Emes Ve-Emunah

A daily prayer service at the Egalitarian Section of the Kotel (Times of Israel)

I know this might seem like overkill since I have dealt with this issue so many times, but I can’t resist pointing out the obvious. Not because of some sort of cheap thrill I get out of it. Far from it. I don’t. But because it clearly demonstrates the hypocrisy of heterodoxy’s claim to need an egalitarian prayer section at the Kotel. What it may in fact demonstrate is that there is a greater need for another Orthodox prayer section.

Yesterday was Tisha B’Av - a day where Jews all over the world mourned the destruction of both the first and second temples (the Batei Mikdash). Which is what the Kotel is all about. Although it is not a remnant of the actual temple walls (although there is a minority opinion that it is), it is a remnant of the outer wall surrounding the Temple and the closest thing to it. It is where the Shechina (God’s presence here on earth) still resides.

That is why on that day, the Kotel area is filled with mourners lamenting the tragedy of losing those temples. If one is a sincerely religious Jew they not only fast on this day, but they spend it in a state of mourning for that loss. There is no more logical place to do that then the Kotel.

So that even though it might be difficult to sit outside in the hot sun in the middle of summer while fasting, one will find many Jews doing that. These are the Jews that understand what that day is all about. They are sincere about following Halacha of which mourning the destruction of both Temples is part of. And do it on Tisha B’Av in the most logical spot despite its difficulty.

Tisha B’Av would have been a magnificent day for heterodox Jews – or at least some (or even one) of its rabbis to do the same at the egalitarian plaza. But it appears that the egalitarian section of the Kotel was completely empty yesterday. Not a single Conservative or Reform Jew or even rabbi showed up, apparently.

Makes me wonder if they even care about the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash or whether any heterodox Jew even fasted on that day. Or even knew that it was Tisha B’Av. My guess is that very few did if any did, except for their rabbis, who apparently don’t care enough about Tisha B’Av to preach about it..

It’s a good thing no one showed up. The Jewish Press reported the following:

A stone was released on Sunday morning and fell from the Western Wall, crashing on the stair leading up to the Israel Section platform used by the mixed prayer groups of the Reform and Conservative movements... Miraculously there were no worshipers and no one was hurt...

Thank God for that. But the fact that no one was there begs the question of why they need a section of the Kotel in the first place if they don't use it even on Tisha B'Av? It can’t be because they care about what it represents. I would be willing to bet that not only don’t they mourn for its loss, but that they don’t think it should ever be rebuilt!

How many heterodox Jews want to return to an era of sacrificing animals on an alter in the holiest of places?

I’ll take a stab at the answer: Zero! I’ll bet if you asked any heterodox Jew if he longs for a rebuilding of the temple and restoring sacrifices they would balk at the idea! And probably say something like… animal sacrifice is an ancient barbaric ritual that should never be restored. (Although there is a minority opinion that there will no longer be animal sacrifices in the next temple, it is a minority opinion. The vast majority of the rabbinic opinion is that sacrifices will be restored. But I digress.)

And then there is this. The fact that no one uses the egalitarian plaza is no longer true. It is apparently being used on a daily basis. But not by any heterodox Jews. From the Times of Israel:

Dozens of Orthodox yeshiva students hold separate-gender services every day at a Western Wall prayer space specifically set aside in a government decision for egalitarian, pluralistic worship…

I don’t think that any heterodox rabbis have complained about this. Yet. Probably either because they don’t even know about it - never bothering to show up there unless it is for political purposes, or because they don’t care since no one else uses it anyway.

Perhaps the Israeli government should consider making this area another Orthodox section and expand it to accommodate the overflow of Orthodox Jews that pray at the Kotel in huge numbers at various times during the year (at which time there is still no one doing it at the egalitarian section)?

All of this should therefore make it very obvious that heterodox demands for an egalitarian section of the Kotel has nothing to do with the desire to pray there. It has only one purpose, to gain legitimacy for heterodoxy. Something the more honest rabbis among them have already admitted.

If that is really the case, why give them something based on the false premise that they need it… that heterodox Jews are dying to pray at the Kotel in egalitarian ways when they rarely do so now? Should Israel ever honor demands based on a false premise?

That heterodoxy wants recognition and legitimacy is understandable. Let them fight for that. It is their democratic right. Let them make any arguments they want about the value of pluralism in Israel. And let Orthodox Jews exercise their democratic right to try and prevent pluralism in Israel which they see as a destructive force. But using the Kotel as a prop for achieving their pluralistic goals is demeaning to the Kotel and ought not be part of that conversation.

Unless and until they can demonstrate a real need by a significant number of heterodox Jews that believe they can pray best only together with members of the opposite sex - their requests ought to be denied.

Finally, I want to reiterate what I have said about this issue in the past. It gives me no pleasure to fight this fight. It is a source of great pain to me. I wish there were no denominations at all. That we were all just one Jewish people – some more religious. Some less. And some not at all. That is how it used to be before the advent of any denominations. Let the Jewish people - the people of Israel live by the credo of this great country - the United States of America: One nation, under God… with liberty and justice for all. Justice best achieved under God by following His Torah. Not the winds of societal change.

Image from JTA for illustrative purposes only

Is Orthodox Judaism a greater source of sexual abuse than it is in the general population? I am flabbergasted to say that it very well might be. At least at the more extreme ends of it. I had always believed that abuse in Orthodox communities of all kinds was pretty much the same as that of the general population. But it appears that might not be accurate. From JTA, here is what recent study showed:

(I)ndividuals who have left the Orthodox community are more than four times as likely to have been molested as children than the general population.

Lest anyone think there was some sort of anti Orthodox bias in this study, it should be noted that Psychologist Dr. David Pelcovitz, one of the most respected Orthodox mental health professionals and considered an expert in sexual abuse was part of the professional group that conducted this study.

It appears that the more insular; the more extreme the religiosity of a community, the greater the chance that it will happen. And likelihood of going OTD seems to be almost guaranteed.

Is there a causal relationship? From JTA:

While Rosmarin said he hasn’t fully fleshed out the causal relationship between abuse and the abandonment of religion, he believes the study “was pretty conclusive” that there is one.

It seems as though there is. Why that is is something we can only speculate about. By using anecdotal evidence and some common sense. Here are my thoughts.

Experts tell us that the majority of sexual abuse is done by people known to the victim. People that have easy access to them. Like a beloved relative or a charismatic teacher. Being molested by someone like that who in many cases is seen an exemplar of Torah can be pretty shocking to the victim. It goes against everything they have been taught about modesty in Jewish law.

When they report it to authority figures they are often disbelieved, ignored, or told to just get over it. Sometimes even parents will advise that – believe the stigma of being a survivor of abuse will only make things worse.

And stigma there is. In spades. Not just for the survivor, but for the rest of the family. Shidduch chances become exponentially more difficult even for siblings that did not experience any abuse. Why would anyone want to get involved with a family that has been traumatized like that? Better to avoid dating anyone from that family. This is not an unusual thought process for parents and young people ‘in Shidduchim’.

There is also a sense by the survivor of great disappointment. To be sexually abused is clearly the opposite of what Orthodoxy teaches about modesty. Which may be the most focused upon Mitzvah in the more extreme version of it. After being harangued about it by their religious teachers and leaders (practically from birth) about modesty - and then seeing how those very same people react when sexual abuse happens to you is a prescription for leaving observance. There is no greater hypocrisy than that.

This attiude also results in abusers continuing to abuse new vitims freely reely since no one is going to do anything to them. In fact the more insular Chasidic communities have in the past actually forbidden reporting abuse to the authorities – conserving it Mesira - the grave sin of informing on a fellow Jew.

That most of Orthodoxy does not see Mesira that way doesn’t concern them. If abusers are allowed to roam free what can we expect?

Additional motives for these cover-ups (and that’s what they are) is the desire to not make the community look bad. They believe it is far worse to put a community in a bad light then it is for a survivor to get justice and to rid the community of abusers.

These are just some of the thoughts about why sexual abuse might be more prevalent in the more extreme and insular Orthodox communities.

I should note however that there has been some criticism of this study from unexpected sources. From JTA:

Some have expressed skepticism regarding the research by Rosmarin and Pelcovitz. While declining to comment on the study directly, Lani Santo, executive director of Footsteps, an organization that helps former haredim integrate into mainstream American life, said that while “we certainly see high rates of abuse reported by people” who have left the community, the decision to leave Orthodoxy was not necessarily due to the abuse itself…

Queens College sociologist Samuel Heilman, an expert on American haredi Orthodoxy, questioned the study’s methodology, telling JTA that he believed that the study undercounted haredim from the more insular Hasidic movements, especially as much of the questioning was done online.

The connection between abuse and the abandonment of religion was also not particularly simple, Heilman said, calling it a chicken and egg scenario.

Those who are already “on the borderline of ‘deviance’ are much more liable to be the subject of abuse because the abusers figure these people are already borderline and are less likely to be believed if they say something,” he said.

Heilman used “deviance” in the sense of individuals who deviate from the religious norms of their religious communities, which often include shunning secular education, limiting social contact with non-haredim and dressing according to distinct rules of modesty.

I hear that. But I also hear my initial thoughts on the subject. What is or isn’t true here is still to be determined. But I tend to side with Dr. Rosmarin who said that the evidence is pretty conclusive.

Food for thought, anyway.

Israeli MK Rachel Azaria - running for Mayor of Jerusalem

Nebech. All they want is to live their lives Al Taharas HaKdeosh (which basically means living in ways even holier than they need to be lived). And the world condemns them for it. True they may have gone a bit too far. But they are only children. And the Reshaim that run this country deserve no better. They insist on foisting Treif values upon us. Forcing us to to gaze at Shmutz (filth) on our buses. Buses are our primary means of transportation. Who can blame these poor young souls for trying to eradicate that from our midst?!

Besides… the idea of a woman as mayor of Yerushalyim Ir HaKodesh is a disgusting thought! Especially one that is not religious. (I have no clue whether that’s true or not. But to these people the fact that her picture is plastered on the sides of over 300 buses that traverse our community and used primarily by them - is tantamount to proof to them of that.)

We will fight these evil people with everything we’ve got. We are NOT going to allow them to infiltrate our community with their filth and anti Torah agenda. We will continue to fight them and NEVER allow anything like this to happen again.

This is the kind of reaction from Eida HaChardis types (both leaders and lay people) living in Meah Shearim and its environs that one might hear to what happened there recently. From the Jerusalem Post:

Jerusalem mayoral candidate Rachel Azaria’s bus posters were defaced in the capital by haredi (ultra-Orthodox) extremists overnight between Sunday and Monday, shortly after the end of the observance of Tisha Be’av.

Azaria rented ads on 300 buses with the slogan “Believe. It is possible to live together.” She said she received video clips of haredim destroying the posters from haredi friends.

“This violent attempt to harm the election does not reflect Jerusalem, Jerusalemites or the haredi population of the city,” Azaria said. “This was just an extremist fringe group. We in Jerusalem know how to live together in mutual respect, even if it is not always easy. We won’t let the extremists decide for us.”

This was not the first time Azaria has had to fight to get her face on Jerusalem bus ads.

In 2008, Azaria turned to the High Court after a company that worked with the Egged bus cooperative refused to put her campaign advertisements on buses because they feared a photo of a woman would upset haredim. The High Court forced the company to run the ads just three days before the municipal election.

I have heard the above kind of response to similar situations before. Usually in articles in Charedi Magazines fawning all over a community like this as the epitome of a Torah community. Articles that praise the ‘beauty’ of living their lives Al Taharas HaKodesh. Wishing that we could all rise to their level of observance and holiness.

Those articles go about describing how they live their lives in complete isolation from all the negative influences we are all subjected to on a daily basis because of our own life circumstances. Such as the need to provide for our families by working in a less than pristine Torah environment.

They might say that we should all take a lesson from these holy people and start to change our lives along their holier lines. Lives that revolve around Torah and doing Mitzvos in the most Mehudar (beautiful) way possible.

Adding that if only our collective Yetzer Hara could be as subdued as theirs is. These people are the real deal... roles models for us all by virtue of living a lifestyle dedicated to God in ways that their rabbis taught them is best way to live a Torah lifestyle. And doing so without any compromises!

What about the fact that they defaced public property? they might respond by saying OK. Maybe they shouldn’t have done it. But it is only the more zealous youth among them - and who can blame them? We should not be looking at pictures of women anyway.

This is where the problem lies. It isn’t just a problem of extremists doing things against the will of their community leaders. They are not extremists. They are young people that take seriously their commitment to live their lives in ways their rabbis tell them to. And if that means defacing a few pictures, then it isn’t only permitted. It is a Chiuv – a Halachic obligation to keep the environment as pristine and pure as possible. And erase (or deface) the Shmutz form their midst when they encounter it.

And since they are young they can take the heat. Allowing themselves to be blamed and absolving the adults of any responsibility for their vandalism. It’s kind of a built in ‘plausible deniability’. These young people are pretty much the same people that have done much worse along these lines. Insulting, embarrassing, and even causing physical harm to innocent people that they see violating their standards. Which will elicit a similar responses plus and ‘plausible deniability’ from the rest of their community. saying things like - it is only some misguided overly zealous albeit righteous youth.

What will it take for the mainstream Charedi world to recognize what is really going on? And stop fawning all over this community? To recognize that images like the one in the video are a Chilul HaShem that constantly shows religious Jews to be vandals living in isolation that care little about anyone but themselves. That in keeping their world ‘pristine’ they make Judaism into something horrible and uncivilized.

It is not enough to say that they don’t represent us. The fact is that they do. Whether we like it or not the entire world - Jew and gentile alike - recognizes that these Jews look the way they do because of how religious they are. If this is how the ultimate Jew is supposed to behave, then who needs them?! What is so good about Judaism? Why should we look to the Jewish people as a light unto the nations? people whose behavior we should emulate? What they represent instead is a people that consists of self centered thugs that should not be emulated but shunned!

