Belief in God and His Torah, and Atheists

There are so many people afraid to listen to anyone who has a problem believing in God. I’ve been accused of allowing Kfira on this blog. But I don’t. The fear expressed by some of these people does however show a flaw in their own Emunah. They fear that someone may say something that will put a doubt in their minds. But those of us whose beliefs are subjected to questions come out stronger for it. We have been subjected to “trial by fire” so to speak. It is those who close their eyes and ears who are the most vulnerable to losing their Emunah when they suddenly encounter the kind of questions put forth by a skeptic. They claim strong belief but it is not strong at all. It is weak if it can so easily be upset by the questions posed. Da Ma L’Heishiv is a necessary requirement for evey Jew. Without it, one’s belief is vulnerable to the simplest questions of faith. Al Taamin B'Atzmecha... Do not believe that Emunah Peshuta is enough to sustin your beliefs. None of us should ever be so sure of ourselves. For those of us who think about matters like this… we have all had perplexing questions. A forum like this allows us to give vent to them. The Rambam wrote an entire book on that basis. Should he have just told his "Talmid" to shut up, and stop having K'fira questions? That was not his answer and it is not mine. Fun A Kashe Sharbt Min Nisht.

What many people may not realize is that those atheists who have intellectual honesty aren't Kofrim to the extent that they absolutely deny God's existence. They are what is known as “weak atheists”. That means that since God cannot be proven their default belief is that He does not exist. Only a “strong atheist” believes with absolute certainty that God does not exist. In my view strong atheists are not intellectually honest.

Weak atheists have hope of returning to belief in God and Torah at some level. They would vehemently deny this. I would retort that the line which separates them from true believers is very slim. God can neither be proven nor disproved. There is room to argue, “Why not err on the side of caution?”

That said I do not wish to turn this post into a debate between atheists and believers. That would truly be against Halacha and if that happens, I will delete this entire post. My entire purpose here is to be Dan L’Kaf Zechus to those who call themselves atheists and hope that someday they will see things the way I do.

Intellectual honesty does not mean we have to discard our beliefs. Just because there are questions we cannot answer doesn't mean there aren't answers. And just because there is evidence lacking about biblical events doesn’t mean they absolutely did not occur. That means that they at least could have happened even if apparently highly unlikely. How likely is it for random evolution to have produced the species? Yet they can accept that with more “faith” than they can the biblical narrative. The odds that the biblical narrative happened is a gazillion times greater than the odds of random selection ultimately resulting in the universe as we know and experience it. That alone should be enough to err on the side of caution and believe in the likelihood if not the certainty of a Creator and the acceptance of the possibility of the biblical narrative taking place just as the bible said it did And the biblical narrative I am talking about is common to all three major faith including the largest one, Christianity.

Belief in God is about far more than scientific proofs. By definition, the spiritual cannot be proven by the physical. If one wants to deny God’s existence based on lack of physical evidence, he has many questions himself to answer, like what was the “first cause”? How does he explain “rational thought”? How does he ignore the immeasurable odds of randomness producing nature with all of its intracacies... and in all its grandeur and glory? There many more such questions. All indicate that there is a God in the world.

Yes, I know there are answers that atheists give to all these questions that will satisfy them enough to keep them skeptics. But the questions far outweigh their answers, just like their questions seem to outweigh some of our answers. Which is why I ask, why not err on the side of caution. What if God DOES exist?!

The other big question atheists have is, how do we know Judaism is the true path and not some other religion …or perhaps no organized religion at all? Just admit God exists but that Judaism is all made up. God may have created the universe but doesn’t really care what we do in it. Maybe our Jewish beliefs truly are a result of indoctrination from a very early age just like people of other faiths who believe in their religion with the same fervor that we do in ours?

Well, yes, it all about belief. I am not the one to make the comparative arguments between Judasim and other religions. There are a lot of very smart people in all religions making the argument that theirs is the true one. But monotheism makes sense to me as I am a firm believer Occam’s razor. And from what I do know about the three major faiths that proclaim monotheism, Judaism makes the most sense to me. True I have been indoctrinated like every other religious Jew, but indoctrination alone can’t work.

Our written Mesorah goes back further is far more voluminous than the other three major faiths, and has had contributions by some very brilliant people over those millennia, in a continuous chain. Add to that the various arguments put forth by the Rishonim like the Kuzari, and just plain intuition and it becomes a “no brainer”. At least to me. But proof? That is for the science lab, and should not determine our beliefs.

I too have questions that do not have satisfactory answers, some of them the same as the so-called Kofrim. Does that make me a Kofer? No. It makes me a human being with a mind who cannot deny his thoughts. It is what we do with those thoughts that matter not whether we have them. To be asked deny a question doesn’t mean you’ve irradicated it from existence. It only means that you’ve pushed it out of your mind. The question is still there. And, yes, it does test our Emunah. Those of us who pass, are the lucky ones. Those of us who don’t… well, let’s just say there is always hope and the for weak atheists. I certainly believe there is, even if they deny it.

