get to experience it twice.

Chag Sameach

Orthodox Jewish billionaire and philanthropist - R' Shlomo Rechnitz

Even though he is Charedi, and I am a Centrist - Modern Orthodox (MO) Jew, I tend to agree with Shlomo Rechnitz on many matters. As I did a couple of years ago when he expressed empathy for the pain experienced by parents in Lakewood who could not get their children registered in even one of that town’s Charedi schools. I also laud him for his generous philanthropy to causes inside and outside of Judaism. But I have to part company with him on recent public statements with respect to Open Orthodoxy (OO).

I say Open Orthodoxy even though Yeshiva Chovevei Torah (YCT) head Rabbi Asher Lopatin now prefers to simply call it MO. I cannot agree to defining his movement that way since MO is a broad category that isn’t limited to his definition. I’m not even sure that a movement that is rejected by virtually every legitimate Posek within Orthodoxy (e.g. Poskim of institutions like the RCA, OU, YU, Agudah, the CER (The Conference of European Rabbis ) , and the Israeli Chief Rabbinate - can use the prefix ‘Orthodox’. You can’t insert yourself into a group that whose primary rabbinic leadership so clearly rejects you – no matter how much you claim to be a part of it. So for purposes of this essay and no alternative term, I will be referring to them as Open Orthodox or OO.

It might seem ironic that I am criticizing R’ Shlomo for criticizing Open Orthodoxy since I have been critical of them myself. But the fact is that he has gone too far. It’s one thing to say the movement is wrong in being guided by the current Zeitgeist of things like egalitarianism. But calling them ‘Fake Jews’ crosses a line.

The people that populate OO are anything but fake. I believe they are sincere Jews that have fallen victim to the spirit of the times and are trying to reconcile that with Judaism. OO Rabbis try mightily to to accommodate that. That they do so by going too far does not take away from their legitimacy s Jews. They want to be observant and egalitarian. Rabbis like Asher Lopatin believe they have found a way to accommodate them. There is nothing fake about that. It is just misguided.

And yet this is what R’ Shlomo has said about them. From Arutz Sheva:

(G)oing to synagogue doesn't make you religious, just like standing in the parking lot doesn't make you a car... There is nothing Orthodox about them, and the only thing that is 'open' about them is their stores and businesses which are open on the Shabbat and Yom Kippur.

… if someone doesn't want to keep Torah and mitzvot [commandments] according to tradition but still be called 'Orthodox', he can join the 'Open Orthodox'…

It is one thing to criticize them even strongly. It is another to make up ‘facts’ about them which are not true. Open Orthodoxy clearly does not approve of Chilul Shabbos or Yom Kippur in any form. To say that they do is by itself ‘fake news’. This is not to say there aren’t members of that movement that are not observant. I’m sure there are. But there are non observant Jews in all of segments of Orthodoxy. That they exists doesn’t mean that Orhtodoxy is defined by their non observance. Orthodoxy does not define itself that way and neither does OO.

That they welcome non observant Jews is no sin. That is called ‘Kiruv’ – reaching out to Jews and showing them that observance - which is the hallmark of Orthodox Judaism - is the correct path to take.

We should all welcome non observant Jews that approach us. If someone wants to learn about Orthodox Judaism we should welcome them with words of encouragement and tell them that if they choose that lifestyle, they should begin to observance Halacha at their own pace. Which means that they will not necessarily be fully observant right away. In fact someone that comes from a completely secular background with no religious training whatsoever - and suddenly becomes completely observant overnight –will likely just as quickly drop out in very short order.

I doubt that that Open Orthodoxy has a different approach to outreach. That they also extol the virtues of egalitarianism to the extent that they reject tradition - and the views of all major Poskim is a tragic flaw that – among other things - has caused them to be rejected. But to call them tolerant of Chilul Shabbos and Yom Kippur is both wrong and untrue.

As unlikely as it is, my sincere hope is that this movement comes back home and sees the error of their ways. If they want to be considered Orthodox by their rabbinic peers in the rest of Orthodoxy they have no real alternative. As I’ve said many times. Orthodoxy needs a left wing. But not one that has crossed so may lines.

R’ Shlomo’s exaggerated over-the-top comments pushes them even further away. Making this goal more remote than ever. Even when rejecting a movement, one must be truthful about who they are and why they are being rejected.

So, yes, R’ Shlomo and I see this movement as problematic. But in no way do I see them as tolerating Chilul Shabbos and Yom Kippur at any level. Lo Zu HaDerech. Truth requires that R' Shlomo reconsider his remarks.

Charedi Jews

One of the more unfortunate by-products of labeling various groups of people is how they are often associated with certain types of behavior. Orthodox Judaism is not immune to that at all. Usually in very unflattering - negative ways.

Two examples of that are the following: Charedim all cheat the government whenever they can get away with it. And all modern Orthodox Jews don’t really care about Halacha that much. These are common prejudices that many among each a group think about the other And they are both false. Charedim do not as a group cheat the government any more than any other ethnic group, whether Orthodox, Jew or non Jew. And modern Orthodox Jews care about Halacha as much as Charedim do.

When such negative stereotypes are utilized by people from without, it is naturally upsetting – even insulting to the people from within. For me that is a clear violation of Lashon Hara. And the result is often responding in kind using prejudices about the people in other group in increasingly disparaging ways. It is a vicious cycle that amounts to no good with a resentment that can spiral into a virtual hatred of the other group.

This does not mean that there aren’t some individuals within those groups that are guilty of a particular stereotype. There clearly are. But to characterize the many because of the few is grossly unfair and wrong.

Why is this case? Why do these groups become stereotyped that way? Unfortunately because there too many instances of the negative stereotype within those groups. Which leads to bad publicity and false generalizations by observers. That misinformation then spreads and if you are not a member of that group you begin to believe the negative stereotype about that group. Which becomes hard to defend against. Once the reputation becomes established – every future instance or observation of it becomes a - ‘What do you expect from them?!’

Isn’t that how Lashon Hara works, though?

I happen to be of the opinion that the level of character, honesty, integrity, and kindnesses are the same among both groups.

I believe the ability to reach great heights in character is the same for all people in any civilized society. As is the ratio of those among them to veer into the opposite direction. There are good and bad people among all groups.

Why do I believe they are the same? I base it on another statistic that might be disputed by the religious world and yet according to experts (both religious and secular) is the same among religious Jews as it is among secular Jews and even non Jews. The ratio of sex abusers is about the same in all communities. Religious or otherwise. I think that’s probably true about all types of behavior.

Modern Orthodox Jew

One may ask, isn’t the Torah supposed to give you a higher sense of ethics and honesty? Of course it should. But people are human and fall prey to their own particular failings and prejudices. There are individual differences between people - whether through nurture or nature - that account for all sorts of behavior from good to bad.

The modern Orthodox Jews I associate with are as meticulous in observance as any Charedi I know. But I also know both modern Orthodox Jews and Charedim that are ‘Lite’ in their observance. There are righteous Jews and miscreants in both segments. I also know some very ethical Charedim and some very unethical modern Orthodox Jews. The point is that personal failings have nothing to do with Hashkafos. With respect to this issue - the differences between them are only in their outward appearance.

What bothers me is when one group claims superiority over another. Such as when is when Charedim claim to be more religious than Modern Orthodox Jews or when Modern Orthodox claim to be more ethical than Charedim. Neither are true. I’ll bet if there was a way to do an accurate survey of each group, we would find that the proportions of each are the same in both groups.

On a personal note, I have found the Charedim of Ramat Bet Shemesh to be the kindest and most ethical people I have ever met. As I have modern Orthodox Jews (Daatim) I’ve encountered here.

Just today I was in a Makolet (a small grocery/convenience type store) to buy an Angel’s Bakery poppy seed coffee roll for my morning coffee. When I presented my credit card, the cashier said there was a 20 Shekel minimum in that store. As it happened, I had no Shekels on me at the time. I was all set to be disappointed and put that cellophane wrapped and sealed coffee roll back on the shelf when a very nice young Charedi women waiting in line behind me saw my dilemma and disappointment - and insisted that she pay for it.

I appreciated the gesture and told her that it wasn’t necessary. I could live without it. But she insisted and placed the money on the counter for the cashier to take. Which she did before I had a chance to stop her. What a nice lady and what a nice gesture – one that cost her some money. A complete stranger that I had never met – and would likely never see again.

I don’t think this kind of kindness is the exclusive to Charedim. But it is clearly a part of who they are in Ramat Bet Shemesh. More than half of which is a microcosm of the Charedi world.

I think we should all just step back from our prejudices about those outside our camp, and see the world for what it really is. A collection of human beings whose character ranges in the same ratio with respect to the entire spectrum of ethics, honesty, and kindness. We should also to view the level of observance in all Orthodox Jewish groups to run along the same spectrum from strong commitment to observance to weak. No one group has a monopoly on those things – for good or bad. Being Dan L’Kaf Zechus - judging fellow Jews favorably is the way we should all be thinking. Wouldn’t that be a wonderful way to improve our lives after the Days of Awe we just experienced?

Ramat Bet Shemesh Aleph

Back to Chicago. My wife and I are on our way back from Israel – having spent yet another wonderful Yom Tov in in Ramat Bet Shemesh Aleph (...except for Yom Tov Sheni of Simchas Torah – see post from last week for the reason.)

The suburbs of Bet Shemesh are growing by leaps and bounds. Construction is everywhere. All residences there are built using 'Jerusalem stone' - making for a very aesthetically pleasing look. The view of the surrounding hills are quite beautiful and can be seen from many of the homes there.

An entire new city (Ramat Bet Shemesh Gimmel) is being built (mostly condos) adjacent to Aleph with many people already living there. Greater Bet Shemesh is about to become one of the largest cities in Israel. It will be populated mostly by observant Jews (Charedim and Datim). Shabbos and Yom Tov there is palpable. You can feel it in the air. The only traffic on those days are occasional emergency vehicles. The streets become filled with children playing in them.

Although I'm told that the percentage of English speakers there is at about 40%, I could almost swear that the most common language spoken there is English.

The new 4 lane highway (38) connecting Bet Shemesh to the Jerusalem Tel Aviv Highway (1) is a dream! It is operational and fast. What used to be a long and slow haul - of sometimes up to an hour just a few short months ago now takes minutes to traverse.