These people are not role models anymore than the thugs that vandalize the streets of New York and Chicago are. They have in common the fact that they care little about anyone but themselves. And think nothing of hurting innocent people and damaging property if it suits their purposes.

True their set of values are not the same. But they have a lot in common. Their youth are the criminals and thugs. And their community that supports them with apologetics. The only real difference in their behavior towards others is the way they look. Their actions are the same.

What good is it if one buys a nicer more expensive Esrog for Sukkos if they act like criminals to the rest of the world. What difference does it make of they spend more time in daily prayer if they behave like thugs and gang members when they aren’t praying? What difference does it make how Kosher the food that goes into their mouths is if what comes out of those mouths is Treif? What good is the supposed Chesed they do for each other if they treat outsiders like dirt?

What will it take for the rest of the religious world to wake up and see just how much damage these people do to Judaism in their way of pursuing of holiness? It isn’t enough that I call them out. It should be universal. All this fawning over them about how holy they are ought to end once and for all. Looking Frum is not the same as being Frum.

Image of Kiryas Joel for illustration purposes (Times of Israel)

I have no illusions about antisemitism in the world. It clearly exists in all four corners of it. The question is how much it impacts us. It matters how any given type of antisemitism will be acted upon in how that impacts us. Even if it is menial - it is obviously wrong and should not be tolerated.

It is also important to recognize when a government policy impacts Jews negatively, it is not always because of antisemitism. Sometime that policy makes eminent sense despite of how it impacts us. Of course sometimes there might be a little of both in such polices. Which makes it almost impossible to recognize whether a government policy is really antisemitic or just good public policy.

That being said, let me reiterate what I believe to be the case in our day. I believe that the majority of European society still harbors some degree of antisemitism even after the Holocaust. That it existed in spade during the Holocaust need not be said. It didn’t suddenly go away. It’s still there.

This of course does not mean all Europeans hate Jews. Far from it. Just as I am convinced that most of Europe harbors at least some form of latent antisemitism I am equally convinced that a sizable number of Europeans do not have a antisemitic bone in their bodies.

This scenario has been reflected in numerous ways on the European continent where Jews have established thriving Jewish communities (in places like Berlin, no less). And on the other hand - where some European countries have anti Shechita and anti Bris laws are on their legislative tables. And in places like Poland where its current leaders refuse to recognize their past history of violent antisemitic behavior which was reflected by the fact that so many Poles were eager participants in Nazi genocide.

The US does not have an especially glorious past regarding antisemitism during that period either. Without going into detail all one has to do is see how the US State Department handled Jewish refugees trying trying to flee the Nazi genocide taking place in Europe. What was happening then was well publicized in the press. So that not only did government officials know what was going on, so did anyone that read a newspaper. And yet existing quotas immigration remained unfilled – leaving Jews to the slaughter.

But things are different now in the US - post Holocaust and post Vatican II.The Jewish people are no longer considered pariahs. They are now the most admired people in America. Which is one of the reasons there is so much assimilation and intermarriage now. The freedom we enjoy today is unprecedented even factoring the Golden Era of Spain and of Germany. Nothing comparable has ever happened to us going all the way back to the second temple era.

This does not mean it doesn’t exist at all. It surely does. On the right there are fringe groups that still parrot the Nazi slogans of the past. But they are a minuscule number with no practical impact on our lives today. Hardly a blip on the radar screen of relevance to us as Jews On the left, universities are filled with antisemitism masquerading as anti Zionism.

I don’t mean those who are just opposed to the current Israel govenrment. I am talking about those that embrace BDS. They believe that Israel is an abomination; Israelis are the the new Nazis; it should be destroyed and replaced by Palestine taken over by its rightful owners. Their influence should be a concern to all of us. But I digress.

But as bad as that kind of antisemitism is on those campuses, it has thankfully not filtered out to the general population. too does not really impact what mainstream America thinks about the Jews. Which should be obvious to anyone that lives here.

Which brings me to an article in the Times of Israel:

A Quebec court on Sunday ordered a group of Hasidic Jews to leave their summer homes by the end of the month for violating zoning laws by using a residence as a place of worship.

The decision came amid complaints from local residents of late-night disturbances from the group.

Town Mayor Denis Chalifoux told local media that the group was taken to the Quebec Superior Court because they were using the residence as a place of worship, which is in violation of local zoning laws.

There were also complaints from the town that the group hold rowdy gatherings until 2 a.m., and fail to keep properties according to the cleanliness standard of the site.

True - Quebec is not the United States. But Canada is America’s kissing cousin. In many ways indistinguishable from us. Hard to tell the difference between an American and a Canadian. I assume that their attitudes about us are the same. No reason to make them an exception. (Although I admit that Quebec is a bit of an outlier in terms of how American they feel. But let us assume that at least as it applies to the Jewish people they are the same.)

Is what happened there antisemitism? I don’t think antisemitism had anything to do with it. The description of what happened speaks for itself. Chasidic Jews have lived in Quebec for many decades under circumstances similar to those of the US. Free of any persecution; free to live their lives as they choose.

What they did in Quebec is break the law. Doing so in ways that had a negative impact on their non Chasidic neighbors. Those neighbors were well within their rights to try to preserve their neighborhood’s character from the Chasidic attempts to change it to their liking. The right of Chasidim to live as they choose does not extend to inconveniencing others.

But that didn’t stop the Chasidim from screaming antisemitism. It seems that the antisemitism card is always pulled out when the government gets in their way.

Their right to build a Shteibel (multiple ones in multiple houses) does not override the noise and commotion that it generates that disturbs their neighbors. The neighbors have rights too.One of which is to not have their way of life disrupted by some noisy Chasidic Shteibels. Not to mention the fact that zoning laws that forbids using a house for a public place of worship were completely ignored!.

What is happening in Quebec is that those Chasidim did what was comfortable for themselves without thinking – or perhaps even caring what ‘the Goyim’ think. And they cry ‘antisemitism’ without giving it a second thought. So self centered are they that they might even believe they have done nothing wrong despite the obvious fact that - to everyone else that they have.

This scenario has been playing itself out in American enclaves as well. I have a very close relative of that lives in Monsey. He is a hard core Charedi. He has mentioned many times with pride how zoning laws there are ignored. Stealth contractors will appear overnight to demolish a building so that they can build a multi-unit building and profit handsomely from them.

True their might be a housing shortage in those neighborhoods which should be no surprise considering the exponential growth of families that live there. But that does not excuse ignoring the complaints of - not only their gentile or non observant Jewish neighbors - but even many of their religious neighbors. They that don’t like seeing the peaceful serenity of a country lifestyle they sought when they moved there turn into a suburban version of Boro Park.

Is that antisemitism? Clearly it is not. I wouldn't like to see my neighborhood turned into Boro Park either. If I wanted to live in Boro Park, I’d move there.

If I – as an Orthodox Jew am not comfortable with a change like that, I can only imagine what non Jews that are used to living in the wide open spaces of their communities where until recently the only houses of worship were a few churches widely dispersed.

I agree with Rabbi Yosef Bechhofer who said the following in a Facebook post on the subject:

This is a problem all over. Many Orthodox residents see such occurrences - daily in Monsey, Lakewood and elsewhere - as antisemitism rearing its ugly head.They decry ordinances against building shuls as discrimination.

I counter such positions by explaining that ordinances against building shuls are not inherently antisemitic. The tendency we have towards the proliferation of multiple shtiblach rather than central shuls is understandably vexing to neighbors to whom central churches are the norm.

To which my interlocutor would continue to question whether protests against shuls are based on real concerns, or are just thinly veneered efforts to "keep the Black Hats out."

To which I would respond that even in "Black Hat" neighborhoods the shteibels are incredible nuisances. I know. I live in Monsey.

Israel's Minster of Education - MK Naftali Bennett (Times of Israel)

I’m having second thoughts. When Israel passed it Jewish Nation State law a couple of weeks ago, I thought it was merely a formalization of an existing reality. Israel is in fact a democratic Jewish State. I don’t see how it could – or should - be anything else. That is how any Jew who places any value at all on their Judaism should see it.

Although I saw that law as superfluous, I thought it did not do any harm either. Others saw it as racist. I thought: How can it be racist if all it says is what is already obvious?

The devil in this case is in the details.

Upon my first reading of those details I saw nothing that made Israel seem racist at all. But others did. Not just the antisemites of the world like Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan who called Israel’s leaders fascist and compared them to Hitler. (How curious it is to see a fascist like Edrogan calling Israel leaders fascist.)

That an antisemite spoke of Israel that way is not surprising. He has been doing that for years at every opportunity But even those that are not antisemites are upset by it. Lucy Aharish, a TV reporter for Israeli television who is both Muslim and Arab - strong defender of the Jewish State said the following:

“I feel like the state has been taken from me,” she said. “They’re taking the state and excluding me from the community of Israelis that you so want me to belong to. And it hurts me. It hurts me because you’ve excluded me. You’ve excluded me and 20 percent of the population.”

Lucy Aharish is not someone that Israel should alienate. But it isn’t just one Israeli Arab that feels that way. The Druze community, Israel’s most supportive non Jewish citizens are hurt by it, too. That has caused Minster of Education - MK Naftali Bennett to question it as well.

Minster Bennett is one of Israel’s most right wing legislators. He is a strong supporter of unfettered expansion of Israeli settlements all over the West Bank. He makes Israel’s Prime Minister look like a liberal. If he is saying that this law needs to fixed, I don’t think there is any doubt that it should be. Form the Times ofIsrael , here is what he said about it:

“After discussions with many of our Druze brothers, it has become clear that the manner in which the nation-state law was enacted was very damaging especially to them, and to anyone who has tied their fate to the Jewish state,” Bennett said. “This, of course, was not the intention of the Israeli government.”

I think he’s right about that. I don’t think the government’s intention was in any way to damage this highly supportive Arab community. I don’t think it was Israel’s intention to harm any of its non Jewish citizens. Which is why I didn’t think it was all that big a deal to formalize into law what was an already existing policy ever since the beginning of the State.

So what is it that bothers everyone so much? It is a matter of interpretation. And when things are subject to interpretation it leaves a lot of room for discrimination. It is one thing to have the situation described in this new law as Israel’s reality. But when you turn it into the equivalent of constitutional law which can be interpreted in discriminatory ways, that causes more harm than good. Here are some of thing seen as problems From the Times of Israel:

Similar to a constitution, the Basic Laws underpin Israel’s legal system and are more difficult to repeal than regular laws. The nation-state law, proponents say, which became a Basic Law, puts Jewish values and democratic values on equal footing. Critics, however, say the law effectively discriminates against Israel’s Arabs and other minority communities.

The law also declares that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, sets the Hebrew calendar as the official calendar of the state, and recognizes Independence Day, days of remembrance and Jewish holidays. One clause of the bill downgrades the Arabic language from official to “special” standing...

Here is some of the actual language (in translation form the Hebrew) of this law:

The state will be open for Jewish immigration and the ingathering of exiles

The state will strive to ensure the safety of the members of the Jewish people in trouble or in captivity due to the fact of their Jewishness or their citizenship.

The state views the development of Jewish settlement as a national value and will act to encourage and promote its establishment and consolidation.

It is rather easy to see how this can be interpreted as discriminatory. Even if that was not the intent. That I don’t see it that way doesn’t mean that others don’t.

Which is why in my view that law should not just amended as MK Bennett suggests. It should be repealed. Israel will not lose by doing so. They can still maintain the status quo ante and at the same time regain the respect of its staunchest non Jewish citizens.

Just my two cents.

Jeremy Corbyn

“I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me.” So said Conservative Republican, President Ronald Reagan when he was asked why he became a Republican. How right he was then. And how even more right he would be if he had said it now. In fact the very definition of liberal has changed.

Positions formerly held by the Democratic Party are now pretty much mainstream Republican positions. Just to take one example all we need do is look at one of Dr. Martin Luther King’s most famous statements from his “I have a dream’ speech: ‘I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.’

That used to be the position of liberal Democrats. It is now the position of conservative Republicans. What has changed is that now liberal Democrats do look at the color of someone’s skin. It’s called ‘Affirmative Action’. The color of one’s skin carries weight in how universities evaluate applications for entry. In effect it is reverse discrimination. This is not what Dr. King said or meant. He wanted what conservative Republicans want: to judge people without reference to color at all. Skin color should never be a factor.

This is not to judge the value of Affirmative Action. It is to explain what has happened to both parties. They have both moved to the left. Liberal Democrats have moved well past the center to – in some cases – to the extreme left. And conservative Republicans have moved from an elitist exclusionary right to a more inclusive political center where liberal Democrats used to be.

While this is a bit oversimplified, I think it more or less describes the evolution of both parties. Which is why someone like me who is in the political center and used to think of himself more of a liberal Democrat now find himself more at home among political conservatives.

As if that isn’t bad enough, the liberal political parties are still moving to the left and have long ago abandoned any semblance of politically centrist values. That has been made obvious both here and in the UK (United Kingdom).

The problem is that many Jews – even some Orthodox ones tend to be liberal Democrats – in spite of the fact that the party has become less tolerant of religious values – which are virtually always overridden by civil libertarian values. So that in a contest between religious rights and civil rights - Democrats will always favor ignore religious values in favor of secular ones. Republicans tend to favor and protect religious rights. Secular Jews have evolved right along with the liberal Democratic party as more of them continue to devaulate thir religious heritage. They too tend to favor civil rights over religious rights.

It was the Democrats that once championed the fight against antisemitism. Conservative Republicans were the ones that practiced the soft bigotry of antisemitism of exclusion and quotas. Jews were exteremly limted in their a variety of participation in American enterprises. Such as getting into top universities. Membership in exclusive country clubs, inabaity to buy homes in certain neighborhoods. Democreats championed the fight against all of that. They fought valiantly to give Jews and other minorities equal rights. Republicans resisted.