I just want to repeat that this blog post will be removed if anyone starts actually trying to persuade or argue against belief in God or His Torah. This is not the forum for that. But I am relatively certain that the atheists that have posted here won’t do so, at least not intentionally. They have thus far proven to be honorable individuals. If I find an individual comment along those lines, I will delete it. If it starts happening too much this entire post will be deleted.

The Truth about Torah Im Derech Eretz

Most people who read my essays know that I am an adherent of Torah U’Mada(TuM). But I am also a great admirer of the philosophy of Torah Im Derech Eretz (TIDE). And in truth the differences are not all that great. However the purpose of this essay is not to compare the two Hashkafos or describe the differences between them. It isto defend Torah Im Derch Eretz from being constantly mischaracterized by some members of the right.

In recent years there has been a revisionist attempt to paint the Hashkafos of Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch in Charedi terms. There are those in the Charedi world who are forever trying to paint every Gadol they can get their hands on as reflecting their own narrow views. As such the common characterization used about Rav Hirsch’s monumental philosophy of Torah Im Derech Eretz is that it was one of Horo'as Sho'oh, that it was temporary and limited to the necessities of life at the time of Rav Hirsch.

I doubt that Rav Hirsch meant any such thing. It is clear that he meant TIDE as a L’Chatchila. He truly believed that the integration of Torah with secular studies was the primary choice for a Torah observing Jew. To say otherwise in order to advance one’s own differing Hashkafos is pure Chutzpah in my view.

Torah Im Derech Eretz is a philosophy which believes that one must make full use of all the means available to mankind in order to properly serve God. It does not minimize Mada but rather insists on it. But if the Charedi spin on Rav Hirsch would prevail they would have you think that this very TIDE philosophy is only B’Dieved.

The Charedi approach is of course that Talmid Torah is the primary goal for all of mankind. That is, if one is a Jew then the best way to fulfill one’s purpose in life is to learn Torah full time and to just forget about other disciplines. This is called “Torah Only”. And the Charedi world has done its level best to make people believe that this was Rav Hirsch’s view too.

Dr. Yitzchak Levine has been kind enough to allow me to link to an essay on his website written by Rav Hrisch’s famous grandson, Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer, ZT"L called, "A Time to Build" . It can be viewed here in pdf form. In this relatively short essay, it is quite clear exactly what Rav Hirsch’s philosophy was. We can easily see that "Torah im Derech Eretz… is not part of troubled, time bound notions; it represents the ancient, traditional wisdom of our sages that has stood the test everywhere and at all times." (Gesammelte Schriften vi p.221 …as quoted on Wikipedia).

These last paragraphs of Rabbi Dr. Breuer's essay say it all::

"Times may have changed. But the problems have remained essentially the same. We must solve them along the course as it has been charted for us. Are we really certain that our children will remain true to our calling if we create for them an artifical ghetto?"

"Half-heartedness and compromise are never acceptable but they are virtually fatal in the area of eductaion. Only an un-wavering straight forward course will lead to success. We neither look for nor require the agreement or approval of those who prefer a different course. Their criticism does not touch us. We certainly respect the ideology of other circles provided their course is also an unmistakably consequent one."

"As for us, let us do our best to promote and fulfill the Torah Im Derech Eretz ideal in its true spirit and let us protect it from regrettable misuse and misinterpretation."

As I said. I am an adherent of Torah U’Mada. Never-the-less all I can say about this is: Amen!

Dropping Observance, Dropping Faith

One of the most important topics discussed by virtually all of the Jewish media is the phenomenon of children from Frum homes dropping observance. And it is happening in every segment of Orthodoxy.

In most cases it is a result of what can be seen as both a wonderful and yet tragic development in our time, the idea of elitism in a world of mass education. Mass education is a wonderful development. Every Jewish child can now get a Jewish education. Elitism is a wonderful idea too since it can provide an environment for the bets and brightest to really flourish. But when these two conditions combine it can and often does produce disastrous results. This was not the case in pre-holocaust Europe. The Yeshivos there were indeed elitist. But they were designed that way by default. The economic conditions of the time and place prevented the kind of mass Jewish education we have today.

Today, mass Jewish education is so great that it has caused an environment of competition that does not work for everyone. With an exploding Orthodox population, natural market forces of supply and demand take over. Standards of admittance are raised to weed out the lower echelon students as schools do not have room for all the applicants.

The lower echelon can be defined in many ways. It can be weeding out those of below or of average intelligence. And in some schools it can be in the form of weeding out those whose observance standards in the home are not in concert with those of the school. As schools continue to raise their standards even the bright students are asked to push the envelope of learning. Some highly motivated students will thrive but others may just feel they are being pushed beyond their limits of patience and ability. And in the Charedi world, add to this the forever increasing religious standards so as to weed out all non Torah influences from their schools. The results of these two phenomena can easily be a student just dropping out.

Parents are driving their children into impossible situations. They are literally shoving down their children’s throats standards that they cannot handle, both intellectually and religiously. Only the most elite of students can make the grade. All other students who are of average intelligence or of even above average intelligence but require a little diversion from their studies are left to fall through the cracks. I believe that this is especially true of Limudei Kodesh studies in the Charedi schools. And what’s the response by many of the educators in these schools? Well, they might say somehing like, "If your child can’t make it in our school, I’m sure they can find one more suited to their level". Translation: Your kid is too dumb for our school. Try the remedial Yeshiva across the street.

