Monday, September 15, 2014

A Dangerous Opinion

Rav Shmuel Kamentesky
I have profound respect for Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky. He is the founding and current Rosh HaYeshiva of the Talmudical Yeshiva of Philadelphia – popularly known as ‘Philly’. Philly is (for all intents and purposes) Lakewood’s high school. It is one of the most prestigious Yeshivos in the country. He is also a senior member of the Agudah Moetzes.

But Rav Shmuel (as Rav Kamenetsky is affectionately called by his Talmidim and admirers) has an even greater attribute than those impressive credentials. He is the son of Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky, ZTL - a certifiable Gadol whose whose common sense approach to Judaism made him one of my heroes. Which makes a recent comment by Rav Shmuel so perplexing. I cannot image his father making such a statement. From the Forward:
“I see vaccinations as the problem,” Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetzky told the Baltimore Jewish Times in a story published in late August. “It’s a hoax. Even the Salk [polio] vaccine is a hoax. It’s just big business.”
I’m sorry to say this but Rav Shmuel’s statement is breathtakingly shocking. To say that  polio vaccine is a hoax in an era where that disease has been virtually eradicated form the civilized world – precisely because of the public programs of mass vaccinations is simply incredulous.

Now Rav Shmuel certainly has a right to his opinion. And as mentioned above, he is a senior member of the Agudah Moetzes. Does this mean that  his statement should be seen as Daas Torah? In my view the answer is, absolutely not. This is an opinion of an individual who is in my view basically uninformed about the matter. Dangerously so. Can anyone imagine if all vaccinations were to be suspended in this country, what would happen? Dreaded childhood diseases would likely return with a vengeance.

Rav Shmuel made his statement in the context of a parent who was refused entry into a day school in Baltimore because she refused a vaccination regimen for her son. From the Baltimore Jewish Times:
R.B. encountered significant difficulties when she claimed a religious exemption at a local boys’ day school. Before her son began school, she contacted someone at the state Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, as well as the state attorney general’s office, to inquire about Maryland’s laws regarding religious exemptions.
“They said that the school could not refuse to accept a religious exemption,” she related. “But then school started and the nurse called. She said the school didn’t accept religious exemptions…
R.B. reached out to Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetzky, founder and dean of the Talmudical Academy of Philadelphia, whose wife, Temi, speaks out against vaccinating children. The rabbi wrote a letter on R.B.’s behalf, leading to her son’s principal relenting and apologizing.
Now I can understand advocating for a parent whose child has been denied entry into a school because they refused to vaccinate their child. Although I am in favor of vaccinating children against dreaded childhood and other diseases, there is an argument to make with respect respect to the right of a parent to refuse to vaccinate their child, foolish though they may be. As long as an un-vaccinated child is not a danger to anyone, he should be allowed in the school. The fact that everyone else in the school is vaccinated, means that should an un-vaccinated child contract a disease, the other children will likely be better protected thorough their vacinations.

I should add that a parent that successfully avoids vaccinating their child may cause others to do the same. And the result can easily be what happened to Boro Park in 2013 (as noted below).

But Rav Shumel’s comments with respect to the vaccinations themselves are unnecessary to achieve that goal. And as I said a very dangerous thing for him to say. Because when Rav Shmuel speaks… a lot of people listen. Some may very well see statements like this as Daas Torah… a decisions from which they may not budge.

Making Rav Shmuel’s comments even stranger is how he supports his views with the following statement:
“There is a doctor in Chicago who doesn’t vaccinate any of his patients and they have no problem at all,” said the rabbi. 
I don’t know who this doctor is, but in my view he ought to have his medical license revoked.

To Agudah’s credit, they have somewhat disavowed Rav Shmuel’s statement by saying that Agudah  has not taken a position on this. But in my view, they should have taken a position on it – in opposition to Rav Shmuel’s statements.  Because the last time a community decided to avoid vaccinations the following happened:
A 2013 measles outbreak that sickened dozens in ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities in Boro Park and Williamsburg was caused, in part, by ultra-Orthodox parents who had refused to vaccinate their children, according to an alert issued by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.
Like I said, Rav Shmuel is entitled to his opinion. And as a rabbinic leader who is a Talmid Chacham with a lifetime of hard work and achievement on behalf the Jewish community - he is certainly entitled to respect.  But in my view - clearly - his opinion on this issue is not Daas Torah by any stretch of the imagination.

I agree with Rabbi Moshe Tendler completely. Again, from the Forward:
Rabbi Moshe Tendler, a senior faculty member at Yeshiva University’s rabbinical school and an expert on bioethics, said that some rabbinic sources argue that rabbis should not make medical decisions. “This is an area in which medicine has made such tremendous progress for the benefit of humanity,” Tendler said. “I believe that there may very well be rabbis who agree with Kamenetsky, but they are not speaking under their authority as rabbis, they are speaking simply as uninformed laymen. “I’m hoping that Rabbi Kamenetsky was misquoted,” Tendler said.
I too hope that Rav Shmuel was misquoted. Or at least taken out of context.  But based on the quotes above, it is hard to imagine a context that would make any sense.

Please note.  Posts like this can and often do generate nasty comments about the people mentioned therein. I therefore ask all those who wish to comment on this issue - not to denigrate Rav Shmuel in any way. He is a rabbinic leader that deserves our respect. One can disagree with him even strongly as I do, but it should be done respectfully. Any comment even remotely disparaging will be deleted in its entirety.

Sunday, September 14, 2014

Dress Codes and the Objectification of Women

Elena Maryles  Sztokman
Although I am not a feminist in the mold of my cousin Elana Maryles Sztokman, I understand where she is coming from. Here is what she said recently in response to the  dress code controversy in the Yeshiva of Flatbush, a coed Orthodox Yeshiva high school: 
The focus on Orthodox girls’ attire treats women like sex objects rather than people. 
The truth is that the focus on Tznius in women’s clothing does seem to indicate that woman are seen as sex objects. But only if they present themselves that way. If you think about it, those dress codes are designed to eliminate or at least minimize the natural male response to sexual stimuli. When a man sees a sexually provocative image of a woman he will naturally be prone to be aroused, unless he is pre-occupied  with something else. The Halachos of Tznius in clothing are designed to eliminate those stimuli from the public square. The less skin that shows, the less chance of being aroused.

