Emes Ve-Emunah

An empty street - Shabbos scene in Jerusalem (JTA)

A short while ago, the Knesset passed a law that keeps supermarket business closed on Shabbos. Some have protested this as yet another example of the stranglehold Charedim have on Israeli society.

I have always had the view that one cannot shove religion down anyone’s throat. You can’t force people to be religious. Trying to do that doesn’t work and only makes people angry. Which is why any time I read a story about new legislation designed to increase observance at the expense of extant secular freedoms in Israel- it upsets me. It is counter productive.

Does that mean that Israel should become a secular state whose creed is religious tolerance? Much the same as the United States is? In theory, I suppose that would be a good idea. After all it works great here. Orthodox Jewry benefits greatly from that. There has never been a time in history where the Jewish people had so much freedom to practice their religion as they wish. If it works so well here, why not do the same thing in Israel?

There is one major difference between the US and Israel that stops Israel from doing that. It is the reason for Israel’s very existence. Israel is a country that by definition is supposed to be religious. It was created by God for exactly for purposes of serving Him. The modern state of Israel should reflect that. abandoning Halacha completely would eliminate Israel from being a Jewish state. It would undermine the very rationale for Jews living there. Sans its definition as a Jewish State Jews need not live there. They can live anywhere and be free to practice their religion freely. What about survivors pof rhe Holocaust? They could have gone to Ugnada. Why Israel?

One may answer Jews have a historical right to live there? But why should ancient history have any relation to our world today? A lot has happened since the 2000 years we lived there as a soveriegn nation. Why bother living in a place so hostile to Jews?

David Ben Gurion - a Jew that who was not observant - realized this. That is why explained our rights to the land being based on the Torah when he declared Israel’s independence as a Jewish State to the world. Those other reasons pale in comparison to the religious one. Which is one reason he agreed to maintain something called the status quo agreement: Keeping the religious status of the country as it was when it was founded.

None of this is new. It has been discussed here many times. Which brings me back to my original question. Why not change Israel from a Jewish State to a secular one? The only real way to keep it Jewish is the same way the Jewish people have survived throughout centuries of persecution: Following the Torah through Halacha. And yet that has to be reconciled with my belief that one cannot shove religion (Halacha) down the throats of people that don’t want it. Aren’t these differences irreconcilable?

Well, yes and no, This is what compromise is all about. And I think this is what most Israelis want too. They don’t want to be forced to observe Halacha. But at the same time many of them do observe some of it by way of various traditions. Such as the fact that most Israeli Jews fast on Yom Kippur. And most observe Pesach. And Sukkos. I believe that most Israelis observe some form of Kashrus too.

What this means to me is that what was agreed upon early in modern Israel’s history seems to work. It keeps the country identifiably Jewish and gives secular Jews the right to be almost as secular as they want.

The key word there is ‘almost’. Therein lies the problem and the controversy. How far can the Charedi world go in insisting that the state follow Halacha before it goes too far? I beleive that was settled by the status quo agreement. It was agreed upon that whatever level of observance that existed during the creation of the state be maintained. And that there should be no push by the state toward more observance or less.

We end up having is a state where Shabbos and Kashrus is observed by all state run institutions – supervised by an official rabbinate. And all matters religious must be in their control.

While there may have been some abuses by the rabbinate, that – in theory is what the status quo agreement was supposed to accomplish. So that a city where Shabbos was observed would retain that status while a city where Shabbos was not observed would stay that way. Jerusalem and Haifa are examples of both. Buses run in Haifa on Shabbos but not in Jerusalem.

Occasionally the left tires to push their agenda... and the right theirs. But the best way to proceed is that both sides honor the status quo agreement.

Unfortunately there is is a lot of grey in that agreement – leaving it to interpretation. Given that, how should the religious world proceed? The answer is compromise.

In my view if there is an area of contention there should give and take - ad not a winner take all appraoch. As a Orthodox Jew I would love noting better than to see a state governed by Halacha. This would not produce a Taliban type government as some fear. It would just produce an environment where there would for example be no Chilul Shabbos. The public atmosphere would be one of observance.

No one would be forced in our day to keep Shabbos or Kashrus. That is not only unrealistic, it is counterproductive. Which is why the religious parties should stop pushing the religious envelope more than the status quo allows them to and even concede to the secular in some cases. But so too should the secular side back off trying to secularize the Jewish state to the point where Shabbos would be completely ignored in the public sphere.

Those of us that want to convince our secular brethren about the value of following Halacha, must try and do so with love. Not force. As I have said many times You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. Trying to infuse more Kedusha into the land by shoving religion down everybody’s throat may in the end up reducing it.

Just my two cents. Again.

Ner Israel Beis Hamdrash

A few years ago Shulem Deen - a former Skverer Chasid that went OTD - wrote a memoir about his experience doing that. It was entitled. ThoseWho Go Do Not Return. The reason for that title is because of his own experiences there. One who goes OTD in that type of community is completely rejected by them. But there is another way.

If you want to know how to deal with a fellow Jew that was once observant and no longer is, there is an article by one such individual in the Forward. Eli Reiter once attended a well known Yeshiva. Although he did not identify it by name, based on clues within the article I believe it was probably Ner Israel in Baltimore. They deserve credit which is why I am trying to identify them.

He showed up there one day after having left some time ago. The students and faculty treated him with the respect that any human being should get, despite the fact that he was once observant and part of them but is now no longer observant… and may not even be a believer anymore.

They did not judge him. They did not look at the way he was dressed, which was not in consonance with the way students there dressed. Which is the ‘uniform’ of the Yeshiva world: Black pants and white shirt. He wore a pair of blue jeans and a shirt with ‘Christmas colors’ as he described it. He felt odd doing it. But did it anyway and did not get quite the negative reception he might have expected. They treated him with warmth and kindness and did not mention a word about his religious status. They only wanted to know how he was doing.

Their warm acceptance and non judgmental approach surprised him. That’s because the truth is that in some communities when a child goes OTD (Off The Derech) it has often been accompanied by being practically disowned by the family. (Although that is changing). The closer knit the community is, the more likely it is that that will happen. Not only will the family disown you, the entire community will disown you. As was the case with Shulem Deen. He was so ostracized that after awhile he has lost any relationship he had with his children. Who must have been taught that they should stay away from their father since he would be a bad influence on him.

But not this school. Not the students and not the teachers. Which made Eli nostalgic for what he once had. Even though he railed against it when he was a student there. It didn’t matter. He came back for a visit in his current incarnation and instead of rejecting him or ignoring him, they fully embraced him without a trace of rejection.

I was told by someone involved involved in Jewish outreach that it is almost impossible to bring back someone that was once there and left. Which seems logical. It is lot easier to reach out to those that have never experienced observant Judaism and teach them the beauty of an observant lifestyle. But for those that have rejected it, they cannot be convinced about such beauty because in their mind they have already experienced it and saw it in a negative way. Hard to tell them something they already ‘know’ about is something they think it is not.

That approach is what leads some people to believe that it is a waste of time reaching out to them.

But that is not the case. There are a ‘million’ reasons why someone would go OTD. I am not going to list any of them – it is beyond the scope of this post. It is surely worth establishing a bond with them and treating them with respect. Judging them by their character and not by the fact that they once were observant but now reject it - a Shana U’Pireish.

More often that not people leave because of the way they were treated, whether it was at home or in the school. By their teachers or their peers. Or worse - because they were abused in some way (by a teacher, a parent, or some relative). They never had a chance to fully experience the positive side of being observant.

The fact that Eli had some warm memories and had an unexpected positive experience means that at the very least he won’t think ill of those who are observant. And he may even see value in returning to some form of observance. Even if it is only for psychological reasons and not ideological ones. Mitoch SheLo L’shma – Bah L’Shma. Eventually they will do it for the right reasons. But whether an individual that left will return or not it behooves us all to treat all those who leave with warmth and acceptance. So that those that go can return if they so choose. Comfortably.

Rabbi Yosef Kelner

I have seen my share of nonsense in this venue.

Most of those commenting on my posts are intelligent, rational people. I agree with some, disagree with others, and am neutral with still others. But there are some who defy this description. It’s not they they are stupid. Or even irrational. But some of their views are so retrograde; so off the wall, that I was originally tempted to delete them.

However, I ultimately made the decision to allow them to keep commenting. They represent a view of reality and Judaism that actually exists in the world of Orthodox Judaism. More than we would like to admit. As such I allow them to comment in order to demonstrate this lamentable fact. It helps that they are usually rebutted quite forcefully by others that comment here.

But I never thought would see such views expressed by a rabbi that teaches at a pre-military religious academy in Israel. His views are so ridiculous that I am beginning to suspect that he is one of the more frequent commentators here – commenting under an assumed name. Their views (in this case about women) seem almost identical! From a Times of Israel article:

In footage broadcast by Hadashot news on Tuesday, Rabbi Yosef Kelner was seen disparaging women with careers as “gorillas” to yeshiva students at the West Bank settlement of Eli…
“Women have a limited capacity for spirituality. They can reach a medium level of spirituality,” Kelner said in a class on marriage and family that was filmed last summer.

“There’s no such thing as spiritual women. It’s just not true,” he said. “It’s not a failure on women’s part, it’s just that nobody is expecting them to reach certain heights spiritually.”

“They are weak-minded. They just babble, that’s it. Women’s babble,” Kelner told students.

Women, he said, were naturally intuitive, but modern culture had “turned them into nothing.

“They are destroying women until there won’t be any women left. They are all so confused.”

He went on to assert that women were less intelligent than men, and pointed to the fact that there were more male Nobel laureates than female ones.

“Just because they send them en masse to universities they’re suddenly all great geniuses? No!”

He added: “Yes, there are some CEOs here and there, ‘girlillas.'”

Girlillas! Very funny! The only ‘gorilla’ here is Rabbi Kelner. At least in terms of his views about women. It is one thing to be opposed to women in the military. It is another to characterize any human being the way he did – even towards a justifiable albeit controversial end. There is not a doubt in my mind that this rabbi should be terminated from his job. In no way should that kind of nonsensical dribble be allowed to be taught in any society. Let alone in the military.

That said, I am still of the firm opinion that women should not serve in certain segments of the military. Like combat units or in any circumstances where men and women will of necessity be secluded together in closed quarters for any period of time. (I have recently explained why I feel that way and will not do so again here.)

IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot

However, in addition to modesty issues there are simply some positions in the military that are not fit for women because of their natural physical limitations. As noted in the past these differences are real. There ought not to be exceptions made for the few women that might be able to pass the rigors required of soldiers in combat.

Today’s feminists are attempting to change that. I am happy to see that there are still some clear thinkers in the army that oppose it. Fortunately one of those that feels that way is IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot. From the Jerusalem Post:

"There is integration (of women), but it needs to be to a certain extent," Eisenkot stated during a security briefing to government ministers, stressing that at the moment he doesn’t see the integration of women into infantry brigades such as Golani, Givati, Paratroopers or Nahal.

"People tried to accuse me of feminism, but I'm not a chauvinist or a feminist,” he stated, adding that the comments made by some on co-ed service come from “ignorance and agendas promoted by interest groups."

Eisenkot stated that the IDF has only one agenda and that is to be strong and victorious in times of war. As such, he stated, the IDF will continue to offer combat positions to women.

He is 100% right. It is becoming increasingly obvious that those agitating for complete equality in the military care more about that than they do about being ‘strong and victorious in times of war’! Of course they will deny that. But I think it should be obvious to anyone with an unbiased brain that the an egalitarian agenda is far more important to them than what the IDF is supposed to be about.

I still disagree with Eisenkot about allowing women into some combat situations for reasons of modesty and to avoid Michshol - temptation - as stated above. But it’s still nice to know that when it comes to the reality of physical differences between men and women, that common sense still prevails where it counts.

