Savage Murderers and What to Do About Them

ZAKA at the site of a Halamish terror attack

It’s impossibly hard! Impossibly hard to see pictures in the aftermath of the terrorist slaughter of a 70-year-old grandfather and his son and daughter.  I cannot imagine the violent slaughter  that took place resulting in these kinds of pictures. There is no excuse for the kind of violence that took place here. None whatsoever!

These victims of unimaginable terror were sitting in their homes at a Shalom Zachor – the traditional Friday night celebration welcoming a newborn onto this earth prior to his circumcision later that week. This peaceful loving and joyous event that all Orthodox Jews celebrate turned into the kind of terror that is difficult to even imagine let alone experience.

The victims: Yosef, Chaya, and Elad Salomon  (Aish)

Why did this happen? There is no way of knowing for sure. But terrorist attacks like this usually have a precursor event. This time I have to lay the blame right at the doorstep of Mahmoud Abbas who called for a day of rage in response to the installation of metal detectors on the Temple Mount (Har HaBayis).

How in Heaven’s name increasing security at a site holy to both Judaism and Islam calls for a day of rage escapes me. But the Arabs surely felt it did. They say it is humiliating to Palestinians who come there to pray there - to go through a security check.

I understand why they might feel that way based on my own personal experience at O’Hare. Earlier this year I was randomly pulled from my TSA pre-check line and was treated practically like a terrorist until they realized I wasn’t. But I was actually quite pleased with what happened because it assured me that the TSA was doing their job – protecting passengers.

Any normal person would - I think - react the way I did. You put up with some occasional and random inconvenience – even a bit of humiliation - in exchange for security.

Not the Palestinians. Had they just complained about it - that would be one thing. It is understandable to complain about something like that. But to call for a day of rage in reaction to it is irrational and irresponsible. Especially knowing the history of such events - which often result in the kind terrorist slaughter that happened last Friday night.

The installations of metal detectors did not happen precipitously. It was in reaction to a terrorist attack right on the Temple Mount where 2 Israeli police officers were killed. Ironically they were not even Jewish. They were Druze Arabs that were there to enforce the peace. They were shot and killed. Had metal detectors been there, it wouldn’t have happened.

A lot of people are saying that Israel ought to stick to their guns and leave the metal detectors in place. I have to admit that this thought certainly crossed my mind. Israel should not allow itself to be intimidated. Protecting its citizens should be their number one priority. The question then becomes what is the best way to do that? What can Israel do right now to best protect its citizens with respect to the Temple Mount?

As I’ve said many times. Har HaBayis is not really in our hands. It is in the hands of Muslim clerics. As long as there is a Mosque up there that Muslims consider the 2^nd holiest site in Islam, that will continue to be the case.

I say this with a heavy – but realistic heart. Especially now that we are about to embark on a 9 day period of mourning for the destruction of the 1^st and 2^nd Temples on this very site. This is the place we Jews constantly pray to be returned to us so that the 3^rd Temple can be built. And although it was captured by Israel in 1967 to the great joy and pride of the vast majority of Jews at the time (including me) -  General Mota Gur’s declaration that Har HaBayis B’Yadenu (the Temple Mount is in our hands) was not a realistic declaration. It is not in our hands. Technically, sure. It is in our (Israel’s) jurisdiction. But as a practical matter, it is still in Muslim hands. That is the reality.

There are many reasons for Jews not to go up there. One is the general prohibition for Jews that are ritually impure (which is the presumption of all Jews in our day) to alight on the Temple mount. They (we) cannot be made pure enough without the ashes of Para Aduma (the Red Heifer).  While there are areas that one may technically alight up there, many Poskim are opposed to it. There is no Halachic benefit to going up there. It might be psychologically or spiritually uplifting. But that is about it.

There are those who say that going up there demonstrates our sovereignty over Har Habayis. In my view that is delusional. Muslim feelings about their rights are not diminished one iota by such things. What does happen is that it incites them toward violence. Any move by Israel in that direction does that – as was demonstrated  once again by the savage murders Friday night in a day of rage declared by Abbas. 

And yet they insist that stopping Jews from going up to the Temple Mount capitulates to terrorism . Perhaps they believe we should even increase our presence there. But I could not disagree more.

In my view Israel ought to deal with the reality that the Temple Mount is not in our hands. This does not mean giving up jurisdiction. But it does mean keeping Jews safe by preventing them from going up there. There is no Halachic reason to go up there now in our time. Especially since it incites the Arabs.

That is not capitulating. This is common sense and is in line with what many Poskim advise anyway. If Arabs don’t want Israeli protection there, that is fine with me.  Now if it were a Halachic requirement to go up there, I would say Israel had a duty to protect us there. But since it is not, we ought to back off entirely until the messianic era.

And then there are those who do their level best to incite the Arabs every time something like this happens. Like what some settlers decided to do in response to that massacre last Friday night. They thought it was a good idea to create a new outpost on the West Bank in to honor the victims. That’s like finding out that smoking causes cancer and dealing with it by smoking even more.

They have the right to feel that way. But not at the expense of inciting more bloodshed.

Of course implementing this idea will not solve the Israeli Palestinian conflict. There will still be terrorism on occasion. The root causes will still be there. Which is over a century of indoctrination of their people to hate us. Many generations of it! The real solution to the problem is to change that paradigm. 

Until that happens, nothing will change. But that doesn’t mean we can’t deal with a specific situation that arises and reduce the possibility of increased violence because of it.

Israel has an obligation to do just that. Eliminating the metal detectors ought to be accompanied by following the Poskim that forbid Jews from going up there altogether. Making it the law of the land until the advent of Moshiach.

Trump, Russia, and Syria

Putin and Trump at a recent meeting in Europe

It seems that Trump is going to reverse the U.S. policy of supporting the so called Free Syrian Army. The Washington Post Reports: 

President Trump has decided to end the CIA’s covert program to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels battling the government of Bashar al-Assad. 

This was the strategy of the Obama Administration whose goals were to both destroy ISIS and oust Assad. While oustig Assad was is a worthy goal, I never had any confidence in it.