But does Judaism really see a woman as a sex object?  No. Judaism requires men to see women as fellow human beings.  Even when they dress in a provocative fashion. That is what civilized people do. We control our impulses. We behave ourselves. The natural male response to sexual stimuli requires men to have Shmiras Einayim - to ‘guard our eyes’. In other words, the onus is upon us to ‘not gaze’ at a woman at all for purposes of pleasure. We are supposed to go to great lengths to avoid that.

I believe that Judaism’s attitude about modesty in dress shows great concern for the dignity of the woman. And to prevent seeing them as sex objects.  

So why the dress codes? Because Judaism recognizes human nature. And the nature of the male is to be aroused by erotic images. So when women are asked to help us see them as dignified human beings by minimizing their sexuality in public, I see nothing wrong with that. Just because men are obligated not to see women as sex objects, doesn’t mean that women should be free to test our resolve by dressing as provocatively as they wish. That in my view is plain common sense.

So I support Yeshiva of Flatbush in their resolve to enforce modesty standards in clothing.

The question arises, what constitutes provocative clothing? That is a very grey area that is strongly influenced by culture in which one lives. Do the standards dictated by Halacha equal those of western culture? Hardly. Nor do they reflect the standards of Muslim culture. It’s all about what one is used to seeing on a daily basis.

In Muslim countries where Burkas are the norm, a female walking in the street wearing anything less modest might be sexually arousing to the typical male of that culture.

By contrast, in western culture, a woman wearing a loose fitting top with short sleeves and a pair of slacks would not raise an eyebrow… even to someone learning in Lakewood. This typical look for an American woman nevertheless does not conform to Orthodox concepts of modesty. Those standards do not allow for slacks or short sleeves.

So, what is a Modern Orthodox school like Yeshiva of Flatbush do? They have no choice but to follow Halacha. If they are suddenly focusing on the letter of the law, I suspect that there have been violations that have entered into the realm of being sexually provocative even by American cultural standards. The last thing a coed highs school needs is their female students dressing in a provocative manner.

Now I’m sure most students never did that – even if they did not follow the letter of the law. But I would not be surprised if there were a number of students that did dress provocatively - pushing the envelop in a manner to attract boys.  Had they not, then I submit the school would not have cracked down in this way.

It’s really a shame that this is being seen as objectifying their female students. By insisting that their students dress appropriately it should be seen as a way of de-objectifying them.

Friday, September 12, 2014


Poster in Israel calling for war against the Amalkite Zionists
It always amuses me when I hear politicians saying that ISIS or any other Muslim terrorist group is not a religion. That what they do is not in any way related to the religious principles of Islam. That is the most ridiculous statement anyone can make.

Of course I understand what they really mean. They mean that mainstream Muslims do not act the way ISIS does. This is true. I will go further and say that most Muslims are as abhorred by ISIS as any normal person would be. But to say that ISIS is not motivated by religious principles is as ridiculous as saying the Crusades were not motivated by religious principles.  

ISIS wants to set up a pure Islamic state. A Caliphate, where the ruler – called a Caliph - will be a cleric with the power to enforce Sharia (Islamic) law as the law of the land. With all of the attendant consequences for violations of those laws.  Like cutting off the hands of a convicted thief.  

When a true believer believes that its ends are the equivalent of Gods ends, then all means are valid in order to achieve them. That can then justify murder and terrorism. These people are highly motivated by their religion. They believe not only in murder and terror as a means to their end. They are Moser Nefesh for them. They are willing to give up their lives for the cause. 

This is why so many of them become suicide bombers. They are doing it for Islam, the religion of peace. A peace that will endure for eternity once Islam becomes the established religion of the world. Killing even innocent Muslims in that cause is justified. They will receive their reward for their sacrifice in heaven.

These people may be condemned by mainstream Muslim clerics. But there is not a scintilla of doubt in my mind that their actions are motivated by their religious beliefs. To say they are not is to deny reality. In fact these people might be the most devout and the certainly the most zealous Muslims of them all.

So when the President says that this has nothing to do with Islam, my eyes roll.

While there is absolutely no comparison in magnitude, the same can be said about people who put up Pashkevils (posters) like the one above from Rafi’s blog. The sign says some pretty vile things.It calls for going to war with enemies that have entered our camp to rip out the holiness of our youth. No we are not talking about ISIS. We are not even talking about Hamas. Who are these enemies? Why it is the Zionist entity and its murderous military. To quote Rafi: 
the pashkevil is calling on the community to come out today and battle the Zionist Amalek and chase out of the Haredi nieghborhoods all the traitors in Nahal Haredi and Shachar programs..
There are no signatures. But it claims to represent the will of great rabbinic leaders and sages. They are calling for war. Not a protest. But a war.

This ‘war’ was supposed to have taken place yesterday. I haven’t heard anything about it. It’s possible that no one actually paid any attention to it. I hope that’s the case.  But the people behind posters like this  are most likely the same ones who harass Charedi soldiers when they come into their communities. They are probably the same people that chase a religious solider out of their Shuls. They are probably the same ones who created those disgusting posters with caricatures of Charedi soldiers nefariously enticing their innocent youth into army service. 

They are probably the same people who burn dumpsters in Jerusalem every time they want to protest something they don’t like about the government. They are probably the same ones who spit on reporters, throw rocks at cars on Shabbos, or at women whose level of modesty does not measure up to their standards – even if they are children as young as 8 years of age. Or that beat up women who sit in the unofficial men’s section of a bus

There are those who say that these people have nothing to do with Judaism. Charedi or otherwise That they are hooligans looking for mischief. That they are the outcasts of the Jewish world with lots of time on their hands. That they are people with no real Jewish values.

That is for the most part, probably true.  Except for the last part. They most definitely do have Jewish values.  It is those values that they are acting upon. That they may be doing so in inappropriate even condemnable ways. But does not take away the fact that they are doing it for God. They are fighting the evils of the army; he evils of Zionism; the evils of the lack of Tznius; or what have you. They are true believers, just like the Muslims of ISIS.

Just to be clear. I am in no way equating the Jewish miscreants with the terrorists of ISIS. The magnitude of difference is so huge that any comparison of one group to the other is ludicrous. As bad as these Jewish miscreants are, they do not line up people next to a ditch and mow them down with gunfire. They do not behead innocent journalists. But in terms of what motivates them, they are no different than ISIS. 