But you do have to watch out for those 'crazy' Israeli drivers. Just kidding.

We truly enjoyed spending time with our son, daughter in law, and our American-Israeli grandchildren. Loved the Shul (Masaas Mordechai). Loved the people in it. The skies were blue, and the temperature as warm as the people we encountered. Can't wait to come back.

Harvey Weinstein

Another giant has fallen. In a highly publicized expose in the New York Times Harvey Weinstein has been outed as a serial womanizer that has been accused of sexually harassing many women (in some instances – even rape!) during his illustrious decades long career as an award winning film producer. He probably has accumulated 81 Academy Awards and over 300 nominations for movies he has produced. Many of them high quality films like ‘The King’s Speech’, ‘The English Patient’, and ‘My Left Foot’. To say that he is a powerhouse in Hollywood would be a major understatement.

No more. He has been ousted from the company he founded. And shamed beyond repair. Deservedly so. As is often the case when an abuser is outed by one or more victims, many more have emerged since then to tell their stories. Whether he will be prosecuted for any of this remains to be seen. He claims it was all consensual.

The conventional wisdom about sexual harassment (…or more specifically rape) is that it isn’t about sex. It’s about power. I am not an expert on these matters and am not really qualified to dispute that. But you cannot get away from the fact that a sexual act is the ‘medium’ whereby this power is exercised. I don’t think anyone can - nor should – discount the fact that sexual gratification is a part of it - as is ego (i.e. a sense of sexual prowess). Maybe that it is what it is really about - sexual power. Because until a few days ago there was certainly no one more powerful in Hollywood than Harvey Weinstein.

Weinstien is not the first man to be accused of this kind of behavior. Certainly not in Hollywood. The casting couch has been around for a long time. But Hollywood is not the only place where women are so freely sexually harassed and exploited. It pervades our culture. Presidents and paupers live in a world dominated by a Hollywood ethic that portrays women as sex objects. Ian Fleming’s fictional British spy, James Bond, is the quintessential role model for this. He is a notorious womanizer who has been a role model for countless numbers of young men throughout the many decades of James Bond film genre. He always gets the girl! Doesn’t that very concept objectify women?

I wonder if there has ever been any serious study about the impact of movie genres like this in how our culture treats women. Clearly this is the cultural norm in much of western civilization. Promiscuous sex is glorified. Illicit sex is sometimes even seen as heroic - even when is between a man and woman married to other people! The protagonists are praised for finally finding ‘true love’ with each other instead of with their spouses. The implication is that finding true love is the epitome of life.

This is Hollywood’s message. It is pervasive in almost all of its films either directly or indirectly. Only I wouldn’t call it true love. I’d call it true lust.

I am not saying that Hollywood invented sexual exploitation of women. It’s been around since the beginning of time. But they have surely capitalized on it – and have influenced the sexual mores of this country to where sexual prowess is a high goal for men to achieve.

It isn’t only movies and TV. It’s a culture of pornography that an evil genius by the name of Hugh Hefner invented and promoted in his magazine ‘Playboy’. That was the first magazine to feature a centerfold picture of a naked woman in suggestive poses - and advising young men on how to get women to go to bed with them. Hefner was the first. But he was certainly not the only. Today’s pornography and the ease with which one can access it makes Playboy look tame by comparison.

It is in this culture that Weinstein found himself. He probably thought he was just reflecting the sexual mores of the time - proving his sexual prowess to himself with each ‘conquest’.

Although there are some stable marriages in Hollywood where husbands and wives are faithful to each other – it is probably also true that there is more sexual promiscuity in this community than in any other segment of civilized society. But as noted above, it doesn’t begin and end in Hollywood. Not is every case as high profile as Weinstein, Cosby, or Polanski. But the culture is there.To paraphrase a popular phrase - life does not only imitate Hollywood. Hollywood imitates life.

Presidents like Kennedy, Clinton and Trump have either sexually exploited women or made derogatory comments about exploiting them. It is not a coincidence for example that President Kennedy was an avid reader of Ian Fleming’s James Bond novels. How many prominent senators, governors, mayors and congressmen with pretenses of moral authority have been exposed as far less moral than they pretended to be - ruining their careers in the porcess! Just to name a few at the top of my head, Jim McGreevey, Eliot Spitzer, Gary Hart, John Edwards…

Many professional athletes are notorious womanizers that have had many sexual ‘conquests’.

And need I mention the number of religious figures that have been caught with their proverbial pants down?

None of this excuses Weinstein. He deserves what he’s getting. And more. But to say that he is all that different from so many other prominent and not so prominent people is an insult to my intelligence.

If there was any single factor we should be looking at – it is the culture that makes it ‘cool’ to be a womanizer. James Bond ought not be looked at as a hero. The values generated by Hollywood are not Torah values.

The Torah is very clear about unsanctioned sexual activity. Rashi interprets the words of the Posuk ‘Kedoshim Tihiyu’ exegetically in the following way. The presence of illicit sexual activity is inversely proportional to holiness. Holiness is what God demands of us in those very words.

Our sexually permissive culture is the exact opposite of that. It contributes mightily to the likes of Weinstein. It would behoove our nation to take a few steps back in time where sex was not as exploited in the media as much as it is today. Instead of ridiculing the morality standards of Hollywood past, where sexual activity was never explicit - it might not be a bad idea to take another look at that. I’m not saying that Hollywood is the only cause of this problem. Far from it. The Weinsteins of the world may still exist. And have existed well before Hollywood. But I can’t help but believe that pulling back from the ‘anything goes’ policy of our day will not help reduce their number.

Image from the Jewish Week for illustration purposes only

The more I observe what is going on in the Modern Orthodox world, the less confident I am about its future as a single cohesive right to left unit. This was my reaction again to a New York Jewish Week article based on a recent survey.

There is a schism between right and left that seems to be increasingly unbridgeable. The Liberal Orthodoxy of the left (what used to be called ‘Open Orthodoxy’) is motivated more by external concerns than they are by internal ones.

The external concerns of the left have little resemblance if any to the faith of their forefathers. I am beginning to question my assumptions about their core beliefs and commitment to Halacha. Shocking as though this may seem, the aforementioned recent survey seems to bear out my worst fears:

An analysis of observance found that 39 percent of respondents reported becoming more observant over the last decade, while 23 percent of respondents reported becoming less so, pointing towards a “net rightward shift” of 16 percent…

Those who reported decreasing levels of observance came exclusively from Orthodoxy’s more liberal camps, the self-identified “liberal” and “open” Orthodox. (emphasis added). Those in more conservative camps — self-identified as “right centrist,” “centrist” and “modern” Orthodox — all reported increasing levels of observance. Liberal segments of the community also reported a much higher percentage of their children becoming less observant.

Now it’s true that this was an ‘opt in’ survey – which might reduce the reliability of the results. But I don’t think these numbers can be easily dismissed:

Steven M. Cohen, research professor of Jewish Social policy at HUC-JIR and a member of the study’s advisory panel, said the survey’s “polarization hypothesis” — that the left is moving further left and the right further right — mirrors a broader sociological trend within other American religious groups.

The obvious question is why do committed Liberal Orthodox Jews have more of a propensity to be less observant? I believe it is because they almost always see values other than those of the Torah overriding traditional Torah based ones - whenever they conflict.

This has been demonstrated in a variety of ways. But mostly it has come in the challenge of egalitarianism. This is the issue where the schism is most serious. Egalitarianism is a value that motivates much of Liberal Orthodoxy. It has even caused one Liberal Orthodox woman to seek an ordination by the Reform Movement. A movement that was founded on the principle of rejecting all ritual as archaic and unnecessary. (Although they have back pedaled a bit on this, they still maintain that it isn’t necessary - albeit a nice thing to do as an expression of one’s Judaism.)

Then there is the political correctness of Liberal Orthodox rabbis like Shmuley Yanklowitz who recently posted the following on his Facebook page:

Please, please no more G-d as "He." Is it not spiritually-violent to assume the Perfect Being is male (or even to say G-d does not have a gender but we're committed to male language)? Mary Daly said it well: “As long as God is male, the male is God.” #BreakPatriarchy

Right below that in response to a comment about referencing God in Hebrew he said the following:

we should avoid using pronouns in Hebrew when talking about G-d… (Although he concedes that altering the liturgy is a problem he seems to be working on a solution to that.)

If this doesn’t show Liberal Orthodoxy’s priorities, I don’t know what does.

I recently had a conversation with a highly educated and accomplished Charedi woman about this subject. She is not someone that simply bends to a religious worldview without thinking. Nor does she feel that inequality of women with men interferes with her fulfillment in serving God as traditionally interpreted.

She is proud of her role as a Jew. Reveling in the performance of tasks God has provided for her as a woman. She believes that women who feel short changed in an egalitarian way do not understand or appreciate their roles as woman in Judaism. That is why they seek change.

Judaism is not egalitarian. Men and women are not the same – not matter how much the culture says they are. God has different roles for each of the sexes and we ought to be striving to fulfill our roles instead of questioning how egalitarian they are.

Those women that want to serve God and the Jewish community in their own way (by becoming rabbis for example) are seeking a role that the sages and leading rabbis of each generation have told us is not the role God prefers. At best striving for an egalitarian role in Judaism is secondary. No matter how much they want to be in that role.

Even if it were permissible Halachicly (which at best is a controversial stance), why not instead strive to fulfill the role God prefers in the best way we can rather seeking personal fulfillment in ways that are secondary? Is it not a bit self indulgent to serve God and Judaism in ways because of a personal feeling based on a value that is external? Is personal fulfillment Jew so important that striving to understand what God wants from us in our role as a man or woman becomes secondary?

Seeking external ways of self fulfillment as a Jew is the province of Liberal Orthodoxy and - in my view might help to explain why Liberal Jews are more inclined to decrease their level of observance than Centrist Jews. When self fulfilment becomes the focus, doesn’t God by default takes second place?

As noted the Centrist faction of Modern Orthodoxy are going in the opposite direction and increasing. Their level of observance. This does not mean Centrists are becoming Charedi. Far from it. But it does mean that Centrist values are more in line with Charedi values than they are with Liberal Orthodox values. If the above mentioned statistics mean anything, Modern Orthodoxy only has a future in Centrism. Not Liberal Orthodoxy.