First, those rebels were a very small group with little chance of succeeding in a fight against both ISIS and Assad. 

Second Perhaps more importantly – looking at Iraq – it was clearly a mistake to  oust Saddam Hussein and replace it with a democratic government. That hornet’s nest should have been left alone, despite the fact that Hussein was an enemy of Israel, a butcher and mass murderer of his own people. 

While it’s hard to justify leaving someone like that in power, there is little doubt that ISIS would never have had any success in trying to overthrow him and take over. They took over relatively easily once he was overthrown by America military might and replaced with Iraq’s version of a democracy. 

When the ‘Arab Spring’ eventually migrated to Syria, all hell broke loose. Assad was not going to give up power so easily. And that has caused a civil was lasting over 6 years so far – with no end in sight. That created an opportunity for ISIS to move in and take over. Which they did in some very key cities like Raqqa. They are still there.

Assad is not very different from Hussein. He too is an enemy of Israel, a butcher, and mass murderer of his own people. There is no honor in supporting him. And yet, I feel nostalgia for the time when there was relative peace and prosperity in that country under his rule. There were no refugees fleeing the country then. Unless they were critical of the Assad regime, most Syrians were able to lead their lives in peace, prosperity, and relative freedom. This does not justify supporting him. But it may argue against trying to topple him as a secondary goal in conjunction with toppling ISIS. 

This seems to be the thinking of Russia’s Putin. He has openly supported Assad as the legitimate government of Syria. As such he opposed the rebel army from the start. Russia was there to fight them as much as they were to fight ISIS. Which was of course at odds with American policy under Obama. This understandably increased friction between Russia and the US.

In an ironic reversal of roles, Democrats vilifying Russia more than Republicans are these days. So the President siding with Russia is characterized as almost treasonous. (Funny how they used to want to 'reset' the relationship with them under Obama. Now they are painting Russia (the USSR at the time) the way Reagan did during the cold war as ‘the evil empire’!) Republicans on the other hand seem rather subdued about the whole matter. Along comes Trump and stops rebel support. Seeming to now side with Putin.  

There is not a question in my mind that Democrats will spin every move Trump makes into an impeachable offense and will spin everything Trump says into something nefarious or even treasonous. 

All one has to do is look at Democrat and camera hog, Adam Schiff to see that. To him, Trump is guilty until proven innocent (although he pretends it’s the reverse). To Democrats it is obvious that Trump colluded with ‘the evil empire’ to sway the election his way. They are constantly saying that all the evidence point to that, even as they admit that nothing is proven yet. 

As someone who voted against Trump and sill thinks he is an embarrassment to the country and wishes he would resign, I still try to be objective about this. In my view, nothing happened along those lines. Trump and company did nothing impeachable. I do believe that there were Russian hackers that tried to influence the election, and that Putin approved of it. But I do not believe he necessarily ordered it. He found out it was being done and thought it was great. 

I also believe that all those meeting with Russian officials by Trump’s people were not a planned attempt to collude with them in order to illegally defeat his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Surely they can’t be blamed for trying to get dirt on his opponent from any source they could. ‘Politics’ is dirty! That’s how the game of politics is played these days. So if a Russian official comes along and offers you some dirt, why would you ignore it? Would Clinton have turned down dirt on Trump if it was offered by anyone - no matter the source?! (Not that she needed any help. Trump did a good job of providing her with dirt all by himself. But it didn't help her and is beside the point anyway).

(Democrats keep insisting (or at least hoping) that evidence will be discovered that will result in impeachment and then removal from office.  Evidence that Trump and company were trying to throw the election.  But I don’t think it is going to happen. I believe that the investigation led by former FBI director Robert Mueller is going to find exactly nothing that is even near impeachable.) 

Now Democrats have yet another piece of evidence that Trump is colluding with the Russians. By cutting off US aid to the pro democrat rebels in Syria they accuse the President of colluding with the Russians again by signing off on Putin’s support of Assad. If you are blinded by Trump hatred, that is exactly how you will see things. Especially after that undisclosed second meeting between Trump and Putin that was not originally reported.

But as I indicated, I don’t think stopping US aid to a group that has no chance of winning a war against ISIS or Assad is such a bad move. If the priority is ISIS, there is no gain by diverting funds and attention to deposing Assad.

The truth is that Syria is such a mess, it’s hard to know what the right course of action is. It is so complicated that no matter where you turn,  there are positives and negatives for the US and Israel. 

Let us look at priorities.  ISIS is number 1. They have to be destroyed. Although they will still be able to create havoc in the world by inspiring naive young people to join them in their fight against evil (or whatever they're selling  to gain followers to their cause). Iran is Israel's biggest threat, and yet they are on the same side against ISIS. Assad is a butcher, but he too is on the side of fighting ISIS.

As noted the rebels army is not much of an army. They may be democrats (small d) but they are small in number. Not sure they could win even with our support. And even if they did, they will surely be overwhelmed by the Jihadists that are  sure to follow which is what happened in Iraq. Meanwhile they are on the same side as ISIS with respect to overthrowing Assad.

As noted, Assad is a dictator and butcher. But if he is put back in power, Syria could return to some semblance of tranquility. Which is what they had before the current revolution. Remember, there were no refugees from Syria before that. Even Israel was relatively safe from attack by them based on decades of experience under Bashar and his father, Hafez.

I don't like the idea of rewarding a butcher like Assad by giving him back his country. But from where I stand, it is the least of all evils.

Truth is that I am far from an expert on any of these issues. I’m just thinking out loud.

The Big Lie

Illustration from Reuters via the Jerusalem Post 

I’m not sure whether it’s deception or just plain old fashioned stupidity.  Although it pains me to say it, I think a recent statement by heterodox rabbis that was reported in the Jerusalem Post is a combination of both.

Why does it pain me? I know that many Conservative and Reform rabbis are sincere. They are true believers in their philosophies. Although I am in profound disagreement with them, I understand that in most cases they have spent the majority of their lives believing in the tenets of their denomination. They believe in what they do. I therefore completely understand their latest protest.