Of course virtually every Jewish religious leader condemns them. Including Charedi ones. But all too often – that condemnation comes with a ‘but’.  The ‘but’ being that their motives are just. That is clear from the rhetoric of many of those leaders themselves. 

Mainstream rabbinic leaders have indeed said some pretty vile things about the army even while they were at war in Gaza. Much the same as these posters.  That these people act on them in disgusting ways is sourced in exactly the same feelings of those rabbinic leaders. So that saying that these people have nothing to do with their religion is as ridiculous as saying that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam.

I think it is high time to recognize this very simple and sad fact and change the tone of Charedi opposition to the draft. And to certainly never say ‘but’ when condemning bad behavior no matter what the motives behind it are.

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Is Daas Torah for Real?

There is a lot of confusion about the definition of Daas Torah. This is a relatively new term used mostly by the Charedi world. It is based on the concept of Emunas Chachamim. Faith in our sages. Rabbi Avi Shafran of Agudath Israel wrote an article about it a few years ago and defined it this way: 
What Da’at Torah means, simply put, is that those most imbued with Torah-knowledge and who have internalized a large degree of the perfection of values and refinement of character that the Torah idealizes are thereby rendered particularly, indeed extraordinarily, qualified to offer an authentic Jewish perspective on matters of import to Jews – just as expert doctors are those most qualified (though still fallible, to be sure) to offer medical advice. 
It’s hard to argue with that. But is Daas Torah as expressed by such institutions as the Agudah Moetzes the only real experession of this? 

Rabbi Julius Berman has written a thoughtful  article in the current edition of Jewish Action discussing what he believes should be the guiding principles for determining what is and isn’t Daas Torah in our day.

First let us define the term. Daas Torah simply means the wisdom of the Torah. The Torah having been authored by God makes it infallible. But as Ross Perot once said about reforming Social Security, ‘The devil is in the details’.  That’s why there is a massive Talmud that discusses it. And an even more massive body of work written by Rishonim, Achronim, and Poskim – each trying to determine what exactly God wants from His people, the Jewish people. That they were - and are - all human makes them fallible. Which is why we have differences of opinion on what the Torah actually meant in many cases.

When it comes to Halacha, one needs to ‘ask the rabbi’. He is the one most qualified to answer such questions.  That there are differing opinions among qualified rabbis is OK. Each qualified rabbi - or more precisely Posek - is entitled to interpret Halacha as he understands it. So when we ask a Shaila, we can rely on his knowledge and follow his Psak. Whether it is stringent or lenient.

It is important however that we make sure that any Posek we ask, is as knowledgeable about all the details surrounding the question by either being an expert on them himself, or relying on those who are in order to get a clear understanding of what’s involved. There are unfortunately some Poskim who make decisions based on insufficient information or a misunderstanding of all the facts involved. But once it is determined that a Posek truly understands what is at hand, his Psak can be relied upon.

But there are other matters that are not strictly Halacha. They are based on Hashkafa, which can sometimes produce radically different opinions. Such as whether serving in the Israeli military is a Mitzvah or an Aveira. Are we free to make our own determinations about what approach to take? Must we listen to rabbinic opinions on the matter – same as Psak Halacha?

And what about public policy decisions? Is that that strictly under the  purview of the great rabbis? Is there a difference between Daas Torah and personal opinion with respect to what a rabbinic great says?

Rabbi Berman says yes, there is. Daas Torah does matter. But he believes that there is much confusion today about what it actually is. The reason for that is because rabbinic decisions are often made without referencing whether  it is Daas Torah or strictly a personal opinion.  I think he’s right.
‘Confusion about such statements is rampant. The public needs to be able to differentiate between pesak, da’at Torah and opinion.’
He makes a suggestion that Daas Torah not only be labeled as such but should be explained. Meaning that any rabbinic decision made should include sources and an explanation. Otherwise it should not be considered anything more than an opinion and not binding in any way. I agree.

Additionally I do not agree with a policy like that of the Agudah Moetzes that does not allow dissent within its ranks to be expressed publicly. They will only express a unified view publicly allowing dissent to be expressed only during an internal debate on the issue. Dissenters must sign off on the majority view. But dissent by a rabbinic great, even if it the minority view is still Daas Torah. And I think the public has a right to know what that view is. R’ Chaim Soloveichik would not join the Agudah Moetzes when it was founded precisely that reason.

Year after year one will hear at least one speaker at an Agudah convention or banquet talks about listening to the Gedolim.  Because only they express Daas Torah. But is that the case? Is it theirs the only expression of Daas Torah?  Or are there other expressions outside the Agudah Moetzes that are Daas Torah as well? 

What about dissent within their ranks? Why not adopt Rabbi Berman’s suggestions as well? Most of all there ought to be clarity about what is Daas Torah... and what is simply an opinion. And certainly there should be clarity that Daas Torah does not belong to only one Hashkafa.

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Removing the Evil from Their Midst

Rav Gedalia Dov Schwartz
Clarity. That is the beauty of the fine mind of Rav Gedalia Dov Schwartz, the Zaken Ha’ir – Chicago’s rabbinic elder.  Not only is his mind perfectly clear, he has the character to match. He is fearless in his determination to protect our daughters and see justice done. Smear campaigns by people with agendas other than the justice at hand - do not faze him. He does what is right. He stands up and tells it like it is.

This is what he has done in a letter he wrote and signed (on behalf of the Special Chicago Beis Din) to Aaron Twersky, the attorney for the four seminaries trying to get their name back; reinstate the accreditation so necessary to attract American - tuition paying - students; and restore the approval needed to receive various types of federal funding which requires compliance to its rules regarding sexual abuse. That letter has been made available to the public. Information contained therein sheds new light on this case and will be incorporated in the words below. My thanks to Yerachmiel Lopin for disseminating it on his blog.