Now the antisemitism is in the other foot. Especiialy as it relates to Israel. One will find a lot more criticism of Israel among Liberal Democrats than they will among conservative Republicans. As they will a legislative agenda that is not as friendly to religious values (as noted above) as a Republian agenda..

The once bipartisan support Israel enjoyed is shrinking. It is the conservative Republicans that are Israel’s champions now while liberal Democrats have become more critical of Israel.

But nowhere has this phenomenon been more represented than in the UK. The liberal Labour party is now been deemed antisemtic by the three major Jewish newspapers. From the World Jewish Daily:

All three U.K. Jewish newspapers, normally fierce competitors, published the same front-page editorial on the danger posed by the antisemitic Labour party and its Jew-hating leader Jeremy Corbyn.

"We do so because of the existential threat to Jewish life in this country that would be posed by a Jeremy Corbyn-led government," stated the editorial.

"We do so because the party that was, until recently, the natural home for our community has seen its values and integrity eroded by Corbynite contempt for Jews and Israel," it continued.

"With the government in Brexit disarray," it added, "there is a clear and present danger that a man with a default blindness to the Jewish community’s fears, a man who has a problem seeing that hateful rhetoric aimed at Israel can easily step into anti-Semitism, could be our next prime minister."

Not that I am all that surprised that a European country has revealed its core antisemitism by chosing Jeremy Corbyn as the leader of one of their 2 major parties. He is an unapologetic antisemite who disguises it as anti Zionism. He denies being an antisemite. But those 3 major newspapers see right through him.

That there are members of his party that are outraged by Corbyn does not change the fact that he was in fact chosen by that party to lead it. They may not have chosen him because he is an antisemite. But they clearly didn’t care if he was.

Corbyn could very well be the next Prime Minster of England. The current Prime mister, Teresa May’s tenure is on shaky ground right now. It remains to be seen who will lead the UK if elections are called. But it is not at all far fetched that the next Prime Mister will be the most antisemtic leader of England since Menashe ben Israel prevailed upon Oliver Cromwell to allow Jews back into their country in the 17th century.

It is unlikely that anything like this will happen in the US in the foreseeable future. I don’t see an angisemite like Corbyn getting any support to run for the Presidency in either of our 2 major parties. While it’s true that in the not so distant past there have been antiemsemties from the right that have held public office. Former KKK member David Duke having been elected to the Louisiana House of Representatives.

But that was an anomaly that never went further than the Louisiana House. And aside from a fringe candidate for the Illinois house running as a Republican (and who doesn’t have the slightest chance of being elected) there are no antisemites like Corbyn who have risen to his level of prominence and power.

That’s the way things stand now as I see them. Frankly, I don’t understand how anyone that cares about their Judaism could support the Labour party in the UK now. And if things keep moving in the current direction here, I may have to ask that question later to Jewish Democrats.

I would have loved to see a bipartisan condemnation of the antisemitic violence in Europe. But at east one important Republican official has made the American position very clear. From the World Jewish Daily:

Vice President Mike Pence condemned antisemitic violence in Europe, saying it "must end.

Speaking at a State Department conference on religious freedom, Pence said, "The world has watched in horror as these attacks on Jewish people have taken place."

"In France and Germany, things have gotten so bad that Jewish religious leaders have warned their followers not to wear kippahs in public for fear that they could be violently attacked, and in too many cases, that’s exactly what’s happened,” he added.

Drawing a comparison with the Holocaust, Pence stated, "It is remarkable to think that within the very lifetimes of some French Jews — the same French Jews that were forced by the Nazis to wear identifiable Jewish clothing — some of those same people are now being warned by their democratic leaders not to wear identifiable Jewish clothing."

"These acts of violence and hatred and anti-Semitism must end," he asserted.

Camp Nageela

Yakov Vinnik is a pretty smart fellow. Over Shabbos I had a discussion with him on a variety of issues and found him to be bright and knowledgeable. Including on the subject of religion in general and Judaism in particular. While admitting that he was not religious he nevertheless had some very positive things to say about Judaism.

What makes this significant is that Yakov is only 12 years old. I met him at Camp Nageela Midwest, over Shabbos. He was wearing blue jeans, a blue tee-shirt and a baseball cap with a pro USA slogan on it. More about him later.

Nageela is a summer camp for boys in elementary school (through 8^th grade). It caters to boys and girls (separate periods) from non observant homes and operates under the auspices of the Agudah. (It also has a teen division.) I was there last Shabbos during the boys session.

What I found quite astounding (beside the fact that Agudah actually has a camp like since they are not known for Kiruv) is that none of the campers were asked to be religious even while they were there. Aside from the fact that they ate Kosher food provided by the camp they were left to their ‘own devices’ from a religious standpoint.

For example most of the boys did not wear a Kipa. Nor were they told to. I was surprised to see a Dvar Troah given by a boy whose head was uncovered. Chilul Shabbos was practically ignored. No one said a word unless they were specifically asked. Which would be responded to with an honest answer. Otherwise they were left alone.

The counselors (from high school and beyond) are all volunteers - mostly from right wing Lakewood type Yeshivos. But you would not know that to look at them because they dressed the same way the campers did. They wore blue jeans or shorts, polo shirts or tee shirts, and a variety of hats not associated with Judaism. Like baseball caps worn backwards. The only telltale sign that they were Charedi was the black velvet Kipa they wore when they weren’t wearing a cap, cowboy hat, or the like.

Counselors are not allowed to wear their ‘uniform black hat look’ except on Shabbos - clothing that is ordinarily de rigueur for these young men. Most of them had nothing to do with secular Jews of any kind. For the most part they associated only with people like themselves - other Charedim. All of a sudden they are placed into an environment unlike anything they were used to – or had ever experienced.

As if that weren’t enough, secular music could be heard all day long blasting through a loudspeaker. Even during the three weeks (including the 9 days!). Nageela even had live music during that time. All, (I assume) with the approval of the Agudah Moetzes.

One might wonder how this was in any way a Kiruv camp if this was the attitude and atmosphere? How could the Agudah Moetzes allow this kind of camp or participation in it? What is gained if the campers go home and continue their non observant ways as before?

The answer might surprise people who see the right wing as caring only about themselves. The goal is continuity of the Jewish people. By instilling in these campers a love of Judaism they might just decide that it is important to marry a Jewish woman someday when that time comes. While this may seem like a drop in the bucket in the face of a 70% intermarriage rate by 90% of the Jewish population, every Jew counts.

This is what Camp Nageela is about. Instilling a love of Judaism into these young campers. By providing them an experience heavily peppered with Jewish culture – a culture based on Halacha and tradition, the hope is that they will end up with a positive association to Judaism to the point that when they beomce adults and seek marriage - they will not want to end their line of Jewish descent by marrying out. If there is more than that - all the better. But even in those instances they have to be careful.

Sometimes they are even more successful than they want to be. One staff member told me that a bunch of campers started asking for Tzitzis. I guess they like the way it looked wearing them out and the sense of Jewish identity it gave them. Counselors were told to advise them against it in most cases. They feared it might produce a backlash from the parents if their children came home looking like that. That would be counter-productive to their goal.

Nageela is not only about the campers though. It benefits the counselors too by exposing them to a world they did not experience. One where they can be inspire - and be inspired! They learn a lot just by interacting with these campers. When camp ends many of the staff are overcome with emotion after their experience. And return each year for more the following year. All without any pay or even tips!

What about the campers themselves? Do they come back? I was told by camp director Ari Strulowitz that they have an over 70% retention rate! Many of those kids come into camp not having a clue what Orthodox Judaisms is all about and leave with a positive attitude about it.

I saw this for myself in my discussions with Yakov. Even though he is not religious he has a profound respect for Judaism and he determinedly expresses it. He wears a baseball cap in public school as a means to cover his head. He calls it his Kipa and refused to remove it when asked by his teachers. His belief in God as the Creator is based on his own rational thought. As are his beliefs of how the Torah's narrative of the 7 days of creation is compatible with scientific theories on the subject. I was truly impressed by this youngster. I asked him why he keeps coming back (this was his 4^th year at Nageela) and he told me he loves it and said that they must be doing something right if he keeps coming back.

One might wonder how Agudah was able to devise a ;program that deals effectively at a Kiruv level never having done so before. That’s where NCSY comes in. When the property was donated to Agudah it was on condition that at least part of the time it would be used for Kiruv. So they turned to NCSY for advice. (NCSY was part of the program at first as a joint project.) But Agudah wanted its own stamp on the project.

Nageela learned some of NCSY’s methods and then parted company with them. But what they have learned they have successfully integrated them into their summer camp program. I saw a lot of it there last Shabbos. In fact some of those campers end up in NCSY which is recommended to those who are felt will benefit from them.

I cannot speak highly enough about what saw at Nageela Midwest over Shabbos. If only there a lot were more summer camps like it.

Female IDF instructor demonstrating a move (Jerusalem Post)

Whenever someone prefaces a comment with the disclaimer ‘I’m no prude but…’ you can be sure it is going to have a moralizing tone to it. A prude is someone that is easily shocked by matters relating to sex. Living in a culture where sex is as common ice cream, I am not shocked when I encounter immodestly dressed women in the street. Which is a daily event in the summer. But commonality should not be the only basis of modesty in dress.

That said generally speaking - what is and isn’t considered immodest - is a matter of what people are used to. So that the aforementioned woman walking down the street wearing tight shorts in the summer hardly registers a blip on the modesty radar screen.

But this is not how Halacha understands the term. Modesty in Halacha covers many areas outside of sexual matters or clothing. But it clearly includes them.

How to define modesty in dress Halachicly is a matter of debate that has far reaching consequences on our daily lives. On the extreme right even a picture of a woman’s face is considered immodest. Extremes like that should never be the basis for policy. But mainstream views about it - should be, as long as they don't inconvenience anybody. How should Israel - a country that has a significant number of religious recruits - deal with this?

That question is raised by a story in the Jerusalem Post:

The Israeli army is warning commanders to implement IDF policy of protecting the rights of female soldiersas reports that they are being excluded for religious reasons have increased in recent months.

“Such strict [practices] are in violation of army orders and policy, do unnecessary harm to wide-scale groups serving [in the army] and are inconsistent with the IDF commanders’ responsibility,” wrote the Head of the IDF’s Manpower Directorate Maj.-Gen. Moti Almoz.

Citing cases where female soldiers were banned from wearing white shirts in general and bathing suits in pool areas, the army’s top human resources officer stated that orders must be followed to the letter by commanders.

Almoz was referring to a recent “ban” on women wearing white shirts at the Shizafon training base in the South, which came after religious male soldiers said that the shirts would be see-through and therefore immodest.

“The orders regarding appearance, dress and the common service are binding orders, and they must be acted upon as they are written. No commander may decide on his own to harshen or lighten them,’ he said, stressing that the IDF is above politics.

“In the wake of reports of a number of cases in which commanders decided to tighten the rules of appearance and clothing written in the orders – for example by prohibiting women soldiers from wearing a white shirt or prohibiting wearing bathing suits in pool areas, [this] unnecessarily hurt large groups of servicewomen,” wrote Almoz.

OK. As far as women wearing bathing suits in pool areas is concerned, they ought to have that right. What should a woman wear at a pool? Men who don't want to see a woman in a a bathing suit can just stay away from the pool. I don't think the army requires men to go swimming.

But white shirts that are somewhat see-through? What ever happened to common sense? Why would any woman want to wear something like that? Is that really a feminist goal? Is white a more comfortable color that grey or red or blue? Or is it just an old fashioned desire to look attractive and draw attention to oneself?

I can understand why men would want that. That is just the way sexuality works for men. I am willing to bet that it was men in the military that had designers of female uniforms design them with low cut slacks a few years ago. There is clearly no military need for that.

Common sense should tell us that as long as matters of Tznius do not hinder ones ability to perform their military duties, why not accommodate reasonable standards of modesty in the army? How does that hurt anybody?

One may quibble about whether women should serve in combat. I can hear both sides of that argument – although I am strongly opposed to it for reasons beyond the scope of this post. But to allow or even require women too wear sexy clothing (as in the case of the aforementioned low cut army slacks) is unfair to those find it religiously offensive.

It’s easy to say just don’t look. But if there is an elephant in the room, it’s kind of hard not to notice it.

In this age of #metoo, where just yesterday the CEO of CBS, Les Moonvez, was accused of sexually harassing several women under his employ… why contribute to a climate where everything is sexualized? Shouldn’t the smart money be on more modesty in the public square - including the army? It’s not like a soldier can just walk out if he doesn’t like what he sees.

Why not follow the example of the Miss America contest that has eliminated judging women by how sexy they look in bikinis?

I mean... really! Are army officials that clueless? Or are they doing this on purpose - desiring to create a more sexualized environment? And who in the end are the winners and losers here? Perhaps feminism is a winner, But women may in fact be the losers.

Common sense, people. Common sense!

Maharat Hadas Fruchter will be opening a new Shul in Philidelphia (JTA)

I recently had a conversation with an Orthodox woman who asked me a question I had difficulty answering. She asked me the question despite the fact that she agreed with me on the issue. She too opposes the idea of ordaining women for religious leadership positions. But the question was one asked rhetorically of her by a graduate of Yeshivat Maharat who had recently taken a rabbinic position in her town.

The question was: If an Orthodox Jewish woman believes she has a calling to lead an Orthodox Jewish community, what avenues are open to her Halachicly? If not as a spiritual leader in a synagogue, where else?

I was caught off-guard and did not immediately have any good answer for her other than the knee-jerk retort of, ‘Why does she feel the need to lead?’ Following my lead of answering a question with a question she retorted, ‘Why does a man feel the need to lead?’ Men have an avenue to fulfill their calling. Why can’t women have the same opportunity to fulfill their calling?

Neither of us were inclined to continue what might have been a lengthy discussion. And since we both agreed that Orthodoxy does not permit women to become rabbis, we ended it there. But I regret leaving that question hanging.