Toldos Aharon Rebbe addressing the audience at a Siyum in 2016 (Hamodia)

I didn’t think I was ever going to talk about these reprobates again. I truly believed that I had made my point about their lack of human decency and civility (to say the least). But every time I see something like this (see video below) I just want to scream out loud.

Their derisive shouting and screaming did not even sound human. Some not even sound like they were coming from something human. And as if that weren’t enough, there’s more. From YWN:

At some point, young men from the protest began shouting “Shiksa” and “Get out of here you are impure” at the girls. When one of the girls pushed a protester who was accosting her, the situation escalated and the girls were chased down the street.

What was that protest all about? More from YWN:

(A) fringe group of Chareidim … were protesting the alleged enlistment of a Baalas Tshuvah into the IDF.

I don’t even know where to begin. To say that this kind of behavior is pure evil for the sake of evil is an understatement. To say that they think they are being Mekadesh Shem Shmayim (sanctifying the Name of Heaven) while involved in a Kiddush HaShem is also an understatement.

To say that this behavior is that of a fringe group of Charedim that most residents Meah Shearim do not approve of, is probably also true. Each of these statements have been said by me and by others many times before – whenever one of these protests fire up.

What is also very true in my view is that despite the disapproval of their peers and leaders, there is not a scintilla of doubt in my mind that this fringe group has been inspired by the rhetoric of their leaders who oppose the government, its army, its soldiers and specifically any Charedi that dares to join the army – even if it is one of the Charedi units!

That is what one constantly hears from these quarters. The haranguing is constant. So too is their view of modesty. Now they do have a right to their own standards of modesty. But to call two religious girls Shiksas (a derogatory name for a non Jewish female) even though they're clearly dressed modestly by most Orthodox standards – just not by theirs – is also a function of their education.

They are taught as very young children what modesty means by their standards. They are not told that other legitimate Poskim might disagree with them. They are simply told that if a female is dressed in anything other than their standard, they are in violation. So these religious girls did not fit their bill. Obviously. And these thugs are not going to let them get away with it. Especially while they are involved in the 'holy task' of berating a Baal Teshuva for joining the army!

I don’t know what can be done about these people, They are constantly making a Chilul HaShem. And no one in their community seems to care enough to stop them.

One might say that these people are thugs and won’t listen to anyone. They may be thugs, But if their leaders really cared enough, I am 100% convinced that could stop them. These communities are very thigh knit and their leaders are venerated as living saints. The closest thing to God in the face of the earth. I believe they could do something about it.

It is because this kind of thing keeps happening that I believe they don’t really want to do anything about it. Maybe they believe that this behavior keeps up the pressure on the rest of the Chaeredi world many of whom do not think much of the government or army either. In the hopes that they will do more to oppose them.

I don't know. (On that score - it would help if their leaders were not treated with such deference by other more mainstream Charedi leaders - as was the case at a Siyum a couple of years ago.)

What about the rest of the world – those that are not Charedi or even observant? I don’t think they care about anyone else. They think their ways are the ultimate in service toGod and nothing else matters! Chasing away potential Baalei Teshuva must be completely meaningless to them. Because I can almost guarantee that anyone who sees this video, which is typicial of the kind of thing that goes on in the wolrld of Meah Shearim - will run as far away from Judaism as humanly possible. I know I sure would!

Postmodernist, Jacques Derrida

My friend David is one of the humblest, kindest most ethical people I know. He is also very liberal politically. Mention the name Trump and he goes near ballistic. I can understand his attitude. I had pretty much the same attitude about him because of his behavior. Which was unbecoming of a Presidential candidate, let alone the sitting President of the United States.

But David is also upset by Trump’s politics. Which have mostly resulted in politically conservative policies. As someone that leans toward the political right, I obviously do not agree with my friend David.

My friend Barry is also one of the humblest, kindest, and most ethical people I know. He is very conservative and an early enthusiastic supporter of Trump. And since Trump has been in office he has sing his praises constantly. Mention any criticism of Trump and he will almost take it personally. He will respond that Trump’s behavior isn’t important. What counts is his policies. And in every instance Trump can do no wrong. Whether it is Israel, the economy, or immigration reform.

I’m pretty lucky. I am actually good friends with both Barry and David even though I disagree with both of them politically in many ways.

But I wonder if these two good friends of mine (who don’t know each other) could ever be friends? . The answer seems to increasingly be no. Where once upon a time people with polar opposite political views could still be friends on a human level, it seems that a hard core conservative and a hard core liberal can only be bitter enemies now, each thinking that the other’s views are so destructive that they couldn’t possibly be friends.

How have we gotten to this point?

Jonathan Rosenblum does a good job explaining that in Mishpacha Magazine (available on line here) a couple of weeks ago. An article where he extols the virtues of heterodoxy.

Heterodoxy is a word that has been used a lot in the current lexicon among Orthodox, Conservative and Reform rabbis. With respect to Judaism - Heterodoxy refers movements that are at variance with the strict doctrines of Orthodoxy. Does Jonathan now support these Heterodox movements? Hardly. But he does believe that even these movements may have something to teach us. And that we can learn form them just as they can learn from us. More about that later.

Heterodoxy need not only refer to religious doctrines. There are many political and other ideologies that have rigid doctrines (Orthodoxy) Those that vary from that rigidity are heterodox ideologies.

In supporting heterodoxy he is merely saying that in all cases, we can learn from each other, no matter how rigid or fluid our beliefs are. He made note of the fact that friendships between opposing political ideologies used to be quite common. But today they are so rare, that when they happen, it makes news. He pointed to a eulogy of a Tea Party activist in Mother Jones, a decidedly liberal magazine

Jonathan sees the postmodernism of French intellectual Jacques Derrida as the source of the current lack of collegiality or friendship between people from different camps. The Encyclopedia Britannica defines it as a philosophy based on ‘broad skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism; a general suspicion of reason; and an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining political and economic power.’

The original postmodernists were all Marxist. But as Jonathan notes, by the 70s postmodernists had to acknowledge that all Marxist regimes were all ‘evil empires’. So they have redivided humanity. Instead identifying them by class, humanity is now divided into identity groups:

Based on the assumption that all social phenomenon are "constructed" to gain power, there is no point in engaging in dialogue. Once human beings are reduced to "identities," the possibility of discovering a common humanity is denied, since all relationships across "identity" lines involve some inequality of power. To even engage in dialogue with the "oppressors" is to validate their power and privilege.

Postmodernism has taken over campuses all over academia. (It is why there is so much Israel bashing there.)

Whereas once there could be discussion about the value of diverse ideologies, that is no longer the case. Ideologies are used only in pursuit of power say postmodernists. That makes it impossible to see another point of view – since that is only their excuse for seeking and achieving the power to subjugate others. Says Jonathan:

The perennials of Western philosophy — What is the good life? How should one live it? — are no longer topics of discussion.

Too many of today’s radical university professors speak in terms of suspicion between groups. Instead of teaching students to find common ground between diverse groups - they speak of warfare. They speak of an America dominated by white males as an agent of oppression against the underclass that should be fought. Dialogue? Of what value is that to a postmodernist?

These attitudes have taken hold beyond the ‘hallowed halls’ of academia. Seeing the humanity in those with whom we disagree - has all but disappeared in today’s polarized world.

This applies not only to politics but religion as well. Heterodoxy is so rejected by Orthodoxy that it is nearly impossible in most cases to see value in any part of it. That, says Jonathan is a mistake. Heterodox Jews may have something to teach Orthodox Jews too. Say’s Jonathan:

I have witnessed personally how much more powerful meetings with nonobservant Jews are when we start with the assumption that they too possess something about them from which we can learn.

This of coursed does not mean we have to recognize non Orthodox movements as legitimate. As a religious principle it would be impossible for Orthodoxy to do that. But it does mean that there are things we can learn from them… or even from non Jews. It would be a far better world if we all understood that.

I have some great friendships with people who disagree with me politically, ideologically, and even religiously. And not surprisingly there have great friendships between some Gedolim of the past and non Orthodox ideologues.They were smart enough to know ‘MiKol Melamdei Hischalti’ - seeking wisdom from all.

Ariella Barker (Kol HaBirah)

This is a tough one. A heartbreaking one. One that defies the norms of society and tugs at the heart. It is terribly sad. And terribly unjust.

Ariella Barker is a Giyores, a righteous convert to Judaism. She is a highly-educated attorney, writer, and activist, who describes herself as worldly, witty and whimsical. She also has a disability. Ariella does not say what her disability is. But based on her picture, it seems that she is wheel chair bound. Reading her story in Kol HaBirahsimultaneously broke my heart and made me angry. And yet I’m not even sure where to direct my anger.

When Ariella converted - the conversion court of the RCA challenged her. Why did she want to convert since as a single women desiring to get married, the marriage pool would be dramatically reduced to less than 2% of the population? Her answer was the right one. She could only see herself married to a Jew.

Now 11 years later she is still single. Ordinarily this would be a sad but not so uncommon experience even for people with no disabilities. There are a variety of reasons that people don’t get married. Often the blame lies in the individual (for a variety of reasons that are beyond the scope of this post).

But this was not the case with Ariella. It was not for a lack of trying. It was for a lack of any dates! The the vetting process of Orthodox Shidduch and dating sites always ask if there is any disability. By disclosing that she was disabled, it effectively cut her off from any recommendations. She did not get a single recommendation from any of those websites! No one was willing to date her because she was disabled!

There was however attempts by friends and even strangers to set her up with a disabled man. Which amounted to 95% of her dates. As if that was the only quality that mattered. There was no attempt at seeing compatibility or whether there were other issues like moral character. The other 5% were:

...blind dates were with actual untouchables: married men, grandfathers 40 years my senior, the perpetually unemployed, and, once, a convicted pedophile.

She no longer accepts blind dates and has sworn of internet dating. But that too has ended up badly thus far:

I decided to only date men I knew personally. But these relationships often led to heartbreak. Boyfriends ended the relationship for a variety of reasons: Their rabbis advised them to. Their parents insisted that marrying me would ruin their lives due the burden of caring for me. They were overwhelmed by the difficulties of sharing a life with someone who endlessly faced inaccessibility. They were afraid one day they would resent me for my disability. They were afraid we’d have children with my disability. And some simply couldn’t handle the tzaddik (righteous person) status many placed on them for having the chesed (kindness) enough to love me.

The saddest part of this story is that the frustration and heartbreak Ariella has experienced has led her to be content to remain single… and if the right man comes along, that it would be God’s will. The joy of marriage and family is eluding her as she watches her friends get married – one by one - and have those families.

What an indictment against the Jewish men who turned her down for any of those reasons. Even worse is the fact that their rabbis advised them not to marry her! Especially in light of the fact that before she converted she said she rarely struggled to find a partner. She now wonders whether - had she not made the decision to covert – would she have been married by now.

I do not think anyone with a sense of humanity and compassion would not empathize with her sitation. And at the same time give her credit for her ability to adjust and remain ‘content’ as a single woman for the rest of her life.

But in my view it is tragic that she has found so much difficulty finding a religious Jew that can overlook her disability. What kind of priority is that? Shouldn’t a disability like Ariella’s be less important than her midos? Her character? Her personality? Her achievements? Her potential? Her commitment to Judaism - despite the difficulties it as brought her as a disabled person? A woman that is in every other way healthy and can live a full life and happy life as a wife and mother, and contributor to her community?

Ariella is a great person – with a great future. And yet, it’s hard to blame anyone for having reservations about dating a disabled person. I don’t think that people that have reservations about that are evil. It is a natural concern for most people. But at the same time, it should not be a deal breaker. One should not automatically rule out someone with a disability which does not affect their health in any other way.

