Emes Ve-Emunah

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the Kotel (Jerusalem Post)

The debate has not gone away. From an editorial in the Jerusalem Post:

After passing a resolution to establish a third prayer plaza at the Kotel for egalitarian prayer, including an upgrading of the entire site, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet retracted the decision in June, setting off an unprecedented crisis with the Diaspora.

They blame this crisis on a power hungry Prime Minster that puts his own needs ahead of the country’s. Needing the Charedi powers to remain in his coalition, he caved to their demands to retract the Knesset decision under threat of their bolting his governing coalition. Thus throwing Israel into new elections. Elections that the polls show he would lose.

This my be true. But it is unfair to characterize the debate as one of caving to special interests at the expense to the nation by means of alienating Diaspora Jewry. Unfair - that is - unless one does not care about the Jewish character of the nation. At its heart that is what the debate is really about. If one is Orthodox, then one believes that the Jewish character of the state is directly related observance of Halacha as stated in the Torah and interpreted by the sages. Still, even with this in mind sometimes certain compromises can be made in the name of Shalom (peace).

Which brings me back to the compromise. Yes, Israel ought to be true to the compromise the Keneset agreed upon as understood at the time. It was voted upon by the Knesset with the abstention of the Charedi parties in the very attempt to preserve Shalom.

But it has become abundantly clear that the compromise was not what it seemed to be. That was stated with clarity by a leader of the Conservative Movement.. The Kotel issue was just means to their real end which was establishing pluralism in Israel - with each denomination having equal legitimacy.

I can’t blame the Conservative and Reform Movements for their quest. Nor for being so upset by the Prime Minister’s decision to reverse the decision. But I can also understand why Orthodox Jews refuse to grant them that and oppose any attempt to do do it. For Orthodoxy it is a matter of religious principle - just as much as egalitarianism is a religious principle for Heterodoxy.

While the Charedi parties opposed the idea of giving any part of the Kotel for egalitarian purposes, they recognized that this was not the hill worth dying on. They wanted to avoid the obvious religious war that would result. Which is why they abstained when the Knesset voted to expand and upgrade the existing egalitarian space. But when details became clear they protested it. Because the way the deal was structured it gave heterodox movements legitimacy by partnering them with Orthodoxy over over Kotel access.

Obviously this is not acceptable to Orthodoxy. Because not only does that mean the government will be granting legitimacy - Orthodoxy itself will!

And yet it every editorial that deals with this issue frames it as simple a refusal by Orthodoxy to allow an egalitarian space and a capitulation to that by the Prime Minister for political gain.

Yes, the Jerusalem Post is right about this issue alienating much of Diaspora Jewry. The question is why is this the case? The answer is not as obvious as this and other editorials would lead one to believe.

I would be willing to bet that the majority of the 90% of American Jewry that is not Orthodox doesn’t even know about this issue. Or care that much about it that much as a personal issue if they do. It is likely that most of them will never visit Israel, let alone the egalitarian space at the Kotel. Those who have in the past went to the traditional space without protest - respecting the Orthodox tradition established there. However, when asked about it as an issue and presented as a denial of egalitarian rights, they indeed see it no other way. They are going to side with the heterodox argument.

The ones really screaming about this, though, is the heterodox leadership. They are near apoplectic in the anger they express. The secular Jewish media is more than happy to give them a platform to show their anger and present their views as the only justifiable ones. As did the Jerusalem Post editorial.

I understand their anger. It isn’t easy realizing just how much in danger of extinction your movement is in. They see Israel as a new frontier with a natural constituency among the majority of Israelis that are not Orthodox but traditional. Heterodoxy has been around a long time. Long before the State of Israel was created. Yes, they currently have a presence there. One which is probably a lot more vibrant than than their American counterparts. They have always wanted recognition. But never anywhere near with the fervor they have now.

That said, I agree with one thing they say. Without these movements, there would have been a lot more Jews assimilating out of Judaism. These movements have in the past helped their members to retain a Jewish identity. At least culturally. But I don’t think that is working anymore. The current generation of secular Jews are increasingly rejecting the need to be Jewish at all.

If these movements suddenly disappeared - it probably would accelerate their exit even more rapidly than their already accelerated exit from Judaism. So there is a downside. Or at least there was. I’m not sure if it matters any more to the current generation.

This is not to say that the Prime Minister has reneged on the deal based on principle. I agree that for him it is probably about retaining power and pandering to the religious parties. But that does not diminish the principle behind it. I only wish editorials like the one on the Jerusalem Post would reflect those principles too instead of always presenting one side.

Senator Dick Durbin and President Trump

There appears to be some controversy about whether the President actually uttered the words attributed to him last week. Words the media were quick to jump on. Myself included. If the report by Democratic Senator Dick Durbin is true, then I stand by my assessment. His words about immigration to the US by people from underdeveloped nations were racist.

If, on the other hand one believes some of the Republican senators who attended the same meeting, then he apparently did not say anything like those words – and did not even use the profanity Senator Durbin said he did.

There was one Republican senator at that meeting who seemed to indicate that the President did say something inappropriate. He did not say exactly what it was other than the fact that he protested it at the time.

There is no way of knowing what was actually said. Or what was meant by it. For his part, the President denies he said it - although he admitted he did have some very harsh words on the subject immigration policy.

Who should we believe? The reports issued by partisan politicians need to be taken in the spirit of who gave them. To say that one politician is more credible than another is in and of itself partisan. I’m not even saying that anyone lied. Sometimes people hear what they want to hear… or interpret things they hear from their own biased perspective.

What is true however is that whatever the President said, no one walked out of that meeting suddenly in righteous protest. A remark like that should have caused them all go walk out in unison! Even the senior senator from Illinois (Durbin) continued to stay at the meeting after he heard the alleged statement. That he seemed so righteously indignant about belies the fact that he waited 24 hour to tell us about it.

The truth is that I never saw the President as a racist until this event. It actually surprised me. He has no history of racism at all. Reports about some of his real estate holdings in the past having had racially restrictive polices notwithstanding. Unfortunately restrictive covenants were quite common back in those days in certain hotels… many of them restricting Jews too. And yet I’m pretty sure that the President is not an antisemite. That he may have looked the other way and not done anything about it is a black mark on his record. But not unusual in those days and it doesn’t necessarily make him a racist today. That he has made comments last year that appeared racist is just a function of his inarticulate ways. As I discussed at the time.

After reflecting on this a bit over the weekend, I have backed off on my view that his comment was necessarily racist. I am no longer sure it was. If one looks at the context of the discussion when the alleged comment was made, one can reconstruct what might have really happened in the Oval Office that day. The discussion was about US policy on immigration.

The current policy is called the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program. Better known as‘the Lottery Program’. Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1990 which makes available 50,000 visas annually to be issued by the State Department. It’s purpose was to increase diversity among our population by selecting people from formerly low immigrant countries. About 20 million apply for the lottery each year.

What the President and many politicians have tried to do is end this policy. And replace it with a merit based policy similar to that of Canada. Which looks at things like education and skills. In other words it looks at how much an applicant can contribute. The current policy ignores merit.

I completely understand why a Canadian type system would be preferable. The more an immigrant can contribute to society, the more we should prefer them. A merit based system does that.

This does not mean that we should disallow unskilled or uneducated laborers into the country. Of course we should. They are the ones doing the unskilled labor that needs to be done but few Americans are willing to do. Keeping the process random skews immigration in favor of those with the least to contribute.

If a country has a low ratio of ‘merit’ applicants and another a high ratio, it is understandable for a government to choose more people from countries with the higher ratio. Looking at all the commentary over the past few days, I think this is as plausible explanation of what he said - as it is to say what he said was racist. If that was the context, then the desire to change the current lottery program into a merit based program similar to Canada’s is not racist at all. It would not have anything to do with the color of one’s skin.

Once can debate the merits of changing the policy, but if this is a description of what was actually discussed then saying he is a racist based on it is incorrect. Unless you are a Trump hater. Then it’s axiomatic that he is.

Ponevezh RoshYeshiva, R' Gershon Edelstein in his Bnei Brak home (VIN)

God absolves sin committed by force. (That is what the transliterated Hebrew title of this post means.) Is it true that when someone sins, they should be judged as though they were being forced to sin via various inclinations and desires… and that they do not sufficiently understand what they are doing?

This rationale has been used by the far left in Orthodoxy to excuse gay sex committed by homosexuals. Which to the best of my knowledge has been completely denounced by all mainstream Orthodox Jewish leaders in both the Charedi and Centrist world. I agree that this is a rationalization by the left because of a misguided sense of compassion for gay people. Who have a very high incidence of suicide.

And yet there may be some truth to this idea after all. Which can be found in the correct approach to children that have stopped being observant – the so called OTD phenomenon.

Please do not misunderstand. I want to make it absolutely clear that I still believe that the ‘Oness Rachmana Patrei’ argument is being misapplied by the left. Even if it is for reasons of human compassion. Interpreting it that way would for all practical purposes erase from the Torah a clearly stated Halacha. But still… read on.

How serious is the OTD problem? Dead serious. There have been more than a few incidences of suicide by OTD children that were contributed to - at least in part – by parental rejection.

Unfortunately the reaction by far too many parents to a child who has gone OTD is indeed rejection. Being thrown out of the house- and into the streets is not at all uncommon. Especially in Charedi homes. Fortunately there are compassionate people in the Charedi world that have risen to the occasion. They are heroes.

Why are OTD children from Charedi homes more vulnerable to these circumstances? The answer should be obvious. When a child goes OTD there, it shows big time. Which makes it a huge embarrassment to the family. In Modern Orthodox homes it is a lot easier to keep secret.

The embarrassment to a Charedi family involves hurting the other children. Shiduchim are more difficult for them. If the community finds out a young person went OTD - the siblings will have a harder time getting married.

This kind of reaction may seem reasonable to some people. But to those of us that value human life and the dignity of man, it is completely unacceptable. What kind of parents value their families reputation at the expense of one of their children? Even when it makes their lives more difficult? I should think that any parent that sacrifices a child in that way is probably not worthy of being called a parent. Which might help explain why a child would go OTD in the first place.

What should a parent do with a child that goes OTD? Most experts on this phenomenon say that one must shower them with unconditional love and acceptance as a member of the family. But that often comes with a caveat. Which is that if the OTD child somehow disrupts the family peace with overt violations of Halacha and fails to comply with minimal rules designed to protect the other children, then it is permissible (perhaps even advisable) to throw them out of the home.

But that would be the wrong decision. Even if a rebellious OTD teenage son were to bring a girl into the house for illicit purposes, they should not reprimand him and certainly not throw them out. God forbid! They should instead shower him with warmth and kindness.

I wish I could say these are my own original thoughts. Although I am in complete agreement with them, I don’t think I would have gone so far. At least not on that last example. But the above advice is not mine. It is the advice of a ‘progressive’ Rav by the name of Gershon Edelstein.

Some in the Charedi world might be familiar with that name. It belongs to a man that many Charedim in Israel feel is the heir to the ‘throne’ formerly occupied by Rav Aharon Leib Shteinman, ZTL. R’ Aharon Leib was considered the Gadol HaDor by most mainstream (non Chasidic) Charedim in Israel. R’ Edelstein is the Rosh Yeshiva of Ponevezh. And it doesn’t surprise me that a man that so many people feel is the Gadol haDor has so much compassion for a fellow Jew – even one that has gone so far away from the path in which he was raised. A man like that deserves the title. And his advice should be heeded.