No parent is going to accept that. They will end up pushing those children right out of Yiddishkeit. While there are many caring Rebbeim who see every student as an individual, no matter what level of intelligence or motivation, Torah education has become increasingly more about how fast we can develop a student's Torah learning or academic study to the highest possible level. Add to that the rigorous religious requirements that are constantly being increased in the Charedi schools, and is it any wonder that there are so many dropouts? Not to me it isn’t.

But there is another reason young people drop out of observance that is little discussed. It is the inability for Rabbeim to deal with legitimate questions of faith and belief. This was even true back even in my day when the other two issues weren’t such a problem.

Questions of faith are completely discouraged. Anyone daring to ask a questions like these is usually just brushed aside. Often an answer will be something along the lines of, “You’re not allowed to ask questions like that.” That may work for some people, but for thinking people with serious questions it has the opposite effect. There have been many people that have testified to this as being the primary reason they left observance. These are the so called skeptics that find themselves unable to find answers to serious questions of faith. They have searched and have been unable to find them in the world of observant Judaism. I have been told more than once by many a skeptic that, had their educational experience been more open to questions of faith, and had them dealt with honestly they might not be the skeptics they are today. What happened instead was a brushing off with unsatisfactory answers.

I think this is an important factor to consider in the “dropout” problem, especially when one’s mind is beginning to develop to a more adult and critical level of thinking in high school. I’m not sure if educators are dealing with it at any level yet, but they should be. Often the best and the brightest among us have these kinds of questions... questions about contradictions of Torah and science, faith and reason.

These questions require honest answers. Such questions should never be brushed off or condemned. And certainly no student should ever be lied to. There are many ways to handle contradictions between faith and reason; Torah and science. Some questions can be answered, and some cannot. An honest “I don’t know” will often go much further than a fudged answer that a bright student will see right through.

I don’t know that all the formally Frum skeptics around today could have been prevented from their skepticism by a better and more honest approach than the fudged or evasive one that was so common in the past. Probably many of them could not. But I am certain that an honest approach would have been more successful in at least some of those cases. Are Mechnchim still turning off serious students with serious questions? I think it is an important question for educators to discuss.

The fact is that many skeptics are secretly so… living religious lives, sending their own children to religious schools. But they remain totally skeptical about fundamental beliefs in God.

These Orthodox Jewish skeptics contain some of the brightest minds among us. It may be too late for many of them, but it is not too late for the very young who may very well have some of these same questions someday. It behooves our educators to learn how to deal with these questions and not let them slip away.

modified at 3:58 PM CST 2/26/07

An Unlikely Centrist

Within the annals of great Centrist thinkers one will find a very unlikely individual, Reb Elchanan Bunim Wasserman of Baranovich.

OK, so maybe he wasn’t a Centrist. Maybe he was even anti-Centrist. But he certainly believed in one of the cardinal principles of Centrism, the study of Mada. And he further believed that reading secular newspapers were OK too. At least that is what the “authoritative” biography of Rabbi Wasserman in Artscroll’s history series tells us. That’s right, Artscroll whose version of biographical truth includes many “lies of omission” and tries to convey the image that every Gadol was born a Gadol, conceived in the womb that way.

It is in the Artscroll “biography” that I saw this wonderful information about the Rosh HaYeshiva from Baranovoch. Rav Elchanan studied Mada and read secular newspapers. Not only did he study subjects like foreign languages and science, but he actually studied philosophy. Not Jewish philosophy but secular philosophy… specifically the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. From a footnote on page 28:

“The testimony of Dr. B.M. Levin, compiler and editor of Teshuvos Hageonim. A former Telshe Yeshiva student, he spoke from personal experience. Reb Elchanan learned German by memorizing the dictionary and mastering the language sufficiently to read newspapers and various scientific works fluently, as was known to his students of later years. (In Baranovich, for instance, he kept a copy of Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason” under his bookshelves and would read it in places where Torah study is forbidden)”

And he also read newspapers. No not HaModia but Russian newspapers:

“Rabbi Yerucham Warhaftig recounted the following incident from personal experience: A member of the staff noticed “Russkaya Slova” a Russian newspaper, protruding from Reb Elchana’s pocket. Without hesitating for an instant the other person snatched the paper and rushed to the Rosh Yeshiva demanding that Reb Elchanan be punished. Reb Elchanan, for his part demanded that the paper be returned.”

I was quite surprised to find this story in an Artscroll biography, considering that Rav Nosson Kaminetsky’s book was banned for containing similar stories about various Gedolim. And after the hoopla over the book “My Uncle the Netziv” because of it’s “indiscretions” of accuracy, who’d a-thunk it?” Who would believe that an Artscroll biography contained this kind of information?! Of course one explanation might be the publication date of 1982. This was in an era where reporting biographical truth was still permissible. I wonder if subsequent printings contain this true story.