As most people who read this blog know by now, Rabbi Schwartz is the Av Beis Din of the RCA and the Rosh Beis Din of the CRC.  He is part of the Special Beis Din here in Chicago (CBD) set up for the exclusive purpose of dealing with cases of sexual abuse. There are four prominent and highly respected Rabbonim available to serve on this Beis Din: Rav Schwartz; Agudah Moetzes member and Telshe Rosh HaYeshiva, R’ Avrohom Chaim Levin, Agudah of Illinois Dayan  and Talmid Muvhak of R’ Moshe Feinsten, Rav Shmuel Fuerst, and Rabbi Zev Cohen, Rav of Congregation Adas Yeshurun and Rosh Kollel of the Choshen Mishpat Kollel that grants its graduates the advanced Semicha given to Dayanim called ‘Yadin Yadin’.

As most people also know, this Beis Din convened over allegations that the Elimelech Meisels, owner and head of four seminaries in Israel, had ‘physical contact of a sexual nature’ with some of his students. Rav  Levin recused himself from that Beis Din because of a conflict of interest. The remaining 3 Rabbonim convened and heard testimony about sexual abuse from multiple victims. And then from Meisels himself. He admitted his guilt in writing adding additional acts some of which most likely constituted the legal definition of sexual violence. From the letter:
The Beis Din also received evidence – which included documentary proof and admissions that some staff members were (i) both aware of specific instances of misconduct and, (ii)more generally, gross violations of the norms of behavior in seminaries and enabled this behavior by failing to stop it. The disturbing facts supported by this evidence include but are not limited to, the following:
* Meisels repeatedly visited dormitories late at night, to the knowledge of certain staff.
* Meisels repeatedly took female students for car rides alone with him late at night, often to secluded destinations, to the knowledge of certain staff.
* A parent of a victim of unwanted physical contact of a sexual nature by Meisels reported the misconduct to a senior administrator, who summarily dismissed the report as false.
* Another staff member was aware of multiple instances of unwanted physical contact of a sexual nature by Meisels, but did not take action in response.
* A student reported misconduct to another senior administrator, who responded that the student should remain silent lest Meisels ruin her Shidduch prospects.
* A senior instructed others that it was forbidden to discuss Meisles’s  misconduct or believe it to be true.
* A staff member who was aware of multiple instances of unwanted physical contact of a sexual nature by Meisels instructed the victim not to tell her parents.
On July 1st Meisels agreed in writing  to relinquish financial  control of the four seminaries to appointees of an Israeli Beis Din (IBD) that had agreed to assist the CBD in implementing the Psak Din issued by them. It also agreed to a Reorganization Officer that would oversee the the reorganization of the staff.

And then all hell broke loose. The IBD did not fully implement the Psak Din. The CBD then reluctantly  published a warning to potential parents that Meisels 4 seminaries were not considered safe because of Meisels sexual abuse and  predatory behavior. Had the Psak Din been fully implemented, exposing them to undue negative publicity in this way would not have been necessary.

The CBD did so in order to avoid a cover-up of Meisels misconduct - and to avoid a cover-up of the complicity of certain staff members. There was no desire by the CBD to hurt those staff members who were innocent of any involvement.

The CBD had issued requirements for the seminaries in order for them to continue to function, which included hearing additional testimony from certain staff members. As Rav Schwartz clearly states, staff members who knew about the Meisels behavior and did nothing must be removed. They violated their most fundamental responsibility to protect their students. As Rav Schwartz so succinctly puts it:
Absent extraordinary circumstances, such persons must be removed from the seminaries, just as any reasonable person would insist on the removal of a Mashgiach who knowingly permitted a cook to serve Treif food to consumers.
Although there has been much talk (mainly from the Israeli Beis Din and their supporters) about the supposed sale of those seminaries by Meisels, it is far from certain that Meisels has relinquished all financial control. Any such control would ‘disincentivize’  teachers paid by those schools from confronting him. 

As of yet, there have been no assurances from the Israeli side that this is now the case. Until these conditions are met, the CBD will not rescind its warning and continue to recommend that Yeshiva type colleges not restore accreditation. The sale of those seminaries is dependent on contingencies that have not yet been fulfilled.

It should be obvious to all that IBD’s quick restoration of ‘Kashrus’ has not taken steps to determine which teachers and administrators enabled the abuse, protected their jobs at the expense of their students, and even tried to cover it all up. They instead granted every staff member a Chezkas Kashrus. Proclaimig them all innocent of any wrongdoing - knowing that there was evidence to the contrary.

Not knowing which teachers did or didn’t know, does not absolve them of their responsibility of finding out before giving them their OK. Their decision to restore the reputation of those schools anyway does not serve the interests of the students currently attending nor does it serve justice. Their claim that the CBD has not been forthcoming with information about the guilty parties rings hollow in the face of the evidence seen by the CBD combined with the refusal of certain staff members to testify before the CBD.

Why did they do it? Why Kasher a school where sex abuse was enabled by teachers still working there? There is only one explanation. I’ve said it before. And now more than ever -  based on conversations I’ve had with knowledgeable people -  I believe it to the reason.

The IBD are part of a system in Israel that is currently under tremendous financial stress. The structure of the Kollel system is highly (albeit not exclusively) dependent upon the income of Kollel wives. The closing of those seminaries will create untold hardship the families of the Kollel wives who teach there. Not to mention that their reputations will be ruined when people realize why those schools closed. The IBD was not about to let that happen. So instead of ‘removing the evil from its midst’ they allow it to remain in place and declared them Kosher.

Thank God the CBD is not fooled. Until they listen to the admonition from God Himself to ‘remove the evil from their midst’ those schools remain unsafe.

Rabbi Yakov Horowitz asked me to add the following addendum to this post. I am pleased to do so.

Dear Readers:

It is important to note how careful CBD was to limit collateral damage by initially speaking in subdued language hoping everyone would understand -- and only released these details at this point under duress. 

There is an extraordinarily important take-away message here, namely that people who commit wrongdoings of this nature are far, far better served to come clean right away. 

Please note that I tried to do the same in commenting on what ought to be done without mentioning names in these two posts


Just imagine how it would have been better for all parties involved had the tempered p'sak of CBD and the advice in these columns been followed.

Yakov Horowitz 

Tuesday, September 09, 2014

How Many Orthodox Jews Are Believers?

This is the logo of Reform Rabbi, Jeffrey Falick. Are there Orthodox versions of this?
I am beginning to believe that there are a lot more people who are observant that are not interested in theology in the slightest. That is the sense I have after reading the comments by observant Jews in my last post.