Why does R’ Edelstein feel this way? From VIN:

During (an) interview, Rabbi Edelstein said that the basic attitude to children who become non-religious should be that they are being “forced” to sin by various inclinations and desires, and that they do not sufficiently understand what they are doing.

Although the questions put to the rabbi were frequently rather leading, Rabbi Edelstein nevertheless insisted throughout that only a non-confrontational attitude of “friendship” by the parents would have any affect in preventing him or her from being further distanced from Judaism and the family.

“It is forbidden to shout at them, it’s like putting a stumbling block before the blind,” says the rabbi, meaning that by reprimanding them such children would be likely to further distance themselves from religion, and said that pressure on them “damages and hurts them.”

Asked whether or not parents should insist that a boy wear a yarmulke or a girl dress modestly, Rabbi Edelstein responded “God forbid” saying that doing so would only distance them.

Not much to add other than ‘Amen’!

Celebrating a Sefer Torah donated by a convicted sex offender (Forward)

The current popularity of writing a Sefer Torah and donating it to a Shul is something that has been troubling me for some time now. One may ask, why this Mitzvah is so troubling to me? Well, it isn’t the Mitzvah per se that is so troubling, It is the fact that millions of dollars have been poured into this project. Jewish money that could have been used far more wisely.

If money grew on trees, I wouldn’t be so troubled. If charitable institutions weren’t so desperate for funds (just to stay alive in some cases)… especially our day schools, high schools and Yeshivos, I’d be fine with it. I would even be supportive of doing it if there was a shortage of Sifrei Torah in the Jewish world.

That was probably why this phenomenon started. There was a shortage. But surely there no longer is a shortage. And yet it seems like every Monday and Thursday we see another Torah dedication ceremony where someone spent well over $50,000 to have it written. They are often donated to Shuls that have plenty of Sefrei Torah of their own.

Imagine if all of this money went to our schools instead of yet another Sefer Torah?

But I am not here to talk about that. I just had to get it off my chest. I am here to talk about a specific Torah dedication that an individual from Chabad organized. From the Times of Israel:

An event...was held in Golders Green a fortnight ago honouring a Sefer Torah and its donor. Chabad news outlets describe “over 1,000 men, women and children” participating in a “joyous” event.

Ordinarily I would have just shrugged this event off as just another Torah dedication. A Torah written with money that could have been put to better use. But this case was different, as Yehudis Goldsobel, the author of that article, notes:

I was made aware of this when a journalist contacted me for my thoughts considering the scroll’s donor, a convicted sex offender, is the man who abused me. I read the article with the accompanying photos and felt the air knocked out of me. There, in the pictures, were prominent members of Chabad Lubavitch – the same Lubavitch that don’t want to include me. This is the community that shunned me.

The event was attended by many of Chabad of the UK’s top rabbinic brass. As Yehudis also notes, there is no way they could have not known about what the donor was convicted of. It was well publicized. And yet they celebrated the Torah dedication and the fellow that donated the Torah as though he was some kind of hero for doing this!

Now it is common to make a public display of donating a Sefer Torah. It is usually done with much fanfare. It includes a traveling band and a marching processional that accompanies that SeferTorah under a Chupa as various dignitaries are honored by giving them turns to carry it under that Chupa. The processional starts at the donor’s house and proceeds toward the Shul in which it will be housed. There’s lots of singing and dancing... lots of people from the wider religious community either participating or observing. Chabad is particularly concerned with such publicity seeing it as celebration that can also be used as an outreach tool.

This is what happened here. But that is not all that happened. Other organizations in the British Jewish community responded like this:

Rather than instant condemnation of this behaviour of Chabad Lubavitch UK, the Board of Deputies issued a statement about “remorse” and “genuine repentance” of offenders, closely followed by the Jewish Leadership Council using the moment to boast about its member organisations having “robust policies” in safeguarding.

Yes, repentance is important and ought not be sneered at. Everyone has a right – an obligation even – to do Teshuva. But donating a Sefer Torah is not Teshuva. Even great remorse at having committed a sex crime is not Teshuva. Although that is certainly part of it, it is not nearly enough.

Teshuva requires that a penitent first asks forgiveness from his victims. Without that, no matter how remorseful they may be the Teshuva is not accepted by God. You cannot ask forgiveness from God without first asking for forgiveness from the person you hurt. In this case it was obviously not done. The sex offender just skipped over that part as though spending money to write on a Sefer Torah was enough.

Surely these Jewish leaders in the UK know this. It is basic. Teshuva for violating sins between man and one’s fellow man requires the fellow man’s forgiveness first. They completely ignored that. And along with the donor’s victims. If anyone wants to know how victims of abuse feel – one can just tune in to the nightly news and watch victim impact statements currently taking place at the sentencing phase of serial sex abuser Larry Nasser’s trial

Chabad of the UK seems to have been completely oblivious about what an event honoring a sex abuser must feel like to his victims. They did eventually condemn the event and the donor – and rejected his Safer Torah. But it was only after two weeks of media outrage and the strong condemnation by UK Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis.

Hopefully Chabad of the UK will have learned something from this experience. I hope it is this: Instead of talking about the importance of a sex abuser doing Teshuva and thereby restoring his reputation without him doing what is necessary, they will instead focus their attention on the victims, their rehabilitation, full acceptance back into their community, and eliminate once and for all the stigma of being survivors in the Frum world! When Chabad puts their minds to something - it gets done. Let's hope they put their minds to this.

As for that donor, if he really wants to do Teshuva, I’m sure he knows what he must do first. One thing he has hopefully learned by the all of the negative attention he got from this is that self promotion via a Torah dedication is not it.

Post corrected and updated at Wednesday 1/17/18 at 7:27 PM

Far-fetched as it might seem, I believe that Satmar Poskim and the leaders of the far left wing of modern Orthodoxy have a lot in common. At least as it pertains to how they use the Torah or Torah based sources to promote their agenda.

Rav Gershon Edelstein recently commented about the compassionate and accepting ways parents should treat children that have gone OTD (are no longer observant). How does that compare to a Halachic work on the subject written by a couple of highly respected Satmar Dayanim? Their views are in diametric opposition to Rav Edelstein’s views.

Rabbi Yair Hoffman has done a great job analyzing the flaws in their argument in a YWN article. Flaws that are based on a selective Psak by Rambam about Apikursim (heretics) which they apply to children that have gone OTD. The Rambam says that Apikursim should be shunned by the community. And that any attempts at Teshuva on their part should not be believed and rejected.

There is however a 2^nd contradictory Psak by Rambam. There he says that not only do we accept their Teshuva, we seek it out! The Satmar Dayanim ignore that 2^nd Rambam and base their views exclusively on the 1^st one.

How the contradiction is resolved is dealt with by Rabbi Hoffman and is beyond the scope of this post. But it is worth noting that most commentators explain the 1^st Rambam as referring to a situation where it is clear that Teshuva will never be sincere - if done at all. Besides, even the first Rambam may not apply in any case. There are myriad reasons why some young people go OTD and not all of them are based on being a heretic.

What I believe to be the case is that these Satmar Dayanim have an agenda. They want a particular outcome and use only those sources that facilitate it. Their goal is to keep their world a ‘pristine’ one - free of outside influences that would negatively affect their children. Clearly (to them) an OTD child that overtly violates all manner of Halacha is such an influence. And must be kept out! Other children can ‘learn’ from them and end up OTD themselves! The OTD child must be excised from the community. Get rid of the ‘rotten apple’ before it spoils the whole ‘barrel’! What about welfare of the OTD child? They see it as a necessary sacrifice for the good of the whole.

This may be somewhat speculative on my part. But I believe that based on how isolated from the rest of the world they are for the above-mentioned reasons, it isn’t all that unreasonable to make this assumption. Thankfully their views are their own and run counter to the vast majority of other Poskim and mental health experts that deal with this problem.

Which brings me to leaders on the far left wing of Orthodoxy. They do almost exactly the same thing. They quote from the Torah to show that their social justice agenda is based on the Torah. But like those Satmar Dayanim they base their interpretations onthe outcome they want to see. This was dealt with very succinctly by Rabbi Jeffery K. Salkin in a Moment Magazine article.

Just to cite one example of many where he shows this to be the case, let us look at the oft quoted ‘Justice, Justice you shall pursue!’ (Devorim – 16:20). The far left sues that phrase to pursue all manner of social justice causes. They see an underdog being mistreated by society and want to help him.

But as Rabbi Salkin points out, the Torah has an entirely different intent for that phrase. It is used as a blueprint for a judicial system where justice is blind. Equal justice under the law. The Torah clearly demands a system where no one is favored. And specifically states that an underdog (the poor) not be favored. Pursuing social justice might bias one in favor of the underdog. But the Torah tells us that justice demands that everyone be judged on the merit of their case. Not on how disadvantaged they might be.

The left ignores the Torah’s actual meaning and uses a phrase that not intended for the way they use it. A social justice agenda.

The left use of the Torah is as outcome based just like Satmar’s use of it. They both have agendas and use it to justify the outcome they seek.

This is not how one should approach the Torah. The right thing to do is to leave biases, prejudices and preconceived notions of right and wrong at the door. And to seek the truth without any agenda, no matter how noble that agenda might be.

This is why it is important to see things objectively without filtering them through the colored lens of a preconceived agenda. Something I try to do here.

Image from the Jerusalem Post

Integration is a good thing. But there are some on both sides of that issue that might oppose it - for fear of being contaminated by the other side. And there may even be a grain of truth in that fear.

I know what you are thinking. But stop thinking it. I am not in any way a racist. I’m not talking about that kind of integration. I am talking about Israel - and integrating Charedim into general society.

On the Charedi side the opposition is based on the belief the secular values that dominate Israeli culture (most of which they consider negative and even anti Torah) would rub off on Charedim if they were to intgerate. On the secular side the opposition is based on the fear that Charedim will somehow end up imposing their way of life on them.

But the fact is that we can all learn from each other. We can all be good neighbors. Charedim will continue to live their lives in that manner in which they were raised as American Charedim that live in an integrated society do. There are a lot of neighborhoods that have both Charedim and secular Jews -and even non Jews living together.

And secular Jews can continue to live their lives as they see fit. Good neighbor will respect each other and not force their own ways on their neighbors. Not only can we learn to live with each other, we can all learn ABOUT each other and end the stereotypical negative images so often portrayed in the media that caters to their own demographic.

The fact is that it is already happening. At least in the workplace. Asaf Malchi , a researcher for the Ministry Labor and Social Affairs reports that there are a considerable number of Charedim entering the workforce. And getting the proper training for good jobs:

In the previous academic year there were approximately 1,200 ultra-Orthodox students earning advanced degrees (graduate and above), and of about 10,000 ultra-Orthodox graduates, a considerable proportion have the academic training required for relevant fields in the civil service with degrees in law, business administration, medical professions and social sciences.

A recent decision by the Israeli government gives ‘Affirmative Action’ status to Charedim that want to integrate more easily into civil service in various positions. I am not a fan of Affirmative Action, because that tends to lower standards for reasons unrelated to qualification. But Malchi suggests that it is quite the opposite and that a lot will be gained by it:

Without success stories, it will not be possible to recruit additional ultra-Orthodox candidates to this sector. Therefore, affirmative action for ultra-Orthodox integration in the civil service must be carried out fairly, by empowering and improving the ultra-Orthodox human capital through new policy in the education system, both schools and universities, and the military and appropriate conditions accepted by the Civil Service Commission.