First the idea of a calling should never be made without understanding whether that desire is based on what God wants or on what we want. The purpose of Judaism is to serve God. How we do that is determined by a variety of factors - all of which ultimately stem from the Torah – God’s written word.

Just to take an extreme example to make the point, if one sincerely believed their calling was to serve God through the medium of some form of idolatry - that would obviously be a mistake on their part. The fact that virtually all Poskim across the spectrum of Orthodoxy (with the exception of rabbis on the extreme left) reject the idea – places into question whether her desire to lead a congregation of Jews really is a calling.

The same thing is true for a man. He might make the same mistake and see his desire to lead as a calling. Although he may legitimately pursue the rabbinate, that does not necessarily mean he is doing it because he believes that is what God wants him to do.

How do we know exactly how to interpret God’s Torah? That is what the major Poskim are for.

The basis for not permitting a woman to be a spiritual leader has absolutely nothing to do with her natural abilities, intelligence, knowledge, or temperament. It is primarily based on Halacha, precedent, and Mesorah (tradition) as outlined in an OU statement that addressed this issue.

Breifly there is a concept called Serarah (communal leadership) from which women are excluded. It is based on a ruling of the Rambam (Hilchos Melachim - 1:5). Which he bases on the Sifri commentary on the Torah (Devarim – 17:15) forbidding women to be appointed king. The Rambam (based on the Gemarah - Yevamos 45b), extends that exclusion to all positions of communal leadership. To quote from the OU:

(Rav Soloveitchik) assigned great significance to the ruling of the Rema (Yoreh Deah 1:1) barring a woman from being appointed as a community shochet as being representative of a general preclusion of women from all formal religious appointments (minuyim) over the community at large. The Rav explained that during the times of the Rema, appointment as the community’s shochet required the earning of a formal “license” (kabbalah) from a chakham. When the position of shochet became an official religious appointment in the community, it became restricted to men.

Surely that same logic applies to becoming a rabbi. Even though Semicha (ordination) does not grant the same authority it did in pre Talmudic times, logic dictates that if it is to have any meaning in our time it should be treated the same way.

Furthermore the role of precedent has always been given heavy weight in Halachic decisions. (As it does in the legal rulings of the American judiciary.) There is no precedent for giving a woman Semicha despite the fact that there were women in Jewish history that were very knowledgeable in Halacha. They were recognized for their scholarship but were never ordained. That sets the precedent for our time.

This is also where mesorah comes in as noted by the OU statement:

Authentic mesorah is… an appreciation for, and application of, tradition as the guide by which new ideas, challenges and circumstances are navigated.

The OU has therefore made the decision to not allow membership to any Shul that hires a woman as their rabbi - regardless of what title she uses.

But even leaving aside the ruling of these OU (and other) Poskim, I have made arguments against it on practical grounds. The idea of a woman leading a Shul from behind the Mechitza is like a conductor trying to conduct an orchestra from the balcony instead of instead of doing it in front of the orchestra. It might be possible but it would be both awkward and laughable. Is this any way to execute one’s calling?

This is however how an ordained woman will be performing her duties as a rabbi in a new synagogue. From JTA:

A woman ordained by the Orthodox Yeshivat Maharat is opening her own synagogue in Philadelphia.

Rabbanit Hadas Fruchter, 28, announced Saturday that she will open a Modern Orthodox synagogue in Philadelphia…

She was ordained that year by Yeshivat Maharat, a liberal Orthodox seminary in New York City.

Fruchter, the granddaughter of a rabbi, told the Post that she dreamed as a teenager of marrying a rabbi because she did not think she could ever be one.

She told the newspaper that her synagogue is “going to be traditional, halachic: fully in line with Jewish law in terms of Modern Orthodox understanding.” This means that she will have to give her sermons from the women’s side of the mechitzah and will not count in a minyan, a prayer quorum of 10 men.

Start-Up Shul, founded by Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld and Steven Lieberman to create gender-inclusive Orthodox synagogues, will fund two synagogues this year and plans to increase to four or five new synagogues a year down the line, according to the Post.

How sad it is that Rabbi Hertzfeld feels qualified to defy virtually all Orthodox Poskim and create a synagogue that will be rejected by mainstream Orthodoxy. How sad it also is for Rabbanit Fruchter to believe that her calling is to lead a congregation of Jews that will surely be marginalized if not actually be ostracized by the rest of Orthodox.

That synagogues like like this are popping up now does not mean they will last. No matter how idealistic one thinks they are by defying all the major Orthodox Poskim, Jewish history has not treated kindly those that have defied religious authority.

Even great movements like the Conservative movement which was believed by many people to be the wave of the Jewish future in America by not a few of its renegade Orthodox founders - is likely to become extinct in one or two generations. Does Rabbi Herzfeld really believe his new synagogues will fare any better? What a shame that sincere women like Rabbanit Fruchter are being led astray by rabbis that ought to know better – well intentioned though they may be.

Peleg Protesters (VIN)

Here we go again. According to a story in JTA (republished at VIN) I am ashamed to report that 400 Charedi students did their level best to make yet another Chilul HaShem - in what they surely believe was a Kidush HaShem:

More than 40 haredi Orthodox protesters were arrested in Jerusalem during a demonstration against the arrest of a yeshiva student who refused to register for the draft.

The demonstration on Thursday morning closed an intersection near the entrance of Jerusalem.

Police and some of the estimated 400 protesters clashed during the demonstration, which also stopped the Jerusalem light rail on Jaffa Road. The demonstrators shouted “We will die before we enlist,” Ynet reported.

The demonstration that closed Jerusalem roads came a few hours before the start of the Jerusalem Pride Parade, which will close roads and bring out extra security.

By now most people know who these students are. They are part of an extremist religious party called Peleg (founded by R’ Shmuel Auerbach). Their sole purpose is to defy any attempt by the Israeli government to draft them into the army (or some form of national service).

In service to that goal they reject even registering for the draft which would give them the option of an exemption or deferment. Which is the path taken by the more rational and sane Charedi leaders in Israel Leaders that are both idealists and realists. They are willing to cooperate with the government as long as it leads to Yeshiva students being left alone.

The question is who is going to come out the winner here. Will it be the more sane and rational Charedim that are willing to negotiate a compromise acceptable to all? Or will it be the insane and irrational Charedim that are willing (they say) to die for the cause?

(My views on whether all yeshiva students should be automatically given an exemption are irrelevant to this discussion.)

At this point I don’t know which faction has greater numbers or is stronger. What I do know is that the ones making all the noise are the intransigent idealists that are willing to die rather than register and get a deferment. They say that. But they are not even willing to spend one day in jail for their convictions since this protest was all about getting one of their draft dodgers out of jail.

It is this noise that is the Chilul HaShem the 'gift' that keeps on giving. As it did once again here. That 40 students were arrested is a start. Unfortunately when it comes to these kinds of arrests, they don’t mean much in terms of consequences. They are almost always released due to one of the Charedi K’nesset members interceding on their behalf.

As I have said before, these are not the Eida HaCharedis Meah Shearim extremists doing this. They are mainstream Yeshiva students that have been inspired by the wrong person. They view Peleg’s fonder in cionic terms, especially once he died. Death has a way of elevating someone beyond human proportion. Especially in the Charedi world. All one has to do is read an ArtScroll ‘biography’ of a deceased religious personality. They will see a characterization that can only be describes as being angels walking on earth when they were alive. Perfect human beings created by God from their very inception in the womb.

This is the mentality they are dealing with. Students that might otherwise be seen as mainstream Charedim become ‘monsters’ in the name of their founder. Believing that his views were God’s views. That there are other great religious figures that – not only don’t believe this is God’s will but goes against God’s will - doesn’t mean anything to them.

In short, they have been brainwashed. There is no better explanation for their behavior. I’d be willing to bet that any encounter with them that does not involve the draft – will elicit a more or less mainstream Charedi approach. But when it comes to the draft, their eyes must glaze over. And they turn into a self-centered mob blinded to any collateral damage that will result. Caring little about anything but getting their way.

It’s kind of ironic that they have ignored the Gay Pride Parade. Something that I believe should not take place. Just because we should treat every human being (including homosexual people) with the dignity required of being created in the image of God, that does not include celebrating a lifestyle that is conducive to violating a Halacha. One that is considered a capital offense! It is one thing to treat them individually with respect and dignity. It is another to celebrate that lifestyle. Especially in the holiest city in the world, Jerusalem.

(I would not, however, encourage an actual Gay Pride Parade protest. I would allow it to pass in peace. That is because a huge protest has in the past had generated deadly violence by a misguided extremist... And on the other hand it would surely generate a huge backlash. Why tempt fate that way? I would have understood it. But I digress.)

I’m glad those boys were arrested. I am not however glad they will probably be released almost immediately. Not that being brainwashed is their fault. But without consequence to their actions - the Chilul HaShem will continue. Of course keeping them in jail would have generated more protests like this. But it needs to be done. Israel must stand its ground if they ever hope to convince these people of the futility of their ways.Since their common sense on this issue has long ago disappeared.

Convicted sex offender Nechemya Weberman - a glatt Kosher Jew?

What began more than a decade ago as a facility to provide New York State inmates who desired kosher with inherently kosher fruits and vegetables has evolved into a modern “full service” glatt kosher facility, under the supervision of the Orthodox Union (OU).

This is the opening paragraph of a recent bulletin from‘Kosher Today’. I didn’t know whether to laugh, applaud, or cry. I kind of feel like doing all of those.

The fact that we need the New York State Department of Correctional Services Food Production Center facility to expand its kosher meal program to include 1100 hot meals including beef and poultry - should not be a source of pride. Even though one might see that as quite the accomplishment - one that required years of work - the fact that there are so many ‘Frum’ Jewish criminals is a sad commentary about ourselves. Especially since we as an Or LaGoyim (light unto the nations) ought to be shining examples of behavior to the world instead of criminals. (Although some of those 1100 are Muslims - they are obviously a small percentage.)

True the vast majority of Orthodox Jews are not criminals. That there are enough for the state of New York to have a full service glatt kosher facility ought to be a source of shame not pride.

This is not to say that we shouldn’t try to accommodate Orthodox Jewish criminals with Kosher meals (Although that very comment kind of sticks in my throat). If possible we should accommodate them. But it comes with a price. One that we should consider when going forward with a project like this.

That price is one that is thrown at us all the time by he antisemites of the world. Why are ‘the Jews’ being treated better than everyone else? Why can’t the general prison population get some of the perks that Orthodox inmates get?

It is true that we need no pay attention to what an antisemite thinks. Most of whom reside in the fringes of society. But their questions aren't asked in a vacuum. This is not something I would want to defend.

One can argue that the instead of looking at it negatively, one should look at the kind of brotherhood we Jews feel for each other as an example for others. The kind of brotherhood that goes the extra mile even if one of us is in prison. If other communities want to help inmates form their own communities let them use us an an example of how to do that.

While that may be true, the fact that Orthodox Jewish inmates get better treatment is what a lot of people will notice. Not saying we shouldn’t do it. Just saying we ought to be aware of it and try to somehow ameliorate that perception.

One thing we perhaps should NOT be doing is advertise it as some sort of great achievement as though there were no downside. There is. Nor do I think it is in our best interests as religious Jews to highlight the fact that there are that many Orthodox Jewish inmates by talking about how we are taking care of them. This is not the best way to present Orthodoxy to the world.

The plain fact is that when someone is convicted of a crime he has forfeited his freedom.Why should that not apply to religious freedom? While I don’t advocate that any Orthodox Jews be forced to eat non Kosher food, I can hear that argument being made. In a nation of laws – breaking those laws may mean forfeiting that right. Especially it comes at tax payers expense. Why should an individual be given the rights to continue following his own laws when he ignored those of his country? I can easily understand why some might argue that this right be denied.

And what about non Jewish inmates? It is likely that quality of Glatt Kosher meals is far superior to standard prison fare. Why should Jews get a benefit that is denied to non Jewish inmates? If the state of New York were to be fair about it, they should offer these meals to every single inmate in prison. It would cost too much?! Is that a reason to favor one population over another? That it cost too much did not stop the state from doing it for Frum Jews. Does the New York penal system have excess funds in the coffers?

These were a few of my thoughts as I read this bulletin. I’m happy that Frum Jewish inmates are able to eat Kosher food. But I am not that impressed that they are there in the first place – nor the am I all that happy about the publicity or the possible negative fallout of doing that.

by Moshe Kurtz

Moshe Kurtz

I do not normally post articles that have been published elsewhere. The vast majority (by far) of material published here is original. Including the occasional guest contribution. As a matter of policy I reject virtually all pre-published submissions even if I agree with what they say.

Today’s post (first published in the Times of Israel) is a rare exception to this policy. Moshe Kurtz, a rabbinical student at Yeshiva University, has written what I consider a profound and insightful analysis of what is happening in the world of Modern Orthodoxy. It is a bit longer than what I normally post here, but it is well worth reading and deserves as wide a distribution as possible. It follows in it’s entirely.

It is an odd but recurrent reality that two schools of thought that bear diametrically opposed value systems will reach the same conclusion. Rabbi Elchanan Wasserman, despite being an outspoken opponent of early Zionism, once wrote (Koveitz Ma’amarim, p. 161) that he hoped the founding of the State of Israel was the beginning of the ultimate redemption. He posited that Jewish history is full of dark times followed by a redemption commensurate with the difficulty of the challenges that preceded it.

Rabbi Wasserman contended that until now the Jews have always suffered through exiles designed by other nations, but today the Jews find themselves in an exile created by their own brethren, the Jewish State – certainly the redemption that God has in store must be the final one!

Ironically, Rabbi Wasserman’s opposition to early Zionism led him to the same eschatological aspiration shared by contemporary religious Zionists: The founding of the State of Israel is a harbinger for the End of Days.