However,  if the ‘letter of protest’  they read at the Israeli embassy in Washington is the best they can do  - it shows that either they have a complete misunderstanding of how Israel treats its non Orthodox population, or more likely they are purposely making misleading charges against it.

What they seek is pluralism. Let us be clear what that means. They want Reform and Conservative Judaism to be declared legitimate denominations – right along with Orthodox Judaism. I don’t support them. But that is a legitimate demand to make of a democracy.

But they are not framing it that way. In an effort to gain wide support from non Orthodox Jews they are characterizing Israel’s refusal to recognize them as a rejection of all non Orthodox Jews.

This would be laughable if it weren’t so sad. Secular Jews are rejected?! Are they kidding? Secular Jews make up the vast majority of Israeli Jews (…although their percentages are shrinking in light of their low birth rate versus the much higher birthrate of Orthodox Jews.) To say Israel’s reneging on a plan to expand the egalitarian space is a ‘manifestation of a lack of respect for non-Orthodox Jewry both in Israel and in the Diaspora’ is such an obvious lie, I can hardly believe they said it.

What they are purposely ignoring is that most secular Jews in Israel don’t really care about Reform or Conservatvie Judaism. They are perfectly happy to be secular. To the extent that many of them are traditional means that they are to some extent traditional in the Orthodox sense of the word. They do not look to Conservative or Reform customs or interpretations of Halacha. They look to what their parents or grandparents did (in Europe if they are Ashkenazi; in the Middle East if they are Sephardi). None of which were Conservative. And if those ancestors were Reform they clearly did not look to their customs because Reform Judaism in Europe didn’t have any Jewish traditions. They ran away from them.

Now it may be true that secular Jews support the rights of heterodox movements to be considered legitimate. But that is surely not because they believe in the ideology of either Conservative or Reform Judaism. It is simply because they see Israel as a democracy which in this case is denying the rights of fellow Jews.

And yet the entire argument of these rabbis makes it seem like Israel is denying they rights of every secular Jew in Israel. And that by reneging on the deal they have betrayed the majority of Israel’s Jews, as well as the majority of American Jews. That is an obvious deception.  The following two excerpts make that clear: 

“These developments, offensive as they were, unfortunately do not stand in isolation but are only the most recent manifestations of a lack of respect for non-Orthodox Jewry both in Israel and in the Diaspora…” 

“This... goes to the heart of whether Israel perceives non-Orthodox Jews as legitimate.” 

These are lies, plain and simple, whether made intentionally or not.  Had they said heterodoxy instead of non Orthodox Jews, I would have agreed with them.

To say they are upset by this is an understatement:   

(I)t is painful to describe the anger, frustration, disillusionment and disappointment throughout our communities concerning the most recent developments with regard to the Kotel, conversion and the authority of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. 

Yes, I’m sure it is painful. But that should not include implied threats of withdrawing support. As  does the following: 

“Our communities have long been the backbone of support for Israel,” it said. “In light of those facts, it is painful to describe the anger, frustration, disillusionment and disappointment throughout our communities concerning the most recent developments with regard to the Kotel, conversion and the authority of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel.” 

“…these straws have broken the camel’s back.” 

I’m not buying it. Are they going to stop supporting Israel’s defense forces?  Are they going to stop sending money to the Israeli poor? Are they going to stop supporting the important scientific and medical research being done in places like the Weitzman Institute and Hadassah Hospital, Technion and other universities there? 

Are they just going to turn their back on Israel because their denominations won’t get official recognition?

And what about their stated goals of Kiruv towards Israel’s  secular Jews? Are they going to abandon that too? Remember, no one is banning a single Conservative or Reform rabbi from coming to Israel and preaching their beliefs or opening up more of their schools.

They feel  betrayed and I don’t blame them.  A deal was made and suddenly withdrawn by the prime minister because of pressure from religious parties. Netanyahu, the consummate politician,  does not want to lose his coalition. So he gave in to them. 

For what it’s worth, he promised that this deal will be renegotiated with modifications that will be acceptable to all. I hope it is. Because the one thing I do agree with is this: “We have enough trouble with our neighbors, why do we have to fight with ourselves?”

The Illogical and the Irresponsible

Irresponsible! (Ha'aretz)

If there is any logic to the Arab/Mulsim world complaints about what Israel did on the Temple Mount, it escapes me.

To say they are complaining is to put it mildly. You would think that Israel has thrown a bomb into their mosque instead of installing metal detectors. You would think that Muslims that pray in an area they consider holy would be grateful for the added security – instead of calling for a day of rage – as did Mahmoud Abbas. I honestly don’t get it.

There have been many articles written about this by people that have been just as perplexed as I am. One of which was by David Horovitz, founding editor of the Times of Israel where he noted: 

It’s outrageous that the metal detectors are deemed unacceptable when religious sites the world over are secured in exactly the same way, for exactly the same unfortunately necessary reasons. There is high security around key Islamic sites, notably including at Mecca and Medina. 

It’s not as if the decision to put install metal detectors  on the Temple Mount happened surreptitiously in some sort of stealth decision to do so, Not that – that would have been so terrible. Upgrading security is the duty of any government as a means to protect its citizens. 

But the fact is that Israel did it because 2 of its police officers guarding the mosque were attacked, shot, and killed by Muslim terrorists using guns hidden in the mosque. Ironically, the two police officers that were murdered were Druze Arabs! Israel rightly felt that this needed to be addressed by upgrading security. Arabs killed Arabs, Jews try to do something about it, and Arabs are enraged by it.

(How in the world can those who support BDS and claim the moral high ground, ignore the outrage of this situation? Could it be because those same people are ‘anti Zionist’ (meaning they hate Jews)? Is Roger Waters an antisemite? He may deny it and claim this is all about justice for the Palestinians. But if that were so, I would expect him not to be blinded by such an obvious truth – and say something about it.)