How does a Centrist woman view her role? I know she hates labels. But Alexandra Fleksher describes beautifully how she felt about her role as a woman this past Simchas Torah. I believe her views about women in Judaism essentially reflect a Centrist perspective. She sees fulfillment in her role as a woman in traditional ways without the need or desire to resort to the externals of egalitarianism. I only wish more people would do that. Because as it stands now, Liberal Orthodoxy will be all alone - and will eventually have little if anything to do with the Orthodoxy they seek to be a part of.

Blocked ambulance at 'Days of Rage' protest (YWN)

Unfortunately, this isn’t news, disgusting though it may be. I am not at all surprised by it. I wasn’t even going to address it – since I have done so more times than I can count. But I am so disgusted by the video images featured on YWN that I can’t stay silent – even though I have expressed my views on these ‘people’more than once.

Once again, Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach (who founded and heads the political party Peleg) has authorized a ‘day of rage’ protest by his young fans. (Only a day has turned into 4 days it seems.) And have once again caused havoc in the city of Jerusalem. That they don’t mind getting their way at the expense of others is not a surprise for people that behave like Vilde Chayos (wild animals).

One video depicts a women trying to capture the protest on her smart-phone being verbally and physically attacked by some of the young people in this crowd yelling ‘Shiksa’ at her. She fought back. Good for her.

Another video depicts a Mogen Dovid Adom (Israel’s Red Cross) ambulance being blocked by the crowd protesters. Have they no respect for human life?! What is the matter with these people?

Yet another video shows frustrated secular Israelis reacting to Peleg with violence!

Why is this happening now?

Apparently a Kenesset maneuver to cancel a recent agreement exempting Charedim from army service and find a solution more suitable to both sides - has generated this response. (Not that Rabbi Auerbach was ever happy with the way that the exemption was structured. Peleg protested that too. Despite the fact that his rabbinic peers were satisfied with it!)

These people do not know the meaning of peaceful protest. Only this time people are fighting back. And I say ‘good for them’. From YWN:

While the Peleg continues on their mission to cause mayhem in Jerusalem on their “day of rage”, they appear to have ignited a fire. And not like the fires burning earlier in Kikar Shabbos started by the protesters.

It appears that irreligious Israelis have multiple times in the past four days attacked Peleg protesters. There have been quite a few incidents reported to police of being attacked by motorists stuck in traffic for hours or other people just randomly walking to a protest and fighting with the Peleg.

I have no sympathy for the protesters. Even though they have been persuaded by a religious leader to act this way, decent people don’t try and get their way at the expense of others. As for their ‘religious’ leader, he is being Machtei the Rabbim – causing many people to sin. He is responsible for a creating Chilul HaShem.

The Gemarah tells us: B’Makom Chilul HaShem, Ein Cholkin Kavod L’Rav. One should not honor a Rabbi that is responsible for a Chilul HaShem. Rabbi Auerbach has therefore lost any respect that otherwise might be due him, in my view.

As much profound respect as I had for his father, Rav Shlomo Zalman, ZTL, – I have that much bitter disdain for his son. My opinions of father and son could no be more disparate!

Rabbi Auerbach (the son) has rejected the wisdom of fellow Charedi leaders that have opted to work with the government for compromise with respect to Charedim and the military. And this rejection has caused untold anguish, discomfort, and in some cases even physical harm to many innocent people by virtue of protests like this. – many of whom are Charedim just like him.

He may be entitled to his opinion. But is not entitled to tell his fans to have a ‘day of rage’ that may end up hurting innocent people and causing a Chilul HaShem. By doing so, Rabbi Auerbach has abdicated any claim to religious leadership that he may have once had.

I should note that there are American Charedi rabbis that actually support Rabbi Auerbach and have joined rallies by extremists in America that agree with his view.

I would tell these rabbis to mind their own business. Let them work on their own issues in America and not worry about what is going on in Israel with respect to Charedim and the draft. Which is exactly what they were told by Charedi rabbis in Israel from the majority leadership that opposes Rabbi Auerbach. Good for them!

If I were the Israeli government, I would have Rabbi Auerbach arrested for incitement to riot. Now that might generate a protest that will make this one seem like a day (or 4 days) in Disneyland. But that should not deter the government from acting. And if such a protest should develop, the government would have every right to fill the jails with protesters if necessary.

The way these young protesters dress should not fool anyone. They may look like any other Charedi in their white shirts, black jackets and pants, and black hats. But they are ‘under the influence’. They have been indoctrinated to believe that they are ’fighting for God’. They need to be disabused of this false notion right quick! They need to be deprogrammed! If it takes a little jail time to sober them up – then so be it.

Most of the Charedim I know in Israel are extremely depressed about Rabbi Auerbach and Peleg. This is an ‘in-fight’ among Charedim that is of no benefit to anyone. Nothing good will come from this. So far it has caused grief; generated hatred – and even physical attacks against those Charedim - and even to rabbinic leaders - that disagree with their tactics.

This has to end!

I am so sick of Rabbi Auerbach and his zombie fans . No one that causes their fans to behave this way should be tolerated. I know that his rabbinic peers have condemned - or at least severely criticized him. But mere lip service to that effect is meaningless. There needs to be some radical action taken and if Rabbi Auerbach is deemed to have incited his fans to riot, he ought to pay the price.

Award Winning Actress, Mayim Bialik

The minute someone mentions modesty with respect to sexual harassment (or worse), they may as well have said that it’s OK to rape women. At least that’s the knee jerk response I keep hearing in certain circles.

That is not only a false statement; it vilifies those who consider modesty in dress a positive value. It is as if they are telling women, to dress as provocatively as they want because it doesn't matter.

Before anyone jumps all over me, I know that sexual abuse does not occur only to immodestly dressed women. But to say it doesn’t matter, I think might just be an exaggeration. A provocatively dressed woman might just generate improper thoughts which in some cases might be acted upon by men with mental issues. That modestly dressed women are also attacked doesn’t mean that dressing modestly never helps.

Let me be clear. I do not blame the victim. This is not at all what I am saying. I don’t care if a woman is wearing a bikini on 13^thAvenue in Boro Park, anyone that touches her or in any way harasses her is guilty of sexual aggression. The aggressor is fully to blame and ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But those who claim that it doesn’t matter at all – that images like that don’t conjure up licentious thoughts in men are oblivious to human nature.

Just because most men will not act on those thoughts doesn’t mean no one will. If not on this women, then maybe the next. But don’t tell that to the critics. For them it is an all or nothing proposition. Women should therefore be free to dress as provocatively as they wish and ignore the temptations most men think about when they see them. If you don’t agree with that proposition, then then you are considered an ignorant misogynist - bullied into changing your mind.

Which brings me to Mayim Bialik. Ms. Bialik is an award winning actress that has earned 4 Emmy nominations for her role as Amy Fowler in the television comedy series, Big Bang Theory. She is also an observant Jew. It always intrigues me when celebrities like that become observant – especially in an environment like Hollywood that is hostile to religion. I have come to admire her for that – even though I do not agree with her egalitarian views as applied to Judaism.

Mayim’s comments extol the virtues of modesty in dress. A view that guides her own choices - considering the modest way she dresses as a layer of protection. But she was bullied into retracting comments along those lines she made in a NewYork Times op-ed. Although I understand why she did that - I don’t think she should have. There are so few people in Hollywood that have the courage to stand up for the values of modesty, it is a shame when they feel they have to retract.

Where does she get those values? I believe it is at least in part because she is has become an observant Jew who studies Torah with her ‘Partner in Torah’. She has learned and understands the beauty of dressing modestly and the high value the Torah places upon it. She knows the immodest world in which she lives – which in Hollywood operates on steroids! She spoke up about it in light of the Harvey Weinstein scandal. In a New YorkTimes op-ed she said the following:

(W)e can’t be naïve about the culture we live in. I believe that we can change our culture, but it won’t be something that happens overnight. We live in a society that has treated women as disposable playmates for far longer than Mr. Weinstein has been meeting ingénues in luxury hotel rooms.

That caused a vicious reaction from some of Hollywood’s elite rejecting her views and accusing her of shaming the victim. – which suggests blaming the victim.

Clearly that is not at all what she said or meant. She said as much in her op-ed. But in its zeal to maintain a woman’s right to dress as immodestly as she wishes, the PC crowd with Hollywood values - buried her. Mayim has expressed hurt and believes she was completely misunderstood. From the Forward:

“I am deeply deeply hurt if any woman in particular who has been assaulted—or man—thinks that i was in any way victim-blaming…”

“How you dress and how you behave have nothing to do with whether you’re assaulted,” she said. She added that her decision to dress modestly is a personal choice that gives her and other women a feeling of comfort and a layer of protection.”

Bialik said she still believes that there was still space in the modern feminist movement for socially conservative women, although she also said, “I think this article has proven maybe not.”

Maybe not... What a sad conclusion. As I said, I don’t blame her for retracting. Her heart is in the right place. She believed that the wrong message was taken from her original comments. And that may have caused unnecessary pain to women that have experienced sexual abuse or harassment. But a fair reading of her op-ed minus the unfair criticism - would make it obvious that hurting victims was the furthest thing from her mind.

John Kelly during an emotional press conference defending the President

I find myself in the awkward position of defending the President again. Something I am not comfortable doing. Why I feel that way is beyond the scope of this post. I have explained my views about President Trump so often that it’s becoming boring already, and I’m tired of doing it.

Despite my feelings about him, I cannot help but to speak the truth about the hysterical way the media responds to him even when he does something good. There is every effort by them to find ways to make it look bad. This was once again made clear to anyone with an un-jaundiced eye.

Here is what happened. 4 US soldiers were slain in an ambush during what supposed to be a relatively safe non combative a mission in Niger.

The President was moved to call their bereaved relatives and offer his personal condolences. Congresswoman Fredercia Wilson (a Democrat) close to the family of one of those fallen soldiers, Sgt. La David Johnson happened to be present during a phone call to his widow. In what can only be interpreted as a cynical move to embarrass the President she quoted him out of context and preceded to publicly scold the President for what he said to her. From CNN here is the quote:

"(He) knew what he signed up for, but I guess it still hurts."

This was verified by a family member who was present at the call and not denied by the White House.