I agree with this goal. But I am not sure I agree with putting lesser qualified students ahead of more qualified students into these schools - if that is what is happening.

All in all, this is great news. But I do not believe it is enough. Because I believe there are still many Charedim that are losing out because they lack the basic education needed to succeed in those schools and are unable to catch up.

The real answer to this situation is along the lines I have been advocating for quite some time. Requiring Charedi schools in Israel to offer a core curriculum of secular studies comparable to the Charedi schools in the US. In that way, Affirmative Action will not be necessary and admission to schools will once again be merit based rather than diversity based. At least in theory

I also have to wonder if those numbers reflect American Charedim that immigrated to Israel? If it does, that is not a n accurate reflection of how many Charedim in Israel with no secular studies background get advanced degrees. Because most American Charedim that make Aliyah had some sort of core curriculum that better enables them to seek such degrees. Although I will admit that 10,000 Charedi undergraduates is a pretty sizable number even if it does include some American Charedi Olim.

So while I am pleased to see more Charedim getting the education and jobs they need to support their families, it does not seem like nearly enough, considering the tens of thousands of them are not doing it.

For me the the goal should be a system that enables a lot more Charedim to get the education and training for those good jobs than is currently the case. Because there are probably a lot of Charedim that are so ill-equipped in secular knowledge that they are unable to catch up. Until that changes, I’m afraid all of this affirmative action will produce only limited results.

Image of last year's Women's March (NYT)

I tend to identify with conservative ideas a lot more often than not. I am neither proud or ashamed of that. It is just a fact based on my sense of right and wrong. Which is heavily influenced by my religious beliefs as an Orthodox Jew. It is in trying to understand the Torah’s religious principles that shapes my political views.

That said, Judaism is neither conservative or liberal. It is based only on the will of God. All we can do as believing Jews is try and do His will as best we can understand it. Which in my view more often reflects conservative ideas rather than liberal ones. But not always. That is why for example I support abortion rights – a liberal position in spite of my generally conservative leanings.

Sometimes my religious perspective results in ambiguity about public policy. I am opposed to gay marriage – a socially conservative position. And yet am very sympathetic to treating homosexuals with the dignity they deserve as human beings – a more liberal approach.

I mention all of this because I want to make clear where I am coming from about a couple of things that happened yesterday: The government shutdown and the Women’s March.

I can understand the motivation of Democrats (mostly liberals) for refusing to vote for an extension of funding that would have kept the government open. They `sincerely want to help ‘Dreamers’.

Dreamers are young children who were brought into this country by parents that violated our immigration laws - smuggling their family into this country. Most of those children have known no other country than America. They have no memory of their parents’ home country. They are culturally American. Most of them are well integrated into society and are high functioning productive members of it. They are mostly employed or are in schools. They contribute billions of dollars to the economy.

It is not their fault that they came here illegally. Until now they were subject to DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and were given the right to remain here legally. DACA will soon expire. I don’t think that anyone with a soul would want to see them deported. Including the President and Republicans (mostly conservatives).

The problem is that even though both sides want new legislation to solve this problem, the President and Republicans want to include tough security measures on our borders that would require billions of additional tax dollars. Democrats refused to do that. One can debate the merit or necessity of that kind of border security. It would have been nice, however, if they had put aside that issue and solve the ‘Dreamers’ problem with some sort of compromise.

Is this on Republicans? Not exactly. They were prepared to pass legislation with a compromise accepted by Democrats. But the Trump White House refused to do that without tougher border security measures. So the failure to pass DACA legislation is basically on Trump.

While all this was happening, the government was in danger of shutting down. Congress needed to appropriate funds as part of the budgetary process by September 30 in order to keep it going. When that doesn’t happen they pass temporary funding. Democrats decided not to do that and instead use it as a threat in order to force the Republicans to pass DACA legislation. In short they were willing to sacrifice the well being one set of people in favor of another. They were willing to hurt the livelihood of government employees for the cause of Dreamers. It would have been one thing had they sacrificed their own salaries. But they will not lose a penny. They decided it was OK for others to suffer for their cause.

The right thing to have been done was extend government funding and continue to negotiate for a DACA policy that both sides want. Especially since not a single ‘Dreamer’ was in any danger of being deported. My guess is that they will in any case never be deported. But that didn’t stop Democrats from carrying out their threat. The government has shut down and many of its employees were laid off. No matter how many Democrats say it’s a Trump shutdown. It is not. The government shutdown is on Democrats.

Interstingly polls seem to indicate that most of the American public blames Trump and by extension Republicans. I can only surmise that the constant barrage of anti Trump media coverage (much of it deserved) has conditioned the public to blame Trump (and Republicans) when anything goes wrong. But that is clearly not the case here. Trump can be blamed for not passing DACA legislation. But not for the government shutdown. Two separate issues that are not tied to each other.

The Women’s March is yet another thing that troubles me. Before anyone stones me - let me explain. It is true that women aren’t treated fairly in our society. There is as of yet no parity in pay between men and women. No equal pay for equal work. Which is an outrageuos injustice that has gone on far too long. It is also true that women are not yet treated with the same respect as men are in the workplace. Their opinions in the boardroom for example - if valued at all - are not as valued as are those of their male counterparts. The glass ceiling is alive and well and has not yet been broken.

Another legitimate cause for women to march is the recent spate of revelations about the vastness of sexual harassment and abuse so pervasive today. I admit to being shocked at the extent of it. I have never personally witnessed it. But I’m sure it happens and worthy of protest.

But it seemed to me that this march was not only about that. It was almost an ‘anti man’ march. The message I got from media coverage of it was that attitude expressed was ‘a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle’. A phrase coined by feminist icon Gloria Steinem. And that it’s time that women ‘took over!’

Now before anyone calls me on this and tells me to show an exact instance of that, I can’t do it. No one there said those words. Or that they hated men. But based on the angry rhetoric heard in some of the news clips, it sure seemed that way. You would think that women as a whole were being subjected to the slavery of antebellum South. Which is hardly the case.

Until Trump was elected, I am not aware of a single march for women in the last 30 years. It was only with his election that these marches began to take place. The first one being a massive one right around Trump’s inauguration. Long before revelations about the massive degree of sexual harassment. Clearly this was more of an anti Trump rally than a pro women rally.

Also if one surveys some of the placards carried by participants in yesterdays’s women’s march one will see signs supporting gay rights. And Palestinian rights. In fact one of the organizers of this event was a Muslim woman by the name of Linda Sarsour. She is an avowed supporter of the anti Israel BDS movement. I might understand why Muslim women might feel they are treated unfairly in Islam. But in an interview I saw. Sarsour spoke about the mistreatment of Palestinian women by Israel. Not by Muslim countries. This exposes an agenda that is as much anti Israel as it was pro woman.

That said a lot of sincere well intended people participated in that march yesterday, motivated by the above mentioned legitimate grievances. But I doubt they fully understood the nature of that protest. , Which - aside form being anti Trump – had at its core a liberal-left agenda. The pervasiveness of sexual harassment or promoting equal rights for women seemed almost beside the point if one looks at some of those placards! If one has any doubts about that, watch the video below.

This is my view of things. But I am sure that liberals will deny it all - and consider themselves to be on the right side of these issues. And that’s what makes horse races.

One of YU's Roshei Yeshiva, R' Mordechai Willig

Yeshiva University (YU) has become Charedi! That is new description of YU that has been bandied about by some people in the Modern Orthodox world. Mostly by those on the left.

I do not attend YU and never have. But based on my admittedly limited observation of what is going on there, I reject that description. YU is clearly not Charedi.

No Charedi institution would host Yale University Professor of Religious studies, Christine Hayes. As noted in its Revel Events Calendar she will be delivering a seminar on Ancient Jewish History. Having received her PhD in Talmud and Judaic studies from Columbia University, Professor Hayes is considered a foremost expert on the Academic study of the Talmud and in ancient Jewish history.

(For those not familiar with the Academic study of the Talmud, it is not about learning Gemarah. It is about studying the history and culture of the period and its people using modern academic methodologies. It is not by any means an in depth study of Gemarah and Rishonim of the type studied by a student in a Yeshiva. The idea that Professor Hayes is some kind of Talmud Chacham should be dismissed from anyone’s mind. A PhD in Talmud does not in any way make one a Talmud Chacham.)

The university side of the Yeshiva is yet another clear indicator that YU is not Charedi. No Charedi Yeshiva would even entertain the idea of having any kind of university program on its campus. Nor would they even support the idea of attending a university except (in some cases) for purposes livelihood. And even then, not as part of the Yeshiva and certainly not on campus.

So what is all this talk about YU becoming Charedi? I believe it is based on the fact that the Roshei Yeshiva there tend towards a similar view of Halacha and Hashkafa as does the Charedi world. Except for the University issue, there is not that much difference between a YU Rosh Yeshiva and a Charedi Rosh Yeshiva. At least in terms of Psak Halacha and Hashkafa. This is the Yeshiva part of YU - The Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary (RIETS). When most of us refer to YU, we mean RIETS.

I have been in YU’s Beis Hemdrash many times. It looks like any Charedi Beis Hamedrash in terms of the Hasmada (diligence) and the ‘Kol Torah’ (the sound of Torah) emanating from its halls. You will not see any difference in the intensity of study between the two. The only differences are really the following: the students generally do not wear the black and white ‘uniform’ of the Charedi world (although some do). Their dress is more casual in most cases. Many cover their heads with knit Kipas (Yarmulkes). Most see the modern State of Israel in a more positive light. And all (or most) attend the University side of YU.

The fact is that the Roshei Yeshiva at YU are role models for the students there. And the students there are as meticulous in Halacha as any of their counterparts in the American Charedi Yeshivas. Their Hashkafos are molded by their Roshei Yeshiva. Which is why most of them tend to be on the right wing of Modern Orthodoxy (Centrists). And most, if not all the Roshei Yeshiva reject the innovations of the far left.

This has been the case for quite some time. Which the left has reacted to quite negatively. And why Yeshivat Chovevei Torah (YCT) was formed. It was in response to the right wing Centrist Hashkafa they see dominating YU. Which they say has veered from the path of a Modern Orthodoxy they say has always been more open to the Modern side of its Hashkafa. (Hence, the original term - Open Orthodoxy – which has now been abandoned.) The left wing of Orthodoxy insists that it is they who carry on the tradition of modern Orthodoxy and that YU has abandoned it to join the ranks of the Charedim.

Well, as noted above, they haven’t. What is more likely closer to the truth is that the Hashkafos of YU are not all that different from the Charedi Hashkafos - but with the important distinctions mentioned above that make them modern. Both communities place high value on Torah study and study it the same way; both are meticulous in Halachic observance; and both place a high value on Mesorah – seeing it not to be abandoned so easily with the winds of societal change. As does the far left of Modern Orthodoxy.

The fact that there is more of a right wing attitude there now may also in part be due to the very creation and success of YCT. Left wing oriented students that might have attended YU for lack of choice – can now find a home at YCT. Leaving a more right wing student body at YU.