Why are Muslims so upset about this? I believe that this is just about not having full control of Har Habyis. Every day they are reminded that Israel rules over them and they don’t like it. Even though they do have just about full control of it… to the point of not even allowing Jews to pray there, they still resent Israel’s presence in any capacity there. Placing metal detectors is just another indication of Israel’s control. They also realize that Jews have a religious claim to that area too, Even though they discount that – and Israel has done its best to ignore it, they get plenty of reminders about our claim.

When religious people feel that one of their holy places is not fully in their control it upsets them. Any action done by people they see as occupiers is going to result in this kind of reaction.

Which brings me to a group of Jews who just have to show them ‘who’s boss’. The more extreme among them believe we should just blow up the Al-Aqsa mosque on Har HaBayis so that we can begin to re-build the Beis Hamikdash. While those people are few and truly on the fringe, they are a very noisy fringe that makes sure that the Arabs hear them. 

And then there are those who insist they must go up their so that they can pray even though it is against Israeli law. And the fact that many Poskim say that they shouldn’t go up  – even to the places that are technically permitted by Halacha. These people want to assert their authority over Har Habayis and make sure the Arabs know it.

It happened again – right in the middle of all this. From Ha’aretz: 

The Temple Mount was temporarily closed to Jewish visitors on Wednesday at the order of Jerusalem District Commander Yoram Halevy after Jews broke visitation rules at the holy site, police said. 

The Jewish visitors were expelled from the compound for bringing sacred books to the Mount and trying to pray there. After one of the individuals was cautioned, another took out a holy book, and the group was expelled. 

If there is going to be a day of rage, which was called for by PA president Abbas, then these people were irresponsibly pouring gasoline on the flame – making sure that the rioters will be as outraged - and as prone to violence as possible.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Yes! Har Habayis is ours, given to us by God. It is the place where the Beis HaMkidash stood and will stand in the future. There is not a scintilla of doubt about that. But neither should there be any doubt about the irresponsibility of those zealots who are willing to make that point on the backs of all the innocent Jews that will be hurt by their exacerbation of the tension.

I’m glad that that authorities have decided to close off Har Habyis to Jews today as a result of this. In my view, it ought to be permanent.

Orthodoxy Needs a Legitimate Left Wing

Image from The Atlantic

A short while back, a friend of mine who is a passionate supporter of the egalitarian space at the Kotel admitted to me that when he visited the Kotel he chose to experience the Orthodox controlled section saying that it was more inspiring to him then it might have been at the egalitarian space.

This did not lessen his strong support for that space. But it does tell me that Orthodoxy has a lot to offer even those of us that are on the left of Judaism.

Which is why reaching out to fellow Jews of all (or even no) denomination is so important. I would go even further and say that it is critical that we increase such outreach. There has never been a more important time to do that in recent history than right now.

There is no longer any doubt about the rapid decline of Conservative Judaism. To put it the way Emma Green did in The Atlantic: 

Of all the American Jewish denominations, Conservative Judaism appears to be shrinking the fastest: As of 2013, only 11 percent of Jews under 30 identified as Conservative, compared to 24 percent of Jews over 65, according to Pew. 

This is old news. What is not so old is what they are trying to do about it. And how Orthodoxy should react.

The Conservative movement was founded in response to a melting pot America where the challenges of assimilation were overwhelming. One might say that they saw themselves as an outreach movement (known in Orthodox circles as Kiruv). Their goals were noble, but their methods were wrong on at least two levels. 

First, they ignored the importance of Halacha even while claiming fealty to it. Conservative Rabbi Daniel Gordis noted that this claim stopped being valid when the movement started allowing Jews to drive on Shabbos in the 50s . He calls such claims intellectually dishonest .

The second problem is that it is counterproductive to what you are trying to promote. Judaism is about our obligations to God which are spelled out in the Torah and interpreted by our sages and rabbis throughout the generations. It is not about abrogating those laws which you no longer think are relevant. It would be like telling a baseball player he can join your team and allow him to violate the rules of the game. Except that our rules were established by Someone a bit more important that Abner Doubleday.

The Conservative Movement is grappling with exactly an issue like this. Intermarriage has long been taboo even according to them. And there are still  strong arguments being made against it. Which sound almost like the Orthodox arguments against it: 

“To bless an intermarried union is … to in some way betray the very thing that I’ve given my life to, which is to try to maintain the Jewish tradition,” said David Wolpe, the senior rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles. “It may be beautiful, it may be loving, it may be worth celebrating on a human level. But on a Jewish level, it’s not fine, and it can’t be made fine.”  

But as Rabbi Gordis notes, that train (i.e. that Halachic argument) has ‘left the station’. Intermarriage is now the hottest topic on the Conservative table. In a misguided attempt to revitalize their movement many of their more liberal rabbis are either performing them already or are advocating doing so to save the movement. 

I guess they haven’t learned from their past mistakes. You can’t take the Judaism out of your movement and expect people to stay Jewish. There has to be core standards. If you keep moving the needle, you don’t really have any.

Nonetheless there is a need to reach out to the increasing number of unaffiliated Jews. How do you reach out to a group of people who - because of our culture - consider it racist to forbid intermarriage? I have no good answer for that. But I do know there are many fine Orthodox outreach organizations that are able to appeal to these very same Jews.  (Just to name a few, Chabad, NCSY, and the Chicago Torah Network.) 

But that still leaves a lot of Jews that cannot accept the standards of mainstream Orthodoxy. And yet have a desire to have a more spiritually fulfilling life. They are people with liberal values, some of which seem to contradict the traditional values of Orthodoxy. Such as egalitarianism.

This is why we need a left wing in Orthdoxy. One that used to be able to appeal to those values while remaining loyal to Halacha and tradition – even while pushing some of the traditional boundaries. For example. Rabbi Avi Weiss had some innovative ideas about how to accommodate egalitarian views by creating a Shul environment that had an egalitarian spirit without compromising Halacha. Although it broke with the traditional design of an Orthodox Shul, it did not cross lines that put it outside of Orthodoxy. He was able to reach out to that kind of Jew. Even though I would be very uncomfortable davening in a Shul like that, I strongly supported it since there are a lot of modern Jews that it did appeal to.