But of course the bigger surprise was the fact that Reb Elchanan valued secular studies like philosophy. That any Gadol besides Rabbi Soloveitchik would study philosophy would be surprising enough. But that it was Reb Elchanan did so was huge! Because of all the European Gedolim who came to America from pre-holocaust Europe, Reb Elchanan was the only one who refused to give a Shiur in Yeshiva University (called Yeshiva College back then). This was in spite of the fact that his own Rebbe, Rav Shimon Shkop had been the Rosh HaYeshiva there.

It makes me wonder exactly why he refused so adamantly when others like Rav Aharon Kotler accepted. If I recall correctly, it was because he opposed the concept combining Torah and Mada in a Yeshiva environment. This is reason given by Rabbi Rakeffet in his book on Dr. Revel which told of Reb Elchanan’s refusal to give Shiur in YU.

But I wonder if that was the real reason. How could he boycott an institution that other Roshei Yeshiva did not? And blame it on their study of Mada, when he studied Mada himself? It doesn’t make sense.

I guess we will never know why he boycotted YU. But at least we know that the great Rosh Yeshiva from Baranovich believed in studying Mada. Philosophy no less!

The Trouble with Modern Orthodoxy

I was totally disgusted by what I read this morning in the Jewish Week. It is a story describing the behavior of Yeshiva high school students who are finically well off enough to go to Miami Beach for their winter break. The behavior by these students is quite disgusting. It rivals what is commonly seen the movie screen. Here is just one excerpt:

“The girls, aged 15-18, were so scantily clad that bathing suits would have covered up more. Nothing they possessed was left for the imagination. Thin figured or full, they wore outfits that seemed to say, “I’m here! Come and get me!” The boys dressed in jeans, T-shirts or shorts may have looked fine, but they huddled in groups, beer cans in hand and cigarettes and matches at the ready.”

“The interaction between the girls and boys was grotesque. Hands and mouths were everywhere. Nothing was private, no body part untouchable. A small boy of 15, walking around in a daze searching for his older sister, was easily deterred from his mission by a “friend” who smacked him on the back and said, “Come on, let’s go find us some chicks!”

These are supposedly all observant young teenagers who are Shomerei Tora U'Mitzvos... at least most of them. They clearly do not observe one.

The article does not describe what kind of Yeshiva high schools those students come from. But I think it is safe to say it isn’t Telshe or Philly. This does not mean to say that there aren’t students from those kinds of Yeshivos doing some of those things there too. I’m sure there are. But it would be highly misrepresenting reality to say these students are not mostly from Modern Orthodox homes.

My guess is that one of the reasons for this kind of behavior is the very strong influences of western culture as experienced through the various entertainment media. Movies, television, and some of the more disgusting forms of popular music certainly share some of the blame for producing this kind of behavior. In American culture, what red blooded American teenage male doesn’t want to “go find us some chicks!”?!

But another very important factor is the near lack of proper Torah values being transmitted about interacting with the opposite sex in their homes. It is an unfortunate truth that most Modern Orthodox Jews are more in the category of Orthoprax… or my favorite term for them, MO-Lite. These are Jews who are basically Shomer Shabbos and Kashrus and attend Orthodox Shuls. But they are more concerned with lifestyle issues than they are with Halacha. Their values are not centered in Torah but in other things. Typically, the parent of this type is more concerned with getting his child into an ivy league university than he is with his level of Mitzvah observance. Not they they aren’t committed to observance. They are. They want their children to be Frum. But it is a secondary concern.

Parents contribute to the phenomenon described in this article by encouraging interaction between the sexes at a very early age and at every opportunity. Not that they encourage promiscuity but they are constantly throwing a bunch of teenagers with “raging” hormones into situations that foster this kind of behavior. Whether it is in the mixed atmosphere of the school environment or various teen parties or any other social event. And these teens interact with behavior learned well through the heroes of the silver screen. What young male movie goer doesn’t dream of being another Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise (…or who ever the current movie idol is)?

This is a deadly mix... a formula for producing the kind of behavior that is described in the article.

Modern Orthodox educators have their task cut out for them. This kind of behavior is a self perpetuating machine, exhibited by the parents themselves when they were teenagers. They are not really so disgusted by it. They often just say it is "normal". And they choose mixed gender schools for their children because they want to acculturate their children to know haw to interact properly in western culture, a good goal. But doing it in the way that it is commonly done has considerable negative consequences as is shown in this article. Standards that parents may set for their teenage children seem to be pretty much ignored by them when they go on vacation to a place like Miami Beach.

This is a real problem for Modern Orthodoxy. The Centrist ideals of Torah uMada do not include this kind of behavior, even if one includes in its definition, participation in the culture. And I do. Participation in the culture is only permitted when Halacha is not violated. The number of Modern Orthodox Jews who care enough about issues like this to take preventative measures is small. A minority to be sure.

Those of us who are serious about our Judaism can and do raise fine Bnei Torah. We have prepared our children to be serious about their Judaism. It can be done right. But the fact that the majority of Modern Orthodox Jews are more concerned with their lifestyle choices and seeing to it that their children learn the social graces with “hands on” experience, makes change a daunting if not impossible task.