There are some in YU that will say they can now focus their energies on promoting a Hashkfa more in line with the mainstream and ‘good riddance’ to the left. But I am not one of them. I would have preferred that the more left wing oriented students had some exposure to the Hashkafos of the YU Roshei Yeshiva. Instead of what they have now – which is exposure only to views of the far left. But it was not meant to be. Which in my view has caused much divisiveness in recent years.

Be that as it may, I am in complete support of the type of institution that YU is. And I support what its Roshei Yeshiva try to do as well. It is the current product of the YU that I believe to be the real future of Modern Orthodoxy. (If it has a future at all). And it is this very same product that is currently melding with the mainstream moderate Charedi world to form what I have called the new centrism. Which is not based on Centrist Hashkafa (which differs from the Charedi Hashkafa) but rather on lifestyle – in which the two worlds hardly differ at all.

Vice President Mike Pence praying at the Kotel yesterday (TOI)

If you are a believing American Jew and were not inspired by what took place in Israel yesterday, I have to question if you actually have a Jewish soul.

OK. That’s a little harsh. I realize that there are a lot of sincere believing Jews that might very well dispute that statement. They might even be insulted by it. But I can’t help it. The scenes that took place yesterday in Israel and the words that accompanied them were truly inspiring to me as an Orthodox Jew living in America. I cannot understand why they would not inspire other believing American Jews the same way, no matter how they might feel about the current administration.

Perhaps the fact that some observant Jews were not inspired by it might be explained by the hatred of the man that the Vice President works for, the President. The extent of it being so strong that they cannot see any act done by a member of his administration in a positive light.

The prism of hatred is a distorted way to see the world. I can understand their hatred and even agree with many of their reasons for it. But they should never allow it to so overwhelm their thinking that it destroys their objectivity. And thereby describe a positive act only through its negative aspects. I think that is probably the case here.

Yesterday, Vice President Mike Pence addressed the Israeli Knesset. He spoke in soaring terms about the Jewish return to the land promised to us by God. And what the Jewish people have done to rebuild that country in the last 70 years. He made many biblical references, something even most of the Jewish Knesset members rarely do. Except for the observant ones. He even recited the words ‘Shehechiyanu V’Kimanu V’Higyanu LaZman HaZeh’ the prayer thanking God for bringing us to this moment - addressing what Israel has accomplished to date. And has yet to accomplish.

He also added that the US embassy will move to Jerusalem by the end of 2019, well ahead of the 4 years or so mentioned by the President during his historic declaration about Jerusalem as the eternal capital of Israel. (I believe that was done at the behest of Pence himself). He also spoke about the terrible nuclear deal the last administration struck with Iran and promised the US would no longer sign off on it.

The Vice President’s speech was well received by all but the Arab members of the Knesset who were removed after they heckled the Vice President as he began to speak. Pence commented that Israel has a vibrant democracy. (Which should be obvious to anyone that realizes the Knesset has Arabs that are democratically elected by its voting Arab population.)

Pence also spoke about the need for peace between Israelis and Palestinians and hoped that for the sake of both peoples they will come to an agreement. And that the US will support whatever kind of peace agreement at which the 2 parties arrive. How refreshing it was not to hear the word settlements even once!

This of course doesn’t mean that there is no controversy about the US declaring Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moving its embassy there. Of course there is. It has obviously angered Palestinians and Muslims all over the Middle East. The European Union (EU) has condemned it and has responded by recognizing East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.

Not surprised by that. Their history of antisemtism keeps on showing itself from time to time - often disguised as even-handedness. But recognizing a 70 year reality should not have generated that kind of response. The US did not say that all of Jerusalem is Israel’s capital. They just said Jerusalem - purposeless leaving it vague for the 2 parties to work out for themselves. Unlike what the EU did - that is being both honest and even handed.

The Palestinians are so upset that the US recognized a 70 year old reality (and by the US moving its embassy to where all embassies in all other countries are located - their capitals) that they refused to even meet with the Vice President.

Perhaps the real reason they are so upset is because in their hearts they will never accept Jewish sovereignty over any part of Israel including Tel Aviv. If this was all about their having their own state, they could have had it 70 years ago without a single bullet being fired by anyone.

But I digress.

The other inspiring event that took place yesterday was when the Vice President prayed at the Kotel. This is the first time a sitting Vice President visited the Kotel in his official capacity. He was inspired by his visit adding that it was a great honor to do so. His wife, the 2^nd Lady Karen Pence, prayed in the women’s section there. The Vice President and his wife respect our traditions and unlike heterodox leaders, they probably understand why we have them.

That said, I am disappointed by the need by to separate female reporters and place them behind the Mechitza. These reporters were justifiably upset by that because they were prevented from doing their jobs properly. They were not there to pray or disrupt any more than the male reporters that were there.

To the best of my knowledge there is absolutely no Halachic or Hashkafic issue with them being there while the VP was praying. All this did was feed into the false narrative that Orthodoxy discriminates against women. With this very public highly visible act, the right wing lost more than they gained. My message to them is to stand up for a principle only where it exists. Making up scenarios to demonstrate that principle can only backfire on them.

Orthodox turned Conservative Rabbi Harry Epstein

There’s a fascinating article by Rabbi Gil Student in Torah Musings. (Sent to me by a friend, it was originally posted back in April of 2016.) It is about Rabbi Harry H. Epstein, a Chicago rabbi whose Orthodox credentials were impeccable.

This story was of particular interest to me because his father is one of the founding fathers of my alma mater, HTC (Skokie). It is a case study in good intentions gone wrong. Much as is the case with the far left of Orthodoxy (formerly known as Open Orthodoxy).

From Gil’s post, His impressive Orthodox credentials included the following:

Skokie Yeshiva (was) where the young Harry studied. Harry went on to RIETS in New York, which at the time did not have its associated Yeshiva College. He then traveled to Europe to study in Slobodka under his uncle, Rav Moshe Mordechai Epstein. After two years there, he moved to the land of Israel as one of the original ten students in the Chevron yeshiva. He returned to America, attended Chicago University, and became a rabbi, first in Tulsa and then in Atlanta. Before leaving Israel, he obtained rabbinic ordination from his uncle, Rav Yaakov Charlap, Rav Avraham Kook and others. He subsequently obtained numerous graduate degrees. R. Epstein was a young Orthodox scholar with a solid yeshiva background and a college education.

For me Rabbi Epstein’s track of studies is ideal. His grounding in Torah and his high level of secular education is what Torah U’Mada is all about. And yet, Rabbi Epstein’s Hashkafos evolved to the point where he felt he could no longer be Orthodox. He eventually joined the Conservative movement.

He did so for what he believed were altruistic reasons. His trek towards the Conservative movement was unintentional at first but inevitable. It was due to his belief that the American Jewish youth of his day needed a Jewish environment that would make them comfortable as Americans. He started by innovating western style practises into his Modern Orthodox Shul in Atlanta. He also accommodated younger congregants that were less religiously committed.

At the same time he addressed his older congregants with the skill he developed in his traditional Yeshiva background. For example he taught advanced classes in Gemarah. And was an eloquent speaker. Outside of the duties to his Shul he became a spokesman for Judaism to the outside world, particularly with interfaith leaders.

In short he was kind of a super-star American rabbi who had it all - and rose to high positions in both the RCA and the OU. One might even say he was a role model of modern Orthodoxy. But then it all went wrong.

After the Holocaust brought about an immigrant population that included right wing European Rabbis and an Orthodox culture filled with stringency, Rabbi Epstein feared that the move to the right would endanger an American Jewry that could never go along with it… and would end up abandoning their Judaism entirely. What happened next is shocking considering his background. In 1954, he joined the Conservative movement to the great dismay of his wife and father. What pushed him over the edge? From Torah Musings:

R. Epstein’s biographer, Mark Bauman, in his Harry H. Epstein and the Rabbinate as Conduit for Change(published in 1994), attempted to understand what drove R. Epstein to join the Conservative movement. R. Epstein was a proponent of progress within tradition. Concerned that Orthodoxy was increasingly uncompromising, “liv[ing] in the past and ignor[ing] American conditions.” He felt that Judaism needed to continue evolving as a dynamic religion.

He started choosing which traditions to abandon (e.g the Mechitza) and creating new innovations (like Friday night services) – all for purposes of accommodating members that were not observant. He was also a champion of women’s rights – believing strongly that Judaism must accommodate the times if it was to be relevant.

He was successful in keeping old members while attracting new ones. At least in the short term. This was very much in line with the goals of the Conservative Movement. But the key phrase there is ‘short term’. Because once you start accommodating the lack of observance and cater to the spirit of the times you end up with a formula for assimilation. Which as we all too well now know has accelerated the huge exodus of Jews from Judaism in our day. The collateral damage of which will be the ultimate extinction of heterodox movements as we know them today.

Rabbi Epstein later regretted that decision. Quoting his biographer:

(I)n the 1980s, the rabbi bemoaned the decision to join the Conservative ranks. Conservatism had become too nebulous. It lacked substance and was too willing to compromise fundamentals.

Ah... the slippery slope of accommodation. This is a case study in how not to allow the accommodation and the spirit of the times to govern one’s thinking. Even if it is for the most altruistic of reasons. While I agree that we must live in the 21st century and apply the Torah to its circumstances, we can never adapt Halacha to suit the circumstances. As Gil puts it:

There are many points on the spectrum of Orthodoxy, many different ways of combining tradition and modernity. However, they all seek to operate within the mainstream traditions of Jewish law and thought.

I think that’s right. Those that don’t and instead try to accommodate the times need only look at this case study. Which was tried and later regretted by a well intended brilliant thinker after he saw where it led. This ought to be a lesson to the far left of Orthodoxy who – with the best of intentions - are going in a similar direction. It can only result in the same thing. History teaches us exactly where the best of intentions can lead.

Which is why I believe it is important for the OU to take a principled stand on member Shuls that violate the rulings of its Poskim with respect to a host of issues. They too should learn the lessons of history. Allowing Shuls that ignore those rulings to remain members would be a huge mistake which will. surely be regretted.

Forward columnist and author, Jay Michaelson

I can’t say I’m surprised. Jay Michelson has ripped Mike Pence a new one! He has torn apart the the Vice President’s historic visit to Israel - calling it a fiasco! I am not surprised because it is clear from his politics that the Vice President never had a chance. Jay is an unabashed liberal Jew who has now favors Buddhism over his own Jewish heritage. A heritage that he is not uneducated about.

Not that it takes such a tragic move like his to see it that way. But it sure doesn’t help. The truth is that many politically liberal Jews see it that way. It is also not a coincidence that most liberal Jews that care at all about Israel - reside in heterodoxy. That’s because in most cases their only connection with Judaism is the call to social justice and little else. In Michaelson’s case - added to this is the fact that as a gay man he probably sees the Vice President as homophobic and anti gay. Because as Indiana’s governor, Pence supported a law that was eventually ruled to be an unconstitutional violation of the civil rights of gay people - by a slim majority of the Supreme Court.

It should therefore not be surprising that a liberal openly gay man who is active in the LGBT community sees nothing good in religious Evangelical Christians like Pence. This is what I was thinking when I read the views he expressed in the Forward about how dangerous it is for Jews that the Vice President loves Israel so much.

Among other ‘problems’ he mentioned of a lesser nature he focuses mostly on the big one! The old canard about how Evangelical Christians have an ulterior motive for loving Israel and the Jews so much. He then goes about describing ‘end times’ theology. Which occupies a great deal Evangelical preaching.