To my way of thinking, this is a mystery. And yet that seems to be the case. People do in fact behave in a certain manner for a variety of reasons many of which do not include matters of faith. What are those ‘variety of reasons’? That is a very good question. Rabbi Fink touched upon one of those reasons in his recent post. Which basically said that regardless of their beliefs, if someone loves what he does he will keep doing it. If not, he won’t. 

I added that while this may be true, there has to be an underlying belief in the theological principles underlying that observance. But I am starting to wonder if that is indeed true. I know it’s true for me. But am I in the minority?

One of the more surprising comments came from ‘tesyaa’ – a woman who is completely observant, but mainly because of her devotion to her ‘fundamentalist’ husband. She said that if he were to go OTD, she’s ‘outta here’. Which I assume means that she would stop being observant completely. How many people are like that, I wonder? Are there a lot of people who are only religious because it pleases their spouse? Or for other social reasons?

And how many people are there like Jay Lefkowitz – who are meticulous in their observance despite their doubts about the existence of God or the truth of classic Jewish theology?

I don’t believe that the vast majority of Orthodox Jews even think about matters of faith. Most are observant because that’s the way they were raised and continue to live in an observant environment.  But that can’t be the only reason. Can it? Doesn’t there have to be an underlying belief system to go along with that observance? Because without it what possible meaning can it have?

Is this a Modern Orthodox phenomenon or is this equally true for Charedim? Are there Charedim who will for example only eat from Hechsehrim given by the Eida HaCharedis and yet are not believers?

If this is as common as I now suspect it is, Is there any wonder why there is such a big OTD problem? If one does not have core beliefs… if one is only religious for social reasons, then there is nothing holding you back from dropping observance when your life circumstances change.  Is that what is happening?

I suppose that there is the factor of guilt. Sometimes guilt will keep you observant. But if you are not a believer what is your guilt about? Is it how your family will react to you? Is it about disappointing your parents? Is it about being ostracized by your community?

I don’t see how someone who is religious primarily for social reasons can be true to himself. How do you reconcile living a lie just to please family and friends?

I am aware of at least 2 atheists who are observant…at least where it shows. They do it because this is ‘where they live’. This is the community in which they were raised.  They are married, have children and raise them as religious Jews. They are part of their religious community. How many people are there like them? How many are hiding their atheism from their loved ones just so they can continue to be part of their community? How many do not hide it from their loved ones and continue to live together and appear to the world as though they are both believers?

I’ve always known that there are people like this. But I am beginning to wonder just how many there are. I suspect that they are a lot bigger percentage of the Orthodox world than anyone believes.

I recall 2 stories about people like this which came as a shock to me at the time. One was about a Charedi Posek in Bnei Brak who is an atheist (He no longer is - since his identity  was exposed in a Charedi Magazine article a few years ago). The other was a Modern Orthodox rabbi who loved his job and did not disclose his atheism to his congregants. In both cases they acted in accordance with their reputations as believers.

The Charedi Posek  answered Shailos based on the principles of Psak he had mastered. The MO rabbi gave sermons and served his congregation the same way. But both men were deceiving their public.  As far as I know that MO rabbi still has a pulpit and his congregants still don’t know that he is an atheist. Why did he continue to do this despite his atheism? Because he liked his job; his lifestyle; and his paycheck. How many other Poskim and congregational rabbis are there like this… who secretly believe one thing and preach another?

I have also been told that there are more than a few Avreichim in Kollelim who are not really believers, but continue to act as though they are. How many are there like that? And how fast is this problem growing?

I have decided to set up a poll on the top right margin for both Modern Orthodox Jews and Charedi Jews. I know that it is likely that one may not fit into either; or may fit into both;  or fit into variations in between. I also realize that many categories can be added that would make answers to those question more accurate. But in order to keep it simple please pick the category that most fits you. Please take a moment to pick a category. It will take less than a moment. And if you are so inclined, please explain your choice in the comments section.

I know this poll is completely unscientific. But I hope to get at some minimal level a sense of what my readership (which cuts across all Hashkafic lines) is like. It will be closed one week from today.

Monday, September 08, 2014

Why Are You Orthodox?

I hear him… but at its basic level I have to disagree with him somewhat. Rabbi Eliyahu Fink has written a thoughtful essay about why people leave – or stay in Orthodox Judaism. His primary reason is not because of one’s beliefs, but because of one’s comfort level.  Meaning  that if one enjoys ‘doing’ Orthodox then he will be Orthodox. If they don’t enjoy it, they won’t. Beliefs have little if anything to do with it. Here is how he states it:   
I know more than a few atheists who are happily practicing Orthodox Judaism. The do not believe in God or Torah m’Sinai, yet they are devoutly Orthoprax. They keep Torah and Mitzvot (except the few inchoate Mitzvot) just like anyone else in their communities. I also know true believers who can’t even be in the presence of Orthodox Judaism. These people really believe in God. In fact, some of these people fear God more than most Orthodox Jews. But they just can’t do Orthodox Judaism.  They sin despite their faith in God. The thing that determines whether an adult will practice Orthodox Judaism is not what they believe. It is what they feel. 
Rabbi Fink says that believing in something is not enough to motivate people to act on it. At least not in the long term.  He uses himself to demonstrate this point: 
I started working out at the gym. I knew it was good for me so I was willing to give it a shot. But I stopped after a little more than a year. Despite the fact that I was seeing results, I just stopped going. Why did I stop going to the gym? Because I didn’t like it. I didn’t enjoy it enough to make it worth the effort. The intellectual justification was only able to keep me going for a little while. 
His bottom line can be summed up in the following statement. If an activity does not bring you any joy, you will not be doing it very long – if at all. If it does, you will keep doing it. That, says Rabbi Fink, is why people stay in Orthodox Judaism. If on the other hand Orthodoxy brings them no joy, they leave. This is why for example young people who have been abused by rabbis or other religious figures tend to leave. It is because they now associate Orthodoxy with pain… those abusive rabbis being their reference point for Orthodoxy.

While I believe that there is a lot of truth to what Rabbi Fink says, I do not believe that this is the sum and substance of why people stay or leave Orthodoxy. Yes, there is truth to the fact that for those who are Orthodox there is a  sense of joy in that lifestyle. But without the underpinnings of belief, that joy will fall far short of being fully observant. Which is the hallmark of Orthodoxy.