On the surface it might sound callous. Which is exactly what Wilson thought. She saw an opportunity to bash the President and did exactly that! But was it really callous? Not if you listen to Trump’s chief of staff General John Kelly. From CNN:

Kelly spoke at length, and in detail, about what follows the death of a US soldier at war -- and the painstaking, awful banality of how the government delivers the news to their loved ones. He talked about his own experience and told reporters that Trump tried his level best to communicate warmly, with empathy, in his own calls.

"He called four people the other day to express his condolences in the best way that he could," Kelly said of the President. "And he said to me, 'What do I say?' I said to him, 'Sir, there is nothing you can do to lighten the burden on these families.'"

"In his way," Kelly said of Trump, he "tried to express that opinion -- that (Johnson) is a brave man, a fallen hero. He knew what he was getting himself into because he enlisted. There's no reason to enlist, he enlisted. And he was where he wanted to be with exactly the people he wanted to be with when his life was taken. That was the message. That was the message that was transmitted."

Despite how one feels about him, the President is still a human being. He was clearly moved by the deaths of those four soldiers. And he is not exactly a wordsmith (to say the least). Kelly lost his own son during his tour of duty in Afghanistan. If anyone should be sensitive to callous remarks about that kind of loss, it is him. And yet you could see at his press conference just how physically upset he was:

He was "stunned" and "broken-hearted" by Wilson's role in conveying the details of the call to the media.

The media has been relentless in their fervor to heap scorn on the President – beginning well before he was elected. I can't really blame them. Trump has done his own share of bashing the media. So the media was only too happily to jump on board with Wilson now.

This story has been dominating the headlines. Why? Why is Trump’s condolence call more important than North Korea’s nuclear threats against the United States?

There can only be one answer to that. The media is obsessed with the President. Their bias is so strong that they have all but abandoned any pretense of objectivity (although they still probably think they are). It is one thing to criticize Trump for the stupid and harmful things he said and done in the past. It is another to never give him any credit, spin something good into something bad and then perpetuate it by over-focusing on it.

And now even Kelly’s emotional defense of the President is being smeared. First by Ms. Wilson and then by other partisan Democrats with the very same agenda as hers (and the media). Like Khizr Khan the Goldstar Muslim father who lost his son, a US soldier that fought in Afghanistan. Mr. Khan spoke at the DNC convention to much fanfare last year - attacking Trump for his prejudice against Muslims via promising to bar them from entering this country.

Understandably, Mr. Khan got a lot of sympathy at the time. I am not begrudging his speech. His son certainly deserves our everlasting gratitude and Mr. Khan deserves our sympathy for his loss. But it was later revealed that he was a Clinton campaign worker. Which in my view revealed his motive. Now he has done it again:

"Instead of advising the President that restraint and dignity is the call of the moment, former Gen. Kelly indulged in defending (the) behavior of the President and made the situation even worse," Khan said.

Nice.

It is grossly unfair to spin a heartfelt condolence call by the President to the family of a soldier that died serving his country into something bad. As much as I disapprove of how the President has handled his office so far, I am nevertheless disappointed in how the media has handled its own duties. No matter how much one hates the President – even if it for good reason - one has to be honest about him. The media is not. And they don’t seem to even realize it. And that puts into question their credibility on every story upon which they report.

Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach

Last Friday I posted my views about a disgusting Chilul HaShem carried out in the streets of Jerusalem. One that Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach was responsible for. He called for a 'day of rage' by his followers and they were all too happy to oblige. In spades. I have been moved to add the following sentiment:

I have been sick to my stomach over recent harm to the sanctity of the Torah, which has been degraded to the very depths of hell by some empty and reckless (youths).

This is exactly the way we should all feel about what those young protesters who were incited by Rabbi Auerbach to behave despicably. That the Torah has been degraded to the depths of Hell elevates Rabbi Auerbach’s exhortation into a Chilul HaShem of unprecedented proportion. At least in my life time. That is the burden he will now carry to his grave.

The Gemarah (Yuma 86A) describes the Chilul HaShem as the worst sin of all because it might give the impression that a religious Jew is acting unethically:

“One who reads the Torah, and studies Mishna, and serves Talmidei Chachamim, but his business practices are not conducted faithfully, and he does not speak pleasantly with people, what do people say about him? Woe to so-and-so who studies Torah, woe to his rebbe who taught him Torah … see how destructive are his acts, and how ugly are his ways,”

Anything that makes the Torah and her adherents look bad is a Chilul HaShem. There is no penance for such a person in this world. There is nothing he can say or do. Only death atones for a Chilul HaShem. So says the Gemarah in Yuma.

(Please do not misconstrue. I am not God forbid calling for Rabbi Auerbach's death. I am only quoting the Gemarah. The death referred to in the Gemarah is any case not at the hand of man. It only means that there is no earthly means of repentance until one dies.)

Lest anyone think I am being too harsh and have no right to say things like: ‘I am sick to my stomach’ and that ‘the Torah has been degraded to the very depths of Hell’… it is not me saying it. It is Rav Chaim Kanievsky. I have never agreed with him more.

Rapper Jay Z - Is he the role model MO youth aspire to emulate?

Wisdom comes with age. But it is not the sole province of our elders. That has been demonstrated by a teenager who is wise beyond his years.

Eitan Gross is an example of what Modern Orthodoxy is capable of producing. He has captured what I believe to be the major problem facing Modern Orthodoxy today. Which is valuing modernity more than Orthodoxy. And he has suggested ways to improve it.

The sad fact about Modern Orthodoxy is that it consists largely of observant Jews that I have called MO-Lite. Observant Judaism is commonly defined as observing 3 primary Mitzvos: Shabbos, Kashrus, and Taharas HaMishpacha (the laws of family purity). That some Jews may not be conversant with every jot and tittle of these important Mitzvos is not the point. Very few people are. The Halachos are very complex and can be easily violated – mostly inadvertently – by people of all Hashkafos. Some people know more – some less. But the defining feature among them all is that they are observant of those three Mitzvos.

The problem with MO-Lite Jews lies in how they view rest of Halacha relative to their lifestyles or even the level to which they are committed to the big three. Unfortunately most ‘pick and choose’ what they want to observe and how meticulous they want to be about observing what they choose.

Much of reason for that in my view is a lack of basic knowledge of what the Halacha is and the relative importance of it. They have either never learned the value of following Halacha properly, or if they did learn it – ignore those Halachos they consider minor and unimportant.

Their lifestyles are more about assimilating cultural values over Torah values. So that when the two value systems conflict, many MO-Lites end up choosing modernity over Halacha. Absolving themselves from observing a given Halacha by saying that everyone picks and chooses. ‘You will make your choices and I will make mine’.

That there is a difference between actual Halacha, and Minhag (custom) is often not even known to them nor they do they necessarily care to know - since they do not have a high level of commitment to what they believe are minor Halachos. So that lifestyle choices will sometimes outweigh Halachic considerations when they conflict.

Bearing this in mind, here are some of the things noted by Eitan in his Times of Israel article:

(A)s I grow up and I’m exposed more to how members of the Modern Orthodox community, old and young, act, I realize that there is glaring hypocrisy and internal contradiction...

As kids, we are proactively exposed to media and entertainment that is anti-religious and contrary to Halacha. Is it realistic to assume that a teenager’s value system will not be corroded by the endless subtle and not so subtle attacks on Torah true values?

… the supposed balance between religious values and secular values seems to be much more weighted towards the secular than the religious…

We are infested with American culture, and forget our past. We care about world values, and neglect our own. We care more about Western morals than the true morals of the Torah. We are high school students before talmidim. We are aspiring sports players before yearning Talmud scholars. We are college graduates before yeshiva bachurim. We are Modern before Orthodox...

We are so addicted to the secular world that Hashem is never given a chance…

I wish I could say he’s wrong. But I believe he is very right. I have to assume that the MO world in which he is raised is typical. Which means that the typical MO Jew is MO-Lite.

This is of course not to say that there is no such thing as Charedi-Lite. There certainly is and it is a growing population. By leaps and bounds. As the Charedi world grows so too will those who are ‘Lite’ in their observance. Which is a problem beyond the scope of this post. Besides, it is also true that as large as this segment is in the Charedi world, the percentage of Charedim like that is much smaller than the percentage of MO-Lites.

This is also not to say that all of MO is Lite. Nor does it mean that Modern Orthodoxy should be defined that way. I have said more than once that it is the Hashkafa that defines Modern Orthodoxy, not those that identify as such regardless of their level of observance.

What is Modern Orthodoxy? I’ve defined it many times. It simply means positive engagement with the world. Both in the educational sphere and in the cultural sphere. Modern Orthodoxy believes that educating ourselves in Limudei Chol is a positive value. And that as long as there is no contradiction to Halacha and our Mesorah, engagement with the permissible parts of the culture is of neutral value and sometimes even beneficial.

However, Halacha always overrides the modernity when they conflict. And the values of the Torah always take precedence over secular values. This is how most of those Modern Orthodox Jews who call themselves ‘Centrists’ live their lives. There is nothing ‘Lite’ about our commitment. The MO Hashkafa requires the same level of commitment to the Torah as he Charedi Hashkafa. Torah study is valued as much by an MO Hahshkafa as it is by a Charedi Hashkafa. The only difference being that MO values Limudei Chol and engagement with the culture much more positively than Charedim do.

I have mentioned all this before. I repeat it here to disabuse people of the notion that MO equals MO- Lite. Which one can easily deduce form Eitan’s article. That is absolutely not the case. As an example - if one would observe the many students in the Beis Hamedrash of Yeshivas Rabbenu Yitzchok Elchonon (YU), one would see the same level of commitment to Torah study and observance of Halacha as the students of Lakewood.

Rav Herschel Shachter is a product of this school. As is Rav Mordechai Willig. As is Rav Aharon Rakeffet. Most RIETS (YU) students see them as role models. There are a great many YU products like that (including most of the members of he RCA). Year after year. They reside in Orthodox communities all over the world and integrate nicely with moderate Charedim. They are part of a community I have referred to as the 'new centrists' that will constitute the mainstream Orthodoxy of the future. These are the people that should be seen living the MO ideal. Not MO Lites – even though they are by far the greater proportion of Modern Orthodoxy today.