End times is a Christian doctrine that states when their Messiah has a 2^nd coming, there will be something they call Armageddon - an apocalyptic war of unprecedented fury that will destroy all non believers – while having ‘lifted’ believers into a spiritual zone called ‘the rapture’. For that to happen, End Times prophesy says that the Jewish people must reclaim their land and return to it en masse. And from there they will suffer the apocalyptic travails of Armageddon unless they become believers (in their god) themselves and join other believers in rapture.

This, Michaelson claims is the true motive behind the support for Israel of virtually all Evangelical Christians.

It’s true that they believe this. But unlike Michaelson’s claim, it is also true that this is not what motives a Christian like Pence to love Israel and the Jewish people. How do I know? Because as I’ve mentioned in the past, I have done my homework here and more importantly - trust the judgment of those that have long term direct interactions with these people. They do it because that is what their bible commands them to do. You know… that bible. The one we call the Torah and they call the old testament. They believe they will be blessed as the Torah promises if they bless us.

Furthermore many of them see in Israel a microcosm of American values, culture, and accomplishments. In other words, in Israel - they see themselves. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve heard a fundamentalist Christian say that. In short, Michalelson’s views on this subject are ill informed and filled with half truths and unmitigated bias.

Fortunately there are people with a much clearer heads expressing a more accurate view of the Vice President’s remarkable visit to Israel.

One such clear thinker is my friend Meir Yaakov. Although I haven’t spoken to him in years, I still consider him a friend and hope the feeling is mutual. I used to enjoy talking Hashkafa (and politics) with Meir Yaakov whenever I had the opportunity. Like when he visited his parents in Chicago on a break from classes at Yeshiva University. Or when I visited my daughter and son in law who at the time lived on the YU campus - and he would occasionally drop in when I was there. He was good friends with my daughter and son in law and would often baby sit for their newborn child.

His friends at YU used to affectionately call him ‘The Sol’. That was because of his last name, Soloveichik. I always called him Meir Yaakov because that is how he was known in Chicago. But now Meir Soloveichik uses only his first name. A name that become a recognized in the Modern Orthodox world - and not only because of his famous last name. The fact is that my Rebbe’s grandson is quite brilliant - as are many of the Soloveichiks. Which is why his PhD in philosophy from Princeton doesn’t surprise me. Nor do his brilliant articles in various journals and magazines. Full disclosure - he is also active in Republican politics.

But unlike Michaelson, he has not abandoned his heritage at all. Quite the opposite. He has embraced it. Having been raised in a home that is pure Torah; ordained at Yeshiva University, is the Rabbi of Shearith Israel in New York and the Director of the Strauss Center for Torah and Western Thought at Yeshiva University, his religious credentials impeccable. He speaks his mind from that perspective. And unlike Michaleson’s misinterpretation of the Vice President’s motives, he knows better. All of which is why his oped in the Wall Street Journal so resonated with me. In fact, much of it sounded identical to what I said in a similar piece a couple of days ago. Only he said it much better than I did.

Michaelson’s politics and his obvious disdain for Pence should make whatever he says about him suspect. It’s true that my friend Yaakov Meir’s association with Republican politics might be seen to influence him in the other direction. But if one factors in Michaelson’s uniformed explanation of Pence’s religious motives, the only fair conclusion is that his narrative is false - based on evidence to the contrary. Which to me means that the best thing you can do with his views is put them where they belong - right into the trash can.

Rabbi Shlomo Riskin (Jewish Press)

Rabbi Shlomo Riskin has done it again. Well… actually he hasn’t - exactly. According to a headline in the Jewish Press, Rabbi Riskin has advocated public desecration of Shabbos by the Israeli government. That would be shocking if it were true. But if one reads the actual text of the article one will see that what he was actually asking for is a ‘work around’ the law forbidding public transportation on Shabbos. One that would allow buses to operate on Shabbos without a technical violation of it. How would that work? Simple solution. Use non Jewish bus drivers.

The truth is that here are several problems with this solution and I would not support it. Nor, I imagine, would the Chief Rabbinate or any other rabbinic authority. Even though that there would be no Jew violating Shabbos if a non Jew did the driving. More about that later.

I understand his reason for advocating this. I even agree with it. He is of the same opinion I am. One cannot shove religion down people’s throats. Those that are secular and do not have the means to own their own vehicles are forced to use public transportation on Shabbos. Which doesn't exist in certain areas on Shabbos. This is an situation that favors the rich and is grossly unfair to the poor. I’m sure makes the secular demographic quite angry. And it is yet another thing to be upset at the Israeli Chief Rabbinate about.

I am nonetheless opposed to this solution. That something is unfair to a poor non observant Jew does not mean we provide the means for them to violate Shabbos. That violates another Halachic principle: Lifnei Iveir – the Torah prohibition to not putting a stumbling block in front of a blind person. In this case a bus on Shabbos for secular Jews.

Although not technically violating Shabbos if a non Jew drives them, there will inevitably be other violations (e.g. handling of money). There is also the issue of being Misayeah L'Aveira - greasing the path - making it easier for them to sin. By allowing public transportation on Shabbos it enables them to get to a destination where they will very likely sin. There is also the problem of Amira L’Nochri - a Jew telling non Jews do work for him on Shabbos - which is not permitted in most cases. True, for the benefit of the public it is permitted. But in this case only the non Orthodox public would benefit. That is not the kind of public benefit Halacha had in mind to permit asking a non Jew to do work for you on Shabbos.

Not to mention the fact that it would destroy the spirit of Shabbos to have public transpiration on that day as though it was just another weekday. And finally it would violate the status quo agreement to allow public transportation in areas that did not have any in the past. (Just as it would to forbid it in places that already exists.) The truth is that Israel is Orthodox. And it ought to look Orthodox.

Again, this does not mean we meddle in anyone’s personal affairs. If a secular Jew violates Shabbos on his own, that is his business. It would be nice – as Rabbi Riskin says if the entire country were observant. But that is not the case. Ramming Halacha down their throats is a sure prescription for chasing them away from observance. As I often say honey works better than vinegar. Showing a secular Jew the beauty of a Torah lifestyle is the way to go, not by forcing them to do things they do not want to do.

I can just hear many on the Left of Orthodoxy saying, ‘Wait!’ ‘Back up a bit.’ ‘What’s that you say?’ ‘Israel should be an Orthodox State?!’ ‘No it shouldn't!’ ‘It should be pluralistic!

Well that is not anything an Orthodox Jews should agree to. If you are an Orthodox Jew and believe that is the way in which God wants His people to live than you believe the State in which his people live…the state given to us by God Himself, ought to be Orthodox.

Of course heterodox rabbis dispute that. They will say to Orthodox rabbis, ‘You’re OK’. But that is followed up by ‘We’re OK, too’. They want the Israeli government to say it. Officially. They want Israel to say that there are many legitimate ways to be Jewish. And that Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judaism are all different - but legitimate streams of Judaism.

They have many people championing that cause. Including heterodox rabbis, and the secular Jewish media. Even some liberal Orthodox rabbis on the far Left have argued in favor of pluralism! But Rabbi Riskin is not one of them. Yes, he is liberal. But he understands the necessity of Israel being Orthodox. He believes that Israel and its institutions must remain that way. Heterodox rabbis need to understand that they cannot be recognized. So says Rabbi Shlomo Riskin. From the Jewish Press:

But before Rabbi Riskin’s interview is picked up for fund raising brochures of Women of the Wall and other Reform and Conservative institutions, he stressed that “Judaism in the State of Israel must be Orthodox,” and “the official prayer at the Western Wall must be Orthodox, with a partition and according to halachic rules.”

“They (Reform and Conservative) cannot be officially recognized, they need to understand that,” he said. “At the same time, I also think that the State of Israel must understand that our Jewish places should include non-Orthodox Jews. The establishment prayer must be Orthodox.

I have had my issues with some of the things Rabbi Riskin has done of late. As is the case with his solution for allowing public transportation on Shabbos. Although I agree with his motives, I do not agree his solution. But when he’s right, he’s right. And when it comes to whether Israel should remain an Orthodox state, I could not agree with this liberal rabbi more.

VP Pence asked an Orthodox Rabbi (Lord Sacks) to write his speech

One of the things I found fascinating about former President Bill Clinton is his perception of an authentic Jew. The more ‘Jewish’ someone looked, the more authentic he believed them to be. I believe that is one of the reasons he agreed to see the Skverer Rebbe, R’ David Twersky. He looks the part: full beard, peyos, long Chasidic kapoteh… the works. The Rebbe saw President Clinton for purposes of getting some of his Chasidim released from prison. They had been convicted of fraud. He succeeded in getting their sentence commuted.

It wasn’t only the ‘look’ that intrigued Clinton. One of his friends turns out to be Rabbi Menachem Genack, CEO of the OU’s Kosher division. R’ Genack is Orthodox but not Chasdic and outside of the Kipa, there is nothing especially ‘Jewish’ looking about him.

It is also rather well known that Clinton’s beautiful eulogy for Itzhak Rabin which he ended with the words ‘Shalom Chaver’, was written by another Orthodox Jew, Rabbi David Lukens.

Clinton was not alone in this regard. Another President apparently feels the same way. The current one. He too has Orthodox Jews that are important to him. Two of his top advisers on the Middle East - Jason Greenblatt and David Friedman - are Orthodox Jews.

Not to be outdone by these two Presidents in terms of what kind of Jews they value the most, the current Vice President, Mike Pence seems rto value Orthodox rabbis too. It has recently been revealed that he asked the former Chief Rabbi of England, Lord Jonathan Sacks to write the speech he delivered to the Knesset last week. A speech that was filled with biblical references that could have been delivered by any Orthodox Rabbi.

It seems to be increasingly the case that Orthodoxy is not only the wave of the future for Judaism in America - it is increasingly being seen by leaders of both political parties as the more authentic version of Judaism.

This was unfortunately not the case when we needed it the most during the Holocaust. The Rabbi most trusted by then President Roosevelt was Stephen S. Wise, a Reform Rabbi. FDR considered him the spokesman for the Jewish community. Orthodox rabbis were ignored by him when they came to plead the case of European Jews that were being systematically slaughtered by Nazi Germany as they overran Europe. FDR asked his Jewish speech writer and adviser, Samuel Rosenman whether these Orthodox rabbis were important. Rosenman told him to skip the meeting because these rabbis represented an archaic culture of Jews that have no real constituency and no future.

My how tables have turned. I can only imagine what heterodox rabbis must feel when they see the way things have evolved. They are practically ignored by the current administration. Not that this should surprise anyone. They are among the most vehement critics of the President in the entire world. Not that he doesn’t deserve some of that criticism. He does. But they are so blinded by hate that they never see anything he does as good. Not a single policy or act. Not even recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, or moving the embassy there.

If one looks at how Reform Judaism was founded, the idea was to ‘normalize’ the Jew and make him blend into society as completely as possible. Which meant not only looking like the rest of the world but acting like it too. Shabbos and Kashrus were no longer necessary and an impediment to complete societal assimilation. They reasoned that a Jew could be defined by the ethics of the Torah sans its Mitzvos.