If one is an atheist for example, but loves the Orthodox lifestyle and community in which he lives, there is still absolutely no reason to fast on any of the fasts, even on Yom Kippur. One can easily go home during the break and sneak a drink of water without anyone being the wiser. There are probably hundreds of ways to violate Shabbos without anyone being the wiser. There are some Orthoprax that are meticulous about their observance, but I doubt that they are anything but a very small and exceptional minority. More about them later.

There are many Mitzvos that I do not particularly enjoy, as in the aforementioned fasting. And yet I do it. Not because I enjoy it. But I don’t because I believe that this is what God requires of me. If enjoyment is my only motivation, why bother being fasting? I don’t think there are too many Orthodox Jews that enjoy fasting on any fast day. Even on Yom Kippur. But we all do.

Now it is true that there is a lot about Orthodox Judaism that does bring me joy. But much of that is based not on the essential Halachos themselves, but on the by-products derived of those Halachos. Without getting into detail, Shabbos is a weekly family day like no other. That is the enjoyment I get. In theory I could have the same setup without observing Shabbos at all.  I can dress up, have a four course leisurely meal with my family and friends  at a set table covered with fine linens every day of the week if I choose. But as lovely as that is, it is not the essence of Shabbos. Observing the Halachos of Shabbos that is. Like refraining from the 39 Melachos as outlined by Chazal. If looked at by themselves, there is no joy in refraining from. I get not a scintilla of joy in say… not carrying an item in the public domain.

The real motivating factor for being religious is something called Yiras Shomayim. Fear of Heaven. We believe the Torah when it tells us (in this week’s Parsha) that if we observe the will of God, things will be good for us. In this world and the next.  If we don’t, things will be bad… very bad. In this world and the next. This does not take away the higher level observing His will because of Ahavas HaShem – Loving God. But I think for most of us, being in awe of God’s infinite power over us is the real motivating factor.

I will concede that being raised in an Orthodox environment gives us an Orthodox Jew a huge head-start in being Orthodox. If that is how you are raised -baring any traumatic experiences related to that Orthodoxy  - that is probably how you will lead your life. The intellectual component is developed later.   But it will be a natural transition in motivation, not in lifestyle.

I should add that Yiras Shomyim does not eliminate sin. Those of us who have it still sin even knowingly and on purpose. We are human and subject to our Yetzer Hara (evil inclination). But when we do, we know we are wrong. And usually regret it after the fact. That is what this season of Teshuva is all about.

All this being said, I do think that Rabbi Fink is right about why people leave Orthodoxy. It is usually because they associate something really bad with it. Like being abused at a very young age when observance is based more on being raised that way than it is on the more compelling motivation of Yiras Shomayim that is develops much later in life.

There are some people who leave Orthodoxy for intellectual reasons. I think that part of the equation is increasing. The free flow of information in our day is planting seeds of doubt into many minds about the existence of God and the truth of Judaism. It is these intellectual ‘dropouts’ that probably comprise the majority of Orthoprax Jews. – Those who continue to observe Halacha despite dropping their beliefs. But I believe that most people like this observe the Mitzvos only where it shows. In private, they ignore them.

As I mentioned above, there are some non believers that are meticulous in their observance. Jay Lefkowitz comes to mind. He explained his motivation as desiring to belong... and that entails following the rules. Why do they want to belong? I think it might just as well be for emotional reasons as it is for intellectual ones. It is for intellectual reasons that they stopped believing.  But their resons for staying Orthodox is anything but intellectual.

On the other hand for those who leave Orthodoxy because of trauma, I doubt very much that they observe anything at all.

How we deal with all of this is beyond the scope of this post. But in the final analysis, except for Orthoprax Jews, I do think that there is a lot more to being Orthodox than just liking it. It isn’t that belief will automatically make you Orthodox, Of course it doesn’t. As Rabbi Fink points out there are a lot of ‘true believers who can’t even be in the presence of Orthodox Judaism’.  But with rare exception - without its underlying beliefs I don’t think that ‘enjoying it’ is enough of an explanation of why people stay in Orthodoxy.

Sunday, September 07, 2014

Business as Usual or a Teachable Moment?

Two young women studying at a seminary in Israel (TOI)
Cross Currents beat me to it. But that does not mean I am free to ignore it. Rabbi Yakov Horowitz has posted on his website what I consider to be the sine qua non for all seminaries in Israel. (Part of it was re-posted on Cross Currents.)

He enumerates three possible scenarios with respect to how seminaries will handle the abuse issue raised by the Meisles/seminaries scandal. Will the victims who came forward be treated... 
1) As nashim tzidkaniyos (righteous women) who, at great personal risk, did the right thing to protect others from what had happened to them?
2) As troublemakers and m’saprei lashon ha’ra (gossip-mongers), who ruined the career of Rabbi Meisels and jeopardized the very existence of the seminaries?
3) Or they are not mentioned at all – basically, “Let’s-Not-Spoil-the-Party-by-discussing-sordid-things-like-this.” (In the month of Elul, no less). 
I wish I could believe that scenario one will be the model that seminaries follow.  Not only would that be the right thing to do, but an absolute necessity. The culture of institutional self preservation above all - must end. But my guess is that it won't be. The culture of self preservation will prevail. Seminary leaders will no doubt continue to believe that they will be able to handle it in-house. And we all know how well that usually works. 

There is no excuse in taking either of the 2 remaining options. This is called ‘sweeping abuse under the rug’.  Option 2 would be the more egregious of the 2 remaining options. Not only would it ignore a problem, it would vilify the students who spoke up and in essence abusing them a 2nd time. They would be sacrificing the welfare of perfectly innocent young women that were victims of sexual abuse in order to save the institutions and the jobs they provide. This is the tactic that was used in the past that is finally being recognized as the wrong way to go – to say the least.

My guess is that it will be the 3rd option that will be taken. They will ignore it. But that in my view is almost as bad. By not talking about it, they leave open the possibility that it will happen again. If not in one school, then in another. Young women attending these schools will remain vulnerable if schools decide to ignore it. They will be unprepared to know how to deal with attempts of abuse and not know what to do if God forbid it happens to them.