We cannot rely on liberal Orthodoxy (formerly called Open Orthodoxy) to save the day either. That became very clear to me from a recent survey that showed this demographic on track to assimilate out of Orthodoxy for far too many of its youth - as noted in a recent New York Jewish Week article:

Those who reported decreasing levels of observance came exclusively from Orthodoxy’s more liberal camps, the self-identified “liberal” and “open” Orthodox.

Combine the relatively small but vocal liberal Orthodoxy with MO-Lite and you have the lion’s share of Modern Orthodoxy.This is what Eitan is concerned about. These concerns cannot be ignored. It pervades the MO world. And I agree with his ideas about a solution at least as a starting point.. He is right on target.

Modern Orthodox educators need to change their current educational paradigm and culture into one that emphasizes the value of Torah and Mitzvos over the value of the secular world. MO parents need to be a part of that education, both for themselves and as role models for their children. As difficult as it maybe to implement this kind of sea change in attitude, without it, we will have fewer ‘Eitans’ and a lot more MO-Lites. And they can easily end up assimilating out of Orthodoxy altogether.

4 of the over 50 women with assault allegations against Harvey Weinstein

There are 2 things dominating the current news cycle. One shows how the moral fiber of this country has deteriorated. The other is the coarsening of public discourse.

I can’t believe how many women have come forward in recent days saying they have been sexually assaulted by men in power. It seems that ever since the Harvey Weinstein story broke – it has opened up the floodgates. I don’t know what the actual numbers are. But it seems that the incidences of it are far greater than I could have ever imagined. At this point, it is almost as though we have to assume that every woman in the workforce is subjected to sexual harassment unless proven otherwise!

Why is this happening? And why haven’t we been cognizant of the extent of it until now? Has it always been this way?

I really can’t answer those questions definitively - although I do think the sexual revolution of the sixties has contributed mightily to it. As a result of that, societal standards of modesty have been lowered. Attitudes about casual sex have changed to the point of it being not much different than eating a candy bar. I realize of course that illicit sexual behavior wasn’t invented in the sixties. It’s been around since the beginning of human existence. But I can’t help feeling that the lowering of our standards has had a major impact on how men and women interact in civilized society today.

Not that it needs any justification from me - but I believe this justifies Halacha with regard to behavior between the sexes. It may not be foolproof.. But it surely does help most of the time when adhered to.

If we would follow the laws of Yichud for example, how often would any of these sexual crimes take place? There are those that laugh at religious men (even non Jewish ones) who insist on never being secluded alone with a woman other than their wives under any circumstances. Feminists say that this practice is unfair to women since it would preclude a woman from doing her job when it requires engaging with a man in the privacy of a corporate office. I wonder though how all of the women who have ever been taken advantage of under those conditions feel about it?

True, men have to behave and act in a civilized respectful manner when alone with a woman. Most men do. But sometimes it just doesn’t work out that way.

Chazal tell us, Ein Apitropus L’Arayos – there is no guardian for sexual matters. When alone, even people that are ordinarily scrupulous in their Mitzvah observance, might in some cases be overcome by their desires and act inappropriately. In the current cultural climate where casual sex is treated so lightly, is it so surprising that a man might make sexual advances towards an attractive woman in the privacy of a corporate boardroom - or his office?

Just because it is the obligation of men to behave themselves around women under any and all circumstances that doesn’t mean they always will. Especially in our world today. Isn’t an ounce of prevention via observing Hilchos Yichud worth the pound of cure that is needed after a woman is sexually harassed or worse?

Arizona Senator, Jeff Flake

The other thing that has changed for the worse is the level of public discourse. And I have to lay a large part of the blame for this at the feet of the current President of the United States, Donald J. Trump.

I agree with Arizona Senator Jeff Flake. Having announced that he will not seek re-election to the senate, he is now free to speak his mind without political consequences. Speaking about the President, here in part is what he said. From CNN:

"We must never regard as 'normal' the regular and casual undermining of our democratic norms and ideals. We must never meekly accept the daily sundering of our country -- the personal attacks, the threats against principles, freedoms, and institutions, the flagrant disregard for truth or decency, the reckless provocations, most often for the pettiest and most personal reasons, reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with the fortunes of the people that we have all been elected to serve."

And from US News:

"We are excusing undignified and outrageous and reckless speech and behavior as 'telling it like it is.'.... That's not right," Flake said Wednesday on MSNBC.

Indeed! The irony is that these comments are being made by a Conservative Republican, Flake supported much of the Trump agenda. Which is for the most part a conservative one. It isn’t Trump’s politics that he objects to. It is his demeanor. His behavior. The President is an unequivocal embarrassment to this country.

Trump’s constant tweeting and personal attacks are often disgusting, and undermine his political agenda. His tweets are fodder for a media that loves to pile on. If one didn’t know these tweets were being made by the President of the United States, one would think it was coming from some high school sophomore raised by parents that have no clue and don’t care about what their kids are doing.

To cite some examples of this: His remarks the election denigrating Senator John McCain’s sacrifices as a prisoner of war in Viet Nam for 5 years; his mocking of a disabled reporter; his belittling world leaders and his political opponents; his comments about how a celebrity like him can sexually assault women with impunity, his characterization of illegal Mexican immigrants as rapists and murders... all of this and much much more has contributed to the coarseness of public discourse.

President Trump cannot handle criticism. He sees it as being attacked. So he responds in kind - explaining that if he is going to be hit, he is going to hit back twice as hard. These are the words of a petulant teenager! Not a man that is supposed to be a statesman - restrained by the dignity of his office. A man who is supposed to be the leader of the free world. Imagine the impact this has on young people. ‘If the President is doing it, why can’t I?’

Some of us thought the President would change and become more presidential once in office. We were wrong. He hasn’t changed one bit.

Recalling the McCarthy era, Flake has urged his colleagues to act:

"you can't continue to just remain silent" about President Donald Trump's politics and behavior. "There is a tipping point. ... I hope we're reaching that tipping point," Flake told NBC's "Today."

Back in the 1950s, Wisconsin Senator Joe McCarthy headed a congressional committee that persecuted many people he believed had even the remotest connection to communism. He ruined the careers of many innocent people in the entertainment industry. It was during the Army-McCarthy hearings that Joseph Welch, the attorney representing the Army reacted and said to him:

Have you left no sense of decency, Senator McCarthy?

That was the tipping point. People began speaking out against MCarthy’s abuses that eventually ended that era of persecution. Flake has implored his colleagues to do the same… to speak out and hopefully put enough pressure on the President to change his behavior.

I don’t think the President will change. But at least congress can be unified in their contempt for the way the President behaves. Because even if it doesn’t change his behavior, it might change the way the rest of the world perceives us. If we continue to remain silent, the perception of the United States as a world leader and as any kind of moral authority will continue to erode. At least until the next election.

Israel's Minster of Health, Yaakov Litzman

There’s an old joke (albeit not such a funny one in my view) about the Brisker Rav, and Netruei Karta leader, R’ Amram Blau. It goes something like this: Both of these rabbinic leaders were vehemently opposed to the State of Israel seeing its leaders as Reshaim – evil people. One time, R' Blau saw Israeli tanks entering his community and in protest laid himself down in front of a tank. The Brisker Rav saw this and said to him, “R’Amram, you are a bigger Zionist than I am!’ ‘You trust that they won’t run you over!’

I have no clue if this ever happened. But the story still makes the rounds today. Mostly in Charedi circles.

I realize that the vast majority of Charedim do not have the vehement opposition to the State that those 2 leaders of the past had. In fact most of them have mellowed. Charedim have now joined the Israeli government as Knesset members (MKs). The Charedi MKs have even joined governing coalitions and taken ministerial portfolios. The current Health Minister of Israel is Yaakov Litzman, a Gerrer Chasid and a member of the Charedi party, United Torah Judaism.

Lying down in front off Israeli tanks is not anything any of them would dream of doing today. There is however a sizable minority of Charedim that will do something quite the opposite. Instead of risking their lives for a principle the way R’ Blau did, they come close to risking the lives of innocent people. Or in other ways inconveniencing people that have done nothing wrong. They have no compunction about using other people for their own purposes. They will block roads; stand in front of ambulances; yell insults and get physical with passersby they don't like. Just as they did in a recent protest. Lying down in front of a tank?! No way! They might get hurt!

But what about the vast majority of Charedim that are not only not part of this crowd, but whose leaders have actually condemned these people? As did R’ Chaim Kanievsky recently - calling it a Chilul HaShem? Do they have any blame in this? Not directly of course.

But one cannot absolve them of any guilt at all. Because even though they are moderate and generally comply with laws even when they don’t fully agree with them (e.g. registering for the draft), they still have an underlying attitude of contempt for the government that permeates the thinking of virtually every single Charedi in Israel - moderate or not.

How often have I heard those that condemn Peleg (the Jerusalem faction of Charedim led by R’ Shmuel Auerbach) for protests like the recent one say that they really agree with them about the draft. They just don’t agree with their tactics. Not to mention the fact that every time the religious parties don’t get what they want, they resort to the worst kind of name calling against government leaders or other Knesset members.

When a 'joke' like the above mentioned one still gets a smirk from fellow Charedim, it shows a widespread underlying contempt for the Israeli government that makes it a lot easier for Peleg’s people to stage protests like that recent one. Are they not really just standing up for their overall principle of contempt for the state? The way R’ Blau did?

It is more then high time for the Charedi leadership and its political arm in the Knesset to stop the vilification of the State of Israel. Even if some of their complaints against them about past misdeeds are true – that has nothing to do with what is happening now. Even if they believes that Ben Gurion was a Rasha, Netanyahu is not Ben Gurion. And today’s Knesset is not the Knesset of Ben Gurion’s time.

There are more observant Jews in the Knesset today than at any time in Israel’s history. The army now has units that cater to the needs of Charedim who choose to serve. Draft deferments for Charedim who chose to learn full time have been the status quo - and will likely continue to be for years to come - and they know it. There are more people learning Torah in Israel that in any time in its history - including the days of Chazal. Not qualitatively. But certainly quantitatively.

The Charedi leadership must end its underlying hostility and replace it with a sense of Hakoras Hatov that can be seen by the entire population of Israel - and even the world. Hakoras haTov for what the State has enabled them to accomplish in ways they never dreamed they could.

When there is disagreement about policy with respect the Charedi community, it ought to be done without the name calling – either form the leadership of the political parties. Even if there is name calling form the other side.