The Conservative Movement was not quite as bad, but moved in that direction. They too felt that one need not overstate their Judaism in public. And that assimilation was just fine. True, they considered themselves a Halachic Movement. But they did little to insure that their members behave that way.

This unprecedented level of assimilation, it was thought would eliminate antisemitism. Tragically, as the Holocaust taught us, this was proven not to be the case. Nazism didn’t care how we looked. For them a Chasidic Rebbe and a Reform Rabbi were equally guilty of being part of a degenerate race to be annihilated.

In this week’s Parsha we read the Ten commandments. These are commandments, not suggestions that we can ignore and follow only as means to ethical behavior. We, the Jewish people have been commanded to follow these rules by God on pain of severe consequences if we don’t.

We have survived as Jews throughout a history of constant persecution. Assimilationist movements that tried to change the world’s attitude about us have failed. And in the last couple of decades it is Orthodox Jewry that is on the ascendancy and the only Jewish demographic in America that is increasing in number. And we now seem to be more recognized as authentic by American leaders of both parties. Orthodox Rabbis like Lord Jonathan Sacks have taken the place of Reform rabbis like Stephen R.Wise..

I say this no out of a sense of joy or triumphalism. I say it as merely a fact to demonstrate that the more we try to assimilate out of our Judaism, the less likely we will have a future. This is a lesson that Heterodox rabbis have not yet learned. And that the far left of Orthodoxy needs to pay far more attention to.

A beautiful Esrog - one example of Hiddur Mitzvah

One of the things that I have discovered in recent years is that there are some Jews that call themselves Orthodox that go out of their way to criticize fellow Jews to their right or their left -depending on their orientation. Not that there isn’t ever anything to criticize them about. There often is. When there is wrong doing anyone from any segment of observant Jewry, it needs to be called out. And I have done my level best to do just that. But to some, it isn’t enough to call out wrongdoing when they see it.

For some on the Left it is almost as if it was their life’s goal to make sure that religious Jews are the most immoral and unethical human beings on the face of the planet!

If you are a young Jewish child studying about Judaism in an Orthodox school and are told how the Torah is the most ethical document in the world because it is the word of God… and you have a parent that has this attitude and constantly points to wrongdoing on the part of the most religious looking Jews among us, what conclusion is that child likely to draw?

In my view the only conclusion an intellectually honest young person can come to is to look at what his school teaches him as a fairy tale because the reality of the Orthodox world we live in is immoral, dishonest, and unethical.Talking about the high moral and ethical values of great people of our past is not something a child can relate to as much as he can to the realities of our day.

Unfortunately there are too many examples of bad behavior that such a parent can point to to back up that view. But when that is virtually the only message they get at home, Orthodoxy will surely be seen as a lifestyle to avoid by such children.

By the same token the Right is just as guilty of that. In some cases they do their level best to vilify anyone even slightly too their Left. Case in point is the oft cited ‘hit piece’ obituary of Rav Soloveitchick in the now defunct Jewish Observer.

This was not just one man’s opinion. It was pretty much the view of most of the right wing. I recall the author of that piece defending it – saying that he ran it by a member of the Agudah Moetzes and got his OK for it.

This is the mindset of the right. It is what they preach – at least subliminally if not overtly. So it shouldn’t surprise anyone that about 10 or 15 years ago, a young man that I know from Lakewood refused to date the daughter of one of YU’s biggest Talmidei Chachamim because of his association with that school. Or that many years ago a right wing Kollel refused to host this same Talmid Chacham as a scholar in residence for one of their annual community wide Shabbatons fearing they would lose the constituency to their own right.

Some parents in these respective communities tend to take these prejudices to even higher levels. And there is no greater influence on children than their parents.

What is it that these parents want to accomplish? What in the end is it that they want their children to learn from them? On the left - is it that ethical values are more important than Halacha? Is it that those who are the more observant are going to be more prone to ethical lapses? Do they even care about Mitzvos Bein Adam L’Makom (man and God)? And on the Right is it that they are afraid that their children will become lax in the Mitzvos Bein Adam LaMakom? ...so lax that they may drop observance altogether?

In last week’s Torah portion we read one of its more quoted lines: Zeh Keli V’Anveihu – This is my God and I will glorify him – in fact this phrase is part of our daily morning prayer service. It is sometimes referred to as Hiddur Mitzvah.

What does that mean? How does it apply to this issue? The Right would say that it means that we need to enhance whatever Mitzvah we are required to do. Like buying the most beautiful pair of Tefillin we can afford - or the nicest Esrog on Sukkos we can afford. These are Mitzvos Bein Adam L’Makom. Being careful in this manner are examples of Hiddur Mitzvah. But Hiddur Mitzvah applies to the Bein Adam L’Chavero (man and his fellow man) too. For example being extra careful to be ethical in all behavior and being meticulously honest in business. And certainly to void even the appearance of fraud.

This is an area that both the right and the left can teach each other. It would serve us well if we realized that each side has something to offer. Of course there are many on both sides (the religious Right and Left) that are careful about both. But as a rule it seems like it is the Right that focuses on Bein Adam L’Makom the most while it is the Left focuses on Bein Adam L’Chavero.

But instead of teaching each other how we should practice our Judaism in both realms too many of us end up vilifying each other. Which all too often leads to bad results Some on the right paying deep attention to an Esrog while ignoring ethical concerns to the point of fraud in all to many cases. Which ends up in Chilul Hashem and our young going OTD.

It would do us all a lot of good if we each stop vilifying each other despite our differences. Because as Orthodox Jews we have more in common than we might think. We should instead learn from each other. Because I truly believe that this is what God wants.

Child survivors of Auschwitz

Menachem Begin once famously said that antisemitism is in the mother’s milk of Europeans. I think that’s true – even today. I also believe that the country he had most in mind when he said that is Poland. Which I believe is the poster-child of European antisemitism.

Poland is not one of my favorite countries. To say the least. The history of Polish antisemitism is well documented. It existed long before Nazi Germany did. In fact prior to the rise of Hitler Germany was one of the friendliest countries to the Jewish people in Europe. Jews thrived in Germany archiving high status and prominence with nearly complete assimilation. Jews were all over the place in pre Nazi Germany: the arts, the sciences, academia, the military, the business world, and the professions.

One might compare the life of a Jew in Germany then to the life of a Jew in today’s America. The only difference being that Germans harbored some residual antisemitism deeply rooted in the teachings of Martin Luther. The official religion of Germany is Lutheran. That prejudice surfaced with a vengeance when Hitler came to power.

The Jewish people never experienced such tolerance in Poland - except at the very beginning of their migration there. Because of their reputation as good businessman - Jews were invited to help improve the Polish economy. Which they did. But that tolerance was very short lived. The vast majority of Poles were and still are very religious Roman Catholics who viewed Jews as Christ killers. Pogroms were common both before and after the Holocaust.

My father experienced it. After surviving the Holocaust he tried to rebuild his life in Poland and started a business there. But after experiencing a pogrom he quickly applied to immigrate to the US. (Thank God!) He realized that the antisemitism was still alive and well… and acted upon! My father had always told me that the Poles were far worse than even the Germans when it came to antisemitism. I tend to agree despite the fact that Nazism was founded in Germany.

I also recall my mother telling me stories how the local Catholic priest urged his parishioners not to patronize my grandmother’s business because she was Jewish –haranguing his flock about the ‘Jewish Christ killers’ in their midst. (That priest eventually croaked very suddenly and was replaced by a kinder priest who actually encouraged those same parishioners to patronize her business. There were some decent people there even then. But way too few.)

Claude Lantzmann’s monumental 6 hour documentary, Shoah (Hebrew for Holocaust), had a scene where he interviewed an elderly Pole who was a righteous gentile. He actually risked his life to hide Jews during the Holocaust. And yet, this righteous gentile dressed up in his Sunday finest to watch Nazi occupiers marching Jews to the death camps. He felt a religious obligation to witness the fact that Jews were being punished for their sin of killing Christ! That’s how deep seated the antisemtism was among the Poles. Even the righteous among them! The fact is that most Poles (who were not so righteous gentiles) were more than happy to fully cooperate in rounding up their once Jewish neighbors for their Nazi occupiers.

(I hasten to add that ever since Vatican II Church doctrine no longer teaches that today’s Jews are guilty of killing their god and that now we are to be considered a legitimate brother religion and the father of Christianity.)

Which brings me to the reason for this post. A recent decision by the Polish government to make any use of the phrase ‘Polish death camps’ a criminal offense. That has brought condemnation by a number of prominent people, including the Prime Minister of Israel.

Some people are trying to defend Poland in this regard. It is true that the most infamous Nazi concentration camp of all is Auschwitz. Which is in Poland. But it is also true that this camp as well as every other concentration and death camp was built and operated by the Nazis. Not Poles. So it is technically correct that they were not ‘Polish’ death camps.

But they may as well have been. Except for the righteous gentiles among them, the Poles were perhaps the most eager participants of all nationalities in helping Nazis send Jews to the death camps of any other country. Just about every Polish Jew who survived the Holocaust - that I have ever spoken to - has made this claim. They spoke from experience. I have no reason to doubt them.

I understand that Poland doesn’t want to be identified with those death camps. What sane country would?! So of course they want to set the record straight. It was Nazi Germany that was actually responsible for those death camps. Not Poland. It may also be true that Poland was the country that most actively resisted the Nazi occupation and did not collaborate with them. The Nazis didn’t think too much of the Poles either. Which might explain their level of resistance. But Polish resistance to Nazis had little if anything to do with their policy towards the Jews. With that, their citizens could not be more fully aligned.

So if Poland wants to set the record straight they should do so fully. They may not have built and operated those death camps. But they contributed mightily to the death and suffering of countless numbers of Jews interred there. That is a truth they cannot deny!

Small pixelated face in a Holocaust picture as it appeared in Mishpacha (The JC)

An article dealing with the Holocaust in last week’s Mishpacha Magazine has generated quite a sense of outrage. Not about the story told in that article. But by the fact that they pixelated the face of a woman in a Holocaust era picture. So angry was Shoshana Keats-Jaskoll (a woman that has never been reticent about expressing her views in writing) that it was the first time she couldn’t even type!

I am sympathetic to the outrage. But I have long ago come to expect things like this from publications that cater to those on their extreme right while ignoring the sensitivities of those to their left. Their right wing sensitivity is based on the concerns of readers from that segment who believe that any picture of a woman, no matter how modestly dressed is unacceptable.

I have been an outspoken critic of this practice for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is that it is insulting to women and it creates an image that Orthodoxy is a world without women. Which also distorts the image of family life for children. As did an illustration of a Kiddush on Shabbos at a table without a wife/mother or sisters. As though women do exist in that world. Hard to know what kind of impact that makes on young children.

I realize that those who support this practice will vehemently disagree with me and say that none of their women feel disrespected. Nor do they feel that not publishing pictures of women distorts a woman’s role as a wife, mother, and homemaker.

My view has consistently been that they are entitled to their views and practices among themselves. But I object strongly when their views are honored by people that do not necessarily feel that way. Which is the case even among most mainstream Charedim. They have never refrained from publishing pictures of modestly dressed women. And still do as demonstrated on the present day website of Agudath Israel.

Furthermore that mentality has now spread to areas outside the world of Charedi Magazine publishers. In a world where the Chumra chase is rampant, it is only natural that even moderate Charedim that never had an issue with this – now do. Which may well be why the above-mentioned children’s book has followed suit.