So in this area, the Charedim win. Their children by and large do not participate in this kind of behavior because of their insularity. But that does not mean we just have to sit back and watch it happen ala the Miami Beach teen scene. I’m not sure how to tackle the problem.

Adult education would seem to be a good starting point. Encouraging more Torah learning on the part of MO-Lites would seem to be a step in the right direction. The more you know the better chance you will be more observant of Halacha. Much of the MO-Lite problem is tied to ignorance of Halacha more so than carelessness. Halachos with respect to male-female relationships are not well known by many Orthoprax Jews. While in some cases this learning might fall on deaf ears, in many cases it will impact positively on their behavior.

I doubt that adult education alone will be enough. But it would be a start. Because the kind of behavior going on in Miami Beach between Kipa wearing boys and their teenage girl friends is nothing short of a Chilul Hashem.

Where is the Outrage?

What does anyone suppose would happen if Yeshiva University’s Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law would sponsor anything jointly with The Conservative Movement’s Rabbinical Assembly?

Rabbi Elliot Dorff, Rector and Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the Conservative Movement’s left leaning, University of Judaism and one of their leading lights will be giving a lecture entitled, “Unity Within Diversity, Theories of Law in Conservative Judaism”.

Would such a lecture given at YU’s Cardozo be cause for protest? I certainly think it would. And rightfully so. In fact I think it would be pretty outrageous!

Yeshiva University has been severely criticized many times, not the least of which was for allowing homosexual living arrangements on one of its campuses. It did so because it was so mandated by federal rules governing universities that accept federal funding. To put it the way Dr. Lamm did at the time, it was either that or closing down Einstein Medical School.

Rabbi Mordechai Gifter famously responded at the time that his alma mater, Yeshivas Rabbenu Yitzchak Elchanan (REITS) should close before allowing that on any of its campuses as that gives the appearance of granting the Torah’s blessing to a Toevah. One can quibble about who was right in that instance. But is there any question that Rabbi Gifter and virtually every other rabbinic leader would condemn a jointly sponsored lecture by YU’s Cardozo and Conservative Judaism’s Rabbinical Assembly?

Well, that is precisely what is going to take place. Only it isn’t YU’s Cardozo. It is Touro Law Center. That’s right, Touro, the college founded by Dr. Bernard Lander as a more appropriate college alternative to Yeshiva University. This is the same institution that many right wing Roshei Yeshiva promote over YU. One who’s Hashkafos are more in line with their own Charedi Hashkafos. Touro, where education is about Parnassa and not Hashkafa.

How can it be that not a single word has been heard in protest? Not one word has been uttered in opposition? Where is the Agudah Moetzes? Where is Rabbi Gifter’s spiritual heir? Why do we not hear the condemnation that would almost certainly be heard if this were taking place in any of the affiliated YU schools? Rabbi Keller famously condemned YU for hosting a group of Cardinals. Where are they now? Is Touro the holy grail? Are they immune from criticism?

YCT: Time to Take a Stand

As many people who have read my blog know, I am not a fan of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah (YCT). And I have criticized it several times here in the past. But I have never written the kind of lengthy but fairly comprehensive article that I just read in the recent print edition of the Yated Ne’eman. It was a scathing attack on the institution, its founders, faculty, Rosh HaYeshiva, and graduate rabbis. And though I am not a fan of this newspaper, I must tell you that I found myself in agreement with much of what they said. I don’t know if I would go so far as accusing them of violating clearly stated Halacha. Nor would I characterize their ideals in the same tones as the Yated did. But I definitely agree with the assessment that YCT is outside the pale of normative Orthodoxy.

And I further agree that the Torah world has been far too silent on this Yeshiva. It seems to be that all Torah based institutions whether ultra Orthodox or Centrist have chosen not to comment on them. YCT is guilty of no less than an assault on the theological integrity of a Torah based Hashkafa as defined by its own claimed mentor, HaRav Yosef Dov HaLevi Soloveitchik (the Rav).

In brief the article describes actions and statements by this group that are anathematic to even the most liberal interpretation of the Rav. And even though they “explain” or rationalize some of those statements or activities as being acceptable to the Rav, one would be hard pressed to believe that the Rav would in any way have approved of anything even resembling YCT.

It is clear that they have violated both the spirit and letter of the Rav’s statement with respect to inter-religious dialogue. Inviting a group of Catholic Bishops to come and learn Mesehces Brachos in their Beis Hamedrash clearly is not a matter of joining forces with them on non theological societal issues, which the Rav did permit.

Rabbi Darren Kleinberg, one of their brightest graduates, as described by YCT founder and dean Rabbi Avi Weiss, is another example of one whose words and actions have clearly violated of the words of the Rav. Not only has he participated in religious activities with heretical denominations within Judaism, he has included Christian denominations as well. It would have hardly pleased the Rav to hear the words of sheer praise uttered about them by Rabbi Kleinberg in this foray into ecumenism. It is clearly a violation of the Rav’s words.