This example is not the first or last time that two diametrically opposed Jewish schools of thought disagreed fundamentally yet agreed functionally.

We live in a time when Modern Orthodoxy is arguably forming a schism both institutionally and ideologically. For the purpose of this article, I use the term Right-Wing Modern Orthodoxy (RWMO) which includes the Right-Wing and Centrist Modern Orthodox establishments as one category, and Left-Wing Modern Orthodoxy (LWMO), which includes Liberal and Progressive Modern Orthodox establishments as the second.

I aim to change the way we think about Jewish denominationalism, and to argue the potentially upsetting, yet logically compelling truth, that Right-Wing Modern Orthodoxy and Left-Wing Modern Orthodoxy are fundamentally two diametrically opposed ideologies that merely give the appearance of forming a spectrum within one sub-sect due to similar functional policies. Hence, RWMO and LWMO, even when they agree on many practices, do so based on irreconcilably different value systems

The crux of my assertion is that within the vast spectrum of Jewish denominations ranging from Reform to Orthodox there are only two possibilities. One is either rooted in a fundamentally Western/secular ethos or fundamentally traditional values; everything in between represents a departure from one of the two baseline norms. Hence, Reform Judaism is both fundamentally and functionally rooted in secular moral values, whereas on the other extreme, chareidim are both philosophically and functionally traditional in their moral outlook.

Granted, neither of these statements are newsworthy. However, what do we make of this strange animal known as Modern Orthodoxy – is Modern Orthodoxy fundamentally traditional, just with some progressive tendencies, or is it essentially modernized but tries to reconcile it with halachah and traditional strictures?

My thesis is that both sides of this chakirah (dichotomy) are true, just for different types of “Modern Orthodoxy”. I argue that RWMO fundamentally values a traditional social model as the norm, albeit with deviations, while LWMO looks towards progressivism as an ideal state of affairs. This disagreement is the underlying point of contention causing a profound lack of understanding, and at times strife, between the Right-Wing and Left-Wing Modern Orthodox communities.

To move from the abstract to the practical, I would like to introduce a sub-dichotomy of egalitarianism vs. traditional gender roles as a proxy for the larger debate:

Take the innovation of Yoatzot Halachah and Maharats in recent years. One could view the two innovations as almost arbitrary points along a spectrum where certain rabbis feel comfortable drawing a line for women’s leadership. Some are comfortable ordaining women as full members of the clergy, whereas more conservative leaders only wish to delegate them (pseudo-)authority in the area of hilchos Niddah.

I want to argue that these innovations aren’t superficial phenomena of simply choosing where to draw the line – these are carefully deliberated choices based on each form of Modern Orthodoxy’s perceived ideal norms.

Here are the parameters for my theory:

(A) Each school of thought has a perceived norm or point of departure.

(B) Each party will only depart from that norm when there is a compelling reason to do so.

Now let us apply these rules to the Modern Orthodox controversy over women’s leadership:

(A) LWMO’s point of departure or baseline assumption is that men and women should have equal roles.
(B) They need to deviate from that norm due to the compelling reason to adhere to halachah.

(C) They will permit women to become rabbis because they will only deviate from the egalitarian norm as much as necessary – and as long as there is a way to find halachic justification they will utilize it to limit the deviation that was undesired from the onset.

(A) On the other hand, RWMO’s baseline assumption regarding gender roles is traditional in that men and women have differentiated roles.

(B) They find a compelling reason for women to become Yoatzot, to assist women in ways that men are not capable.

(C) They limit the authority to hilchos niddah (and even within hilchos niddah) since there is no necessity to deviate further from the baseline assumption of differentiated male-female roles.

Note, that I don’t believe that the positions of Yoetzet or Maharat inherently belong to divergent ideologies – rather, it is the argumentation used to advance each respective position that is reflective of disparate values. Also, it is not the case that RWMO rabbis are unaware of sources to permit women in Torah leadership beyond Yoatzot – rather they see no compelling reason to innovate and depart further beyond that point. Therefore, any further innovation would be perceived as being influenced by secular/liberal priorities rather than traditional Torah values.

However, when one adopts a fundamentally egalitarian point of departure, the claim of Left-Wing proponents is very cogent: Why would one choose to inexplicably draw the line of women’s leadership at Yoatzot when there are sources to justify and perhaps even encourage full clergy status?

If the goal is to bring the Modern Orthodox community as close to egalitarianism and Western norms as possible, then it is indeed unreasonable to forbid full female leadership in light of sources that can support it.

This formula can be applied to other major points of controversy between the Left-Wing and Right-Wing Modern Orthodox establishments, at very least within the area of social policy, if not beyond. Take another example such as partnership minyanim. Why is it that members of LWMO have been major proponents of this innovation, while Modern Orthodox rabbis such as Rav Henkin have concluded that it is beyond the pale?

The reason here is that this new form of minyan runs contrary to the traditional norm, and RWMO has not been convinced that there is a compelling reason to introduce a seemingly progressive practice.

Whereas LWMO would desire in ideal circumstances to have a full egalitarian minyan, they would still need to reconcile it with halachic sources. Take a look at the partnership minyan guide provided on Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance (JOFA)’s website – the whole premise is founded upon reinterpreting and finding minority opinions to justify the conduct.

It makes sense according to this formula: The utopian ideal is equal gender roles, the reason to depart is halachic stricture, and the limitation is to use the most lenient interpretation of halachah to minimize the necessary departure from the egalitarian baseline.

The fascinating conclusion that one can draw from this observation is that if one agrees to my analysis that RWMO’s point of departure is differentiated gender roles, and LWMO’s is egalitarianism, then RWMO has philosophically more in common with chareidi Orthodoxy, and LWMO with Reform than they have with each other!

The reason that we view them as points along a single spectrum within a sub-denomination we call “Modern Orthodoxy” is because each party has departed so far from their norm that they meet in the middle on almost every issue. It is chiefly in the area of social policy that we see a tear in the artificial binding that holds them together.

But in truth, RWMO is a more modernized form of chareidi Jewry and LWMO is a traditionalized form of Reform. The ideological rupture has always been lurking under the surface, and it has only been a matter of time until it reared its head. To put it in more moderate terms, LWMO is very similar to the new sect of “Halachic Egalitarianism”, with the one distinction that while the latter chose the route of “updating” the laws regulating halachic social policy, LWMO makes a valiant struggle to reconcile both the modernity and tradition that they value.

(For the reader who is familiar with general communal programming and events, this theory would explain why LWMO institutions are by and large more comfortable with collaborating on interdenominational programming with denominations to its Left, while RWMO leans towards programming with Orthodox sub-denominations to its right. I do not need to elaborate on this matter, as a regular reading of Jewish newspapers and scrolling of one’s Facebook feed can reveal this assertion to be true.)

I want to take this argument one step further and conjecture that even when RWMO and LWMO agree, it can be for completely distinct reasons. Generally speaking, when RWMO leaders promote women’s Talmud learning, they do so to advance Jewish Torah knowledge as a whole. In contrast, LWMO leaders will generally promote women’s Talmud learning with the (additional) goal of achieving gender equality. They will both support women’s advanced learning, but the values that went into that decision are disparate, and at times diametrically opposed, despite the same result.

Both RWMO individuals and LWMO individuals live in the same communities, attend many of the same synagogues and are even members of the same families. Both camps are similar on a functional level, and that is why they both live together. In my experience, many lay-people have difficulty noticing, or at least, articulating the underlying difference. The fact that some refer to the splitting phenomenon within Modern Orthodoxy as a schism is inaccurate – LWMO and RWMO are two ideologically different sects, and we are seeing the manifestation of these disparities in present time.

While this double-denomination theory of Modern Orthodoxy may sound disheartening, I chose to bring it to the public’s attention for two reasons. Firstly, I think it will enable anyone who identifies with the term “Modern Orthodox” to think about their ideology in a more nuanced manner.

Secondly, I think this theory has the counterintuitive potential to decrease strife and friction with the conventional “Modern Orthodox” community.

In my experience attending a charedi Yeshiva from childhood through high school, I heard a number of condescending remarks about Modern Orthodoxy – but, I can attest that most yeshivish rabbis do not concern themselves with the policies of YU or the RCA that run contrary to their philosophy of Torah Judaism.

The difference in our scenario is that RWMO and LWMO both share, and more importantly, claim, the identity and right to shape what we know as “Modern Orthodoxy”. Thus, for one side to claim that Modern Orthodoxy is more Right-Wing or more Left-Wing is an attack on the other’s very identity! Whereas the yeshivish world has the comfort and security of simply writing off what Modern Orthodox institutions do as something that is not their own.

Therefore, I would like to make the difficult, yet I believe accurate, proposal, that we accept the inherent ideological “schism” and begin to view RWMO and LWMO as two separate sub-denominations, even granting the view that both remain firmly within the bounds of Orthodoxy. With this model of thinking I hope that both RWMO and LWMO, or whatever they should be re-titled, will no longer feel mutually threatened, and that members from both sub-denominations will interact professionally and cordially while both remaining clear and resolute in their respective identities.

Update
A response to Moshe’s article by fellow YU rabbinical student, Steven Gotlib can be found in the Times of Israel.

Guest contribution by Paul Shaviv

Jeremy Corbyn - Will he be the next Prime Minister of the UK?

I am once again pleased to host another fine essay by Paul Shaviv, one of the most respected educators in Orthodoxy. Typical of Paul’s modesty he identifies himself only as ...an expat Brit who now lives in North America (and has) just returned from a visit to the UK. I was not going to let him get away with that.

He touches upon topics frequently discussed here.While I ordinarily add a disclaimer to guest submissions along the lines of - the views expressed by the writer do not necessarily reflect my own, in this case they very closely do. His words follow in their entirety.

England’s Jewish community is in uproar on several fronts. The biggest, by far, is on the political scene – a situation which may be a harbinger for similar, serious, developments in other countries. Here is a brief roundup:

The crisis with the Labour Party:

Britain’s equivalent of the Democrats is in crisis over antisemitism at every level within the party. For decades, the Labour party was the comfortable home to many Jews, and featured several very pro-Israel and pro-Jewish leaders. This turned completely when the then (Jewish) leader of the party, Ed Milliband, made membership and voting changes in the party structure, opening the door to the unexpected election as leader in 2015 of a hitherto fringe veteran MP, Jeremy Corbyn.

Corbyn is a hard leftist, of the neo-Communist school, and he brought into leadership positions a group of far-left individuals, all of whom identified with anti-West, anti-Establishment beliefs. They were also sympathetic to Islamist movements, and various terrorist groups – the IRA, Hamas, Hizbollah and others.

Under this umbrella, many anti-Israel and anti-semitic individuals apparently felt safe. Jews began to feel uneasy in Labour, and the language of discourse began to include “Zio”s (“Zionists” – a shorthand for Jews) and other abuse. Jewish MP’s were under online attack in the vilest terms, and multiple episodes of abuse surfaced. Half-hearted measures and “enquiries” seemed cosmetic only.

This all recently came to a head with the refusal of Labour to adopt a widely agreed definition of what constitutes antisemitism (the IHRA document) – instead, without consultation with the Jewish community, adopting a compromised definition which left open all sorts of loopholes. It didn’t help that Corbyn gave prominence to a fringe, far-left Jewish group, whose leader stated that she “only identified with Judaism in order to be able to attack Israel”; or that Corbyn’s past identification with anti-Israel groups keeps on surfacing.

The conflict has escalated and escalated. Over sixty rabbis – unprecedentedly in England, including Haredi, M O, Reform and ‘Liberal’ – published a letter of concern. Jewish newspapers in the UK published a common ‘front page’, with a giant headline “United we stand!”. Two MP’s who accused Corbyn of antisemitism were within hours placed in party disciplinary process - contrasting with the laggardly process of disciplining Labour anti-Semites themselves…..

But where will this end? It is unprecedented for the community to be in open conflict with a major political party like this. It is also unprecedented for the Labour party to treat any other community as it is currently treating Jews.

If the party comes to power – and for many reasons, including Brexit and an incredibly weak Prime Minister, it is possible – where will the Jewish community, collectively and individually, stand?

If it is defeated at the next election, will “the Jews” be blamed? Jews of all ages and all persuasions are openly discussing emigration, and are resigning from the Labour party in droves. For updates, just Google ‘Corbyn’……. Stay tuned.

Charedi schools against the Government:

Rabbi Abraham Pinter of Stamford Hill - a Chasidic enclave in London

In the UK, even totally private (ie non-Government funded) schools have to meet minimum educational standards. These include minimal literacy (in English) and numeracy standards. More recently, they include the requirement of education regarding British society and ‘British values’.

For years, the Government ignored the Charedi sector, content to let this tiny group alone. Several factors have changed this: the sheer growth in numbers of Yiddish-speaking schools; the growth of Moslem schools whose curriculum content has alarmed the authorities (and the necessity of treating all schools equally…); the growing trend against ‘faith schools’ in British society; and parallel concern about health and safety standards in yeshivot.

The government, via its schools inspection service, (“Ofsted”), carried out a number of inspections of Haredi schools. Several passed the inspections with flying colours. However, the (mainly Hassidic) yeshivot in Stamford Hill cried “Gevalt!”.

The requirement is not that schools promote other religions, multiculturalism, or LGBT lifestyles, or evolution – but that they tell the students that such phenomena exist in British society, and that tolerance of others (not necessarily agreement) is necessary.

Well, there are clear signs that the younger generation of Hassidim (and Haredim) do not all agree with their leadership, and want higher ‘secular’ standards in their schools – particularly basic English skills. In confrontation and refusal to even consider the Ofsted concerns, the yeshivot cannot win; and the leadership does not have the total support of the kehilla.

Something has to change.

A third potential storm has only recently appeared on the horizon: In the course of a complex divorce case which reached the High Court, details emerged of an allegedly fraudulent process in which a young Haredi family obtained funds for house purchase to which they were not entitled; and the intricacies of which also enabled them to subsequently claim government housing assistance. The sums involved were huge.