That is what has been the most upsetting. Until now. But pixelating the face of a modestly dressed woman rescuer of children that survived the Holocaust is a new low. In the communities that actually believe that any picture of a woman under any circumstance is immodest, I can understand why they would do something like this. For them it is a ‘Lo Plug’. They just have a blanket policy which is never altered for any reason. But when people that do not believe in this stricture and do solely for purposes of respecting the sensitivities of the extreme right - it ought to be protested

That is why the vast majority of the rest of Orthodoxy is incensed by this kind of ridiculous censorship. How in heaven’s name can anyone see anything immodest about the face of a woman that can barely be seen at all in the particular picture in question?! Especially in magazines that do so only to cater to their extreme right? Do they not have any decency left? Must they go to that extreme even in this circumstance… distorting a picture from the Holocaust?!

The answer to that question can be found in a Facebook post by Sruli Besser, one of Mishpacha’s editors. He apologized for that image blaming it on an oversight. That picture was originally in the Hebrew edition of Mishpacha and neither he nor his graphic arts department (which is responsible for placing those pictures in the magazine) noticed it. The Hebrew version has different standards, he said. (The question still remains for Hebrew version. Unless it is actually published by the above-mentioned extreme segment of the Charedi world.)

I understand what happened and I accept his apology. What I cannot understand is the way he was attacked by some of the comments on Shoshana’s Facebook post - hardly being defended by anyone.This is unfair in the extreme.

Unfortunately this is not so untypical of social networking. And I cannot protest it enough. It is cyber bullying in all its glory! A phenomenon that has been responsible for more than one suicide. Now I know that Sruli is not about to take his own life. God forbid. But that does not make it any less troubling.

That his explanation and apology may not be good enough for some surely should not generate the kind of response that some have resorted to in reaction to it. I am almost as outraged by this as I am by the subject that generated it. There is no excuse for it.

Cyber bullying is the internet version of ‘road rage’. Only it’s far worse than that. Road rage happens in the moment. Though that is not an excuse – it is a fact some people driving a car will be unable to control their impulses - and react with rage when they believe an injustice was done to them a driver in another car. Cyber bullying, on the other hand, goes well beyond that. Because it isn’t only about controlling an impulse. It is deliberate – and fueled by the fact that cyber bullies are anonymous and can continue doing it with impunity.

What kind of human being does that? And why isn’t it protested more by others commenting on the subject. As I said, I understand the anger being expressed. But where is the sense of judging a fellow Jew favorably? Why must an individual that would never purposely do what everyone is so upset about; a person that genuinely feels bad for what happened, and apologized for it – why is he allowed to be vilified without much of an effort by anyone to defend him?

I can only conclude that there is so much prejudice by the left against - even moderate Charedim that they will not be cut any slack. Whenever there is an opportunity to bash someone from the right, judging them favorably goes out the window. I am saddened by this. If there is ever be any chance at Achdus among religious Jews I hope that cooler heads will eventually prevail.

Logo of the Orthodox Union (OU)

It was a wise and fair decision. The OU has decided to fully implement the recommendation of its Halachic advisory board to reject any synagogue that hires a woman to serve in the capacity of rabbi under any guise. Whether it be Rabbi, Rabba, or Maharat.

This decision has been in response to the current trend by the far Left of Orthodoxy to tinker with tradition based on the spirit of our time. The Left has maintained that in our world today women are fully integrated into society and have taken up roles that were traditionally those of men and have excelled. They also see heterodox denominations allowing women to serve as clergy equal in status to men. It was with that in mind that the Left decided that it was more than time to reevaluate Orthodox opposition to woman serving as rabbis in Orthodox Shuls.

To that end they began ordaining women and allowing them to serve in that capacity. Provided they stay behind the Mechitza during actual prayer services in the Shul itself. (I’m not sure how they can say that they have in any way equalized the role of men and women as rabbis. But I digress.) This was done despite near universal condemnation by all mainstream Orthodox Poskim. Including those that Paskin for the Centrist OU.

I have always maintained that if a controversial move is not accepted - it cannot be considered a legitimate expression of Orthodoxy. Nor can the people and institutions involved be considered Orthodox themselves. Despite any protest to the contrary – no matter how vehement.

This does not mean to say that the far Left is not well intended. They are simply responding to the times in order to accommodate those who feel left out by what they believe to be Orthodoxy’s archaic ways. That does not, however, constitute a valid argument for change.

So no new Shuls with a woman serving in the capacity of rabbi will be allowed to become member Shuls of the OU. That said, there are some current OU member Shuls on the Left that had actually hired female rabbis before the rules were formulated by OU Poskim.

What to do about them…

The OU has wisely decided to not expel them. Yet. They will instead continue to work with these Shuls to see if there is a way they can comply with these rules set up by the OUs Poskim while allowing women to perform many of the duties that women serving as rabbis do. They have been given a three year window to try and accomplish that.

How – one may ask – is that possible? How can a Shul continue to have a woman serving as a rabbi in an OU Shul and still comply with the new rules? Well technically they can’t. But what is also true and not focused upon so much is another part of those new rules. Which state that women can have important roles in Orthodoxy outside of being a rabbi. Much of which falls into the job description that women functioning as rabbis already do: From the original OU statement:

(The Rabbinic) Panel has also proclaimed – and celebrated – the important, and fundamentally successful roles that women can and must play within our communal and synagogue structures, including as educators and scholars. Women must be encouraged to share their Torah knowledge, and their enthusiasm and wisdom, with the broader community.

We therefore urge all segments of our community to recognize and focus upon what unites us. As articulated by the Rabbinic Panel, women can and should teach Torah, including at advanced and sophisticated levels; give shiurim and divrei torah; assume communally significant roles in pastoral counseling, in bikkur cholim, in community outreach to the affiliated and unaffiliated, in youth and teen programming; and in advising on issues of taharas hamishpacha, in conjunction with local rabbinic authority, when found by a community’s local rabbinic and lay leadership to be appropriate.

Let us focus our energy and communal creativity on increasing and enhancing the contributions that women make to our shuls and communities, rather than being consumed with limitations…

The Rabbinic Panel recognized that Yoatzot Halacha have strengthened religious observance in many segments of our community. In these communities, the introduction of Yoatzot Halacha trained and certified by Nishmat, has resulted in a substantial increase in the number of hilchot nidda and related sheelot posed by women, who are asking far more sheelot than ever before, and receiving responses from a cadre of dedicated, knowledgeable and committed women.

Clearly this is what many of women hired as rabbis already do.So what’s the problem? Again, it is simply the fact that virtually all Poskim from across the board of mainstream Orthodoxy have determined that based on a long tradition of Mesorah handed down throughout Jewish history, a woman may not be in a position of rabbinic authority. She may therefore not have the title of rabbi or any other title that implies it.

The women currently at the Shuls under discussion all have such a title. One might argue that if this is only about an honorific… the idea that someone be honored by being called a rabbi but in every other sense they are well within acceptable limits of Halacha, what is the big deal? Let them be called rabbi! Who cares what they are called?

The problem is that it is more than an honorific. By definition that title confers upon a woman the role of a rabbinic authority. And that is unacceptable.

I understand why some people might object to that reality. Why not give them that authority if they studied, passed the same exam as men to become rabbis? But one cannot debate the wisdom of virtually all Orthodox Poskim who say there is no leeway for us to do that based on a long history of tradition in that regard. It will therefore be considered a violation if a woman still serves in that capacity after 3 years. Which - sadly - may come to an expulsion from the OU. This will not be a victory for the Left but a defeat.

It is my hope and prayer that there will one day be a time when all of Orthodoxy can be on the same page and allow both men women contribute to Judaism to the best of their abilities within the framework of what the rabbinic leaders of the time determine to be the best and most acceptable way to do it.

Is this the right direction for the IDF?

Things are heating up. Religious Zionist rabbis are up in arms about Israel's decision to integrate women into the IDF (Israel Defense Force) combat units. What - some may ask is wrong with that policy? Read on.

It appears that there are no bounds to the kind of feminism that exists today. Which is kind of shocking in the face of the recent revelations about sexual harassment by so many men in positions of power.

There is a willful blindness on the part of today's feminist to biological and psychological differences between men and women. To cite one example: biologically - a man's upper body strength allows him to do certain things better than a woman. And a woman's lower body strength allows her to do certain things better than a man. To cite another example: psychologically a woman responds sexually more to the tactile sense while a man responds sexually more to the visual sense. There are more such differences - both biological and psychological that today's feminists refuse to recognize as relevant to their version of egalitarianism .

The current spirit of feminism seeks to equalize everything. Including army service where men clearly have an advantage over women. Feminists insist that women should be able to serve with men in combat units as long as they pass the same rigorous training that men do. Some in the left wing of IDF hierarchy seem to place a greater value on social engineering than they do on its primary function - defending the nation. They have decided that these modern day feminists are right. And are currently in the process of fully integrating women into the IDF - including combat units.

I understand that there are some women that will succeed despite their physical limitations. There are also some women who might have greater upper body strength then some men. Why not let the test of training exercises determine who is and isn’t fit for combat?

On the surface that sounds fair. But is it really so wise to allow these female exceptions to join the men in the same combat units for egalitarian purposes? Is passing a test the only thing that should change the way the army deals with anyone? What if a 9 year old child passes the training exercises. Should he be allowed to serve?

Obviously there are other considerations besides a test that should determine who does and doesn't serve in the army. It is a far wiser army that understands this.

A gender integrated army creates a whole host of issues that are not good for either sex. An environment where men and women end up in seclusion with each other can easily lead to temptation that will overcome one or both of them – or worse provides a circumstance where a man overcome by an impulse of the moment might come to sexually harass (or worse) his female comrade in arms. Backing up this fear is the fact that one in six female IDF soldiers are being sexually harassed while in service.

All of this has generated a harsh response from Religious Zionist Poskim. From the Jerusalem Post:

Rabbi Shlomo Aviner has warned religious men - but not women - not to enlist in the army for fear that they would serve with women.

The Halachic issue here is based on human nature. The sex drive is clearly recognized by Halacha which is why it and forbids scenarios where acting on it is more likely to happen. It is all of the above that has led me to oppose men and women serving together in army combat units. A couple of years ago, that was made law in the US by the last administration. Which I believe is one of the stupidest things they did in the entire 8 years of their tenure. And that’s saying a lot. Now Israel is making the same mistake.

The significance of the Religious Zionist rabbis opposition should not be glossed over. Religious Zionist rabbis consider it a Mitzvah to join the army and thereby protect the people. Religious Zionist soldiers that are part of the Hesder program are among the bravest soldiers in Israel often volunteering for the most dangerous assignments together!

For these rabbis to forbid these soldiers from serving would be astonishing if not for the reason they are doing it. They understand that Halacha comes first. Even though they are in diametric opposition to the Charedi Poksim with respect to army service - considering it a Mitzvah whereas Charedi Poskim characterize it as an Aveira - they are nevertheless in concert with the Chazon Ish when it comes to Arayos - matters of the flesh. Yehoreg V’Al Yaavor… better to be killed than to allow oneself to be placed in such circumstances. And this is precisely where the IDF seems to be at. From the Jerusalem Post:

Some religious and conservative Israelis have alleged that the changes are creating a dangerously sexualized atmosphere, with men and women training, eating, sleeping, showering and going to the bathroom in close quarters. Former high-ranking military figures are among the critics.