Yes, it is legitimate to give some weight to the fact that the person you are considering spending the rast of your life with is disabled. But that is only one factor among many more important ones.

What single people should look at the most is the character of the people they date;what kind of contributions can they make to a family; and the kind of future you can build together... I believe that if one looks those issues first, than a disability like Ariella’s will end up being an insignificant detail that will ultimately be irrelevant to a happy future.

An Israeli Ikea bruchure features no pictures of women. (Sputnik)

I have a lot of respect for Shoshanna Keats-Jaskoll. She is a real Mentch! When I suddenly lost my brother a couple of years ago while visiting my children in Ramat Bet Shemesh, she came to be Menachem Avel me – paying me a condolence call during my Shiva period. Even though she barely knew me.

Shoshanna is an individual that cares about her family, her country and her fellow man… and fellow woman.

She is in fact a 21^st century feminist. Which is where I often part company with her - even though I too consider myself a feminist albeit in its original incarnation. Which for me meant treating both men and women with the same level of dignity and respect due to all human beings - having been created in the image of God. And to promote equal opportunities (and equal pay for equal work) for both men and women in all areas except in our roles as Jews based on the Torah as interpreted by our sages and rabbinic leaders thorough every generation.

That difference has gotten me into trouble with Shoshana in the past. Which actually made me feel terrible. The last thing I would ever want to do is disrespect someone of the courage to stand up for what she believes – even at those times when I disagree with her. I tried to apologize to her but mostly stood my ground since I believed in the essence of what I said. Not sure she accepted it.

Our differences are certainly sharp on certain issues. But there are a lot of areas where we actually agree. One of those is in the area of the decreasing instances of women’s pictures being published.

As I have always said, the narrow slices of Orthodox Jewry on the extreme right have the right to lead their lives according to their own values. If they as a community feel that publishing any picture of a woman violates their particular standards of modesty, they certainly should have that unfettered right among themselves.

But most of even the Charedi world does not have this standard. I keep using this example – but it is a good one. The Agudah website published pictures of women giving lectures at their recent convention in New York. Their Rabbinic board (Moetzes) consists of many of whose rabbis are considered by Charedim to be Gedolei HaDor – the rabbinic giants of our generation.

But as is increasingly becoming the case that practice has taken hold in a variety of other venues that heretofore never had such restrictions.

On an Israeli program called Orly and Guy, (video below with English subtitles) Shoshanna does a masterful job explaining why the phenomenon of erasing women from the public square is so detrimental to the fabric of our lives as Jews. On that same program Rabbi Dov Halbertal defended the practice – saying that it is done to avoid men becoming sexually aroused. Extending this idea to pictures of modestly dressed women is absurd in the extreme.

We are not talking about Playboy centerfolds. We are talking about women dressed according to the strict letter of the law. And we certainly are not talking about a Holocaust era picture. Rabbi Halbertal's attitude was that it doesn’t make any difference. A picture of a woman in any circumstance can sexually arouse a man. I have to wonder how anyone can take that claim seriously. Besides, isn’t such an attitude the very definition of objectifying women – thinking of them only in terms of being a sex object used to satisfy prurient interests?

Mishpacha said that their rabbis came out with an edict 70 years ago forbidding it for reasons of modesty.That was made clear by them in response to the massive criticism they received for publishing a pixilated face of a woman in a Holocaust era picture. They apologized for that particular instance -but stood by the edict they received 70 years ago. (Which contradicts Rabbi Halbertal’s assertion that context doesn’t matter.)

(Incidentally, in her inaugural Mishpacha article Alexa Fleksher, did not have her picture published either. All the male columnists did. I found that both odd and a glaring omission. Perhaps – in fairness they should not publish the pictures of their male columnists either – just to keep things uniform and fair. But I digress.)

Mishpacha and similar publications are not the only people erasing women from their pages. As noted by Shoshana during an appearance on an Israeli news program. Even secular establishments feature ads that do not have any women in them. Several examples of that were shown on that program.

To depict a world without women is an outrage that has negative ramifications for all Orthodoxy. The real world cannot exist without women. To depict it that way is to perpetuate a lie. That they say it doesn’t but instead honors women by recognizing the high level of modesty - might work as an explanation for them. But it is clearly an insult to many others. Including me. What do young girls learn about their self image when they are treated like sex objects no matter how modestly they are dressed.

The same question can be asked about young boys! The idea that women are sex objects is reinforced and this is what they grow up thinking. Which is a very unhealthy way of looking at a woman. Not to mention the fact that in my view it fuels incidences of sexual misconduct. If you see someone as an object rather than seeing them as a fellow human being, It should not be so surprising that they are used that way.

I therefore agree with Shoshanna completely here. And support her crusade to end this distortion of what the Torah considers immodest.

Obviously a picture of an immodestly dressed woman does appear to men as a sex object. Playboy exploits women that way. But a eliminating, distorting, or pixilating the picture of a modestly dressed woman with the excuse that any picture does that teaches young people to look at women as sex objects all the time. And that is just wrong!

Is this a real diamond ring?

Rabbi Ysoscher Katz has made the kind of unequivocal statement one would – and should - expect from anyone that calls themselves an Orthodox Rabbi. His statement is precisely the same argument used by those of us that oppose innovations he supports (like the ordination of women). From the Times of Israel, it reads in pertinent part as follows:

Halakha was never destined to be optimally inclusive or perfectly egalitarian. There was always going to remain a whiff of discrimination (descriptively speaking) which is innate to the system and could never be eliminated. Coupling halakha with modernity was never meant to be the perfect elixir, completely eradicating the existential pain of the modern-and-observant Jew. That is impossible. It can only minimize that pain.

I welcome the clarity of this statement - even while the lines drawn by virtually all mainstream Orthodox Jewish institutions in the world are drawn differently than his lines. This is an important statement because it clearly delineates that societal values never trump the Torah. There are lines that cannot be crossed no matter how unjust they may feel to modern sensibilities.

His point in making this statement was that all the possible accommodations to modernity made by Progressive Orthodoxy (formerly known as Open Orthodoxy)… have already been made. We cannot go further. There is much to be done elsewhere, he says, and we ought to be getting on with that. The battles are over. Their progressive agenda has taken hold. The war has been won. Female rabbis are a reality (albeit one that has to be nourished, he says). Case closed.

I hope he’s right about the battles and war being over. But I think he is mistaken about winning the war.

As noted here many times, there has been no acceptance of female rabbis by any mainstream Orthodox institution anywhere in the world. Not a single Posek of stature has endorsed it. Member synagogues of the OU may not hire a female rabbi. Doing so would void membership in the OU. Negotiations with member synagogues that currently have female rabbis are taking place. But if their status quo in that regard remains they will surely be expelled. To paraphrase Mark Twain, news of their survival is greatly exaggerated! At least as any kind of Orthodox Judaism.

And yet Rabbi Katz calls it a reality – albeit a reluctant one. The issue has been conquered. Progressive Orthodoxy can afford to retreat.

I heartily endorse them doing that. Not because they have won. But because they have lost even if they don’t realize it yet. Retreating is the right thing to do. Because if they insist on maintaining this new innovation they will eventually write themselves out of Orthodoxy. Not because I say so. But because Orthodoxy itself does, by dint of rejecting what they have done.

Rabbi Katz might counter this and say that what he means is that the genie is out of the bottle. Women are being ordained and serving their synagogues as rabbis. No one is going to change that. It will only increase.

It is true that women are being ordained. It is also true that some women are already serving as rabbis. (Whether that increases remains to be seen.) What is also true, however, is that it is not accepted as a legitimate form of Orthodoxy by any Orthodox institution. Synagogues doing so will not be considered Orthodox. This is not called winning. It’s called wishful thinking.

One may ask, who gets to define Orthodoxy? Why shouldn’t Progressive Orthodoxy have the same right to be called that as does the right wing or Centrist Orthodoxy?

True, they can call themselves anything they want. A person has the right to call Cubic Zirconia a diamond if he wants to. But that will not make it a diamond no matter how much he says it is. Even though it closely resembles a diamond. Only those with expertise in the precious gem industry have that right. They are the most educated in the matter and therefore have the most expertise. They are the only ones that can decide what is and isn’t a real diamond.

So too with Orthodoxy. When it comes to the definition - it remains in the hands of the people that know Torah the best - the mainstream Poskim of our day. When there is universal agreement among them about a parameter being crossed - it is crossed.

This is the case with female rabbis. Those who accept or endorse it might call themselves Orthodox. But they are no more Orthodox than a Cubic Zirconia is a diamond.

There are those who will say, ‘So What?’ ‘Who cares what they are called?’ ‘If they think they’re right, who is anyone to tell them to stop?’ ‘Let them do what they believe in - and see what happens!’

This is true. But it was also true for a movement founded over 100 years ago that also wanted to be considered Orthodox. They too considered themselves to be a Halachic movement. Today, there is not a single Orthodox Rabbi - including Rabbi Katz - that would make such a claim. Conservative Judaism is not - and never really was Orthodox.

If Progressive Orthodoxy goes that route, I fear it will have a similar outcome. I do not believe that Progressive Orthodoxy wants to do that. Which is why they continue to use the word ‘Orthodox’ in any label they choose for themselves. Whether the prefix is ‘Open’, ‘Liberal’, or ‘Progressive’.

Perhaps this is wishful thinking on my part. But I hope that when Progressive Orthodox leaders see the actual truth rather than what they think it is – they will realize that they have not won the war but have have lost it! And finally abandon this position as a well intended mistake – difficult though that may be. A mistake that at the end of the day, cannot fully satisfy the egalitarian agenda in any case - just as Rabbi Katz has clearly stated. And then they can turn their attention to what he says they should be doing next. Something all of Orthodoxy should be doing as well: ‘reorient its energies towards creating a religiously vibrant home front.’

Republican Candidate for Congress and American Nazi, Arthur Jones (CNN)

There been a bit of an uproar here in Illinois and in some Jewish and other publications about Arthur Jones. He is running as the unopposed Republican candidate for Illinois’ 3^rd Congressional District. What is unusual about this fellow is that he is an avowed Neo-Nazi and white supremacist. Jones is seeking the seat in the House of Representatives currently held by Democrat Dan Lipinski who is seeking reelection.

Although this south side and suburban Chicago district was known to be more conservative than the rest of Chicago, it has nevertheless held true to the Chicago tradition of a near non existent Republican party.

Democrats are assured of winning any election in Chicago. The real elections take place in the Democratic primary. Once nominated, the general election is only a formality. In my own congressional district Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky is running unopposed.

I assume that is the case in just about every area in Chicago and nearby suburbs, including the 3^rd district. (In fact in the last Presidential primary, Bernie Sanders won that district by 8 points!) What happened is that Jones took advantage of that fact - and with no Republican taking the trouble place themselves on the Ballot, Jones took the initiative to get the 800 signatures required to do that. By the time anyone realized what happened, it was too late for any Republican to oppose him on the ballot - or even as a write-in candidate.

There is no question that Jones will lose the election. He will be trounced - even if he wasn’t a Nazi. The fact that he is allowed to run is one of the great freedoms of America. No matter how disgusting an individual’s personal views are – they have the freedom to espouse them and even run for public office. It is also the greatness of America that he will be so wildly rejected by voters (other than his fringe base).

If one wants to know how the Republican Party has reacted to Jones, all you have to do is read an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune. It was written in the form of an open letter to Jones by Richard Porter, the national committeeman for Illinois to the Republican National Committee. Here in part is what he said:

Given that you're not actually a Republican, I should tell you something that you won't like about me or others in the Republican Party. You should know:

I love Jews. I am not saying “I have friends who are Jews,” I am saying I love Jews.
I love the stories of the Old Testament, the trials and tribulations, and the miracles and the disasters, that befall this family that grew into a tribe and then into a people — a people who have thrived despite thousands of years of persecution that culminated in the Holocaust.