The wife claimed that she had been coerced into this arrangement by pressure from her community, with the blessing of local London rabbis, and a ‘Grand Rabbi’ in Israel. She alleged that these arrangements were widespread in her community. The judge had harsh words to say, and the case and the alleged “widespread” irregularities were reported in the local (non-Jewish) press, and in the Jewish Chronicle.

The rabbinate of the Haredi community issued a statement demanding that the judge withdraw his comments, and declaring that they did not approve of illegal practices in any context. Online comment suggested otherwise…. If this triggers further investigations, trouble may lieahead.

The Jewish community in England’s green and pleasant land has for centuries enjoyed a relatively peaceful and harmonious existence, with few crises. The community as a whole has kept its profile low – suppressing, perhaps, the component of community/ethnic pride and activism which has played such a large part in American Jewish life. Are things changing?

Where will it lead?

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei (WSJ)

I can understand why those who supported the nuclear deal with Iran did so. Their argument seemed quite solid. A terrorist regime like Iran equipped with nuclear weapons was an unprecedented threat to the world. They were on the precipice of pulling that off. Along with a ballistic missile system capable of delivering those weapons anywhere in the world. Including ‘The Great Satan’ – America. Of which masses of their devout screamed ‘Death to America’. Which is practically their national credo.

The the nations of the world had sanctioned Iran - boycotting doing any business with them. That really hurt them financially and brought them to the negotiating table. Those negotiations led by the US resulted in a deal that removed those crippling sanctions in exchange for delaying further development and production of nuclear weapons for a period of at least 10 years. Which would have ongoing verification by international inspectors.

Much of the civilized world seemed to breath a collective sigh of relief. That deal has allowed international business dealings with Iran which has been beneficial for both Iran and the nations of the world that desired to do business with them.

Critics of the plan dismissed the deal since it did not stop Iran from getting the bomb. It only delayed it for 10 years (or perhaps a bit more depending on who you believe).

It did nothing to stop them form developing a ballistic missile system capable of delivering nuclear destruction anywhere in the world.

It did not stop Iran from being the worlds biggest state sponsor of terror - exporting it all over the world. They continue doing that with impunity. They send money and weaponry to surrogates in Lebanon (Hezbollah) and in Gaza (Hamas). They send troops to Yemen, Iraq, and Syria.

They have not given up their sworn goal to destroy Israel and give it back to Palestinians like Hamas. All in their ultimate goal of spreading their version of Islam to the world .

In short this deal was not worth the paper it was written on.

Supporters pretty much admitted that the deal was flawed in all the above ways but they claimed this was the best deal they could get. In the meantime they hoped that by releasing Iran from the severe sanctions regime they would become more integrated into the civilized world. And as such they would no longer seek nuclear weapons and instead appreciate the peace and prosperity that resulted from that deal and would no longer be a danger to the world.

They claimed that opponents of the deal could not have come up with anything better that Iran would have accepted. This was the consensus of all those nations of the world that participated and therefore – along with the US - signed that deal with Iran.

Which brings me to President Trump. He was was absolutely correct in canceling that deal. That the President's political opponents are upset by this should come as no surprise. But the nations that signed onto it are equally upset. if not more so!

The claim is that Iran will immediately resume development of nuclear weapons. But I suspect that it is not entirely for that reason those nations are so upset. I believe they are motivated more by financial considerations. Restoring those sanctions will hurt their economies. They want to trade with Iran.They are already doing so. Stopping it will hurt them big time. Nuclear fears are at best secondary for them.

Those nations have pledged to continue to honor their commitment to the deal and continue trading with Iran. The US on the other hand has just issued a snap back of sanctions that were in place before that deal was singed. And they have threatened to boycott doing business with any nation that does business with Iran. Follow the money. That has often been a pretty good barometer of determining motive.

Let us examine what is happening now in Iran and see whether breaking the deal is a good idea or a bad one.

The fact of the matter is that the Iranian Revolution that turned Iran into an Islamist terrorist state nearly 40 years ago - was not universally supported by all Iranians Only the Islamist followers of their exiled cleric, Ayatollah Khomeini. There were plenty of Iranians that were happy with the status quo under the Shah who tried to bring his country into the twentieth century - modernizing it by following the western cultural model of the United States.

But the Islamists were highly motivated and took over. The rest is history. Islamist Iranians might be happy. But the rest of the Iran is not. They are ruled with an iron clerical fist. Protests are pretty quickly put down. Sometimes brutally. That is what happened there every time its been tried.

Meanwhile economic conditions in Iran have not really improved that much after the sanctions were lifted. Protests have resumed and are ongoing. Only now another cry is also being heard: ‘Death to the dictator’ (their current supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei). Not only ‘Death to America’. Protests are breaking out all over the country.

Ever since the President announced that the US was breaking the deal with Iran, things have gotten worse – even before a single sanction has been snapped back into place: Their economy is in shambles. Their money is practically worthless. Business is down. People can't afford to buy anything there. And a lot of Iranians are blaming it on their government and its supreme leader. They accuse them of being inept and corrupt. I’ve even heard some older Iranians saying they wish they could return to the days of the Shah. Once the US sanctions fully set in - things will only get worse.

Iran’s obsession with producing a nuclear weapon is not what is on their minds now. They are far more worried that they will lose power and that their country will collapse .

I have heard that it is the nature of torture that people can be trained to withstand enormous degrees of it. What will break them is when they get relief from it and then it is reapplied. That is what is happening here. The people of Iran know who is really to blame. And it isn’t only the US. It is their regime and the clerics who run it.

Under this kind of renewed and increased pressure - the current regime in Iran might just be willing to negotiate a new deal with the US. Just to stay alive. One that will get them out of the mess of an economy spiraling downward into oblivion - and instead into a more stable one under a new deal. The President has said he will meet with any Iranian leader at any time to discuss a new and better deal. No preconditions.

I believe this ‘carrot and stick’ approach will work. It will bring Iran to its knees - long before it will bring a nuclear bomb to the world. Sure. They may restart their nuclear program. But that would only make matters worse since Europe would have to snap back their own sanctions back into place (whether they like it or not). What good is having nuclear weapons if you can’t feed your people?

Iran’s leaders may be religious fanatics. But they are not stupid. Nor are they the martyrs they implore their people to be. They want to stay in power. And the US will be ready to set the terms for their survival. One that will make them give up their evil ways by verifiable means.

I know this is all speculation on my part. But it is my view and I believe that it is the most likely outcome.

Chasidim walk past a “modesty sign“ in Beit Shemesh (JTA)

What is happening in the extremist suburb of Ramat Bet Shemesh - B (RBS-B) is sickening. Although there is enough blame to go around and to be shared by both sides, it is the religious extremists that populate RBS-B that have the lion’s share of the blame in my view. From JTA:

Long simmering tensions between haredim and teenage dropouts recently erupted in violence, necessitating police intervention in a city known throughout Israel as a microcosm of the religious kulturkampf being waged across the country…

On July 16, a haredi mob attacked a teenage girl. In a video of the incident posted online and shared widely on social media, the girl could be seen running down Nahar Hayarden, the neighborhood’s main thoroughfare, chased by what appears to be dozens of men in black hats and black coats who could be heard screaming about her allegedly immodest attire…

Less than a week later, shortly after the end of the Tisha b’Av fast, a second incident led to clashes between residents and several dozen teenagers who had gathered in the neighborhood. The police were called and several teens were arrested.

“I saw the girls come to the square and the extremists were here and suddenly I heard yelling and saw the haredim chasing the girls,” recalled Rudi, a 17-year-old dropout who hangs out on the corner of Rival Street. “The cops didn’t do anything. They call the cops every time we sit.”

Others had a different perspective on that evening.

“It was like a pogrom,” said Avner Steinhalt, one of the small number of non-haredi residents left in Ramat Beit Shemesh Bet. “It was one of the worst nights in this neighborhood.”

He recalled how tensions rose higher and higher during the days leading up to the Tisha b’Av fast day in July. Several days before the fast, a fight erupted between haredim and the teenagers, leading to the hospitalization of one of the teens. Finally, on the evening after the fast, some 60 young people gathered “to have revenge on the haredim.”

They found a small synagogue on Rival Street and “destroyed everything,” Steinhalt said. “Then they went out and started to hit some people in the road even though they did nothing.”

Wow!

Of course each side blames the other. But in my view, anyone with an objective eye can see where the real problem lies. It is in the intolerance of the extremists who reject anyone that disrupts their status quo. And there are few disruptions in a town like that are as disruptive as OTDs living there. Why they became OTD is hardly a concern for them. They are a bad influence on their children that must be eradicated from their town.

OTDs are the antithesis of the extremism that they espouse and try to live by. That is what these young people have rebelled against. A rebellion that includes, immodest dress, and contraband such as smartphones - and the movies watched on them. When a community chooses to isolate themselves from the rest of the world, it’s easy to understand why they get upset when people bring things from that world into theirs - flaunting them openly and exposing them to passing children.

Understanding why they do that – does not however mean that they have to react with violence to all who pass through their neighborhood and veer from their norm. For the zealots of that town, it doesn’t matter how observant a passerby might be. If they see an individual that has crossed one of their very tight lines, the zealots among them react with violence. With at least the tacit – if not explicit - support from the rest of the community.

It would be one thing to see these OTD youngsters as trouble makers and delinquents. Which is the wrong way to see them. (More on that later). They see even other religious Jews that way, too. . Religious Zionists have been attacked by their zealots. And even other Charedim don’t get a pass:

Deputy Education Minister Meir Porush’s car was mobbed in Ramat Beit Shemesh Bet in April. Several months earlier a soldier driving through the city crashed into a lamppost after his car was pelted with stones and trash. Last month, a local extremist was arrested for breaking a woman’s iPhone.

Unfortunately, there are many more examples of the intolerance that isolationism like theirs breed.

That said, the fact is that OTDs will often behave in antisocial ways that are disruptive to any neighborhood. And in a neighborhood like RBS-B, it’s pretty easy to be disruptive that way. So placing the full blame on RBS-B extremists is wrong.

The situation in RBS-B raises a lot questions.

Does a community have the right to set its own standards of behavior and rules designed to uphold that standard just because its majority strives to do so? Do they have the right to harass passersby who don’t measure up?

In my view, a community has the right to set up its own standards. What they do not have the right to do is enforce them. Certainly not in violent ways. They must abide by the rule of law in the country or municipality in which they live.

Passersby should honor their sensitivities by following their rules – if they know what are. It is the right thing to do. It’s called being a Mentch. Be that as it may - they also have the right to be selfish and ignore them. And certainly the residents who set up those rules have no right to enforce them.

This is where RBS-B fails. And fails miserably. They believe that enforcing their standards outweighs civility or any law that violates those standards. Which in my view why this kind of thing keep happening so often.

More importanty to the issue at hand, Why did these young in RBS-B go OTD to begin with? How did parents in those neighborhoods deal with them? How can a community of religious Jews allow this to happen? Does violence beget violence? Who threw the first blow?

Well… yes. Violence begets violence. That doesn’t make it right. It just makes it a fact. But what about those OTD kids? How in fact did it come to this? How can a parent not love their child enough to help them?

Most of are aware that there are a variety of reasons why a child will go OTD. But a good parent will love their children nonetheless, not matter what they have done.

My guess is that the parents of these kids are so intolerant of any change in their behavior that if it deviates even slightly from their norm, they are given the alternative of ‘shape up or ship out’. Meaning if they keep violating any of their extreme standards… Bye bye. You are not going to live under my roof and influence your siblings with your non observant ways. Have a nice life. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

In short, it is these very RBS-B resident that have created this ‘monster’. They are to blame. If they instead would love their children instead of rejecting them they might have seen a different outcome for them. It is their extreme level of intolerance that in my view is the real source of the problem.

Alex Fleksher has written an excellent essay (available on the OU website) which can give us insight on this very issue. Taking a cue from Fred Rogers (of Mr. Rogers fame) she says the following:

When Mr. Rogers says in his deliberate and gentle way, “Everyone longs to be loved. And the greatest thing we can do is let people know that they are loved and capable of loving,” it is not difficult to think about our relationships with loved ones, particularly children, and recognize the truth in his words. “Love is at the root of everything. All learning, all relationships. Love, or the lack of it,” is one of Mr. Roger’s most famous quotes.

Alex goes on to develop this idea as a particularly Jewish one.

The bottom line is that love for a child should never be conditional. Intolerance should have no place in a loving parent’s heart. But intolerance is the middle name of extremists in places like RBS-B. Even as it applies to their own children, apparently. Ask Deputy Education Minister Meir Porush.

IDF parachuting instructor poses with her father, Maj. Gen. Aharon Haliva (TOI)

Protecting religious rights or egalitarian rights... What should come first? The answer is not always an ‘either/or’. Most of the time you can protect both. Unfortunately however sometimes you have to choose.

Israel is both a democracy of which egalitarianism is a prime tenet… and a Jewish state where Halacha should determine army protocol. As I’ve indicated many times. Judaism without Halacha is like a car without an engine. It might look like a car. But it isn’t.

These values have clashed in one of Israel’s most highly valued institutions, the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces).

There is not a doubt in my mind that God’s protection of the Jewish people in Israel is being done through the dedicated hard work and sacrifice of the Israeli army. However, the army is not just Israel’s means of defending itself from its enemies. While that is obviously its main function by far, it is not its only function. The army must also have integrity and honesty in how it presents itself to the world, and to God. It cannot therefore abide illegality or immorality by its soldiers. A Jewish solider must act in ways that will give glory to God and glory to His people.

Giving glory to God means following Halacha. Giving glory to His people is to behave in a manner that will cause the rest of the world to see us as an example for them to follow. In other words to be a light unto the nations

In our world today, these values often clash. That is evident in the constant battle between egalitarianism and religion. One that has caused a lot of conflict between the left wing of Orthodoxy and the right wing.