Today’s feminist mindset doesn’t seem to care much about that. Nor do they seem to care that women will be placed in circumstances that will make them more vulnerable to sexual harassment or abuse. And yet they complain because there is so much sexual abuse going on.

How do they reconcile these two things? They will say that men simply have to control themselves better. And that if it does happen, the consequences to the violator should be swift and severe. I happen to agree with that. What I don’t agree with is insisting creating circumstances that are more likely to lead to it in the first place. Which is what the army is doing.

Is equality of the sexes to that extent worth the increased instances of sexual harassment and abuse that has already taken place and will surely increase? Even if it leads to consensual sex, is there not the possibility for serious regret after the fact? I think that happens a lot more than anyone realizes. It is a regret that could be avoided if women are not put into this situation.

It is pure common sense to see the stupidity of taking feminism to this extreme.

Rabbi Shmuel Krawatsky (Jewish Week)

There is no doubt about what to do when there are credible suspicions of sex abuse. The consensus on this is enormous: Victims, victim advocates, mental health workers, the police, and a large number of respected Poskim (like Rav Elyashiv, ZTL) all agree. Credible suspicions of sex abuse must be reported directly to the police.

And yet there are other respected Poskim that say one must first report those suspicions to rabbis. And let them determine what is and isn’t credible. They justifiably fear that an innocent person might be accused and therefore along with their families will suffer the lifelong consequences of public accusations - even after being completely exonerated.

While that is a legitimate fear, the the fear of what almost always happens to victims that are not believed is a far worse consequence ending in lifelong depression - and sometimes even suicide. Victims are in essence abused a second time when they are disbelieved and treated like dirt.

There are additional arguments against going to rabbis first. First, they are not really trained to know which accusations are credible and which ones aren’t. Second, there is the fact that no matter how ethical and honorable a rabbi is, bias is inevitable in cases where they know the accused and especially when the accused is a prominent member of the community that is otherwise an exemplary citizen. The tendency of rabbis to believe his denials over those of a child cannot be dismissed.

And even in those rare instances where there is a false accusation and the attendant repercussion of even having been accused of sex abuse... that would still have a better outcome than the reverse, where a victim is disbelieved and victimized themselves and treated as liars and reprobates.

There is also statistical evidence that strongly suggests that victims of sex abuse rarely make up these stories. They are almost always true.

That is why there is wide consensus among all of the above to go directly to the police and let them sort it out. That is my position as well.

But rarely does not mean never. And the effects of a false accusation should not be dismissed either. It does happen. I know of several cases where that was the case. One of them was reported here a while back by Rabbi Dovid Landesman, ZL. In short - when he was the principal of a religious school a student reported that he was abused by a teacher. Rabbi Landesman sensed that there was something off about this accusation. Rather than going directly to the police, he investigated it and eventually got the accuser to admit it wasn’t true. That student was upset by a teacher and wanted to hurt him.

Thankfully that teacher never had to suffer the consequences of the public exposure that kind of accusation would have wrought. It would have tainted him and his family for life – even after the police would have come to the same conclusion Rabbi Landesman did.

Which brings me to the case of Rabbi Shmuel Krawatsky, a charismatic 40 year old married teacher and father of four. He had been accused of sexually abusing three boys when he was head of the lower boys division in a Kiruv summer camp. I am not going to describe the disgusting details of those accusations. Suffice it to say they turned my stomach. Nor am I going to describe the behavior of those three children displayed after the alleged abuse. Can’t really stomach that either.

The alleged abuse was reported to the police and investigated. After which it was concluded that the abuse likely happened.

Incredibly Rabbi Krawatsky was never prosecuted. The final determination was that there was not a preponderance of evidence to convict at trial. He was not exonerated. But it was determined that the allegations were unsubstantiated.

I don’t know Rabbi Shmuel Krawatsky. Never met him. Don’ know a thing about him. The ingredients of abuse seem to be clearly there as described in the Jewish Week article. For his part Rabbi Krawatsky denied everything and claimed to be completely innocent of all charges. He apparently passed a lie detector test to that effect.

He was nevertheless fired from his job teaching at both a day school and a Shul in Baltimore. He is currently suing the three families accusing him for 75 million dollars.

I am not here to defend Rabbi Krawatsky. My strong inclination is to believe his accusers. There seems to just be too much evidence of abuse. But what if it never happened? If on the outside chance that it didn’t, this man will nevertheless lose any chance to pursue his profession as a teacher of young children. He will live in dishonor for the rest of his life. His family will forever be tainted.

Even though the evidence seems so strong, the fact that the authorities say that the abuse is unsubstantiated, he passed a lie detector test; and to the best of my knowledge had never been accused of anything like that before or since... makes me wonder if my inclination is right. As noted there are more than a few cases – in some cases involving people I know - where I am 100% certain that abuse never happened.

I would further ask whether in the current climate where there have been so many prominent and powerful people that have been exposed as sexual predators to one degree or another, that it might be impossible to not automatically believe any accusation to be true assuming guilt until proven innocent. It is almost as though anyone that wants to hurt someone for the slightest of reasons will just accuse them of abuse and be believed. This is where I believe we are at right now as a society.

Please do not misunderstand. I have not changed my views about reporting abuse directly to the police. Nor do I doubt that the vast majority of accusations are true. Especially in cases like Rabbi Krawatsky where the accusers were minors.

But that does not free me from the concern about the possibility that he might just be innocent. Nor does it free me from worrying about the possible increase in false accusations that may arise because of the current #MeToo climate.

Good people may suffer needlessly on both sides of the equation depending on the actual facts: Real sex abuse victims who are disbelieved and those innocent of it that are accused because of the possible increase in false accusations. The waters have been muddied.

Just thinking out loud.

Shlomo Carlebach and his daughter, Neshama

My father hated Shlomo Carlebach’s music. He couldn’t stand it when Sheluchei Tzibur (Chazanim) used his tunes. As a lifelong Chazan, he believed that for the most part classic Chazanus was the format that should be used. I believe that many classically trained Chazanim feel that way.

Unfortunately the very institution of Chazanus of the type my father believed in has been in decline in Orthodox Shuls for quite some time. It is found far more often in Conservative Shuls. What is, however, found in Orthodox Shuls more than any other type of music are the Carlebach tunes my father so disliked.

Carlebach’s body of work is so huge and so pervasive, it’s almost impossible to know whether a commonly used tune is actually his. Some of it so standard – it is as if it were written centuries ago specifically for that prayer. So much of his music has become traditional in Shuls throughout the year.

I too like many of Carlebach’s compositions and on occasion have used some of them myself as a Shaliach Tzibur. And yet I have heard that a there is a movement in some circles to ban his music. I know one person that has stated publicly that he walks out of the Shul whenever he hears it. That is because of revelations a few years ago about Carlebach’s sexual abuse of some of his female fans.

Carelebach was a complicated and troubled soul. A man who brought joy and inspiration to so many Jews - and even some non Jews - also brought pain and lifelong suffering to others of them. Recently even more such revelations have come out.

The abuse allegations were not common knowledge during most of Carlebach’s career. What was known however was that he was a hugger. He used to hug his fans tightly all the time. Including women. Behavior that is not in accord with the religious standards of the Orthodoxy he was part of. This was widely known. Many religious Jews questioned whether it was even permissible to use the music of a man like that in prayer. Does God value prayers using the music composed by a man guilty of such behavior?

In a famous Responsum that many believe was directed at Carlebach (Igros Moshe, Even Ha-Ezer 1:96) R’ Moshe Feinstein said that it was permissible for a Shaliach Tzibur to use music composed by someone with an objectionable reputation in prayer because music has no intrinsic holiness.

I have to wonder if R’ Moshe would have said the same thing had he known what we know now. My guess is that he would have said the same thing. Besides at this point, it would be almost impossible to change the widespread use of his music. Especially in light of the fact that so much of it is used without the realization that he composed it.

I had always wondered how his daughter, Neshama Carlebach dealt with all of this. To say that she adored her father is an understatement. She has devoted her musical career to him - recording her own versions of his songs.

In the past Neshama had spoken about him in glowing terms. I wondered, did she simply deny that any of those allegations were true? I don’t think it would be unusual for a loving daughter who never saw her father behave that way to simply say it isn’t true. It CAN’T be true! But as we have all learned by now, women that say they were sexually abused rarely make these things up. Especially when there is more than one accuser.

Well, now we know. A few weeks ago in a Times of Israel article, Neshama Carelbach published her views. And basically bared her soul. She is in fact a survivor herself. A trusted friend of her father’s who was a frequent visitor to her childhood home came into her bedroom and molested her when she was 9 years old!

Neshama is not in denial and never was. She understands that her father hurt people – and has known it for quite some time. But she refuses to define her father by his flaws, major though they had been. Here is how she put it:

Sometime in the late 70s, my father was involved in an intervention staged by women who were hurt by him. He came, even knowing the content of the conversation that was to happen. And when they told him that his actions and behavior had hurt them, he cried and said, “Oy this needs such a fixing.” I do believe that the actions, advocacy work and the way he raised his daughters in the last years of his life showed remarkable listening and personal accountability.

I accept the fullness of who my father was, flaws and all. I am angry with him. And I refuse to see his faults as the totality of who he was.

Having known about the hurt her father caused back in the late 70s, it is somewhat puzzling why Neshama never talked about this and only spoke of him in the most glowing of terms… until now.

Perhaps it is because she never knew the extent of his behavior. Perhaps it is because we are in the moment of #MeToo. Perhaps she just saw the good he did overwhelming all the bad. Or all of the above. I don’t know. But she now understands the need to deal with it and come to terms with it. The ‘shifting tide’ (as she puts it) has made her re-think it all.

I don’t know how all of this will end up. Human beings are complicated and flawed. Some more than others. If there is a lesson to be learned from the national catharsis about sex abuse we have been going through, it is that people in positions of power often use it to feed their flaws. Even talented highly contributing members of society. Of which Carlebach was surely one.

The question is whether those contributions should now be discarded… and in Carlebach’s case whether that is even possible anymore. I don’t think it is.

Perhaps there is one thing we can do. We can eliminate Carlebach Minyanim. These are Minyanim that have sprung up all over the world that are dedicated to Carlelbach and his music. They feature prayer services where his music is used almost exclusively by Chazanim. Including dancing to it. Carlebach is worshipped as an icon at places like these.

I never thought those Shuls were appropriate even before I knew about his abuse of women. Knowing what I know now, I believe it is more appropriate than ever to eliminate them all. It is the right thing to do.

The Principles Behind the Controversy Over the Wall

Is The President Really a Racist?

Oness Rachmana Patrei?

Writing a Sefer Torah is Not Teshuva

Improper Use of the Torah to Support an Agenda

Integration

Shutting Down the Government and the Women’s March

Is Yeshiva University Still Modern Orthodox?

Never Been so Proud to be a Jew in America

Principles - Not Accommodations

Liberal Versus Conservative on Mike Pence’s Israel

Israel Must Remain Orthodox

How the Tables Have Turned!

Orthodoxy - Right or Left?

Polish Death Camps

When One Outrage Leads to Another

The Orthodox Union Has Spoken

Egalitarianism Taken to an Absurd Extreme

The Other Side of the Sex Abuse Issue

Time to End Carlebach Minyanim