There ought to be far more participation in national events like Yom Ha’Atzmaut or Yom Yerushalayim. Prayers for the welfare of the soldiers ought to be an integral part of of their public prayer services. Moments of silence for soldiers lost in battle or for victims of the Holocaust ought to never be disparaged – even privately – just because it is not a Jewish way of remembrance. I could go on. But I think I’ve made my point.

This will not change Peleg. But it will change how the rest of the world views Charedim in Israel. And there will no longer be the need for anyone to apologize to the ‘silent majority’ of Charedim and say that Peleg does not represent them. Because by changing their attitude about the state - it will be obvious.

Not your father's IDF

I’ve heard it so many times. The purpose of drafting Charedim into the Israeli army (IDF) is to take the Judaism out of its Jews. This is one of the primary arguments used by the Charedi world for their vehement opposition to its young people serving. It is almost as if the Torah Umnaso exemption (Torah study is their profession) is secondary.

A recent opinion piece in Mishpacha Magazine by Eitan Kobre made exactly that argument:

The draft… is a vehicle for the purpose that the army has always served to feed young men and women into its bowels to be Jewishly and morally pulverized and homogenized, emerging at the end of three years as full participants in secular Israeli society.

He adds:

So long as the Knesset cafeteria is kosher and closed on Shabbos, there is no problem forcing religious Jews into an army where kashrus and Shabbos and the rest of halacha are at the commander’s whim.

I have always countered that the goal of the IDF is to protect Israeli citizens from harm by placing its soldiers in harm’s way. And that even if there might be influences of the type Eytan describes, it is no longer the case since the advent of Charedi army units. Any one that wants to avoid the kinds of pressures Eytan describes can opt to join those units.

But the fact happens to be that Eytan’s description about the current IDF is the furthest thing from the truth. At least according to one army chaplain that responded to him in a letter published in a more recent issue of Mishpacha.

Lt. Colonel Yedidya Atlas, a chaplain serving in the army reserves, wants to disabuse us of this constant canard against the IDF by Charedim. Their only experience with the army is what they are told by their leaders and politicians. Or through anecdotal stories from those that had bad experiences with the IDF. True, there are legitimate stories about how some soldiers went in Frum and went out OTD. But to generalize that this is the rule rather than the exception is plainly false.

Rabbi Atlas fills us in with the following information that refutes just about every negative thing cited by Eitan… starting with the fact that the Charedi units fully comply with Charedi standards of observance. He is in a better position than Charedi politicians whose ears are attuned only to negative reports about the army. Reports that are misleading at best. Rabbi Atlas notes that the majority of officers and combats soldiers in the IDF today are religious!

The Charedi unit Kashrus standards are Eida HaCharedis standards. They have separate living and training areas. A commander’s whim has zero to do with what a Charedi recruit is subjected to.The standards of the Charedi units are part of the IDF regulations and are supervised by the IDF rabbinate. If violated by a commander it has serious consequences for him. Loss of rank and command. Even jail time in some cases.

So much for suffering at the whim of a commander. Furthermore every IDF base has a fully equipped shul. Every outpost has a Sukkah where religious soldiers actually sleep. They are given Arba Minim (Lulav and Esrog etc). Many IDF bases close their dining rooms for the entire week of Sukkos and entire units eat in the Sukkah!

The IDF runs a Selichos program from the 2^nd day in Elul (as per Sephardi custom) until Erev Yom Kippur – bringing 30,000 soldiers to Jerusalem and the opportunity to say Selichos at the Kotel. 90% of the soldiers participate in Tefilla even though more than half of them never did before!

The soldiers that fought in Gaza 3 years ago all wore Tzitzis and carried a pocket Tehilim and siddur provided by the IDF from which they recited prayers before going into battle!

Unlike the IDF of 40 or 50 years ago, where some of Eitan’s accusations might have been more extant, today many soldiers previously unexposed to observant Judaism come out more Jewishly aware and some actually become religious!

All of this was conveyed in a letter by Rabbi Atlas

I tend to trust a Rav that has been in the trenches with the IDF of today, than I do the Charedi politicians with an anti IDF agenda that get their information second hand from sources with the same anti IDF agenda.

Clearly the army of today is more accommodating to religious Jews than at any time in its history. This is not to say that there are not instances where a recruit goes in religious and comes out irreligious. I actually know of some cases like that. But I believe that recruits like that were already on their way out. The army was not the cause. It just made it easier for them. At the same time I know religious Jews that entered the regular army and remained as observant when the left as when they came in.

I would be nice if Eytan and other vehement critics of the army would know the reality of today and stop parroting untruths perpetuated by Charedi politicians who have no direct experience in the army… people that too easily are swayed by the few that provide them with personal negative experiences. Which corroborates their pre-existing beliefs. Beliefs about an IDF that are no longer true. (If they ever were.)

Instead they should express their Hakatras HaTov to the IDF. Soldiers that place themselves in harm’s way so that the rest of Israel - including the entire Charedi community – remains safe.

Wouldn’t it be nice if instead of the constant bashing of the IDF they instead instituted a prayer for the safety of their soliders? How can people like Eitan Kobre not acknowledge what the army does for Charedim and everyone else that lives in Israel? How can they not pray for the welfare of those who risk their lives so that those who wish to study Torah full time are able to continue doing so without fear of annihilation by Israel’s enemies?

HT: Marty Bluke

Members of the Jewish Agency leadership at the egalitarian section of the Kotel

One wall for one people. This is what ‘progressive rabbis’ like Reform Rabbi Rick Jacobs are insisting upon. What they are purposely ignoring is that we already have that. It’s called the Kotel. Any Jew regardless of how observant they are can pray there any time they want. What they really mean is that they want one wall for ‘their’ people. Actually they don’t even mean that. They mean one wall that will satisfy the egalitarian demands of their ‘progressive rabbis’. Something that they already have at a location called Robinson’s Arch.

The facade comes off. Finally the truth comes out. Anyone that thought the fight over the Kotel is about egalitarianism should now be disabused of the notion. Conservative leader, Rabbi Steven Wernick, has made that very clear. Here, quoted in the Jerusalem Post are his exact words:

"The issue is about legitimization, it’s about recognition," Wernick said, highlighting the importance of the part of the deal that would have allowed for a joint entry to both the traditional space at the northern part of the wall, and the pluralistic section at the southern end of the wall.

They want legitimization. Which makes it impossible for any rabbi that calls himself Orthodox to support. There is no way that Orthodoxy can – or ever will - agree to legitimizing movements that allow heresy into their midst; that say Halacha is not necessary (Reform); or pervert Halacha permitting something which is clearly forbidden like driving to Shul on Shabbos (Conservative).

I don’t know how many times I have to state the obvious. But heterodoxy has been a colossal failure. The two major ‘progressive’ denominations, Reform and Conservative Judaism are hemorrhaging Jews at an unprecedented rate. More Jews are intermarrying than ever at alarming rates! For the first time in modern times parents of children who intermarry don’t even care anymore. There are more Jews than ever questioning the value of being a Jew if all it means is to be humanistic. One does not need to be a Jew to be a humanist.

Some of the brighter lights of – at least Conservative Judaism know the real reason this is happening. They blame their pulpit rabbis for not placing any emphasis on Halacha to their synagogue members. Those rabbis practically ignore the fact that the vast majority of their members have little to do with following even the Conservative Movement’s interpretation of Halacha.

Their belated attempt at educating their young via the Solomon Schechter School system has not helped them much. That has been a dismal failure, too. Most Conservative Jews either aren’t interested or don’t want to pay the exorbitant tuition costs. The results of all this are as plain as day. As indicated by Pew and analyzed by impartial sociologists like Steven Cohen, heterodoxy is dying.

I have made all these arguments before. And they are still true. ‘Progressive rabbis’ are now struggling for existence. They have seen the handwriting on the wall and they don’t like it. Scrambling for ways to stay viable - they see that opportunity in Israel where Jews are Jews no matter how unobservant they are. They see a market for their product. The prototype secular Jew is a perfect model for their continued existence. They want in. And they are fighting for it.

Recognition from the Jewish State will get them a foot in the door. They can tell secular Jews their lack of observing Shabbos (for example) is a legitimate form of Judaism. Lack of observance will be legitimized. Orthodox leaders are supposed to go along with this?! Are they kidding?!

Unfortunately they are not kidding.

One might argue that that progressive movements are a form of Kiruv. ‘Let us keep them Jewish and try to instill a little Yidshkeit in them – even while we ignore and therefore tacitly approve of violations of Halacha by virtually always looking the other way.’

That may have worked once. But as Pew has shown us, it doesn’t work anymore. Besides, as I just said Israeli Jews don’t need to be reminded that they are Jews. The vast majority of them are not only fully aware of it, they are far more traditional than the secular Jews of the Diaspora.

Furthermore, if I understand correctly most Israelis are not really interested in becoming Conservative or Reform Jews. They are happy to simply be Jews – some more observant and some less. They don’t need labels.

Of course Conservative and Reform rabbis would like to change all that. But who are they really serving? Traditional Israelis or themselves? If they crave legitimacy than is it not their own existence they are primarily concerned with? I believe that they want to be recognized as legitimate so that they will not become extinct as a movement.

I don’t know whether to be angry or feel sorry for them. I guess I am a little of both – although I do feel a little more angry than sad. It seems that the gloves are off now with recent threats (implied or otherwise) about pulling support for Israel. That makes me angry.

But what about that? Is Heterodoxy’s threat of withholding support an existential threat?

It might hurt at first. But Israel now has an economy that is among the most thriving economies in the world. And Orthodox Jews are not only growing numerically they are growing financially too. . There are more than a few billionaires among us. And many more multi-millionaires.

(To illustrate - when I walk into the opulent recently built Agudah of West Rogers Park Shul here in Chicago the first thing I think of is how wealthy so many of Chicago’s Orthodox Jews are. And there have been many other new Orthodox Shuls built recently in Chicago that are also well appointed. Conservative Shuls and Reform temples on the other hand are either closing or consolidating with other Conservative Shuls or temples just to stay alive. There has not been a new heterodox Shul built in Chicago in decades - a fact not lost on Chicago’s Jewish Federation.)