The modern world places the highest value on egalitarian ideals. They are considered supreme - to be honored at the expense of any other value. Judaism does not see it that way. Egalitarianism is a value as long as it does not contradict Halacha. So that in the work place for example, women should be given the same opportunities as men - as well as commensurate compensation for equal work.

Judaism also places a high value on Tznius (modesty). The question is , how is modesty defined in Judaism.

As most people know, (or should know) modesty is as much a function of our behavior as it is about how we dress. As the prophet Micah tells us (6:8): ‘Tzne Haleches...’ Walk modesty with God. In our day when promiscuity itself has become a glorified value (as so often depicted in the entertainment industry) the religious focus on Tznius has been in trying to avoid it.

As such there have been many books written on the subject that have taken a hard line. (Which is OK as long as it is made clear that there are other legitimate views about modesty that are not as stringent as those books make them out to be.) Modesty also entails the idea of men not gazing at women with lascivious thoughts. Something that is clearly forbidden to do. And to avoid situations that are conducive to that. (Something that would in my view – reduce incidences of sexual abuse if adhered to. But I digress.)

It is against this backdrop that a recent dust up occurred in the IDF. From the Times of Israel:

Dozens of religious soldiers from the IDF’s Paratroopers Brigade refused to listen to a female parachuting instructor earlier this week, turning their backs to her when she tried to give them a demonstration.

That instructor was obviously insulted by seeing recruits turning their back when all she was trying to do was teach them their jobs. On the other hand, these religious soldiers were just following their consciences - which are driven by religious values.

The army sided with the instructor and has pledged to be loyal to the egalitarian ideal. And ideal that was recently acted upon in a recent promotion of a woman to high rank and responsibility. That was followed by declaring it to the world with pride. The last thing the army wants is for the world to see a bunch of ‘religious fanatics’ undermining that strategy.

What was the right thing to do here? Honestly I’m not sure since I don’t know whether there really are any modesty issues that preclude a woman demonstrating to men - how to use a parachute.

On the one hand I don’t see how that could possibly be immodest. Especially in that context. On the other hand I wasn’t there and I can’t imagine a group of dedicated religious soldiers turning their back to a female instructor without believing that - what she was about to do violated their religious values.

My thought is that common sense should prevail in situations where egalitarian values clash with religious ones. In cases of doubt (like this incident) the IDF should make sure that a male instructor be the one demonstrating this technique to religious soldiers.

Being egalitarian does not mean closing your eyes. There are plenty of soldiers that don’t have a problem at all with female instructors. It is in those instances that the IDF can close their eyes and send a man or a woman to do the job.

Why do something that will only generate controversy? Even if you don’t agree with the religious perceptive of those religious soldiers, what is lost by sending a male instructor to teach these men? Is it impossible to do? I doubt it. I doubt that there are no male instructors available to teach parachuting technique.

Besides - the army now has Charedi units that actually honor these sensitivities. They have gone to great lengths to secure those soldiers religious rights and avoid having any women involved with them at all. That clearly demonstrates that it can be done. In my view it should always be done when religious sensitivities are involved and security issues are not affected.

One may ask why these soldiers didn’t just join a Charedi unit? That is a good question that I’m not sure I can answer. It surely would have solved all problems.

I suppose that one answer might be that there just aren’t enough Charedi units to go around. They have limited space and cannot accommodate the increasing number of religious recruits. That should change in my view. Hopefully it will. But in the meantime I see no reason to not accommodate soldiers that have religious sensitivities – as long as it does not hamper the army’s mandate of protecting its citizens.

There is also the fact that many religious recruits might join the regular army instead of the Charedi units because they want to be trained in areas that are not yet available to the Charedi units.

That this is happening now and has never been an issue until recently is not really a question. There have been plenty of religious recruits in the army since the very beginning of the state. The vast majority of them being religious Zionists, who felt an obligation to defend their country.

No where is that more evident that in Hesder units that had a reputation for taking the most dangerous assignments as a group. Hesder units are designed for religious Zionist recruits to alternate periods of Torah study and military service over a six year period. Hesder is done in regular army units. Not Charedi ones.

Hesder soldiers are as dedicated to their religious values as they are to the state. I do not recall hearing too many complaints (if at all) about their religious values being subverted. But that’s probably because women were not part of any type of combat units. Situations like the one under discussion would therefore never have happened.

(For the record, I oppose women serving in combat for reasons beyond the scope of this post. But that ship has sailed.)

There are some who might say to these recruits, ‘Stop being excessively Frum’ Just watch your instructor and learn. They will reason that female instructors do not behave in any way that would be considered immodest by just teaching them how to use a parachute. I might tend to agree with them (although – as I indicated – I’ve never seen such a demonstration and can’t know for sure.)

It might be true that at a very basic level there is nothing immodest about a woman teaching men how to use a parachute. But it shouldn’t matter. If there are dozens of religious soldiers that see it as immodest their sensitivities should be respected. No one should have to concede to an egalitarian ideal that contradicts their religious values – as long as the ultimate goal of the army - protection of the Jewish people - is not undermined.

Aftermath of an Israeli airstrike in Gaza

Israel has sent over 180 rockets indiscriminately into Gaza where innocent Palestinians reside. Without any provocation.

OK - that never happened. But what would the word reaction to that be? I believe it would react with unprecedented outrage and fury. Justifiably so. How dare a country send 180 rockets into a city indiscriminately - endangering the lives and property of civilians that only want to live in peace and get on with their lives? That they have grievances with their neighbors, whether legitimate or not, it does not justify the carnage that might be caused by sending a barrage of rockets into a civilian population.

Well the fact is that the reverse just happened. Over 180 rockets were fired into Israeli towns populated by innocent Jews that want nothing more than a to live in peace.

Those rocket attacks were preceded by Palestinians in Gaza sending kites carrying gasoline filled balloons set afire for purposes into Israel.

Which was itself preceded by Hamas operatives in Gaza trying to breach Israel’s border with them for purposes of terrorizing Israels.

Which was preceded by Hamas terrorists from Gaza sneaking into Israel via underground terror tunnels built explicitly for terrorist purposes.

Very few if any criticism was offered about those things. The world practically ignored them. But when Israel finally retaliated, the world noticed. Yesterday the PBS News Hour had a segment on this situation. While pretending to be impartial, their bias was clear. Israelis citizens were shown to be basically annoyed at fleeing from those rockets - into their hardened bunkers that protected them with their children somewhat traumatized by it.

But when it focused on Gaza, the carnage was clear. Gaza had no bunkers. A single building Israel targeted that housed some Hamas terrorist leaders was destroying by a precision bomb. There were inevitably some injuries and perhaps even deaths. Which is almost impossible to avoid in densely populated Gaza. Israel’s only mission there was to protect its citizens from further rocket attacks. They had no desire to hurt anyone.

But the message of that PBS report was clear. Israel’s response in Gaza looked far worse than the rocket attacks in Israel. The take away? Big, bad, occupying Israel used American fighter planes to commit a far greater atrocity upon the the poor Palestinians in Gaza. Who resort to crude means in their justifiable fight with Israel.

And that is why there are so many people on the Left (which includes much of the media) that sympathize more with the Palestinian in Gaza than they do with Israelis. They blame Israel’s blockade of food, medicine, hospital supplies and building materials causing Palestinians in Gaza to be in dire straits. That Israel only did that to prevent deadly weapons used to terrorize Israelis from being smuggled into Gaza - hidden among those necessities - is ignored. Even though they know that is the reason.

The media instead portray Gaza as just reacting to an unjust boycott with the only means they have at their disposal: Rockets they somehow manged to have smuggled in from Gaza despite Israel’s best efforts to prevent that. They want the world to see how they live thereby generating sympathy for their plight which they blame on Israel.

The media portrays it that way and the much of the world buys it and nods its collective head in compassion and agreement. Hard to argue with what you see. Which is a prosperous and strong Israel unjustly occupying a suffering people and keeping them down. And worse - killing some of them them in unjust military actions in Gaza.

That is precisely what Palestinian want the world to conclude. And much of it does.

But that is the exact opposite of the truth. I have said it before and I will say it again. The fault lies with Palestinians leaders who have no interest whatsoever in making peace with Israel. They have no interest in building their economy and building their nation up. Not until they can re-occupy Palestine freeing it of Jewish domination. When they say ‘occupied Palestine’ they don’t mean the West bank. They mean all of Israel. Including Tel Aviv. If you listen carefully enough they speak of ‘the West Bank’ they speak about ‘Palestine’.

While many Palestinians would be happy to just live in peace and get on with their lives, their leadership - both secular and religious - will not rest until they get all of Palestine back. They firmly believe that Palestine belongs to them. That Jews have no legitimate claim to it. Ancient claims are meaningless - even if they are to be believed. Jews there now are illegitimate colonizers and occupiers having expelled indigenous Arabs (now called Palestinians) from the homes.

Even the idea that Israel was a refuge for Holocaust survivors is meaningless to them. They either deny the Holocaust or say it wasn’t their fault. Why should they pay the price?

This attitude is passed on generationally. Most Palestinians - even those that would like to make peace with Israel probably believe that narrative. They are just willing to settle realizing that continued conflict with Israel will only make things worse for them. They are realists. But the uncompromising idealists run the show.

Which is the real reason Gaza attacks Israel. That so many of them live in squalor is a tactic they use to their advantage – to point out how much Israel has made them suffer by boycotting vital supplies. That Egypt does the same is NEVER mentioned. It is only Israel that is to blame.

Israel is the one that wants peace more than anything. Despite what Palestinians believe, the Jewish people has a ‘slight’ claim to that land too. A claim that is based on both history and the bible. A claim that Holocaust refugees had no where else to go after people in home countries had occupied their homes when they were rounded up and taken to ghettos, concentrations camps and ultimately mass murdered in death camps. Survivors were less than welcomed back into their former countries.

Perhaps more importantly Israel would have loved to see Gaza prosper. They would have loved to see Gaza as a model for a future Palestinian state. When Israel left Gaza, successful agricultural enterprises were left behind for Palestinians to take advantage of.

Instead Gaza Palestinians promptly demolished them. And immediately started attacking Israel. Can anyone imagine what things would be like for Palestinians now if they had asked Israel for help in building up their infrastructure and economy and started living more prosperous lives?

I am 100% certain Israel would have accepted that challenge in a heartbeat. That could have eventually lead to a Palestinian state on the West Bank.

Israel has no quarrel with Muslims or Palestinians per se. Israel’s only concern is for the safety of their own citizens. And for building up their own country. And ultimately to make peace with all of her neighbors.

It is not Israel that attacks Gaza. It is Gaza that attacks Israel for only one real purpose – to rid Israel of the Jews and turn it into Palestine – an Islamic country. Their underdog status is how they get away with their claims that it is all about Jewish occupation of poor defenseless Arabs. And with no other recourse except to use whatever crude means they have to fight their occupiers. Israel’s defenses against it are seen as aggression!

And much of the world agrees. Thankfully the majority of people in the most powerful nation in the world does not buy that narrative. At least those that know the facts. Unfortunately the Left either doesn’t know or doesn’t care since for them – all they see is a rich and powerful country killing innocent civilians of a poor country. One that is unable to prosper because of an oppressive Israeli occupier.

It is one thing when people ignorant of these details react to news reports like the one on PBS. But PBS should know better. They are not that ignorant. They surely know the truth. And yet they present the Palestinian narrative as the more just one.

I guess PBS and most other mainstream media outlets are victims of the same mentality. One that sees only the moment and has sympathy for the people suffering the most. How they can ignore the facts is inexplicable to me. Knowing what is behind all of this should make all the difference in the world. Why doesn’t it?

Yet another nail in the coffin of the Conservative Judaism was articulated by Jonathan Rosenblum and Eytan Kobre in last week’s issue of Mishpacha Magazine.

Although Jonathan’s op-ed was about Kiruv, it clearly impacts what is happening to Conservative Judaism. (Reform Judaism has lost its claim to being a Jewish denomination by virtue of how they define being a Jew. And with 84% of Reform rabbis performing intermarriages, there is nothing to talk about - in my view.)

Jonathan lamented the fact that Kiruv of the type done by Rabbi Meir Schuster is no longer as viable as it once was.

Back in the latter part of the 20^th century – just after the 6 day war, there was an explosion of interest in Judaism by secular Jewish youth of that day. (I was barely 20 years old then.) But the 6 day war was only part of the reason. My generation was a lot more idealistic then - than the youth of today are.

I say this not to brag about my generation. I say it because it’s true. Back in those days many a young person made it their mission in life to search for the eternal truths that would give meaning to their lives. And as such they would go to ‘the ends of the earth’ to try and find it. As Jonathan describes it:

(M)any were backpacking around the world. They might have spent months sleeping on a mat on the floor in an Indian ashram, been robbed and abandoned by pirates in Thailand, or have dedicated themselves to learning various Buddhist chants in Nepal. They were in quest of new experiences — and the further from anything in their lives back home, the better.

Part of that trek brought many of them to the Kotel in some sort of homage to their Jewish background. From there they would proceed to their various exotic destinations in their search. It never occurred to them to examine their own heritage first. …that it might contain some truths as well. So that when they were approached by Rabbi Schuster and asked if they would be interested in a lecture on Jewish philosophy, they usually accepted realizing that before they firmly and finally reject their heritage in favor of another, it might be a good idea to find out more about it.

That is one very important reason (albeit not the only one) why Rabbi Schuster was so successful. The youth of my day actually cared about their spirituality and honest enough to realize - when they were reminded of it - just how ignorant they were about it.

Today, in most cases that kind of thinking doesn’t exist anymore, Jonathan notes. Ask a typical Jewish 20-something if he would be interested in a lecture on Jewish philosophy he would probably say ‘no thank you - that he knows all he needs to know about Judaism.