Nor does it help YCT’s cause to host on their faculty members of the Conservative and Reform rabbinate who are still affiliated with their flagship schools of JTS and HUC. Their claim that these faculty members are not teaching religious subjects but merely teaching practical rabbinics or pastoral counseling, is hardly the kind of separation the Rav meant when he permitted participation with them on matters of mutual public concern, such as attending rallies with them supporting the State of Israel.

These are just some of the outrageous things happening on the YCT scene.

But some of the criticisms by the Yated were a bit over the top and unfair. While I might not agree with YCT on those issues either, I would not be bothered by thme in the same way the Yated was. But The Yated put those things in the same category as the above. Had this been all, I would probably just “leave them alone”.

One such example is their penchant for psychoanalyzing the Avos (the patriarchs). While I disagree with the practice and consider it ignorant and even abhorrent to do so, I do not think that this puts them outside the pale of Orthodoxy.

The Yated does not go into details of their problem with him. But they imply that one such YCT rabbi supposedly “psychoanalyzed” Yaakov Avinu and thereby put his actions in a negative light. While it is disgusting to do so, it does not make him a heretic any more than Rabbi Shlomo Riskin who has made similar comments about biblical figures. I don’t agree with him. But in no way does he qualify as a heretic.

Rabbi Michael Broyde is currently studying with this young YCT graduate with the goal of granting him Smicha in Dayanus. The Yated feels that it is an outrage for Rabbi Broyde to be studying with this fellow. But I know Rabbi Broyde to be a man of tremendous integrity and Torah knowledge and he would never take a student for Dayanus if he felt that he was violating the Rav’s ideals. Not every student at YCT does that.

As for the Yated’s accusation that YCT has a positive view of the homosexual lifestyle, I don’t see that. The proof they bring is that one of their Musmachim spoke positively about homosexuals as human beings urging them to come out of the “closet” and be proud Jews. While I think that goes a bit too far, I don’t see YCT’s position, if this rabbi reflects it accurately, to be anti Torah at all. Nowhere do they say they think homosexual practice is permitted.

They are simply conceding the fact that many Jews are like that and we should treat them no differently than other Jews who may be guilty of other impermissible acts. I think that’s right. But I would stop short of saying that they should be proud of themselves. As I have said before, “Hate the sin not the sinner.” I know the Christians used that phrase first but that doesn’t make it untrue. That is all I believe that young YCT graduate meant.

So the bottom line is, YCT has a lot to answer for. They have truly crossed some serious lines. I do believe they are acting L’Shma. But I also believe they have a strange definition of it.

The Yated is not that far off by accusing them of not being Orthodox. I don’t think they crossed that line yet. But I think they are as close to it as possible. And they have moved further to the left than any Orthodox institution ever has and have crossed the Hashkafic lines drawn by their claimed mentor, the Rav, protestations to the contrary not withstanding.

I think it behooves the bastion of Centrist Orthodoxy, Yeshiva University to distance themselves clearly and unequivocally from YCT’s Hashkafos . And it is time for the Rabbinical Council of America to take a stand, too. A good first step would be to not automatically accept every YCT Musmach for membership. It’s the right thing to do.

modified: 2/22/07 at 10:45 AM CST

Insularity: Abdicating Normalcy

A friend of mine once told me that when she was still dating, her famous rabbinic father told her that she should date Ner Israel guys, because Ner Israel specialized in “normal”.

But “normal” is no longer “cool” in the Torah world. It has been replaced by extremism.

In the previous thread I made mention of the fact that a Gadol of the last generation, Rav Mordechai Rogov ZTL said about mixed seating at weddings, "In Der Lita, Zenen Mir Nit G’ven Makpid". Lithuainian Gedolim did not care if a wedding was mixed seating or not. Those were his exact words when asked about whether mixed seating at a wedding is permissible.

Just because a custom existed centuries ago when it was a universal practice to separate the sexes doesn't mean the practice has to be continued when that practice no longer exists. By insisting on it we perpetuate an unnecessary Chumra. And this is the reason that the Maharam Yafa disagrees with the Psak of the Rama. It doesn’t matter whether we Paskin like the Maaharm Yafa or not. As Rabbi Rakeffet said, The Maharam Yafa doesn't disagree with the Rema. All he says is that, a hundred years later (after the Rama), we today are used to men and women sitting together. And that means that we can say SheHasimcha Bimono.

That said, I have no problems with people being as Machimr as they want. The problem is that it has long ago ceased being looked as a Chumra. It is now at the point where it is looked at as a necessary requirement. We live in a brave new world today that looks at every Chumra as virtually Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai. And this is just another cog in that wheel.

I don't think it serves Klal Yisroel well to constantly push ourselves into the oblivion of extreme separateness. We do not have to abdicate normalcy.

Normalcy does not mean, as some people have suggested, a concession to the decline of sexual morality that exists in much of the secular world. It is simply the desire to live one’s life in halachicly permitted ways and in ways which are culturally defined as normal behavior. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It is not Chukas HaGoy to desire to be normal within the framework of one’s culture. If there were, we would have to reject everything that is not sufficiently different from secular society as Chukas HaGoy.