Which is why I am so disappointed by what has happened to the left. Rabbi Weiss, has crossed so many lines that he is no longer accepted or even tolerated by mainstream Orthodoxy. I am not going to go into in detail here. I have done that more times than I can count. I am just expressing my dismay over what has happened to the left by the creation of an Open Orthodoxy (OO) that has gone too far. 

It would otherwise be ideal for many modern day unaffiliated Jews seeking genuine spirituality without sacrificing their modern ideals. If only OO would have stayed within acceptable bounds, I would be their biggest supporter. The rabbis of the Conservative movement want to reach out by changing the rules. That would not be acceptable to an intellectually honest person seeking spirituality any more than a good baseball player would be attracted to the game of baseball that changes the rules to accommodate his particular preferences. Because that would make baseball seem inauthentic. And it would be.

This is why I had hope that my friend, YCT president Rabbi Asher Lopatin would have stayed within acceptable bounds of tradition. He is as sincere as they come and it shows. If anyone is a magnet for the unaffiliated, it is him.  He proved that when he was in Chicago. He took a dying shul and made it more successful than at any time in its history… appealling to the modern educated Jew without seriously crossing any lines.

This is also why an intelligent and knowledgeable man like YCT Talmud Chair, Rabbi Y’soscher Katz could be so valuable to this cause. He has basically admitted that Open Orthodoxy is a form of Kiruv aimed at the modern educated, Jew that has been acculturated to spirit of the times. The same kind of people that the Conservative Movement wants to reach out to.

I strongly support their goals. But as is the case with the Conservative movement, I do not support their methods.

We need a left wing more than ever now. The Conservative movement is failing – and grasping at the wrong straws to stay relevant – and even stay alive. Performing intermarriages is clearly not the way to retain Jews. History has shown that to keep going in the direction of lessening the standards will not retain Judaism for these Jews. It will instead grease their path out of it.

It is therefore up to Orthodoxy to do it in ways that do not compromise Halacha and do not cross the important lines of tradition. That is how the left wing of Orthodoxy used to be. Open Orthodoxy could have been that left wing. If only they hadn’t gone too far. And it seems like they may go even further down a path well trodden by the Conservative movement using the same rationale they did. Which got them where they are today. And which may signal where Open Orthodoxy will end up.

Anti Zionism is Anti Semitism

French President Macron and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu

There are those that will argue that being anti Zionist does not mean one is antisemitic. On the surface this seems like a fair statement. But is it? Not according to the newly elected French President, Emmanuel Macron. And I generally agree with him.

But what about that? Why isn’t it possible to be opposed to State of Israel and yet have no issue with the Jewish people? I think that’s because Israel is defined as a Jewish State. And even though the State does not necessarily represent all of my Jewish ideals – which are Torah based – nor does it represent all of the Jewish people - Israel is nevertheless seen that way by much of the world. If I am not mistaken, Israel now has more Jews living within its borders than does the United States or any other country. It’s hard not to see being anti Israel as not being antisemitic.

This does not of course mean that one can’t be critical of the Israeli government. Clearly there are many Jews critical of the government, including – and perhaps especially –some of its own citizens. But when one says something like Zionism is racism – as did the UN years ago, it can only be seen as a thinly disguised form of antisemitism. (While the word ‘semite’ technically includes Arabs, current usage of the word ‘antisemite’ refers to being prejudiced against the Jewish people.)

It’s nice to know that the new French President understands the distinction between being critical of some of Israel’s policies and being anti-Zionist.  Especially – as the World Jewish Daily notes, France has been pretty pro Palestinian in recent years: 

At a Paris event marking the Holocaust with Israeli Prime Benjamin Netanyahu, Macron pledged, "We will never surrender to the messages of hate; we will not surrender to anti-Zionism because it is a reinvention of anti-Semitism." 

This new approach is heartening in light of the wave of recent antisemitism in France. It has become so bad that immigration from France to Israel is unprecedented. Prime Minister Netanyahu has done his best to publicly encourage it, telling Jews to leave France because of it - and make Aliyah (immigrate) to Israel!

A lot of people thought it took quite a lot of Chutzpah for a sitting Israeli prime minister to insult an ally by urging French Jews to leave France en masse and come to Israel.

I suppose it did. But what followed is a passionate plea from then French Prime Minister Manuel Valls saying words to the effect that France without Jews – is no France at all. I guess that the French leadership finally saw the threat of a massive exit of so many Jews from their country was very real and that antisemitism was what was causing it. And they did not like it. The last time they saw that happening was when they contributed to it during the Holocaust! Not a piece of history French political leaders are proud of. At least most of them.

The only question is, will it last? Or will antisemitism continue to be a major problem there? We shall see. But in the meantime, I’m glad President Macron uttered those words.

Recognizing Truth - No Matter the Source

A Reform egalitarian prayer service at Robinson’s Arch

Rabbi Nachum Eisenstein is one Orthodox rabbi that I believe has caused more damage to Orthodox Judaism than just about any other Orthodox rabbi. His name is practically synonymous with the ban on Rabbi Natan Slifkin’s books issued by his mentor, Rav Elyashiv. 

That ban has done incalculable harm to fellow Orthodox Jews - driving a wedge between many modern Orthodox Jews and Charedim. As have so many other things he has had a hand in. I am therefore loathe to agree with anything this man says about any subject. And yet I find myself mostly in agreement with him on a subject on which he was recently interviewed. 

By the same token I find myself in disagreement with Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, someone that I consider a hero. While I still do consider him a hero on so many levels, he has made some comments in recent years on a variety of issues that trouble me. The latest of which is his apparent support of heterodox movements: 

"First and foremost, [Diaspora Jewry can teach us] the idea of pluralism…I see the Reform and Conservative as my partners and as part of Israel... 

I really do not understand how this student of Rav Soloveitchik (the Rav) who in the past did not make a move without consulting his teacher and mentor, could say something that is in diametric opposition to his views. 