Arthur, denying the cruel reality of the Holocaust is unforgivable.

I love Israel too. Indeed, I am a proud Christian member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and we lobby for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship.

I love what Jews have done for this country. I marvel at art created by Jews, I help Jews build amazing companies, and I read brilliant legal analyses by Jews.

I love my Jewish law partners — such amazing people. Brilliant, hard-working and decent. We give to each other's charities — they are so generous, I find it hard to keep up.

I love to attend bar and bat mitzvahs. Seeing 12- and 13-year-olds get up and chant beautifully in Hebrew and then discuss their Torah selection so maturely, I always find myself asking: “Why don't we ask more of kids where I worship?”

Actually, you should know that the Republican Party is filled with Jews who are passionate advocates of liberty and smaller government.

Gosh (and I say that because the God of the Jews commands me not to take the Lord's name in vain), you could say the Republican Party is the party for Jews and those who love Jews and Israel.

He then goes on to ask Jones to voluntarily leave the Republican party and basically run as the long time member of his other political party - the American Nazi Party.

It is Porter that represent the real America. It should also be evident that the Republican Party is increasingly becoming the party of the Jews – as Porter indicates. The tables have been turned. Jews were always more comfortable among the more liberal Democrats. Blue blood Republicans were rightfully considered to be guilty of at least soft antisemitism. This is no longer the case. Republicans seem to have purged any and all antisemitism from their midst - as indicated by Porter.

And while Democrats are not antisemeitic either, their support for Israel is becoming increasingly tepid while Republican support seems to be increasing. One will find a lot more criticism of Israel among liberal Democrats - as opposed to conservative Republicans. Most of whom unabashedly express views like Porter’s. Or express enthusiastic support for Israel like UN Ambassador Nikki Haley... or just about any notable Republican one would care to mention.

Contrast that with what is going on in Poland. Instead of admitting their clear history of persecution against their Jewish citizens, and apologizing, they have opted instead to erase it from the collective memory of the world. They have outlawed any reference to a Nazi Death camp being Polish - subject to a fine and even possible jail time!

As noted here recently, it is technically true that the death camps were built and operated by Germans. But this new law is deceptive. It ignores the fact that so many Poles were willing accomplices! And although the Poles were victims of Nazi Germany too, it makes them seem like they were never the rabid antisemites they actually were. Long before the Nazi Party ever existed! And you will never see the kind of genuine love expressed by Porter for the Jewish people by any government official there. Probably not even in England either!

There is also the rabid anti Israel views of activists in Jeremy Corbyn’s liberal Labour Party, England’s major opposition party. Activists that Corbyn refuses to deal with. You will never see such views expressed by our liberals, the Democrats. Contrary to Corbyn, Charles Schumer, the Democratic Senate Minority leader is a very strong supporter of Israel and a proud Jewish American. (He actually bucked his own party’s Orthodoxy and voted against the nuclear deal with Iran!)

Which is why I continue to believe that Esav Sonei L’Yaakov clearly still applies to Europe (especially Poland) – even after the Holocaust. And why it does not apply to America - the greatest democracy the world has ever known. A country where Jews are not only NOT hated, but are appreciated and loved. God Bless the United States of America!

Mass murderer, Nikolas Cruz and his stash of guns

‘Guns don’t kill people. People do.’ ‘If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.’ ‘Every Jew a 22.’ The logic behind the first of these two popular phrases is inescapable. The second one rings true as well. The 3rd one (coined by Rabbi Meir Kahane) makes sense too in light of the persecution Jews have faced at the hands of fellow citizens throughout history. The argument is that if Jews would have been armed during the Holocaust, they could have better protected themselves and saved many lives. But I dispute that argument in this country. More about that later.

When I am in Israel, I can hear that argument. Military personnel that are so pervasive in Israel obviously carry weapons. As do the police. But it is not only them. I am amazed at the number of civilians that carry unconcealed weapons. As I am surprised at the type of people carrying them – religious Jews. While it is mostly Religious Zionists or Dati Leumi Jews that carry guns, it is not exclusively them.

I suppose that in Israel, Rabbi Kahane’s argument might make sense. There are threats lurking behind every corner. Terrorists abound. I admit to feeling a sense of comfort and security in Israel when I see a religious Jew carrying a gun. (Although sometimes I wonder how many of these gun toters have actually been trained in firearms use and safety. Or how some of them might freeze during an actual event requiring a quick response. Or worse killing an innocent bystander by mistake out of sheer nervousness. But still…)

What about America? Should I feel that way here? No. First some background.

The reason I bring all of this up now should be obvious to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to the news. On Wednesday at about 2:00 PM Eastern time, 19 year old Nikolas Cruz walked into the South Florida school he once attended armed with a legally purchased semi-automatic AR 15 assault rifle and proceeded to slaughter students and teachers totaling 17 people. With many more being injured. He was apprehended and caught. He is now in custody – charged with 17 counts of premeditated homicide and related charges.

Observing the reaction of victim’s families actually brought me to tears! Just as it did last time something like this happened.

It seems as though mass shootings in schools are beginning to happen on a regular basis. Innocent children are indiscriminately shot by people with mental issues. People like Nikolas Cruz can easily obtain weapons and with ease - cut people down in the prime of their lives in a matter of seconds.

It is my considered opinion that this kind of thing can be curbed if not eliminated by common sense gun legislation. While such laws are on the books, there are too many loopholes. For example I recently became aware of guns being sold on line that are missing a working part and cannot be fired without it. They can be purchased by anyone of any age. They contain no serial number or any identifying mark. The missing part can also be purchased on line along with instructions on how to put them together to create the perfect untraceable weapon. All legal.

Automatic (rapid-fire) military type assault rifles are illegal. But they may be sold legally if the automatic feature is disabled. Which can be easily restored or modified after purchase.

There are other laws designed to prevent gun sales to criminals and the mentally disabled. But these laws have giant loopholes, too.

All the loopholes need to be closed! There needs to be much stronger gun legislation in this country. The less guns there are, the less people will be killed. Study after study has shown this. And yet this simple truth is ignored by gun enthusiasts and by the politicians in office that support them. Politicians that cater to the gun lobby – led by the NRA (National Rifle Association) one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington.

The NRA is led by Wayne LaPierre, a man I consider to be a Rasha! …and indirectly responsible for what happened Wednesday. As well as all the previous mass murders of this type in this country. I’m sure we will be hearing from him shortly (if he hasn’t already commented) touting the second amendment to the constitution. Which states:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The purpose of this amendment is to assure the existence of a well regulated militia. The US has that in spades. Soldiers need to be fully armed. Do we really need private citizens that have no intention of being part of the military to be armed? But I am not here to argue for repeal. I am arguing for controlling access.

What about arguments like ‘Guns don’t kill people.’ People do.’ True there has to be a person pulling the trigger for the gun to kill. But without a gun, it would be much harder to kill anyone. Guns make it infinitely easier to do that. The more loopholes we have, the more people that will be killed. Had Cruz come into those classrooms with a hunting knife, I seriously doubt that 17 people would have been killed.

It is also true that if guns were outlawed, law-abiding citizens would not have any. But criminals would easily find ways to have them. Which is why I am not supportive of outlawing guns completely. But I am in favor of outlawing assault rifles like the AR 14. There is NOTHING in the second amendment to prevent such a law. The right to bear arms will still be in place.

Forbidding semi automatic assault weapons (which as noted - can easily be converted to automatic mode) will also reduce the carnage. What possible protective value is there in an assault weapon, anyway? The purpose of these weapons are to kill as many people as quickly as possible – a useful tactic in battle. But private ownership is insane. It can only appeal to gun enthusiasts. What kind of obsession is that, anyway?! It is the gun enthusiast that converts them back to automatic mode.

Then there is the mental health issue. It appears that the motive in many of these mass shootings by a young person is in reaction to being constantly bullied by fellow students. Their built up rage makes road rage look like child’s play. There needs to be a concerted effort by schools to end this phenomenon. I know it’s hard to detect since much of it takes place on hand held social media. But that does not free anyone involved from tackling this problem. It ought to be a priority.

Administrators, principals, teachers, advisors… and just about anyone involved with schools needs to brainstorm and figure out ways to eliminate this scourge from our schools. But it starts with better parenting. Parents need to be in control of what their children do on social media.

It is also imperative to create legislation that would prevent people with any kind of mental health issue (like Cruz) from the ability to purchase any kind of gun. There should be no possible way to buy a gun under any circumstances without a thorough background check. Both with respect to criminal records and to any kind of mental health issue. It would also be wise to outlaw online purchases of guns as well. Even those that are missing parts so that cannot be fired!

It ought to be much harder to buy a gun than it is now. If this latest tragedy doesn’t teach us this, nothing will. Unfortunately I believe this to already be the case. Mass shootings like this that have happened in the past – have resulted in nothing.

Nothing will change by what I write here today, unfortunately. I doubt that any politicians read my posts. And even if they did, it probably wouldn’t sway them. But the truth needs to be told.

Modern Orthodox Couple (Forward)

A wonderful woman I know quite well that lived on the Upper West Side (UWS) of New York City for many years had terrible dating experiences. I can only imagine the personal pain she experienced dating men from the community that had commitment phobias. I met one of those men. He was a very nice guy that had been dating her for a year or two… indicating that they would someday get married and ‘live happily ever after’. That never happened. After a very long courtship without any forward movement on his part, my friend through down the gauntlet. She challenged him. Was he ever going to commit? After several requests by him for more time – she finally gave up and broke up. This pattern repeated itself with every new relationship.

It seems that this is business as usual in on the UWS. Eventually through a third party - she met a wonderful fellow that was not a part of the community and got married shortly thereafter. She was well into her late 30s by then. Thankfully she has been happily married for many years now and raising a wonderful family.

I don’t know how many people have suffered from the ‘syndrome’ of commitment phobia that is so prevalent on the UWS. While I’m sure that there are people that do get married there - my impression is that a huge portion of them never do. They just have a singles type relationship forever. (I have even heard that there are some unmarried women that have been going to the Mikva so that if a sexual relationship develops - she would not be a Niddah which would be a severe violation of Halacha entailing the Kares penalty. I don’t know if this phenomenon is true. But it wouldn’t surprise me too much if it was.)

I have to wonder how this UWS culture developed. What is it that created a group of young (and not so young) men that have commitment phobia as part of their personality? The fear of commttment is not exclusive to the world of Modern Orthodoxy of which the UWS is primarily made up. But I do believe that my friend’s experience is far more typical there than it is in the world of the right. If this isn’t a Shidduch crisis, I don’t know what is.

Thankfully there seem to be a new initiative designed for this community. From the Jewish Link:

The Modern Orthodox communities of the West Side of Manhattan and Northern New Jersey have announced a new initiative, making available dynamic new programs for matching young Modern Orthodox professional men and women between the ages of 22 and 32...

“As singles move past the age of 32 they tend to form less pliable frameworks in their respective lifestyles, making it more difficult to form serious dating relationships. The methods of matchmaking for the 32+ group are different and require much more intervention. We are trying to get more matches formed within a younger age group, thus allowing for more flexibility.”

The upscale events will have in attendance top-notch matchmakers. Tova Weinberg, a well-known matchmaker, has given her full support to the project. She said, “I think what you are doing for singles is amazing and I want to help you the best way I can...”