The seminary experience can be a very valuable maturing experience for a young woman. But without preparing them for the worst, should it God forbid ever happen to any of them - it will be anything but maturing. It will be devastating. They will not know what to do or where to go. Should they report it? What will happen to them if they do? Will victims be ‘thrown under the bus’ so that the school will be spared any bad publicity? Or will they be treated as scenario number one says - as ‘nashim tzidkaniyos (righteous women) who, at great personal risk, did the right thing to protect others from what had happened to them’?

If they are not taught what to do at the outset - they may suffer the same fate that many other victims of abuse have suffered.  Which include among other things - shame, post traumatic stress, going OTD, depression, and an increased possibility of suicide! I agree with Rabbi Horowitz who said:
Giving the young ladies messages contrary to these -- either by commission or omission -- after such a public scandal occurred, will create a toxic and unsafe environment for them both physically and spiritually.
Everything must be done to prevent this from happening again… and to prepare these young women in how to handle any attempt at ‘unwanted  physical  contact of a sexual nature’. If it somehow does happen, they must be taught to go immediately to the schools leaders to report it. If they refuse to act or are reticent about it… or worse they tell these young women to keep it to themselves - an alarm bell should go off and they should immediately go to the police and report the abuse.

There is no other way to proceed. The time has come to rid our world of sexual abuse…and take the concrete steps necessary to do so. Uncomfortable though it may be to discuss topics like sexual abuse, I don’t think we have any choice anymore.

If there is anything positive coming out of this scandal, it ought to be a zero tolerance policy with respect to abuse; that the Halachos of Yichud be strictly observed; and that a universal program is implemented among all seminaries  that will take option one as the only legitimate approach. Silence on this issue is not golden. It is criminal.

I hope that any future accreditation of seminaries in Israel by American Yeshiva type colleges is predicated on them having such programs.  I also hope that when parents research seminaries for their daughters, that they make sure that such programs are in place.

If all this is done, then only good will result. Without it well… to quote the great American philosopher, Yogi Berra: It may be Déjà Vu all over again. And that is no joke.

Friday, September 05, 2014

Mr. Abutbul: Tear Down that Wall!

Charedi and secular Israelis clash in Bet Shemesh. (photo credit:REUTERS)
I completely understand the predicament of the Charedi community in Ramat Bet Shemesh. Their student population increases exponentially every few years. Both naturally through a high birth rate and through new residents many of whom are American Charedi immigrants drawn to this over 90% observant community with huge numbers of English speakers. 

Understandably their schools get filled very quickly. And the increase of students every year probably makes overcrowded classrooms the norm. They probably couldn’t build new schools fast enough… even if they were given the green light to do so.

On the other hand the secular residents of Bet Shemesh do not have this kind of population explosion. Their schools are not overcrowded. In fact there are many empty classrooms used for non academic purposes or extra-curricular activity. This is the case with the Safot Ve’tarbuyot (Languages and Culture) school in the Ramat Beit Shemesh. The school’s capacity is for 500 students. There are currently 144 enrolled.  

A few years ago a Charedi girls school attempted too get permission from the Israeli Education Ministry to use those empty classrooms. They were denied.   Sympathetic to the plight of children without classrooms, the Charedi led municipality of Bet Shemesh commandeered non instructional classrooms in Safot Ve’tarbuyot for use by Charedi girls and ordered municipal construction workers to build an 8 foot high wall in order to separate the two cultures.

This was done without the consent of the Education Ministry who ordered the Charedi school closed with the threat of cessation of funding for non compliance. Mayor Abutbol claimed that it didn’t need ministry permission since the school’s premises is under the direct authority of the city.  

I think we can all guess what happened next. Violence broke out between teachers at the school who protested it and the security guards that accompanied the construction workers.

I do not understand why there has to be such enmity between religious Jews and secular Jews. The truth is that there is justifiable concerns on both sides of the issue. What bothers me is that no one seems to care about a compromise where both parties will fare well.

First let me say that despite the plight of Charedi students studying in crowded and substandard classrooms, I do not see a forcible takeover of empty classrooms as a solution.  What’s worse in my view is building a ‘wall of separation’. Why must Charedim do that? Why can’t they use those classrooms without walls? What are they afraid of? 

Is isolation for the secular world so important that it’s worth clashing with your neighbors and making enemies out of them? Isn’t it just possible that the Charedi girls might benefit from the interaction that may occur? That secular Jews might actually have something to teach them? And that the secular students may learn from the Charedi girls? Why are we building walls?!

At the same time, why can’t the secular side share space with the Charedim? There is a need. The space is there. What kind of Jew would deny a fellow Jew the opportunity to give his children decent classrooms when they are available? What is gained by denying them that?

That said, I do understand the fear that secular Jews have about the growth of the Charedi community. They fear that their community will become ‘Charedized’.  And things like TVs and movie theaters  will be  banned. They see and hear things about extremists Charedi neighborhoods (like segregated sidewalks) and fear it will happen to them - if the Charedi population increases and overwhelms them.

I understand that fear.  But it is a fear that can be dealt with if there are people of good will on both sides. The key is understanding and compromise.  I firmly believe that the best possible solution to this ‘clash of cultures’ is to work together. Each side should try and put themselves in the shoes of the other. There need not be this divisiveness. Which breeds mistrust, anger, and eventually violence.

The first thing that must be done, in my view is to tear down that wall. The next thing is that the school should allow its empty classrooms to be used by Charedim. Once that happens, maybe… just maybe each community will learn that the other side is not the monster they think they are. If I were the Education Ministry, this is the direction I would be going.

One of my favorite quotes of all time was uttered by a petty criminal - a black man by the name of Rodney King. It was in response to race riots that broke out in Los Angeles after a video that showed him being beaten by the police who were white. It certainly applies here: Why can’t we all get along?!

I am happy to report that  according to the JTA news service, the city of Bet Shemesh has decided to take down the wall. That is a good start. Now let us see if we can now all follow Rodney King’s advice.

Thursday, September 04, 2014

Defining Modern Orthodoxy

Logo of Modern Orthodoxy's flagship institution
One of the things I have not sufficiently addressed over the years is how to define Modern Orthodoxy. Those times where I did, it was usually in other contexts – or as replies to challenges about it. Dr. Baruch Brody seems to have risen to the task. He has apparently written an essay in Hakirah Magazine doing just that – defining in specific terms what that definition is – or should be. I do not subscribe to Hakirah. Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein has provided the main elements of his definition – along with his analysis of it in Cross Currents.