It is rather well known that the Rav did not permit any of his students to participate with heterodox rabbis except in matters of communal welfare. In theological matters, he forbade any participation because he considered them an illegitimate representation of Judaism. On this point the Rav was no different than Rav Aharon Kotler. And yet in calling them partners Rabbi Riskin seems to be rejecting his mentor’s clear directive.  That said I do not disagree with him about this: 

"There is a reciprocal relationship between Diaspora Jewry and Israel, which is very important, even vital for us,"  

Yes, there is. And it is important to maintain it. The only question is what the cost might be. The relationship cannot come at the cost of sacrificing our ideals. We can’t say that something is Kosher if it isn’t. Even if it would cost us good will. 

First the claim that their conversions should be recognized while at the same time welcoming intermarried couples – and even performing intermarriages is an outrageous demand that any rational person that recognizes the basic tenets of Judaism - would reject. And then there is the Kotel issue.

Until this controversy arose, there were no issues with respect to welcoming every Jew into Israel with open arms. That hasn’t changed. It doesn’t matter to which denomination a Jew belongs Nor how observant they  are. If a Jew comes to the Kotel there is no litmus test about observance or belief. Or even if they are Jewish. Ever since the return of the Kotel into Jewish hands thousands of Jews from all denominations have come to the Kotel; respected the rules; and in many cases found it to be inspiring experience even without it being egalitarian. 

What is happening now is that their leaders are insisting that their egalitarian standards be respected and recognized. Most of Reform and Conservative Jews did not have this issue on their radar at all -   until their rabbis made it one. And as noted here a few days ago, most secular Israelis could not care less about praying at the Kotel – even in an egalitarian setting. Which (as mentioned in the past) they already have in the little used portion of the Kotel called  Robinson’s Arch. It therefore seems obvious to me that the Kotel is little more than a tool being used for purposes of recognition. And Rabbi Riskin seems to be supporting that. Perhaps he was responding to this: 

“We love the State of Israel and will continue to do. But we will not sit idly by while the State of Israel delegitimizes us and frankly says to the Jews of North America and the Jewish of the world, ‘You do not matter,’” Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the head of the North American Reform movement, said June 26 at the Knesset. 

No, Rabbi Jacobs. The State of Israel does not say that at all. Nor do even the Charedi parties. It is not the Jews of North America or you they reject. It is the false ideology of Reform Judaism.

I cannot understand how a man like Rabbi Riskin can compromise the ideals he has worked for all of his life, ideals his mentor strived for – all for the sake of support from Diaspora Jewry. We need the support. But the price he is willing to pay is too high.

Which brings me to Rabbi Nachum Eisenstein. It galls me to say it, but in large part I agree with him:

“The reason why Judaism is the only religion that survived throughout thousands of years and all the massacres and all the attempts to destroy it is that the ours is the only religion that has always been the same, the way it was given to us on Mount Sinai,” Eisenstein said in an interview. “Who gave you, the Conservative and the Reform, the authority to make up a new religion?” 

Eisenstein said ultra-Orthodox opposition to the Western Wall deal was fundamentally about staving off state recognition of non-Orthodox Judaism. The Western Wall agreement also called for an interdenominational Jewish committee to oversee the non-Orthodox section, which ultra-Orthodox critics felt gave non-Orthodox movements an unprecedented say in Israel’s religious affairs. 

Adding to this is Shas Kenesset member Rabbi Ayeh Deri. And although he too is not one of my favorite people, here he speaks the truth: 

“We have nothing against Jews in any place they may be. They are all our brothers,” he said. “Our fight is against the approach, this ideology which is attempting to bring a new Judaism here, is trying to destroy everything that we built here over the years.”  

So there you have it. This is little more than a fight over legitimization of violations of Halacha that are increasingly being accepted by heterodoxy. And no Orthodox rabbi could ever agree to that.

The Demise of Jewish Denominations

Temple Shalom in Chicago

Truer words have not been said: “I’m A Reform Rabbi, And I’m Not Going Anywhere.” So said Rabbi Howard Goldsmith. Well, that’s almost right. I would just apply it to his movement, not him.  Reform Judaism is not going anywhere. It is becoming less Jewish with each passing day. If it’s going anywhere it is going toward extinction. At least as anything legitimately called Jewish… as their definition of who is and isn’t Jewish has departed from all traditional definitions. I do not say this with any sort of glee. I just see it as a fact.

That they do not require any ritual Mitzvah observance has contributed more to the secularization of Jews in America than any other single thing.  ‘Unaffiliated’ is how most American Jews answer when asked which denomination they belong to. That can be traced in major part back to the tenets of Reform’s founding fathers. It is also the reason the Reform Movement has expanded its ‘tent’ of membership to Judaism. Which makes it even less Jewish than it was before.

How ironic it is that a Reform Rabbi is so  taken by the Jewish State. One of the founding tenets of Reform Judaism is the rejection of the return to Zion (Israel). Something we Jews have prayed for since the second temple era. And something Orthodox Jews still pray for daily. Reform Judaism erased any mention of it from their liturgy - and called their synagogues ‘temples’ to show that we don’t need the temple  in Jerusalem any more.  Reform temples in America have taken its place. Israel was considered an irrelevant detail of Jewish history with little value to Jews of our day.

That Rabbi Goldsmith now loves Israel is a good thing. Times change. People change.  And the Reform Movement changed. I’m actually pleased that he has fallen in love with the country. Although I’m not in enamored with the socialist image of the Israel’s founding fathers upon which he bases his love - loving Israel in any context is progress.

Before anyone jumps all over me for my apparent intolerance and lack of understanding, that is not what is going on in my mind. I actually feel sorry for this man. He is clearly an idealistic individual with altruistic intentions. It’s not his fault that he believes that Judaism does not require any Mitzvah observance. I will even give him the benefit of the doubt that he keeps many of the Mitzvos. That has been the trend in recent years. The Reform leadership has changed direction.

 In its heyday, Mitzvah observance was practically forbidden. When I was a child, I recall my father telling me that the rabbi of the Collingwood Avenue Temple in Toledo required Jews to remove their head covering when entering the sanctuary. Reform leaders now realize that shunning all observance has left Reform Judaism - Jewish in name only and bereft of any real Jewish  meaning. It has resulted in their membership wondering what it is about their denomination that makes it different from any other altruistic group pursuing social justice.