This program is designed for what is called Modern Orthodox/Modern Machmir men and women who are serious about meeting a mate. I have heard this term before. I assume it refers to Modern Orthodox Jews that are meticulous about observance. The idea of a Shadchan in the MO world is not a very popular one. But I think it is a great idea. There is nothing wrong with a 3^rd party recommendation for a date. That is – after all – what a Shadchan does. He or she puts together 2 people with enough in common to result in a succesful marriage.

That doesn’t mean they can’t still date in the traditional MO fashion by incidental meetings or being ‘setup’ by friends. All it means is that their opportunities will now be expanded. That is a good thing. What about overcoming commitment phobia? My guess is that those that are meticulous about observing Halacha do not experience this problem as much… but might have fallen victim to it by simply living in the UWS environment.

New Shidduch initiative in Monsey (The Thinking Yid)

But there is another Shidduch initiative taking place in the Yeshiva world in Monsey. I was linked to a post on a blog called the The Thinking Yid… where this initiative was excoriated! I tend to agree. It seems to be designed to make Shadchanim rich… or at least be paid extremely well. They capitalizing on a crisis.

3 Shuls are involved. Shadchanim will be subsidized by wealthy private individuals to find matches for the children of these Shul members. What is troubling about it is that there will be double dipping. Shadchaim will not only be subsidized by wealthy individuals. They will also be paid by the parents of these young people per date. And if the Shidduch is made, they will be paid a total of between $1500 - $1800 per match. Presumably by both sets of parents if they are members of one of those Shuls.

Follow the money. Desperate parents are being taken advantage of. The idea of setting up young people because it is a Mitzvah seems to be a value of the past.

Now, if you want to get married, it will cost you up front – and cost you more if you succeed. I wouldn’t have such an objection to this, if this community would allow for other means of young people meeting. Such as singles events, or socializing between families. But since these things are at best discouraged (if not outright banned) in the Yeshiva world I find this to be a highly mercenary tactic. ‘You don’t have money?’ ‘Don’t bother me!’ says this initiative. That’s called taking advantage of desperate people.

I’m sure the wealthy people subsidizing this are well meaning. But for me the ‘double dipping’ puts this enterprise into question.

When my own children were dating (not that long ago - at about the time of the turn of the century) they had a variety of opportunities to meet potential mates. Which included asking people in positions to do so, to ‘Red a Shidduch’ - Yiddish for recommending my son or daughter to a potential mate. But my case, there was no fee. In those cases where the recommendation worked out, we gave the Shadchan a nice gift as a token of our appreciation. Which was graciously accepted. This is – in my view how it should be done. Unfortunately the Shidduch crisis has given way to a new industry that capitalizes on the desperation of potential clients.

This phenomenon is evident and even more egregious in all the Segulos for Shidduchim one finds being advertised. I’m sure many people have seen the ads where if you give a certain amount of money to a particular charity, then a large group of ‘Gedolim’ will pray 40 days and 40 nights at the Kotel or at some grave-site at midnight for your child to get married. With testimonials from successful clients! That is truly despicable! But paying Shadchanim exorbitant sums of money seems to be not that far behind in that kind of exploitation. And that’s just plain wrong.

Setting fire to an IDF soldier in effigy - May of last year (TOI)

The pattern of behavior is quite clear. It makes me wonder sometimes if we are following the same Torah. I know that I am not alone in feeling this way. Not only are there modern Orthodox and Centrist Jews that feel this way - many mainstream Charedi Jews feel that way, too. Although if I were Charedi it would probably upset me even more than it does as a Centrist.

There is a segment of religious Jews whose values do not in any way match those of the rest us in Orhtodox Judaism.

They do not necessarily belong to the same sect or group. They have different rabbinic leaders. What unites them is participation in the same type of Chilul HaShem. There are many different incarnations of it. All of which go unpunished by anyone in a position of leadership that they may follow.

There are several examples of this again that happened recently. We cannot afford to just complain and ignore them. They must be fought as a plague upon Judaism. Which is what their behavior amounts to. They are a plague upon religious Jews all over the world because they look so religious and are so meticulous in observance of many of the Mitzvos of the Toraah – which their constant Chilul HaShem negates in my view.

Shoshana Keats-Jaskoll has a video of a wig burning event in Meah Shearim that turns my stomach. There is a lot of laughter going on but it isn’t funny. It is disgusting that these people set fire to an item used by so many married observant Jewish women to fulfill the Mitzvah of covering their hair. By this act they not only insult these women in a frightful way, they imply that the Mitzvah they perform is really an Aveira! I agree with Shoshanna:

This is not normal, or okay. Men and CHILDREN burning styrofoam heads and wigs of women is really, really not ok.

I would go further. It is not just - not OK. It is counterproductive and SICK!

And then there is the story about yet another religious soldier being attacked. This time in the middle of prayer. It happened at ‘Shtieblach’. That is an area in the Beis Yisroel section of Jerusalem that is near the Meah Shearim. It is what is known as a ‘Minyan factory’. There are constant Minyanim going on there for Shachris, Mincha, and Maariv so that if someone in the neighborhood wants to Daven at any time of the day, he will find a Minyan there to do it. From Arutz Sheva:

During the evening prayer services, haredi extremists assaulted the soldier and forced him to flee the synagogue and call for assistance.

While his attackers pursued him, the soldier managed to escape when an ambulance arrived at the scene.

It is unclear if the soldier any injuries during the attack.

This is just the latest in a series of attacks over the last few years against religious Jews serving in the IDF. And then there was the recent incident where two religious girls were chased down at a protest against a newly observant religious woman who joined the army.

There have been a great many stories about these people doing damage to others in their ‘righteous crusade’ to establish their version of Judaism as the only legitimate version. A crusade that keeps making one Chilul HaShem after another – as I’ve said so many times. The ‘gift that keeps on giving’.

It is has become expected. It has become so ‘normal’ for these people to do these kinds of things that there is a tendency for the rest of the Orthodox world to just write them off as extremists best ignored.

Wrong answer.

Yes, they are extremists. But there are a great many of them. Too many of them involved in too many incidents to ignore. And they have spread to locations outside of Meah Shearim.

They must constantly be condemned lest the casual observer seeing it or reading about it think that this is the way all religious Jews behave. I just wish that all rabbinic leaders from all stripes of Orthodoxy took steps to once and for all to completely condemn and ostracize them in a unified statement! Instead of - as is often the case - heaping praise upon their community as the most religiously idealistic among us! Even as they condemn the extremism that stems from them.

That’s not good enough. It is absolutely the wrong message. They need to stop thinking like that. And once and for all declare to the world that looking Frum is not the same as being Frum. Far from it. That kind of praise perpetuates the belief that their extremism is just a function of their zealotry as defenders of the faith who have the courage to act!

Leaders of all Hashkafos in the Torah world need to say loudly and clearly that these people are not acting any more Jewish than the Reform Jewish pioneers of the past who rejected all form of Jewish ritual. They need to tell the leaders of the communities that harbor them that - saying they can't control them is not good enough either. It is their Hashkafos that created this ‘monster’ and they share significant responsibility for these extremists; the harm they cause to innocent people; and the damage they do to the image of the Jewish people.

The right stuff: Judge Ruchie Freier - Egalitarian yet traditional (Jewish Link)

I have been reflecting a bit on the current trend in the modern world towards egalitarianism between the sexes. On the surface, the desire for all people to be treated equally seems like the noblest of goals.

And yet when it comes to Orthodox Judaism, there are a lot of ‘nos’ to full equality of the sexes. This is one of the main points of contention between Progressive Orthodoxy (formerly known as Open or Liberal) and mainstream Orthodoxy. In short this means that certain roles in Orthodox Judaism are available to men while being denied to women.

By now it should be well understood that Orthodoxy is not fully egalitarian - even if you are an adherent of its progressive arm. A woman for example can never be counted toward a Minayn – the minimum number of people required for a public prayer service. The Kaddish prayer cannot be recited among a group 9 men and even 99 women. Clearly this is counter to the egalitarian ideal.

YCT (Yeshivat Chovevei Torah) Talmud Chair, Rabbi Ysoscher Katz made an indirect reference to this lack of egalitarianism in a recent article. And yet he and the progressive wing to which he adheres believes it is permissible for women to become rabbis and serve synagogues in that capacity. He believes strongly that this concession in the very spirit of egalitarianism it is not only permitted, but to be encouraged to those women that seek it. Even while conceding that Orthodoxy cannot be fully egalitarian.

Mainstream Orthodoxy rejects that position totally. Which is why the OU has recently required the few member Shuls who have hired women as rabbis to remedy the situation within 3 years - or be expelled from membership. Why Rabbi Katz draws the line there in opposition to all mainstream Orthodox organizations and Poskim is a question only he can answer.

This got me to thinking about this is the stridency with which modern day Orthodox Jewish feminists pursue this particular form of egalitarianism while at the same time so many modern day Orthodox Jewish women do not feel the slightest bit less equal without it. I am not talking about the women of Meah Shearim. Not even about women that live in the Charedi world.

I am talking about Modern Orthodox women that participate fully in the culture. Women that actually believe in egalitarianism in all aspects of life except the theological one. I know many women like that. They are MDs, PhDs, CEOs, authors, academicians, artists… and all manner of successful career women. They have taken advantage of the egalitarian spirit of the times and yet do not feel for a minute that they are any less of a human being because they cannot enter one particular profession – the rabbinate.

Although there have been some notable exceptions where women have led the Jewish people (e.g. the prophetess, Devorah) - the vast majority of women throughout Jewish history have not felt the need to pursue that kind of equality. Even as the inequality of women in the general culture was clear and hurtful to women, Jewish women never saw Judaism hurting them that way. Why do some women see it that way now? Why are some Modern Orthodox women pursuing that ‘right’ now while others accept their roles as women in Judaism and pursue equality outside of it?

I can only surmise that it is the influence of general culture in which we live. A culture that applies the ideal of equality into all spheres of life. Overriding any other ideal with which it comes into conflict. That is my theory.

But it has been rejected by those that pursue a full egalitarian agenda. They do have a legitimate point about questioning the sincere motives of these women. Who am I to question their sincere motives?! But that is not what I am doing at all. All I am saying is that it is virtually impossible NOT to be influenced by a popular ideal that at its core makes a lot of sense. Which is what the ideal of egalitarianism is.

I believe that in most instances women that want to become rabbis are sincere. They desire to serve God in ways they feel they best can. That is what is in their hearts and minds. But I am also convinced that had they not be influenced by a culture that espouses an ideal of equaility in all areas - there would be no real desire for women to break with thousands of year of tradition. A tradition that is clearly supported by all of mainstream Orthodoxy. A tradition based on a theology where men and women have different roles.

In western culture today, the very concept of a male or female role has been virtually obliterated. There is no such thing to an egalitarian. Men and women should have the right to pursue any goal they choose. If that choice conflicts with a religious principle – the religious principle loses.

To be clear this is not about preventing women from achiving the same level of knowledge as men. It isn’t even about preventing full participation in Jewish life. Women can and should pariticipate fully using the knowledge they have attained. Among areas that they can contribute right along with men WITHOUT trampling on the tradition mainstream Orhtodxy says must be followed is pastoral counseling, Halachic advisors (such as Yoatzot), teachers, principals, and public speakers.

Why do some women have the need pursue egalitarianism to the point of breaking with Jewish tradition - while others are quite content to pursuing egalitrainsim in areas outside of Judaism – like the ones mentioned above?

Can it be that our female ancestors would be on board with any of this had they been alive today? Are we to believe that they suffered in silence for thousands of years - watching men do what they couldn’t? Were they really that unhappy with their lot in life? I somehow doubt that. And yet that is what we are told to believe.

The foregoing was not meant to be a criticism of women that want to serve the Jewish people as rabbis. While I remain opposed to that for reasons beyond the scope of this post – that was not my purpose. It was only to explore attitudes among Modern Orthodox women that are on opposite sides of the issue. And these were my thoughts about it.