Orthodox Jews will rise to the occasion. They may not be able to pick up all the slack, but they may not need to as Israel’s economy continues to flourish. As will - God willing - the relationship Israel has with United States. Which no doubt continue since Israel is the most strategic ally in the Middle East the United States has.

But even if Israel would be hurt financially by a withdrawal of heterodox support - it doesn't matter. Money cannot buy Emes. And at the end of the day, Emes is what it is all about.

The sad part is that I believe these ‘progressive’ rabbis are sincere in the belief that they add something to Judaism. Their struggle for existence is at least partially motivated by that.

They might mean well. But good intentions are not enough. You can easily end up paving the road to a very different place than where you intend to pave it. You cannot legitimize a movement you believe to be false just because its leaders have good intentions.

This is what the fight is all about in Israel. And it has nothing to do with how anyone feels about the Israeli Chief Rabbinate- who happens to be on the right side on this issue. This is a fight between Emes and Sheker. And Emes always wins out in the end.

Reform and Conservative Judaism will die on the vine in the not too distant future – despite the fact that the percentage of Jews that are members of these movements is far greater than the percentage of Jews that are Orthodox. But even though that is true now, the future of Judaism is clear. It is going Orthodox. That is the only segment that is growing.

Which side do you want to be on when that happens?

By Paul Shaviv, Guest Contributor

Shlomo Carlebach

I received the following tribute to Shlomo Carlebach from Paul Shaviv. Carlebach was a controversial figure during his lifetime and even now. Without getting into details let us just say that the kind of personal behavior he had with some women is the subject of much discussion of late. This is the ‘dark side’ referred to by Paul and it is the primary reason he was so controversial. Nonetheless, it is clearly a fact that when it came to Jewish Music he had no peers. He is clearly the ‘Beethoven’ or ‘Beatles’ of Jewish music in our day. No one else can come anywhere close.

I love his music. He was the most prolific Jewish songwriter of our time. His musical compositions are more widely used in Orthodox circles than anyone else’s music by far. It is utilized by all segments of Orthodoxy and even non Orthodox communities. Many Sheluchei Tzibur (people that lead the services) do not even realize the tune they adapt to various prayers are actually Carlebach compositions. His music is also part of any decent Jewish band’s repertoire.

An unfortunate offshoot of his influence is the near idol worship he has inspired in some people. Although the author of this post will probably not agree with me, the advent of Carelbach Minyanim is a symptom of that in my view. With all of this in mind, I present Paul’s tribute to Carlebach in full. It follows.

This Sunday, Heshvan 16 (November 5th) is the 23rd Yahrzeit of Shlomo Carlebach, who died of heart failure at the age of 69. I never knew him, and saw him only once, briefly, at a restaurant in Jerusalem.

But he is a major figure in Jewish life.

Yes, he was controversial, and, yes, there was a dark side. But in life he managed to touch a nerve which few others were able to; and in death his musical influence is greater than ever. Many shuls which would have avoided having him appear in his lifetime now enthusiastically promote ‘Carlebach minyanim’; and almost every ba’al tefillah, right across the spectrum, knowingly or unknowingly, uses his tunes.

Shlomo came from impeccable yekke rabbinic stock, with roots in Germany and, later, Austria. He escaped to the USA in 1938, where he attended YTorah v’Daas and was then an early student at Lakewood. He was regarded as a genius. However, he gravitated to Chabad, and became a hassid of the Sixth Rebbe, Yosef Yitzchak. The Rebbe sent him out with Zalman Schachter z”l as the first ‘shluchim’ to Jewish students on campuses.

They were perhaps the first to reach the ‘countercultural Jews’. Throughout the ‘50’s, ‘60’s and ‘70’s, thousands of young Jews deserted Judaism and flocked to the teachers of (Americanized) ‘Eastern religions’. It seemed as though Judaism had nothing to say to them. The brief encounters with the ‘JuBus’ (Jewish Buddhists) portrayed in Rodger Kamenetz’ classic ‘The Jew in the Lotus’ are searing. In my memory is the Jewish Buddhist nun from Dublin who spent sixteen years in ‘exile’, subsisting on food scraps and charity. A far cry from Lakewood.

Shlomo understood them, and his music reached them.

He spent years and years on an endless, restless, peripatetic one-man non-stop world tour, reaching out to his ‘Holy Hippelach’ with message of kindness, joy and love. He touched the lives of thousands, and had the ability to transmit deep messages in brief, even momentary encounters.

Stories of his hessed to Jews and non-Jews are countless. His personal life, and his financial affairs, were chaotic. Those closest to him – among them Arye Coopersmith and Shaul Magid – are the first to acknowledge that they knew him the least, painting him as a complex, semi-tragic figure. His music hid a great deal.

By contrast, his early partner, Zalman Schachter (later Schachter-Shalomi) was far more radical, hurtling off into a syncretic orbit combining Hasidism, Sufism, Buddhism and any other spiritual tradition which spoke to him. He would appear in shtreimel, bekishe and tallit at American Indian ceremonies, chanting or ‘davenning’ in several languages. From his Jewish following the ‘Jewish Renewal’ movement arose – touchy-feely, eco-conscious, meditative, story-telling, flourishing in woodland retreats – you get the picture!

Both of these stories upset me.

And they upset me because both highlight our failures as a community – failures which persist to this day. There is an entire world of Jews whom we fail to reach. While we obsess over halachic fads and fashions (one year Indian sheitels, next year bugs in lettuce, then Brakel chickens, then smartphones, then pictures of women…), accompanied by violence in speech and sometimes deed, our community is dying. Yes, as someone pointed out, Orthodoxy is booming – but while more people are eating (hideously expensive) Shemurah matzah, fewer people are eating matzah.

Today, there are few people really reaching out in the Orthodox community. Shlomo remains controversial. There are fascinating shiurim by the always impressive Rav Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkopf on YU Torah about how various Gedolim related to Shlomo and his music. His personality and way of doing things (still less that of Reb Zalman) would not be acceptable in today’s ever-stricter community. Antagonism, spite, meanness seem to be our daily bread.

The only group who practice that non-judgemental, unconditional love to the entire Jewish people seem to be Chabad.

Maybe they are the future?

Courage. That is the word I think best describes Professor Roberta Kwall’s latest op-ed published in the New York Jewish Week. It took a lot of courage for someone that considers herself a Conservative Jew to challenge her rabbinic leadership for embracing intermarried couples. Here is how she puts it:

The op-ed (“The Conservative movement can, and should, welcome the intermarried”) actually goes on to reaffirm the movement’s prohibition against its rabbis officiating at intermarriages and even speaks approvingly of conversion as an option.

But in the penultimate paragraph of the piece, the authors discuss welcoming the intermarried with “equally open arms.” They advocate “joyously” including these couples in the lives of Conservative congregations and organizations, including worship. Finally, they promise to find “ways to celebrate” these marriages that honor the non-Jewish spouse’s “choice not to merge their identity with the people of Israel.” How? “By being present as pastors before the wedding, as rabbinic guides and companions after the wedding, and as loving friends during the wedding period.”

…The op-ed begs the question of what does “equally open arms” mean in the context of Conservative synagogues welcoming intermarried couples? Is such equal hospitality even possible in Conservative synagogues if they are going to continue to take Jewish tradition seriously? Will non-Jews be allowed to have honors on the bima and actively participate in the services to the same extent as Jews?

Should the norm in Conservative synagogues be to wish a public “mazel tov” to Jewish as well as interfaith couples on their engagements and marriages? Should Conservative rabbis now be expected to allow an aufruf ceremony for interfaith couples prior to the wedding?

Clearly, Professor Kwall understands that if a religious identity is to have any meaning at all, at the very least it ought to remain loyal to its standards. Once you start tampering with them you run the risk of destroying the very identity you seek to retain. The illustrations she points out are a very likely result of the kind of openness these Rabbis have advocated. Implemenating them makes a mockery of Judasim itself.

Obviously intermarriage is a huge problem. That would have been my answer to a question asked by the Forward to 22 rabbis: Is Intermarriage is a problem or an opportunity?

Because of the great gift of religious tolerance that defines this country – secular Jews no longer feel the need to remain Jews at all. Intermarriage then becomes irrelevant. Who cares about a religion that has no impact at all on the way you live, anyway? That’s the message of our time. Religion is now seen by secular Jews (most of whom see themselves as enlightened progressives with humanist values) as an archaic vestige of a superstitious past.

The Reform and Conservative Movements have contributed mightily to this mindset. Reform Judaism has succeeded in eliminating anything remotely Jewish from their way of life. After decades of this approach, they now realize that if you don’t have anything identifiably Jewish as a part of your life, then what exactly makes you a Jew? So now they have backpedaled and encourage voluntary Mitzvah observance as a way of maintaining Jewish identity.

But the train has left the station. Historically, Reform Jews embraced those original doctrines and very likely have children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren that barely even know they are Jewish – and probably don’t care.

The Conservative Movement, claims fidelity to Halacha. And there are many Conservative Jews that do observe it as their denomination defines it. But as Conservative thinker Rabbi Jack Wertheimer has pointed out, the vast majority of Conservative Jews don’t - and their pulpit rabbis have paid little attention to that.

The result of all this is a 90% population of mostly Jewishly ignorant Jews that see no problem marrying out.

That means that if we don’t do something about it, we will lose huge numbers of Jews. Marrying out means that in about half of the cases, the children will not be Jewish at all. End of the Jewish line for them. A line that has continued for them ancestrally for millennia - until now.

Among the 22 rabbis that were asked the abovementioned question, I think Gil Student said it best:

We need to reclaim our terminology. Intermarriage is neither a problem nor an opportunity — it is a sin, a violation of a biblical prohibition. It is the most important decision of a person’s life, made contrary to Jewish tradition. The most effective preventive action is not guilt, but education. If someone finds Judaism exciting and central to his daily life, he will not consider a spouse who does not similarly place Judaism at the center of her life. This requires immersive, deep education both intellectually and experientially. If you want to dramatically reduce intermarriage, make yeshiva education a birthright for all Jewish children.

My only quibble is that despite it being a sin - it is still a problem. I am uncomfortable with the idea that we will just have to live with the consequences of losing so many Jews to intermarriage. I’m just not sure there is a solution. One thing seems certain though, Professor Kwall is right. Changing who you are by embracing Jews who whose spouses are not Jewish and whose children may not be either, is not a solution. It is a tragedy.