So they have done a 180 and now support doing as many Mitzvos as possible. That is a plus. But without a mandated commitment, Reform Judaism leaves in place the ability to move easily from Reform Judaism to being unaffiliated and intermarriage.

There are those who might say that Orthodoxy does not have the exclusive right to define who is and isn’t a Jew or what Judaism actually means. They are entitled to their opinion. But the fact is that Judaism has survived throughout history precisely because it was defined basically the way Orthodoxy is defines it now.

While there  may be some legitimacy to claims that the way Orthodox rabbis rule today has in certain instances departed with how rabbis have ruled historically - there is not a scintilla of doubt about the fact that it has been Halacha and tradition that has kept us Jewish historically. Can anyone imagine what Judaism would look like today if Reform Judaism would have taken hold instead of rabbinic Judaism? You don’t have to imagine it. I’ll tell you. It would not exist at all in any - even remotely recognizable way.

Rabbi Goldsmith had the misfortune of not having been raised in an environment that sees the importance of required Halachic observance. That’s why his sermons dealt so much with supporting Israel. Israel has indeed been the main subject of heterodox sermons when they weren’t about social justice issues.

Although I’m sure he does not want my sympathy and might reject everything I say – considering it insulting, I nevertheless I actually feel bad for him (even as I understand why he would be upset). He is sincere and feels unjustly rejected by Israel. I can’t really blame him for feeling that way.

But the fact is that he is not rejected at all. Only his movement is. He is as welcome to Israel as any Jew. He is also as welcome to pray at the Kotel as as any other Jew is. That he wants to do it together with women is just a product of his indoctrination. Israel - including its Charedim - welcomes all Jews. The only thing the Charedim and most other Orthodox Jews reject is the legitimacy of his denomination.

As noted here recently be a secular columnist in Ha’aretz, most Jews could not care less about the Kotel – other than as a tourist attraction. There is no groundswell of secular Israelis clamoring to pray at the Kotel in any incarnation: Reform,  Conservative, or Orthodox. This is all political. A tactic being used by heterodox rabbis to gain some sort of recognition for their denominations.

I believe that all denominations  are all headed for demise. Including Orthodoxy. At some point in the future only observant Jews will be able to be counted upon to perpetuate our people. We will all just be Jews. Not members of a specific denimination. Just as has been the case historically. The rest will unfortunately be lost to assimilation sooner or later. This is not a good outcome at all. But it is a real one.  The sooner Rabbi Goldsmith realizes that, the sooner he may come to realize the importance of ceding control to Orthodox rabbis is the only way toward the future. I think that deep down he might even know that.

Seeing the Other Side

Image from Bishvilaych

One  of the most troubling things I have noticed over the years is the inability of people with one set of ideals to hear what people with another set of ideals are saying. It would be a far better world if we just listen to each other and try to understand where those with opposing views are coming from. There doesn’t have to be agreement. We all have our ideals and we fight for what we believe. I am certainly one of those.

But what I try to do is hear what people that disagree with me are saying and respect their views. Sometimes I can even change my views if the opposing view makes more sense to me that the one I originally had. Perhaps that’s why I often find myself straddling  a middle course on so many issues

In the course of conversation that takes place by people that comment on my posts, I rarely see that kind of understanding. Or even civility in some cases. Instead I see stridency on both sides of an issue, sometimes crossing the lines of polite discussion into venomous personal attacks.

I believe that this is one reason we do not have Achdus in Judaism - not even in Orthodoxy. As I’ve said numerous times, agreement is not the goal of Achdus.  The goal is to respect other points of view even when there is disagreement.

I bring this up in light of a discussion on Sruli Besser’s  Facebook page. It involved a discussion about how the Charedi world treats their women. Shoshana Keats Jaskoll made the following comment in a Times of Israel article dealing with breast cancer: 

In Judaism, those who make policy for the entire community are men. Men, by virtue of being men, don’t experience Judaism as women do. This is natural.

What is not natural, however, is not listening when women describe their experience and ask for change. Communal and rabbinic leaders simply do not consult with women. They don’t allow for serious input from them, and they don’t hear from them about the consequences of communal policy and priorities. Thus, women’s needs come after a long line of other considerations and as a result, policy doesn’t take them into consideration. 

Shoshanna then goes into detail about a whole host of issues where women are negatively affected because of that – including areas of women’s health. This generated responses from the many on the right essentially accusing her of Charedi bashing. 

One can agree or disagree. But the response from both sides showed zero attempt to try to understand or see the merit of the other side. Almost everyone just promoted their own point of view without granting even the slightest bit of legitimacy to what the other side was saying.

But there was one response that didn’t do that. It came from Alex Fleksher. She is not Charedi, but has expressed views that are often consistent with the Charedi point of view. (As she did on her Cross Currents post on the movie, Wonder Woman.)

I posted an article about the reaction of these two women stating that despite their similar backgrounds their views about the movie could not be more different! Shoshanna and Alex debated their views commenting on both my blog and on Cross Currents. But then she came to a realization. I will let her speak for herself (from Sruli’s Facebook page): 

I decided to really try to look at it from her perspective. And I realized that her views on shmiras einayim (the topic of my article) and possibly tsnius in general are different than mine because of the environment that she currently lives in. She is witnessing all sorts of extremes in RBS and I'm happy go-lucky in my midwest town in the U.S where no one is saying boo to me in my jean skirt.

So I shared that with her. And she really appreciated it and from then we have had some very nice shared dialogue where we've learned more about each other and are focusing on what we agree on. It was actually quite liberating removing those labels, trying to understand the other, and start finding ways we could have a positive discourse. I truly believe Shoshanna Keats-Jaskoll has some valid takeaways from her article… 

This is what I am talking about! This is the kind of Achdus I am seeking. We need to understand what the other side is saying and respect it; learn from it; and even change our views if it make sense to us. But changing our views is not the goal of Achdus. Just appreciating where others are coming from.