Typical Chasidic elementary school classroom (New York Jewish Life)

Is it possible to honestly agree with what amounts to a lie? The obvious answer is no, it isn’t. And yet I find myself doing that in an article by Williamsburg resident and Chasidic school graduate, Abe Deutch. He defends against what he deems an attack against Yeshivos in New York City.

This is a classic case of misidentifying what is being attacked and then defending it. (Otherwise known as a red herring). Mr. Deutch has attacked ‘the attackers’ implying they have an anti religious agenda. Although he does not name the group or its leader, it is clear that he’s talking about YAFFED and its founder and expatriate Chasid, Naftuli Moster. They are pursuing a goal of making sure that government required educational standards are met in the Chasidic Yeshivos that have been ignoring them.

I have heard this charge against Mr. Moster and YAFFEDbefore. And as I’ve said in the past, I can’t read minds. I don’t know what goes on anyone’s heart… or know what the real motives are for anything anyone does. All I can do is judge what they are doing. In this case they are asking that New York education officials enforce the law with respect to mandated educational curricula. YAFFED also asks that education officials do their due diligence to see who is and isn’t following it and sanction those that do not. Which for me is quite the reasonable request regardless of any supposed hidden agenda. None of this is new. I’ve discussed it all before. More than once.

What is different this time is that what Mr. Deutch is defending is a yeshiva education itself. He claims that what is happening with the Chasidic Yeshivos that do not offer any secular programs is the beginning of slippery slope towards government meddling in all Yeshivos. And then he goes about defending the values taught in all yeshivas. Values that I obviously agree with.

There is no question in my mind that the future of Judaism lies in Yeshiva attendance. Without a basic religious elementary and high school education, the future of Judaism in America would be bleak – even for Orthodox Jews.

Although there have been some major exceptions where Orthodox Jews have attended non religious schools (whether public or private) and remained observant as adults, history has shown that in assimilationist culture like ours has shown - without it, observance is severely weakened. Children from observant families might as adults forgo observant Judaism entirely.

It is more than about getting a decent Jewish education. A Yeshiva environment during the formative years is essential so that one does not experience primarily the rich and attractive general culture and its pull toward assimilation and non observance.

It is my sincere belief that had the day school movement not been started, there would be far less observant Jews in America today. And Orthodoxy would be as endangered a species as Conservative and Reform Judaism.

So I agree with Mr. Deutch in that sense. But as I said this is a red herring. What is being asked of those particular Chasidic Yeshivos is to have the same or equivalent curriculum that most other Yeshivos do. That they offer basics like English, Math, Science, and History. Mr. Deutch has conveniently ignored that distinction – seeming to place all Yeshivos in the same category.

He then argues from the perspective of his own non secular education experience (in a sort of bait and switch tactic). He claims that the education he received in his Yeshiva (implying that his school represents all Yeshivos) prepared him very well for life:

The reality is that these children are in school and learning for ten or more hours a day, several hours longer than their public-school peers. While the curriculum mix is different from what public schools offer, the focus on critical thinking and problem solving prepares them for success in a wide variety of pursuits – and to be thriving, upstanding citizens of their communities. Just because it’s different, doesn’t mean it’s not valid.

To simply call it different implies that they have a different but comparable secular studies program to that of public schools. While what he says about his experience may be true. But, it is not nearly enough to prepare students for a successful career. The critical thinking is there. But the study skills required for advanced learning are not.

Nevertheless, Mr. Deutch says that he managed to create a successful plumbing business using the skills he acquired at his Chasidic school. His children and many of his classmates went on to successful careers too. But evidence has shown that many if not most children graduating from these schools are ill prepared for the workforce of the 21^st century. They find it difficult to catch up to graduates from public, private and religious school that do offer secular studies. They end up with menial jobs and meager pay. In most cases not enough to support their typically very large families. Which is why so many of them have to rely on government financial assistance programs . And unfortunately we know where that all too often leads.

This is what Mr. Deutch fails to understand. Or purposely ignores. It is disingenuous to argue the value of a Yeshiva education as a defense against a good secular studies program. That argument has nothing to do with what those schools are being asked to do. Which is basically to follow the law. They haven’t been doing it and have until now remained under the radar and unsanctioned

It is more than time that these Chasidic schools join the ranks of most other yeshivas and provide a decent secular education for their children. There is nothing in Judaism that forbids the study of Limudei Chol (secular studies). If they had done so in the first place none of this would be happening. They would not feel that they are being attacked because of their religious beliefs because they wouldn’t be attacked at all. Nor would the values he said are so critical for the Jewish people be negatively affected. Even slightly.

And finally there is this. Mr. Deutch says that a new organization PEARLS (Parents for Educational and Religious Liberty in Schools) has been formed to upgrade the secular studies programs for Chasidic schools (as though they already had them but they needed upgrading – another misleading statement). However, the mission statement says that this organization is about protecting their parental rights to educate their children as they see fit.

But even if it’s true that they also want to upgrade their ‘secular studies program’- if he believed that what they were doing until now was so great (as evidenced by him, his children, and many of his classmates) why bother? Why the need for the the ‘upgrade’?

He says that there is always room for improvement. That is certainly true. If YAFFED accomplished any improvement at all - by forcing them to ‘upgrade’ - it was certainly worth doing. But PEARLS has been around since 2016. I wonder what - if any - improvements there have been in those schools. What does their secular studies program look like now? I will be happy to be proven wrong - but my guess is that nothing has significantly changed.

Israeli Justice Minster, Ayelet Shaked (Arutz Sheva)

I am happy to report that Israeli Justice Minister, Ayelet Shaked and her 9 member committee has just appointed Chavi Toker to head the Jerusalem Magistrate Court. Mrs. Toker is the first ever female Charedi judge in Israel.

Her Charedi credentials are impeccable. She attended Beis Yaakov in Bnei Brak, the center of the Charedi world in Israel. Her father was considered to be the right hand man of Rav Elazar Menachem Man Shach, ZTL - a man many in the Charedi world considered to be the Gadol HaDor. She is married to the son of the late dean of the Chevron – a world famous first class Charedi Yeshiva. (Which also happens to be my grandson’s Yeshiva.)

What makes this story even more amazing is that her oldest son is now in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). He enlisted in the Givati Brigade's Charedi Tomer Company. According to Wikipedia, the Givati Brigade is an infantry unitserving as the IDF’s amphibious force.

Considering her very Charedi upbringing and environment it is amazing that this woman will now be a sitting Justice in Israel heading its magistrate court. So much for stereotypes.

Mrs. Toker did not just wake up one day and - with no secular studies background - decide to attend Hebrew University Law School . That assumption would probably be incorrect, despite the fact that there is no such thing as a secular studies program in the Israeli Charedi Yeshiva system. How is it possible that Mrs. Toker had such an education? The answer is quite simple. That’s because she probably did have one.

True, there are no secular studies programs in Israeli Charedi elementary schools and high schools. But that is only true for half of the Charedi population. The male half. Most girls schools do have a secular studies program. Some better than others. But virtually all of them do. They all offer at least a basic secular studies program. Enough of which will give their students the study skills to enable university attendance.

While there are an increasing number of Charedi men that attend universities, it is not because they learned those skills in their schools. It is because they are smart enough to catch up on their own and/or have attended special programs and classes designed for them to catch up.

Those who might say that a secular studies have no value towards a successful career and better income - might want to rethink that in light of what Mrs. Toker has accomplished and the increase in male Charedi university attendance.

As happy as I am to see a Charedi woman rise to such heights, I am not all that surprised by it. Nor am I surprised that her community didn’t object to it. (At least I haven’t heard about it if they did.)

That’s because it has become the norm in Charedi Israel for women to have broad based educations. However, the norm for men is that their education is limited to Limudei Kodesh. (Primarily the study of Talmud, its commentaries, and Halacha.) Their Yeshivos cater to this ideal to the extent that there not be any distraction from that study. Including the ‘distraction’ of a secular education.

Women, on the other hand are encouraged to get a broad based education. Their schools are facilitated along those lines. That’s because they end up becoming the primary bread winners for their families – all while retaining their roles as a wife, mother, and homemaker. The men are too busy studying Torah to support their families. Their Kollel stipends are hardly enough to do that.

A woman becoming a judge might very likely be seen by the Charedi world as a great career move. One that includes the all important increase in salary so that a husband can continue to learn in a Kollel full time.

This is how Charedi world in Israel is now structured. A structure that is enhanced as a result of feminist pursuit of egalitarianism in the workplace. Something the Charedi world should be thankful for and express gratitude to. An unlikely an event as will ever occur!

Although some might see this as some sort of feminist victory, I see it as turning tradition on its head. It is still the paradigm and that’s the bad news.

I am – and have always been - a feminist in the sense of treating men and women with equal dignity. Dignity that all human beings should get having been created in the image of God. I have also been a feminist in the sense of equal pay for equal work.

But I have never been a fan of overturning Judaism’s traditional roles for men and women. And yet that is exactly what the Charedi world has done. Especially in Israel. Making it worse is the fact that women have not given up their traditional roles. There was no exchange. As noted, women are still wives, mothers, and homemakers. They have just taken on the additional roles of men as breadwinners!

So even though this news about a Charedi woman in Israel is good, they are not living a Utopian life.The Charedi world has evolved into one that has increased the burden on its women.

I’m not saying that Charedi women are unhappy with their lot. I have no clue how they feel about this in their heart of hearts. Although I am led to believe that they have taken on these additional responsibilities with great spiritual joy - doing their part in devotion to God. But that does not lessen their additional burden

Meanwhile for those men that do feel a sense of responsibility to support their families - they have a harder time accomplishing that than women. Because the education needed for them to do that is sorely lacking. It would be nice if that would change.

The entrance to Auschwitz in Poland (The Guardian)

There was certainly no love lost for the Polish people by Nazi Germany. The prejudice was there. I recall a line from the epic 70s miniseries ‘Holocaust’. It was made after Germany successfully invaded Poland by Eric Dorf - a Nazi officer (portrayed by Michael Moriarty). In response to a question about using Poles (instead of Jews who were to be exterminated) for slave labor to do their bidding he said something to the effect of ‘Don’t worry.’ ‘Poles have strong backs and weak minds’.

That is an obviously biased and even racist statement. Which of course is not a surprise coming from a soldier from the most racist nation ever to exist on the face of the earth.

I am not in the habit of quoting racist statements from even a fictionalized Nazi character. But I could not help thinking of that line (at least the ‘weak minds’ part of it) after the Polish response to criticism of its new law. Which bans any reference to ‘Polish Death Camps’. A law that if violated is punishable by up to 3 years jail time.

I understand of course why they passed this law. What kind of country wants to be associated with death camps responsible for mass murdering millions of people? Especially since it really was Nazi Germany that built and operated those camps. The Poles say it is unjust to call them Polish Death Camps. But as I said in an earlier piece on this subject, they may be technically right about who actually built and operated those camps. But their attempt at saying they were blameless because of their own their victimization by Nazi Germany - is not going to get any traction here.

Although it needs to be acknowledged that there were many righteous gentiles among the Poles that risked their own lives to save Jews (probably more that we know) - the massive antisemitism Jews experienced in that country prior to and after the Holocaust is well established. There is hardly any Polish Jew that survived the Holocaust who wouldn’t tell you of their personal experiences regarding that. Even those that were saved by the righteous gentiles of that country.

Auschwitz-Birkenau, Belżec, Chełmno, Gross-Rosen, Majdanek, Sobibór, Stutthof, and Treblinka were all located on Polish soil. Chicago Jewish News publisher, Joe Aaron is not someone I usually agree with. But in this case he is 100% right. He noted - there was a reason the Germans chose Poland for so many of their Concentration and Death Camps.