Why did my generation care more about their Judaism? I agree with Jonathan that there is a correlation to the increased rate intermarriage in our day. Back then there it was rare for even secular Jews to approve of their children marrying out. Today it is no big deal at all.

The idea of being Jewish is becoming less of a factor in the lives of most of American Jewry. Which is why there 70% of non Orthodox Jewry intermarriage rate. ‘So what if you’re not Jewish?’ ‘Why should that mean anything?’ ‘Who cares about the archaic religion of your ancestors - whose values are contrary to the values of modern day man?’ ‘ Why even bother to identify as Jewish?’ ‘Who cares?’

Studies have shown that if you ask the typical non Orthodox Jew if he ever visited Israel (let alone the Kotel) or ever plans to, most would probably say, no to both.

I see no remedy for this. It is one thing to say that Kiruv of thr type successfully done by Rabbi Schuister is not longer as viable as it once was. But it so too is the near impossibility of the Conservative Movements to reverse this trend.

It is not for a lack of their trying. It is just that many of their attempts are proving to be more futile than the type of Kiruv done by Rabbi Schuster has become. And they know it. Which is why they have recently pushed so hard to be recognized in Israel – seeing traditional Israelis that are not fully observant as a natural constituency. While they may not be fully observant, they nonetheless care about being Jewish. They may see this as best – if not the only - way to salvage their movements.

In the very same issue of Mishpacha, Eytan Kobre (someone I often disagree with – sometimes vehemently) makes a similar observation with respect to heterodoxy. On this issue we completely agree. Eytan is not just some right wing Orthodox Jew gloating over the Conservative movement’s demise. That isn’t what his op-ed is about. It is about what Allan Arkush, a respected non observant Jewish Judaic Studies professor has concluded.

He notes that there are the two competing ideologies that determined to how America viewed itself culturally. In the early part of the 20^thcentury E Pluribus Unum (out of many – one) was interpreted to mean that America is the great melting pot of assimilation where immigrants from all over the world came here to form one nation, one people with one common national identity distinct from that of their origin.

The latter part of the 20^th century and early part of the 21^st century saw a change in the opposite direction. One that interprets which the US motto as a unified nation of multi cultural immigrants that celebrates their ancestral heritage.

While that may be true for most ethnicities, Arkush concludes that it is not true for non observant American Jewry. They have followed the early 20^th century model of assimilation to the point of almost devaluing their Jewish heritage. Arkush notes that Orthodox Jews are the only segment of Jewry where this is not true. Orthodox Jews have not succumbed to the melting pot ideal.

Arkush laments that fact. As do I - and anyone that cares about the entirety of the Jewish people. The loss of millions of Jews to assimilation and intermarriage is tragic. As is the feeble attempts by the Conservative movement to change course. Eytan notes that this perception is echoed by Jack Wertheimer, a Conservative Rabbi and Jewish thinker.

I realize that many Conservative Jews might disagree. But I think they have a long way to go to justify that disagreement.

Sad as all this is for me, I don’t see any remedy. I see only the exodus of masses Jews from Judaism. And at this point all we can do is watch it happen as even the relatively small amount of Kiruv opportunities decrease.

RabbiYisroel Meyer Kagan - The Chafetz Chaim

Image or substance… which is more Important? The answer most thinking people would give is substance. At least it should be. As our sages tell us, ‘Do not look at the jug but look at what is inside of it. (Avos 4:20). Or as the popular saying goes, ‘Don’t judge a book by its cover’.

The wisdom of this should be apparent to all. And yet the one segment of Orthodoxy that seems to place more emphasis on image than any other segment is the Charedi world. Over the last 50 or so years Charedim have increasingly insisted on looking a certain way. One which clearly identifies who they are, what they believe, and how they live their lives.

This is certainly true in the Chasdic world. But it is equally true in the Yeshiva world. The black hat, black pants, and white shirt have become the uniform of the Yeshiva world. I can’t even imagine a student – let alone a Rosh Yeshiva wearing a cap instead of a black hat.

To the best of my knowledge the last Rosh Yeshiva to wear a cap did so in pre Holocaust Europe… a relatively minor fellow by the name of Yirsoel Meyer Kagan better known as the Chofetz Chaim! The Kipa of choice is now the velvet one. That is what they wear when not wearing a black hat. No card carrying Charedi would dare wear a suede or crocheted Kipa. Nor would they wear anything but a white shirt and black pants.

Those who wear the ‘uniform’ are considered Bnei Torah. no matter how strong or lax their observance might be. Those that don’t are Chutz L’Machaneh… outside the camp (of Bnei Torah). Even those that are Orthodox. If they dress any other way than I described they are considered either ignoramuses, or ‘Krum’. Meaning that their Jewish values are distorted. No matter the level of observance or Torah knowledge.

It appears that the above advice of our sages has come to be ignored. If the Chofetz Chaim walked into a Yeshiva Beis HaMedrash wearing a cap today, he would be seen as odd.

This is not to say that Charedim are bad people, God forbid. Most of them are good fearing sincere Jews of the highest order. that in many ways the rest of us should emulate. It’s just to say that it seems like they have elevated style almost over substance. Which what our sages warn against.

This is not the way it was when I was in high school back in the 60s. Even when I was in Telshe. There were no uniforms then. Baseball caps and colored shirts were the norm back then.

Why this has happened is beyond the scope of this post. I mention it in a context that might seem odd… that of the current President of the United States, Donald J. Trump. And the fact that the majority of the Charedi world (I’ve seen estimates as high as 80%!) voted for and supports a man whose image and style is anathema to their values.

The response most of them might give is that they do not support who he is. They support what he has done – and continues to do for those very values. I have in fact pretty much said the same thing. It isn’t only Charedim that feel that way. Most Orthodox Jews (who run politically conservative) do too. (Although there is a sizable minority of Orthodox Jews that are liberal and can’t stand him or his polices.)

Yes, I do support most of Trump’s polices - both foreign and domestic. I could not for example be happier with his policies on Israel and Iran (so far). Nor could I be happier about his tax policies and deregulation - which has stimulated an already healthy economy into almost unprecedented territory in certain respects (e.g the lowest unemployment rate in decades - even in the black community).

And yet I cringe every day at how this man behaves and the constant embarrassing news that seems to come out daily about him. As it did again yesterday when a former black employee revealed that she heard a recording of Trump using the 'N' word. Something you would suspect only a racist would do.

It is true that substance matters a lot more than style. But as Charedim clearly tell you (if not in words – certainly in deeds) style does matter. The way a person talks and behaves tells you about his character. When that person is the leader of the free world; the leader of the most powerful nation in in history - he ought to behave like a Mentch. And while Trump has been known to have been involved in many acts of kindness in his life, his daily behavior continues to be an embarrassment. Which makes me cringe.

The influence this has on the public discourse has been horrendous. It has emboldened America’s worst elements from under their rocks to proclaim racists messages unlike any time since the early sixties - when racism seen as a positive value in parts of the American South. His alleged (and in my view very likely) past immoral behavior with prostitutes and 'Playboy' models is not the image a President should have. Evidence that he tried to cover it up does not help his cause either. Nor his his vindictive personality becoming of a world leader.

He is petulant, childish, selfish, egomaniacal, narcissistic and vindictive. None of which is flattering to any human being - let alone a President. Imagine if there was a Charedi Rosh yeshiva whose knowledge of Torah and Poskim was encyclopedic and authored Seforim with the potential to become the most widely used in the Yeshiva world - behaved like the way the President did? If they can’t even countenance someone wearing a kipa made of slightly different material than what they insist on wearing, can you imagine the kind of condemnation a man like that would generate?!

And yet they look the other way when that man is the President - because they like his policies. They might argue that the behavior and rhetoric of a non Jew doesn’t concern them. What difference does It make as long as his policies are the correct ones form their perspective. But image does matter. No one believes that more than Charedim do.

They should realize that when they are seen to support a man whose values are anathema to theirs, they come out looking hypocritical. Instead of genrating respect for Toraah values supporting a President whose values are anathema to thiers will generate scorn. It will make them look hypocritical.

It is not good for the country or the Charedi world to have a man like this as President. Even if his policies are strongly supported. It demeans his high office and lowers the level of discourse. It brings out the worst in people. It gives comfort to bigots and racists. And it lowers are standards of decency.

You cannot separate the man for his policies. Sure… we can all say that his behavior does not reflect what we believe in. But we do not live in a vaacum. Another popular saying in Yiddish goes like this: Azoi V’Christltz Zich Yiddil’t Zich. When the nation in which we live lowers its standards ours are inevitably lowered too. I I don’t believe there is any disagreement about that by religious leaders. Which is why the more rightward you swing, the more you try and isolate yourself from it. But isolation is far from foolproof. Especially these days. Which of course means that no matter how much you try to insulate yourself as a society form the culture, it will still affect you.

We ought to care bout how our President behaves. And I don’t think there is enough of that right now. This is not to say that I am unhappy with Trumps polices. As I said, I’m pretty happy with most of them. But I still wish he were not the President. I just can’t stand watching the news about him anymore.

Dan Ryenolds of Imagine Dragons (Jewish Journal)

Does pain make one a believer? That is the question explored by a popular song called ‘Believer’ by Imagine Dragons. (A song which I happen to love - but that is beside the point.)

In a Jewish Journal article, Rabbi Eli Fink spoke about lead singer Dan Reynolds conflict between his views on LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgender) issues - and those of his Mormon Church.

Although not being a homosexual himself Reynolds says that he has come to understand the pain LGBT Mormons feel about their (and his) church’s rejection of them. However, Reynolds also loves his church and wants to change their attitude about this issue because the pain of ‘rejection, hate, and disgust’ felt by these otherwise devout Mormons. Pain that has caused an epidemic of suicide which many of them see as the only way out.

Rabbi Fink draws a parallel to modern Orthodox Jews whose values and lifestyle are very similar to those of their Mormon counterparts. Many modern Orthodox Jews struggle with their sense of compassion for LGBT people and the forbidden nature of their circumstances based on their religious beliefs. Rabbi Fink admits that he too struggles with them.

After listening a bit more carefully to the song, I thought about its message.

Can pain be a motivator towards observance? Can one be ‘beaten’ into belief and obedience? And is that worth anything? Pain might force someone to comply in the moment. But it will in the end do the opposite. Forcing adherence to a code of behavior through the implementation of pain will do the opposite once that pain is no longer there.

Once someone leaves the environment of pain, they will run in the opposite direction of the source of that pain. So that if one is taught that the reason for their pain (whether physical or mental) is the Torah, they will almost surely run as far away as they can from anything to do with the Torah. The evidence for that is clear in the many cases of people that have gone OTD as a result of dysfunctional families or having suffered abuse. Whether it was physical, mental, or sexual.

In the case of being a homosexual, the emotional pain they might feel once they ‘come out of the closet’ and being rejected by their religious community could easily make them run away from their religion.

There is also pain as a matter of fear about what happens to your soul after death when your life gets judged and ‘pays for its sins’. There is no getting around that. If you believe in the hereafter you believe that you will be judged on whether or not you were a faithful servant of God and followed His laws.

But should that be used as a motivator? Aside from acknowledging that Divine punishment in the hereafter is indeed part of our theology, using that as a motivator is just another way to inflict pain. Which is what those that have a same sex attraction feel by the rejection that often results when they ‘come out’.

As I have said many times, we are not now in any position to judge how others feel or act in the privacy of their own homes. That is between them and God. It is our duty however to treat every individual the way God intends us to. With, the love, dignity, and compassion for their struggles. They should be treated no differently than anyone else who might be acting any sinful way in private. All human beings are created in God’s image. We are required to treat them that way. This is something I have repeatedly advocated.

At the same time compassion only goes so far. It does not extend to condoning a lifestyle that is conducive to sin. It’s one thing to have compassion for those that have feelings like that. And to even have compassion to those that might act on those feelings in sinful ways.

What we cannot do is celebrate it as an alternative lifestyle. Which is why for example I am opposed to gay marriage and believe the current government policy endorsing it is wrong. A document that legalizes a lifestyle conducive to sin is a document that says there is nothing wrong with it and everything right with it. That one may take pride in living a sinful life and even celebrate it if they choose.

That’s where compassion ends and endorsing sin begins. And that is the crux of what’s wrong with current societal attitudes about being LGBT. It isn’t about live and let live. It’s about saying there is absolutely nothing wrong with behavior that the bible clearly says is sinful. Go right ahead and we’ll cheer you on! Which turns the bible into an archaic document that is counter to our modern sensitives.Which are based on solid scientific research. The bible’s views are therefore wrong, irrelevant, and should be ignored. As should any other biblical dictates that our modern sensibilities don't agree with.

That makes a mockery of the Torah’s eternal truths and it implies that anyone believing in the Torah is an ignorant bigot. Which is of course the furthest thing from the truth.

There is a way to honor the Torah and the dignity of LGBT people. The key - as I have always said - is to love the sinner but to hate the sin – which of course means that one must have love and compassion for those whose inclinations might nevertheless be conducive to sin and to avoid inflicting any pain on them -whether it be physical or emotional. I don't know if this was Dan Reynolds’ message. But it sure is mine.

Is an Egalitarian Space at the Kotel Really Needed?

Sexual Abuse in the Orthodox World

Religious Zealots or Religious Thugs?

Good Government Policy or Antisemitism?

Second Thoughts

Liberals Ain't What They Used to Be

The Unconventional Kiruv of Agudah

A Modest Proposal

What God Wants - Not What We Want

Pride? No. Shame? Absolutely!

Glatt Kosher Prison Food

There is No Schism: “Modern Orthodoxy” has Two Fundamentally Separate Sects

What on Earth is Happening in Britain?

Breaking the Nuclear Deal with Iran

Loving the OTD Child

Egalitarian Rights Versus Religious Rights

Whose Fault Is It, Anyway?

Another Nail in the Coffin of Conservative Judaism

Image Does Matter

Pain, Love, and Belief