For example ties. How can any sincere Torah Jew with this attitude wear a suit with a tie? Or even a Kapoteh with a tie? It’s a Goyishe invention that is worn by members of a society whose morality is in severe decline. Shouldn’t we do everything we can to dissociate ourselves from their ways? I can’t wait to see photos of Rav Shach with his tie digitally removed from all of his pictures.

Being Frum does not require abdicating societal norms as long as they do not violate Halacha. And the societal norm in western civilization is to seat men and women together at events where both are invited. Western civilization does not look favorably at the concept of separating husbands and wives from each other at weddings and neither do I. And neither did the Great Roshei Yeshiva in Lithuania, if one is to believe Rav Rogov.

But today, mixed seating is looked at as practically an Aveirah, as in the case where a non Chasidic Bal Habos left my daughter’s mixed seating wedding... refusing to sit with his wife at a table with other similarly Frum couples. The following true story illustrates the almost purely Chitzonius factor that I believe is driving all this. And Halacha has little if anything to do with it.

A very close friend of mine wanted to have mixed seating at his daughter’s wedding. She married a Talmid from a right wing Yeshiva whose family was not Makpid on separte seating and neither was he. But one of his Roshei Yeshiva met with my friend and twisted his arm to have separate seating. He also met with the Chasan’s parents in an all out effort to get them to change their minds. My friend was very upset by this but as he is not the type of person to cause waves, he gave in and they had separate seating.

Why did this RY insist on having separate seating? He told the Chasan, “How would it look if one of our own Bachurim would have a mixed seating affair?” This happened well over 15 years ago. Chitzonius. That was the issue. That and the issue of achieving maximum insularity seem to be the goal today. But the price in abdicating normalcy is way too high.

Objectifying Women

We are moving away from normalcy. What was once common, normal, and decent behavior in the Torah world is no longer considered appropriate. The Torah world is at a point where we no longer are considered able to control our sexual urges. Any social contact with women is now looked upon as a Michshol to be avoided. Women are more and more to be looked at as obstacles to Kedusha as they can possibly cause impure thoughts. How far does this go? Will we reach a point where men and women will be so separated that they will be forbidden to be in the same room together? In our Takana happy society, who knows? Maybe the potential for transgressing Issurei Erva, (forbidden sexual relationships) is too great for us to bear. Next Takana: No more women and men in the same room.

Our rabbis have decided on numerous occasions to opt for just being more Machmir, as this Kol Koreh from Yeshiva World shows The thinking seems to be, “Let’s just legislate Michshol out of existence”. They have just “thown in the towel” to self control issues. We cannot be trusted. In the world of Torah women are more and more coming to be looked at as Michsholim for men… objects of physical desire to be avoided as much as possible. “We must be put in the most pristine of environments.” “Let’s just eliminate all the scenarios where men and women can ever be in the same area.”

Chasidim of course already have these kinds of standards. They separate as much as possible as this story told over by Rabbi Rakeffet demonstrates:

“There is a story about Chafetz Chaim and Rav Meir Shapiro coming to him for Shabbos. He asked that there be separate seating. It is an absolute true story that before he comes to Radin, he tells the Chafetz Chaim I am going to be in Radin for Shabbos, I would like to be at your table. The Chafetz Chaim says, "with pleasure." The Maharam Shapiro knew that the Chafetz Chaim was a Litvak, i.e., men and women eat together. Maharam Shapiro asks the Chafetz Chaim to separate, that is, to put his wife at a different table. The Chafetz Chaim answers that if that is the case you can't be my guest.”

But this story also demonstrates how the Chafetz Chaim reacted. 180 degrees opposite of today. Today. We would be looking at Rabi Meir Shapiro’s custom as something to emulate, not the Chafetz Chaim’s custom. After all, are we going to let Chasdim be Frumer than us? We are not there yet but we are definitely going in that direction.

And if one thinks that separate rooms or even buldings for men and women at weddings are ridiculouys and far fetched, It’s not. These customs already exist. The Kalla and all the women at the large weddings of the children of Chasidic Rebbes are separated in their own building… and the Chasan and the men into theirs.

And whatever happens in the Chasidic wolrd cannot be too far off from being adopted in the non-Chasdic world.

Don’t think such things can happen? Too extreme? Only Chasidim go to such extremes? I beg to differ.

It used to fairly automatic at the most religious of non Chasidic weddings that the Kalla would come over to the men and watch them dance Keitzad Merakdim Lifnei HaKallah. But no more. Now it’s considered not Frum enough! Nope. Keep everyone separate, including the Chasan and Kallah at the Simchas Chasan V’Kalla!

Of course there are those who will say that I am too immersed in western culture and that has collored my views. I should instead concern myself with what God really wants. They will contend that in fact we ought to be returning to the pristine era of our ancesters and live a life of Tznius the way they did instead of valuing the “disgusting morals of western culture” Our grandparents and great grandparents never had mingling of the sexes. Men and women were always separate. And the further we go back in history the more separate the sexes were! As if on Tu B’Av with single girls dancing in front of prospective Chasanim never existed. (I know, I know… we are not on their level.)