Germans were well aware of the hatred most Poles had (and still have) for the Jewish people. Demonstrated time and again in one pogrom after another. Both before and after the Holocaust. It wasn’t just pogroms that demonstrated how little they cared about what happened to their fellow Jewish citizens. After the Holocaust many Jewish survivors tried to reclaim their homes. That was met by fierce resistance by Poles that had occupied those homes.

Germans knew they had willing accomplices in the Polish people. There were plenty of Poles that were happy to aid their captors in any way they could to round up Jews and send them to their eventual deaths. Or to watch them mass murdered on the spot and fall into mass graves. This has all been documented.

Father Patrick Desbois is a Catholic Priest (someone I would easily call a Tzadik of the nations of the world) who has made it his life’s mission to locate and document those hidden grave-sites. And expose those people still alive that must have witnessed what happened but denied everything. When those graves were discovered they were then forced to face their past and tell the truth about what they saw or did during the war. What Father Desbois found was that many of the locals used to make a party out of watching Nazis mass murder Jews!

And yet, the Polish government expects the world to buy that they were all helpless victims with no responsibility at all for what happened to the Jewish people. Talk about denial!

As if to underscore the fact that not being antisemitic is just a pretense, prominent Polish commentators defended this new law to those who objected to it by issuing statements worthy of any ‘respectable’ Neo-Nazi anywhere in the world! Talk about weak minds!

It wasn’t just Polish commentators that had these disgusting reactions. Polish government officials have the gall to say that these death camps should be called Jewish Death Camps! - blaming the Jewish people for their own misfortune! They point to the Nazi appointed Jewish police (also known as Kapos). Who were forced to turn in fellow Jews to their Nazi captors on pain of instant death if they failed to do so. A death that would not have prevented the next Kapo from doing it... or a Nazi soldier if necessary.

I am not here to excuse or condemn those Kapos. But they were victims too. Some of them even sacrificed their own lives in situations like that. Point is that by contrast many Poles happily aided their captors in their goal of Jewish Genocide.

Nothing has changed in Poland. Jews are still hated. And their denial of that is so absurd that it makes one wonder if Poles are really as stupid as all those Polish jokes about them indicate.

Poles may not be stupid. But – with the exception of many fine Polish gentiles that abhor Poland’s denials; recognize the truth about their country’s past (and present for that matter); and truly regret Poland’s antisemitism and its role in the Holocaust - they are an evil people.

(It is also no coincidence that the most antisemitic National Security Adviser America has ever had was Zbigniew Brzezinski - a Polish immigrant. Antisemitism was his heritage. It was in his blood!)

Poland unequivocally deserves the scorn of the world. And I for one am happy to give it to them!

Misguided Jews protesting Israel. How far reaching is this?

I note with dismay an article in Hamodia (republished at Cross Currents) by Rabbi Avi Shafran. Not because I disagree with him. But by what he reveals might be the case about the future of American support for Israel. The statistics he references do not surprise me at all:

A mere 27% of the 1503 respondents who identified themselves as Democrats told the pollsters they sympathize with Israel over the Palestinians… Among self-identified Republicans, those numbers were 79%.

Back in the 70s support for Israel was more or less even in both parties. If one goes back far enough in time, one will find Democrats to have been the ones mostly supporting Israel - far outnumbering Republicans.

Another disappointing statistic (again – not surprising) is that support for Israel is even less among the younger element – even among the most supportive Republicans. Conservative Evangelical Republican support goes down from 77% among older Evangelicals to 58% among those 18-34.

And as if that weren’t bad enough - the following is even more disturbing:

(A)n earlier study of the broader Jewish geographical scene, the 2013 Pew survey of American Jews nationwide, yielded a similarly worrisome portrait of young respondents’ feelings. It, too, found that less than a third of young Jews it asked sympathized more with Israel than the Palestinians.

At best this means that over 67% of young Jews believe there is moral equivalency between Israeli and Palestinian suffering. What is probably more likely is that they sympathize more with the plight of Palestinians than they do with Israelis!

In short the more politically liberal one is – the less likely they are to support the Jewish state. The more politically conservative – the more likely!

Why is this the case? And why are young people less inclined to support that their older counterparts even among Conservatives?

I can’t fully explain it. But let me make a few observations. First about young people.

With age comes wisdom. My hope is that as these young people get older, they will understand more about what the issues really are. The more one learns about the conflict - the more they will understand that the black and white views they had in the past - aren’t all that black and white.

Too many young people attending college having been indoctrinated by leftist college professors to see Israel as an occupying apartheid state. Some of their rhetoric is pretty hateful. There is also the mainstream liberal media whose bias favoring the Palestinian underdog is there for any discerning eye to see.

I don’t really know how pervasive the bias in academia is. But if one is to believe the reports from a variety of sources, it is pretty widespread.These academicians see only oppressors and the oppressed. Israel is the former; Palestinians the latter. There is rarely any context. Neither historical not practical. There is only one side. One ‘truth’: The oppressed peoples of the world (Palestinians) must be freed from their Nazi-like oppressors (Israelis). Who demean, torture, and kill them at will - without any repercussions; take over their land, and treat them as an inferior race.

Pro Israel speakers are boycotted and protested by students inspired by such rhetoric. Without any countervailing opinions allowed. Students so indoctrinated see being pro Israel tantamount to being pro Nazi!

Obviously this is not universally the case. But it happens enough so that many students – even some that are Jewish are indoctrinated to believe that Palestinians are being subjugated by a mighty military occupier that treats them with extreme Nazi-like cruelty!

They have no clue about the history that brought about the circumstances at hand. Refusing to listen to anyone with another view that might offer a fairer explanation of what they observe - with a jaundiced eye - happening in the holy land . They will see any such explanations as excuses for the continued cruel occupation.

Is it any wonder that young people - even Jewish ones - in so many of our universities end up with less support for Israel? I’m actually surprised there isn’t even less support than reported!

And what about the actual circumstances they observe? Should they not believe their eyes about Palestinian suffering at the hands of Israel? That’s where the mainstream media comes in. They are not as bad as academia. Their bias is more subtle. Which in some ways is even worse. They pretend to be even handed, but invariably their reports from Israel tend to be far more sympathetic to Palestinian suffering than to Israeli suffering. The subtle underlying message is, the occupied are suffering at the hands of the occupiers.

This leads to some really biased reporting that tries to pass for even-handedness. For example, when a Palestinian attacking an Israeli with a knife is shot before he has a chance to carry out the attack, the headline might say something along the lines of ‘Palestinian shot by Israeli’. Only when one gets deeper into the article might it say it was done in self defense.

This is typical of the kind of reporting in much of the mainstream media. Their influence is greater than academia because their reach is far broader. And then there is the influence of the online social media. That has become the primary source of information for young people these days. But it is an unregulated source that can and often does pass off lies as truth by unscrupulous people with their own political agenda.

What about mainstream Democrats? Why are they less supportive of Israel regardless of age? While as Rabbi Shafran points out that there are still some very strong supporters of Israel among them in Congress, clearly they are increasingly becoming a minority among voting Democrats.

I believe the reason for that might be their liberal orientation. By definition, the liberal mind is morally relativistic. Which is one reason their originally strong support for Israel has morphed into support for Palestinians When Israel was the underdog prior to 1967, Democrats championed Israel’s cause. If one goes back to the Holocaust, one will see people liberals like actor Marlon Brando actively working on behalf of Jewish victims being slaughtered in Europe. After 1967 - once Israeli Jews became percieved as strong, those same liberals started looking for a new underdog. They found it in the Palestinians.

Republicans tend to be conservative. With a more fixed set of morals and sense of right and wrong. Which is why religious people find the Republican Party more sympathetic to their views. When societal values evolve, it does so without them. They stay with their original principles. Evangelical Christians - like their Orthodox Jewish counterparts see Israel in those terms. It is their religious principles that guides their views. Which is why they tend to show such strong support for Israel.

The future will depend on the learning curve of young people. Will they remain hostile – or at best indifferent to Israel based on their youthful thought processes that have been so heavily influenced by the aforementioned factors? Or will they mature and see Israel in a more nuanced and therefore more favorable light? I can’t predict the future. But as Rabbi Shafran notes at the end of his article, 25% of Jews under age 17 are Orthodox.

Why the sudden growth? That’s because of a better Jewish education and a higher birthrate than non Orthodox Jews.Where there is a massive increase in intermarriage.

Orthodox influence will surely increase. Will that help? I don’t know. But one thing seems certain. Future support for Israel will see Orthodox Jews as the demographic that most supports them. They are the only Jewish demographic that is growing. And it is Orthodox support that Israel can be assured of.

OU Mashgiach (supervisor) - for illustrative purposes only (Jerusalem Post)

One of my first encounters with the religious politics in Israel was in the field of Kosher food supervision. It became apparent very quickly that many of the more religious Jews did not trust the supervision of the Rabbanut (the Israeli Chief Rabbinate).

Food establishments that had only a Rabbanut certificate were to be avoided. To the best of my knowledge this is still the case. In fact, many Charedim do not even trust the extra supervision of Rabbanut Mehadrin – which used to be acceptable until politics got in the way.

Among Charedim, there are few Kashrus agencies that are considered trustworthy in Israel. Fortunately for them, the largest one in Israel by far is the Eida HaCharedis. They are considered to be the most reliable of all - and the most widely used by food processors and purveyors in Israel.

I am not here to judge the reliability of the Rabbanut Hechsher. But I find it ironic that two religious ‘rivals’ have similar views about the reliability of that Hechsher. The newly formed Tzohar organization doesn’t trust them either.

Last Fall, when I met with representatives of Tzohar, I was given an example of the kinds of Kashrus problems Rabbanut supervision has. They were told by a Rabbanut certified restaurant owner that there was had been no supervision at all of his restaurant. The Mashgiach (supervisor) simply asked for a bribe in the form of some of their raw product (a steady supply of chickens if I recall correctly) and that would suffice for his approval!

That is the height of corruption in the Kashrus business. I don’t know how widespread this kind of corruption is, but I suspect that this was not the only instance of it. Which makes it very understandable why they are not trusted.

One would think that such a mutual distrust would result in a joint effort to improve or upgrade Rabbanut standards. Short of that one might expect agreement about establishing a new Kashrus licensing agency that is trustworthy. But neither of those two things are happening.

Starting a new Kashrus licensing agency seems like a good idea that should be universally supported. That is what Tzohar has done by forming Hashgacha Pratit. But that is far from the case. Charedim are clearly upset by Tzohar’s initiative and are fighting it. Although according to a Jerusalem Post article they have lost the fight.

I am not someone that automatically suspects nefarious motives on the part of the Rabbanut. I don’t think it is purely a desire to retain power and maintain monopolistic control of the Kashrus industry for no good reason.

So why are they upset? I believe it is because by allowing a rival Kashrus licensing agency to operate - it opens up the flood gates for a plethora of unregulated Kashrus agencies to open up. Agencies that may not be as scrupulous as Tzohar... or even as the Rabbanut! It would be like having a rival organization to the FDA in America.

As it stood until now, any Kashrus agency that wanted to do business in Israel needed approval from the Rabbanut and was then licensed only by them... including the Eida HaCharedis. Hashgacha Pratit is seen as the slippery slope that will end any chance at establishing universal licensing standards causing a free-for-all in Kashrus.

The obvious counter to that is that any standards the Rabbanut may have currently - are too easily observed in the breach! But as noted, I get why the Charedi world is so concerned. Sure, they want full power to be retained by the Rabbanut. But for the altruistic fear of the deteriorating Kashrus situation in Israel that might result.