But there is a future for Judaism. It is as Gil suggests. A strong Jewish education is the key. That is the primary reason Orthodoxy is growing. And the lack of it among the 90% tat are not Orthodox is why the rest of Jewry is shrinking. The successes by the many outreach groups - as laudable as they are - are a drop in the bucket compared to the many Jews they do not reach. Sad to say it. But unless someone comes up with a solution that does not embrace intermarried couples - I think we will just have to live with those consequences.

Ex- President George H. W. Bush and actress Heather Lind

Sexual abuse, sexual molestation, sexual harassment… are they all the same? Should they be treated the same way by society? Does it make any difference whether the victim is a child or an adult?

Clearly all of the above are wrong. But I don’t think they are the same. The only question is to what degree of severity each of them are - and how we should react to them when they happen.

Sexual abuse is one area about which all there is (or at least should be) universal agreement. It is a crime that can and often does result in lifelong mental anguish in survivors. In worst case scenarios it can cause clinical depression, self medication (drugs and alcohol), and even suicide. The same thing is true about sexual molestation.

When a survivor of abuse or molestation is a child from the Torah observant Jewish community it can also cause them to stop observing Halacha and go OTD (Off the Derech). This usually happens when a survivor is mistreated by his community after revealing his abuse.

Mistreatment is often in the form of inappropriate reactions. Which can range from disbelief… to accusing the survivor of lying (in effect victimizing him a second time)… to siding with the accused whose reputation is ‘impeccable’ and therefore is incapable of it… to telling a survivor not to tell anyone for fear of ruining Shidduch chances for the rest of the family… to avoiding therapy so no one will find out… to refusing to report it to the police… or even minimizing the impact and telling them to just get over it – not understanding the devastation they are going through.

It’s hard to blame a survivor of sex abuse for going OTD. They see their religious community letting them down. Big time. A survivor that gets those kinds of reactions - no longer sees Judaism as a religion of Emes. Instead he sees it as a religion of Sheker! Uncaring and cruel.

Anyone with the slightest bit of compassion should understand this. And yet the above scenario still exists – albeit hopefully it is finally changing for the better.

What about sexual harassment? Is that in the category of sex abuse? And what exactly is sexual harassment? Is it only rape or molestation? Can it be defined as unwanted contact or even attention? Must there be physical contact? Is verbal abuse harassment?

I bring this up now in light of the recent ‘me too’ phenomenon. Ever since film producer Harvey Weinstein was exposed as a serial sex abuser, the media has virtualy exploded with women coming forward saying ‘me too’ with stories of harassment and abuse they have experienced - even decades ago. Having been silent about it until now.

Hollywood seems to be the epicenter of this phenomenon. A surprising list of a-list actresses have been coming out and telling the world about the unwanted sexual advances made by producers, directors and fellow actors. First let us not forget the once highly respected serial rapist Bill Cosby. And as recently as this week 3 widely respected actors were accused of sexual harassment or worse: Kevin Spacey, Dustin Hoffman, and Jeremy Piven. They have not denied it.

Why Hollywood? They are in large measure responsible for the culture of sexual permissiveness in which we live. They are the primary producers of immoral images and subject matter on the screen. It is the cultural climate that actors, directors, and producers live in. A culture that is further projected to America and distributed to the entire world. Saying that harassment has nothing to do with the permissive sexual nature of Western civilization is as ridiculous as saying that smoking has nothing to do with lung cancer.

Let me (once again) hasten to add that the cause of sexual abuse or harassment is not the culture itself. The cause is the sociopathic psychosexual mental state of the abuser himself. Sex abusers will satisfy their sexual impulses at the expense of others without much of a conscience. Most people with normal libidos control their sex drive - channeling it into consensual adult relationships. Sex abusers have no such control and seek gratification at the expense of others.

What about the ‘me too’ phenomenon? Are we now witnessing an America that has become a virtual Sodom and Gemorah?! Is our culture so depraved that some of the most respected names in America are now being pegged as abusers? Let us look at some of those names. One of the most respected Presidents of recent times, 93 year old George H. W. Bush was recently accused of unwanted sexual contact by an actress during a photo session. He did not deny it – but tried to explain it away and then apologized. And need I mention Bill Clinton?

I don’t think we are at a “Sodom and Gemorah’ situation. At least not yet. There is a difference between the kind of sex abuse attributed to a serial child rapist like Avreimal Mondrowitz and what the elder George Bush did.

I believe these are important distinctions despite the fact that some advocates for survivors of abuse might say otherwise. A George Bush pat on the rear is not the same thing as an Avreimal Mondrowitz anal rape of a child. Nor is the affect on the victim anywhere near the same. While both are clearly wrong - I don’t think they should treated the same way by society either.

Ironically we are now experiencing a sort of backlash with respect to sex abuse. The perameters of sex abuse and harassemt have been redefined and expanded.

Sexual abuse and harassment have been around a long time. But in our day, even an innocent comment about someone’s personal appearance might be seen as sexual harassment. For example, telling a woman that you think she is beautiful is now taken as harassment in some circles. It may be inappropriate to say that to a woman out of the blue. But… harassment? I don’t think so. And yet the minute a story comes out like that about a prominent individual the media is all over it. Even when there is nothing else there.

This is the paradox of our time. On the one hand, today we live in the most sexually permissive culture of my lifetime. On the other hand our culture has evolved into being hypersensitive to even the most innocuous of comments - labeling them harassment.

I think we need to step back, take a deep breath, and realize what is and isn’t abuse and/or harrasement. We need re-instill a little more modesty into our culture that has all abandoned it because of a Hollywood that constantly paints women as sex objects. This will not cure sex abusers of their predatory behavior. But it will, I think, rein in some of the behavior that is predicated in that culture.

Scenes like this are disappearing as more Jews shed their Jewish identity

Rabbi Berel Wein is really on target. He gets it. Except for Orthodox Jews, American Jewry is dying. While not blaming heterodoxy directly for it. It is clear that it had a large part in it.

The fact is that there was a time where American Jews cared about being Jewish – even if they weren’t fully observant. In many cases it was because they felt they had to work on Shabbos, lest the family starve.

Back in the melting pot era of he early 20^th century, working on Shabbos was the norm for most jobs. Sunday was he day off. Two day weekends were not necessarily the norm. There are stories of Jews who were tenacious about observing Shabbos and ended up getting fired every Monday because they not show up for work on Shabbos. My father in law had this experience. Most Jewish immigrants of that time could not stand up to that kind of pressure.

It is also a fact that the immigrant Jews of that time had little Jewish eduction. Many were ignorant of Halacha – certainly by today’s standards. They just kept Shabbos because that is what they saw in their parents home. They tried to keep the Halachos they could and keep the family as traditional as possible.I am not here to judge anyone.

I’m only describing circumstances.

But keeping their children Jewish in a melting pot culture where assimilation was the order of the day was a fool’s errand. Especially when there was a dearth of Jewish days schools for their children to attend. These immigrants also saw the public school system as the key to a successful future for their kids. Any Jewish education their children received was usually through afternoon Hebrew schools and Sunday schools sponsored by their Shul. Those parents felt that their influences in the home plus the smattering of Jewish education their children received in those schools would suffice.

This scenario, says Rabbi Wein was perfect for the Conservative Movement. They catered to it in the mistaken belief that they could perpetuate some form of tradition in the offspring of their members.

But those children knew hypocrisy when they saw it. Despite the best intentions of their parents – who wanted their kids to be traditional – working on Shabbos while expecting their children to attend shul was not a good model for them. They correctly asked their fathers, ‘Why should we be Shomer Shabbos when you’re not?! They hated afternoon schools and Sunday schools. Attending additional schools after they spent the day n public school while their friends were our having fun was not appealing at all tothem – to say the least. Most kids hated it. And wanted to be as American as they could. Which meant running as far away from Jewish tradition as they could.

Long story short – as those children became adults, marred and had children of their own, they wanted to impress those same assimilationist values on them. And it worked.

Their children did not run away form Yiddishkeit because they never lived it to begin with. They were the classic Tinokos SheNishbu – having been raised as secular as possible – with some of them even having Christmas trees in the homes in December.

There is no coming back form assimilation like that. Most American parents of the late fifties/early sixties succeeded in stripping their children of all tradition. And the Conservator movement failed in their attempt to keep some of it in their membership.

That – along with the freedom this country stands for and the wide acceptance and even admiration by Americans of the Jewish people that polls tells us is the case - is why there is so much assimilation and intermarriage today. Traditional Jews have all but disappeared.

If there is any upside to this, it is that it is a lot easier to reach out to Jews that don’t have the animus against Jewish practices that their parents did. They did not run away, like their parents did. They simply don’t know anything about it. They are therefore a Tabula Raza - a ‘clean slate’ for those of us in Jewish outreach can ‘write’ upon. But as I’ve mentioned in the past, the percentage of those we reach is minuscule compared to those we don’t. And that is a tragedy.

It would have been far better had we been able to build a religious schools system sooner. Although it probably would not have stopped those parents who felt they needed to work on Shabbos from doing so, I believe that a strong Jewish education would have made a huge difference in spite of the hypocrisy they saw at home.

This is the sad fact of Jewish history in 20^th century America. All attempts to keep future generations of Jews traditional are doomed to failure unless a serious Jewish education becomes the centerpiece of raising children. We have seen what happens without it. And we see what happens with it – as Orthodoxy seems to be the only viable future for the Jewish people in America.

Has Yiddishkeit Become a Spectator Sport?

For the Love of Torah? Or the Love of One’s Self!

Open Orthodoxy - Truth Versus Exaggeration

The Fallacy and Destructiveness of Stereotyping

Bye Bye Bet Shemesh - We Will Miss You

Is Harvey Weinstein Emblematic of Our Time?

An Unbridgeable Gap?

The Buck Stops with Rabbi Auerbach

The War Against Modesty

The Media Bias is Palpable

Sick to my Stomach

Modern Orthodoxy Through the Eyes of a Wise Teen

2 Problems - 2 Solutions

A Climate of Hate

Den of Iniquity? Hardly!

What They Really Want

Reflections on Shlomo Carlebach z”l

Intermarriage - Is there a Solution?

A Culture Where Women are Sex Objects

Learing From History