I will first attempt to define what I believe Modern Orthodoxy should be (rather than what it is or perceived to be by others).  I will then address each of Dr. Brody’s points – which I do not believe are exclusive to this Hashkafa.

The primary tenets (for lack of a better word) of Modern Orthodoxy are inherent in its name. We are both Modern and Orthodox. ‘Orthodox’ being the noun and ‘Modern’ being the modifying adjective. We are Orthodox first and modern second. First let us define the term Orthodox.

Orthodoxy in Judaism means unequivocal adherence to the Torah in both belief and practice. There is no wiggle room in that. Rejecting even one Mitzvah – no matter how minor – takes us out of the realm of Orthodoxy. The same is true about belief. If one for example does not believe in God, then one cannot be Orthodox no matter how meticulous his observance of the Mitzvos. This definition is no different than the Charedi definition. I believe that we are both on the same page with respect to the Orthodox part on Modern Orthodoxy.  It is in the ‘Modern’ part that we disagree. There is disagreement from both the right and the left. For purposes of this post I will focus on the right (even though some of what I say might apply to the left as well).

I will attempt to explain what I believe to the essence of what it means to be modern in an Orthodox context. I basically boils down to 2 essential points. The 1st is embracing worldly (or secular) knowledge as a positive value. One that should be sought, appreciated, and utilized.  The 2nd is a positive view of secular culture where it does not contradict Halacha. Without getting into the specific differences between Torah Im Dereche Eretz (TIDE) and Torah U’Mada (TuM), they are both expressions of the primary component of Modern Orthodoxy that values secular knowledge and secular culture.

This is in contradistinction to the Charedi view which does not value it beyond its utilitarian value.

One thing that Modern Orthodoxy is not about – is being less religious. That, unfortunately is the common Charedi misconception about it. It may be true that a lot of Modern Orthodox Jews are less religious. But there are plenty of Charedim that fall into that category too. I will admit, however that the nature of Modern Orthodox enclaves do tend to be less religious. This is a sociological phenomenon, not a Hashkafic one. One that is beyond the scope of this post.  Modern Orthodoxy should be defined by its ideals. Not in how many of its adherents live up to them. Same as Charedism.

This in a nutshell is what MO is and is not. Which brings me to the specificificities  Dr. Brody wants to include as part of Modern Orthodoxy’s definition. Rabbi Adlerstein synopsizes them and questions them. I do too. I do not think that his points are exclusive to Modern Orthodoxy.  I will list his points in bold as delineated by Rabbi Adlerstein. My comments follow (in red) :

1) the value of human worth and dignity, and of human individuality;

 The value of human worth and diginity is a universal Torah value.

2) the value of beauty for its own sake;

The same is true of beauty. The Gemarah has ample examples of its inherent value.

3) the value of individual conscience in interpreting G-d’s law;

The question of individual conscience is somewhat of an ambiguous point. The conscience of a human being is based on his teachings. In psychology it is called the superego. It is that part of the personality that tells you the difference between right and wrong. In Judaism the Torah is first and foremost – that teacher. 

Are there ethics beyond what the Torah tells us? I think that is a debate that goes beyond MO and Charedi differences. But there is a source for that in the context of  ‘Lifnim MeShuras HaDin’. We can be ethical beyond the letter of the law. So that if our individual consciences tell us something is immoral even if the Torah does not spell it out for us, then it is.This too is not as specific MO concept.

 4) the value of toleration (? respect) of diversity;

MO is definitely more tolerant of diversity. But I do not see that as a definitional MO value. It is a Jewish value more practiced by MO.

5) the value of inquiry even into long-established truths;

Inquiry into long established truths is a dangerous area. But that too is not specific to MO. While MO is more tolerant of it, there is nothing inherently wrong with having questions.  It is settling on answers that defy belief in God or his Torah that is problematic. While some may find those answers intellectually satisfying, they are not necessarily the only intellectually satisfying answers to their questions. Just because there are so many unsatisfying answers out there, doesn’t mean the right ones don’t exist. This too is not necessarily an MO concept. I know many Charedi Rabbonim who feel the same way.

6) the tentative acceptance of the results of scientific inquiry as true;

Accepting the results of scientific inquiry is more of an MO feature than it is Charedi. But there too, there are Charedi scientists that do accept those results as true. The classic one being the age of the universe. To believe it is 15 billion years old is not an exclusive MO feature. Although most Charedim reject it, saying the age of the universe is less than 6ooo years old, those with a scientific orientation do, even if they are Charedi.  Among them Physicist Aryeh Kaplan. I think it’s safe to say that he defined himself as Charedi. And almost all of his works have been published by the Charedi publishing house, ArtScroll.

7) the value of reason;

The value of reason is certainly not limited to MO.

8) the belief in cumulative human progress;

…nor is the value of human progress.

9) the rule of law, derived from the consent of the governed that binds all citizens equally;

The rule of law is simply the concept of Dina D’Machusa Dina. Not a specifically an MO belief.

10) the principle of fundamental human rights held equally by all;

The principle of fundamental human rights can be seen as Kavod HaBriyos. All of mankind is created  B’Tzelem Elokim (in the image of God) and are to be treated accordingly. Not an exclusively MO belief.
11) the values of liberty, equality and fraternity;

It is interesting that Dr. Brody chooses the credo of French Revolution: Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity as an important feature of Modern Orthodoxy.  All segments of Judaism value Liberty – the freedom to choose how to live our lives – as long as it does not interfere with the lives of others. Equality has to be defined. In general terms we all should be treated equally. That is basic simple fairness. But when notions of equality interfere with Halacha, we do not accept them. Not MO and not Charedim. We cannot for example equalize the role of men and women when it comes to the quorum required to make a Minyan. Only men can be counted into such a Minyan. Women cannot.

12) the importance of nationality.

If Dr. Brody means being proud of the country in which we live if it has been good to us - I don’t think that is a particularly MO value. Although I do believe it is more prevalent among MO… and that some Charedim do not value it at all, I think it depends on the individual. There are for example many Charedi rabbis I know in Chicago that put out an American flag on certain legal holidays – like Independence Day and Memorial Day.

The bottom line is that none of Dr. Brody's points are exclusively MO. Nor do I even see the wisdom in narrowing down the definition beyond explaining our differences with other segments.