I agree that is far more preferable for there to be only one agency that has control much the same way the FDA has control in America. But only if that agency is ethical and has a history on reliable Kashrus supervision. The Charedi world that is defending the Rabbanut are the same ones that trust their Kashrus the least! What will they gain if they are not trusted anyway?!

I would have preferred that instead of a new agency being created by Tzohar, that the Rabbanut instead got its own act together. That they upgraded their standards and practices and became more reliable. Starting with a thorough internal investigation; finding the corruption and ousting their corrupt Mashgiachim. But that is not and it seems never has never been the case. Of what value is the Rabbanut Hechsher is to anyone now?!

I have mixed feelings about all this. I don’t like the animus that exists between religious factions that ought to be natural allies. I would rather see cooperation towards the same goal. I realize that Tzohar is more than about Kashrus. But at least in this one area – cooperation would serve us all well. I would love to see the day when I can walk into a restaurant in Israel, see a Kashrus certificate, and then sit down and eat without wondering about the reliability of the Hechsher. Unfortunately, that has never been the case in Israel. And it appears it never will be.

Rav Shmuel Auerbach, ZL

I wasn't going to comment on the passing of Rav Shmuel Auerbach. I had some serious issues with him and felt it inappropriate to criticize someone so soon after his death. And unfair to his loved ones mourning him at this very moment. But he was a major personality in Jewish life whose views impacted a lot of people. And since it is highly unlikely that any of his relatives would ever see or even become aware of it - I have reconsidered.

There has been an outpouring of praise in many of the eulogies. I listened for a few minutes to one of the people who eulogized him at his funeral. (A funeral that was attended by many thousands!) I heard anguished cries about the loss - much the same one would hear at the funeral of any Gadol.

It made me think back to the condemnation of Rav Auerbach I heard from Charedi rabbinic leaders when he was alive. It is of course highly unlikely to hear anything negative at a funeral. One will only hear praise. I will attempt to do the some of that. But not without the criticism he clearly deserved near the end of his life.

I added ZL (Zichrono L’Vracha) after his name because I mean it. Despite my strong disagreement with him when he was alive - I hope his memory will indeed be remembered for a blessing. May the good works he did during his lifetime be an inspiration to all of us. After hearing and reading some of those eulogies, I know there were many.

Clearly he was a Talmid Chacham. Which is not surprising considering the home in which he was raised. His father, R’ Shlomo Zalman Aurebach was a man of great humility - a legend in his own lifetime. A man that was defined by his humanity and his caring for fellow Jews of all stripes - as much as he was for his vast Torah knowledge. He went out of his way to make sure that no one was ever hurt, embarrassed, or insulted by his piety. When his religious sensibilities were challenged by what he encountered in life, he never rebuked anyone. He focused inward to remedy the situation.

Apparently his son, R’ Shmuel was the same way. He was a kind and caring individual that empathized with the pain of any Jew he encountered, regardless of their level of observance.

However, I do not regret my past criticism. It was not so much because of his beliefs or politics. As much as I disagreed with him – as did most of the mainstream Charedi world, he was entitled to his opinion.

What was troubling about him was his tolerance – if not encouragement - of the constant Chilul HaShem his followers perpetrated in the cause he became most famous for during the last few years of his life: The extreme opposition to any cooperation with Israel’s conscription laws – as they affected yeshiva students. Which was in diametric opposition to the views of Rav Ahraon Leib Shteinman, ZTL - the man most mainstream Charedi rabbinc leaders considered the Gadol HaDor.

R’ Aharon Leib Steinman instructed Yeshiva students to cooperate with the government as the conscription law eventually came to be written – and register for the draft.

R’ Shmuel disagreed and told Yeshiva students not to cooperate – and refuse to register even upon pain of incarceration. For this R’ Shmuel was lambasted by fellow Charedi rabbinic leaders in the Yeshiva world. Including Rav Chaim Kanievsky.

I had always thought R’ Shmuel had a right to his views. As noted in one eulogy I saw, I believe he was motivated by his love of the Jewish people. I even believed he had a right to tell Yeshiva students to resist the new draft laws and suffer the consequences. What I strongly protested is how this opposition evolved into one Chilul HaShem after another via protests. In this regard - the behavior of the Yeshiva students that followed Rav Auerbach was disgusting!

That said, I doubt very strongly that Rav Shmuel told his young followers to behave that way. But I blamed him for the rhetoric that inspired it. And for his refusal – or lack of ability - to stop it. Especially since it happened more than once. It was almost as though he tolerated it as a means of making his point.

R’ Yitzhak Bar-Chaim (VIN)

One of the many instances those incidents came at the expense of Rabbi Yitzhak Bar-Chaim, the founder of Nachal Charedi. From VIN:

Approximately one year ago, Bar-Haim was assaulted by extremists who claimed to represent the battle against the draft of yeshiva students.

One might think that Rabbi Bar-Chaim would not have attended the funeral out of sheer exasperation about his opposition to Nachal Charedi – which was in direct contradiction to Rav Auerbach’s positions. Not to mention the beating he took from R' Auerbach’s followers because of it. But one would be wrong to think that:

In an interview after the funeral, Rabbi Bar-Haim explained that he chose to attend because, “Rav Shmuel was a gadol, great in Torah and avodas Hashem. Even if he opposed things that I’ve done, there is no question regarding the stature of his Torah and service of G-d. That’s why it wasn’t even a question for me whether I should attend this funeral. The world is now sorely missing a righteous Jew who toiled in Torah despite immense challenges and adversity.”

Recalling the beating he endured approximately a year ago from draft protesters, Rabbi Bar-Haim explains, “I know what a gentle person Rav Shmuel was. He was pleasant, soft, and unusually sensitive to the poor and downtrodden. If he had any idea how much the soldiers are suffering, I have no doubt that he would have protested strongly against the negative behavior.

It should also be noted that a Rav Shlomo Aviner, a rabbinic leader in Religious Zionist Movement had similar words of praise in his eulogy about Rav Auerbach – despite his diametric opposition to Rav Aviner’s views.

I wish I could say that had I been in his shoes, I would have done the same thing as did Rabbi Bar-Chaim. And say the same things that both he and Rav Aviner did. It shows their true humility. It shows an ability to understand and accept as legitimate views in diametric opposition to their own. Even despite the personal consequences of that opposition. And despite what it made the Yeshiva world look like to Jews outside of Israel’s Charedi orbit.

But I can’t. All I can do is see the damage (whether intentional or not) to the image of religious Judaism his views had wrought. And at the same time recognize that Rav Shmuel Auerbach had a gentler side. A side that reflected his father’s pleasant ways.

Had it not been for his strident appeal to extremism (again - whether intentional or not) he might have been remembered in the same way his father has been. But I think there will always be an asterisk next to his name when it comes to remembering his legacy.

Checking for worms (Arutz Sheva)

Mudslinging is not one of my favorite tactics. I am not inclined therefore to listen to people or organizations that use it to further their agenda. Even when I might agree with them, or otherwise support them.

Apparently it is not, however, beneath the Chief Rabbinate of Israel to resort to such tactics in furtherance of their goal. Which in this case is to retain control over all Kashrus matters in Israel. From Arutz Sheva:

The Tzohar Rabbinical organization is fast becoming like the Conservative movement," senior Rabbinate officials said, "and it would be good for the public to understand that the struggle for the kashrut system is not between the Rabbinate and Tzohar, but between the Rabbinate and the Conservative movement, which has taken over Tzohar.

"Hashgacha Pratit is an organization whose leaders and management are self-declared Conservatives, and the organization is heavily funded by charities such as the Schusterman Foundation and the Leichtag Foundation, who perpetually fund Conservative and LGBT organizations.

After trying to find such connections in an online search, I found no evidence of it. Instead I found this in a 2016 Jerusalem Post article:

Hashgacha Pratit was founded by religious Jerusalemites, including Rabbi Aharon Leibowitz, also a member of the Jerusalem Municipal Council for the Yerushalmim party. The initiative arose out of a protest against what has frequently been alleged as bad practices inherent in the kashrut supervision service provided by the rabbinate, but the organization has faced concerted opposition from the Chief Rabbinate.

No mention about the Conservative Movement in any fashion. If one wants to see exactly what Hashgacha Pratit is about - watch the promotional video below. (It is in Hebrew with English subtitles.)

Any objective observer of this debate would have to see the calm rational response expressed by Tzohar founder, Rabbi Rafi Feuerstein to be far more acceptable without any desire to hurt the Rabbinate. Unlike the Chief Rabbinate that wants to destroy Tzohar - Tzohar does not have as its goal to destroy the Chief Rabbinate. Quite the contrary. By creating this non profit subsidiary - they want to create a competitive Kashrus environment that will incentivize the Chief Rabbinate to improve. Here is what Rabbi Feuerstein said:

"With a heavy heart, and after much deliberation, we decided to set out. I will reiterate once more: We are not warring against the Rabbinate, we are disciples of Rabbi Kook," said Rabbi Feuerstein, founder of the modern Rabbinate in Israel, "and we seek only to honor and glorify the Rabbinate.

"But we cannot remain silent in face of the prevailing desecration of G-d in how the public perceives kashrut. Therefore we made our decision in consultation with the Council of Tzohar Rabbis, most of whom supported the process of establishing a non-profit subsidiary of Tzohar which would provide halakhic supervision, subject to and within the framework of the Supreme Court's decision on the matter."

Rabbi Feuerstein explained that the goal is not to attack or to discredit state kashrut. "Our goal is to sanctify the name of G-d and endear Judaism throughout the nation. We want the Chief Rabbinate to be the regulator that directs the various kashrut providers… "Our goal is to increase light and holiness, not strife and criticism.

I have to ask, Which approach sanctifies God’s name and which doesn’t? I think the answer is obvious.

I am not an opponent of the Chief Rabbinate. I do not want to see it dismantled. I do not believe that they are insincere or that they simply want power for its own sake. I believe that their intentions are more noble than that. They want to insure that Kashrus standards remain high and see this new organization endangering that by enticing food purveyors away from the Rabbinate and into a Kashrus agency they probably believe has lower standards of Kashrus.

Furthermore, by allowing one agency to compete with the Rabbinate, it will open the floodgates to many more - making it nearly impossible to know which ones can be trusted. I think that is a legitimate fear. It would have been a fair point to debate. Although I think they are clearly wrong about Tzohar’s Kashrus standards..

As I indicated in an earlier post, I can hear both sides of the argument. What I cannot hear is the mudslinging tactic used by the Chief Rabbinate. Let them make their case based on merit.

What they have succeeded in doing with their mudslinging is making themselves look desperate. It undermines credibility when one has noting substantial to say and resorts to something like that. Accusations that Tzohar is now controlled by the Conservative Movement – and are themselves becoming Conservative - is a low blow. One that should be beneath an organization that is supposed to represent the wisdom, ethics, and integrity of the Torah.

Instead of fighting Tzohar it would be far better if the Chief Rabbinate would face Tzohar’s challenge and improve Kasrhus supervision so that more people will be able to observe it. Shouldn’t that be the goal of any Kashrus agency?

Sometimes Less is More

Some Who Go Do Return

Nonsense and Common Sense

The Street Gangs of Jerusalem

Learning from Heterodox Jews

The Sad Odyssey of a Righteous Convert

For The Sake of Our Children...

A Win? Or a Defeat?

Why America is Not Poland (or Even England)

Common Sense

The Dual Shidduch Crises – Solutions and Exploitations

Not Orthodox in the Extreme!

Egalitarianism and Modern Orthodoxy

A Misleading Argument

First the Good News

Heaping Scorn on Those that Deserve it!

Who Will Support Israel in the Future?

Keeping Kosher in Israel

Rav Shmuel Auerbach, ZL

Who Would You Trust More?