If you are Charedi, then it would be helpful to look at the Hashkafos of Modern Orthodox and try and understand them. And if you are Modern Orthodox it would be just as helpful to try and understand Charedi Hashkafos. There is just too much blindness about the value of any other views other than your own.

I tend to see value in both sides of an issue - even as I see problems in both. I know that the great Centrist  leader,  Rav Aharon Lichtenstein respected great Charedi leaders like Rav Yitzchok Hutner and Rav Sholmo Zalman Auerbach. I believe the reverse is true as well. Even though they disagreed Hashkafically.

I only wish there were more leaders like them today. Unfortunately I think the trend is away from that as the world of Orthodoxy becomes more polarized than ever. That is clearly reflected in the discussion that took place on Sruli’s Facebook page as it is almost daily between people commenting on my posts.

My hat is off to both Alex Fleksher and Shoshanna Keats Jaskoll  (who said ‘you’re such a mensch’ after reading Alex’s  lengthy comment from which I excerpted above). If we could all do that, Achdus may actually be possible some day.

The Damage Caused by Silence

Breaking new ground? Picture of a woman in Mishpacha Magazine

‘Of course it’s Mutar.’  ‘Just don’t quote me.’ This is unfortunately the leadership style of some (if not all) of the Charedi rabbinc leaders in our day. I can’t even count the number of times I have heard one or more of the members of the Agudah Moetzes say something like this on one issue or another. 

Where, oh where are the Rav Ahron Soloveichiks of our day?! He was fearless in his Avodas HaShem (serving God). If he believed in something he spoke his mind – caring not a whit what others might think. And he wasn’t alone. There were many others like him. (Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky and Rav Yitzchok Hutner come to mind.) That doesn’t seem to exist anymore.  And it just happened again on an issue that is seriously harming Judaism: the erasure of women from the public sphere.

Adina Miles just published a post on Instagram (republished in the Forward) that tells of her quest to reverse the trend of not publishing any pictures of women. As she notes: 

With the internet in everyone’s pockets, we are raising a generation today that is faced with more influence from the outside world than ever before. If girls can’t see visible role models within the mainstream publications, they will turn to other more dangerous places.  

And yet the trend to erase women has been catching on with increasing frequency these days. The Charedi ‘glossies’ do not do not publish any pictures of women at all. The one time one of them (Mishpacha) tried by using a very distorted picture of Hillary Clinton on their cover, they got hammered by a rival Charedi publication (Hamodia). Although they stood by their decision to publish it, they have since then not done anything remotely close to it. Until now. Sort of.

Mishpacha finally did publish a picture of a woman in last week’s edition.  It is one of a woman dressed in a Burka and is part of an illustration in the first chapter of a story serialized by Ruti Kepler. 

Progress? Hardly! A quick read of this first chapter makes it seem like she is trying to ‘normalize’ abnormal modesty standards. Or at least trying to soften the image toward some sort of acceptability of it. I guess we will have to wait and see how the story ends. 

Man? Woman? Gorilla? Who knows what is under that literal tent! But that’s OK. Because it’s all in the service of ‘modesty’. And despite a few Charedi rabbis speaking out disapprovingly after being interviewed about it a few years ago, there has been little else done since to discourage it. In fact it seems like the number of Burka wearing women are actually increasing along with magazines like Mishpacha normalizing it.

And as Adina Miles notes, the role models young children now have for how a woman should look  are the immodest images they carry in their pockets. Or in popular mainstream magazines whose only picture of a woman is one wearing a Burka

Is this the kind of Chinuch our children should be getting? This is OK with the rabbinic leaders of the right?! At least to the extent that they don’t want to be identified saying anything negative about it? It would seem so.

One of the things that people with the slightest bit of common sense (both men and women) have been pointing out is that by focusing on the reasons for modest clothing they are actually sexualizing them. Even when they are very young – long before they even hit puberty.

Self described lapsed Beis Yaakov student, Shoshanna Schechter-Shaffin tells her story in the Forward: 

One day last week, Elianna came home from her day camp run by the local modern Orthodox community, and informed me that her (female) counselors had told her that she needed to wear a t-shirt over her bathing suit when she is being transported to the swimming pool.

As someone who generally believes in the value of modesty as a form of appropriate decency and etiquette (we are in the South, after all), wearing a swim cover up when out in public appeared like a perfectly reasonable request to me.

What she said next sent a shock wave through my feminist- Gender Studies professor -progressive Jewish brain; “When I asked them why, the counselor said I had to cover up in case any of the men saw me.” As a little girl who still undresses without care in front of her younger male cousins, Elianna has no concept as to what “in case any men saw me” means.

In that very moment, an 18-year-old recent high school graduate, imported for the summer to our open-minded community in Richmond, Virginia from Brooklyn, New York, took my innocent and naive little girl and inappropriately oversexualized her into a possible temptation for the “uncontrollable” heteronormative male sex drive. 

Young girls being taught that hey are temptresses when they are barely out of diapers.  Boys are getting that message too.. And there is not a single leading rabbinic authority that I am aware of that has publicly stated that this is not the Jewish way… not the Torah way. The irony is that in so many cases they believe that they are teaching young people the opposite. They believe they are mimizing the focus on sex when they are in fact they increasing it.

As Shoshanna Schechter-Shaffin points out, the 18-year-old counselor that mentioned this is not at fault. This is how she has been indoctrinated.  

That there is an over focus on modesty in the way women should dress is an understatement. It is breaking new ground and altering centuries old tradition.

As Adina Miles notes there has always been universal agreement by Poskim that a woman’s face is Tzanua by its very nature. No matter how strict any group is about issues of modesty in dress, women’s faces were never an issue even to the Eida HaCharedis or Satmar. But  now the face of a woman is never being published in mainstream Charedi magazines. And Burka ladies that cover up head to toe with a Burka are apparently being normalized. All in the name of eliminating the focus on sexuality. While in fact doing the opposite!

Is there no one among the rabbinic leaders of the right that will stand up and once and for all say in public loud and clear, ‘Enough’?! Do they not see the damage their reticence to speak publicly is doing?