They will also say that in order for a wedding to be a Simcha B’Mono… (A Simcha holy enough to be considered in the heavenly realm of God) one may not have mixed seating at a wedding. Never mind that there have been many Teshuvos explaining why that standard is not relevant to our times. Never mind that in the last few generations in the world of Lithuanian Yeshivos there was mixed seating at weddings, never mind that Gedolim like R. Moshe Feinstein and Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky were happy to sit with their wives at mixed tables at weddings. Doesn’t matter. We must separate, separate, separate. And this mindset is the genesis of the Mehadrin buses as well.

I will never forget walking the streets of Bnei Brak a couple of decades ago on a Friday night and seeing a family of Chasidim taking a walk.. The wives were several paces behind their husbands. For them it is a matter of Tznius. They separate the sexes even to the extent of taking a walk with a spouse on a Friday night.. How long before the non- Chasisidic world takes on this Chumra? How long before we are told we cannot take a walk with our wives on Shabbos?

I’m sorry this is not normal The extremes that we are aksed to go to today in the name of avoiding Michshol are not normal. God does not require us to be abnormal in our behavior. But that is where we are being led today. Just look at the recent Takanos of Tznius enacted in Israel. How long before that becomes the standard here?

I truly hate what is happening to Klal Yisroel. Normalcy is “out the window”. We are being led to believe that all God wants from us are Chumros.

But that is simply not true. By enacting ever more separations between the sexes we are increasingly treating our women as no more than sex objects, lip service to the contrary.

I have excerpted the following from a lengthy Shiur by Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet. It is from an earlier post I wrote on the subject and it bears repeating now more than ever:

“When the Rema paskens that you can't say "shehasimcha beme'ono" when men and women are sitting together, the Maharam Yafa doesn't disagree. Someone [told me] we don't pasken like the Maharam Yafa. It is nothing to do with the way we pasken. He [Maharam Yafa] doesn't disagree with the Rema. All he says is, a hundred years later [i.e. 100 years after the Rema], that we today are used to men and women sitting together. Therefore we have no problem saying “shehasimchah beme'ono”.

“We should educate our men and women in the charaidi and in the modern orthodox world, [to] develop a wonderful relationship with each other. Marriage is a lot more than just a physical or an earthly union to enable you to discharge the obligations of "pru urevu" [be fruitful and multiply] and "onah" [relations]. Marriage is something else, way beyond that.A person should feel towards his wife, and vice versa, [that she is] his best friend. [She is] his confidant. [She] is his soulmate. [She] is a lot more than just his sexual partner or the mother of his children. To me, wherever I go I always want my wife at my side. I have seen gedolai Yisrael. I grew up watching the Rav. I saw Rav Moshe. I saw Rav Yaakov. I saw the way they related to their wives. It was a living mussar saifer. It was truly chavairtecha ve'aishet britecha.”

The Chicago Eruv Controversy

If there was anything more controversial that the Chicago Eruv, I can’t think of it. Full disclosure, I don’t use the Eruv.

From its very inception, when it was only a twinkle in the eye of its proponents there was heated debate over whether an Eruv should be built. The biggest obstacle was Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik. And every time the idea was brought up it was shot down because of Rabbi Soloveichik’s opposition. Rav Ahron was not the only one opposed. So were the Roshei Yeshiva from Telshe and the Roshei Kollel of the Chicago Community Kollel (Lakewood).

But the pressure to build one was mounting, and one Modern Orthodox Rabbi here, Rabbi Leonard Matanky was prevailed upon to do so. He is a very Ehrliche individual and very trustworthy. At about that time, the very charismatic Rabbi Zev Cohen, who had been a popular Avreich and Magid Shiur in the above mentioned Kollel had been hired to be the Rav of his current Shul. (Rabbi Cohen is currently the very popular and beloved Rav of the largest Orthodox Shul in the city of Chicago and he has many people who consider him their Posek and confidant, well beyond the Shul membership.)

He was recruited to “partner up” with Rabbi Matanky and he accepted. I’m not sure exactly why he became involved, but he has been quoted as saying something to the effect that if Chicago is going to build an Eruv he wanted to make sure that every possible Hidur (religious enhancement) be built into it.

But he knew that Rav Soloveichik was opposed. So he set up a meeting to try and convince him of the necessity of building one in the community, that they were going to do it with or without him anyway, and that though Rav Ahron would not be expected to endorse the project, that he should at least not resist it. He was roundly refused and told not to build it. Rav Ahron fought the Eruv, but was ultimately unsuccessful.

Rav Ahron was opposed to the Eruv for two reasons. One was the Brisker position that a Reshsus HaRabbim D’Oraisa (biblically defined public domain) does not require a population of Shishim Riva (600,000 residents). As long as the width of any public area is 16 Amos (cubits), that makes a public domain. An Eruv cannot be made in any area so defined.

But this is a minority view and Rav Ahron did not oppose construction based on that. He opposed it based on the majority opinion that a public domain requires the 16 Amah wide parameter plus a population of 600,000 people. Without getting too technical Rav Ahron said that the area to be enclosed by the Eruv had those two conditions met, thus any Eruv built would not be effective and that people using the Eruv were in effect being Mechalel Shabbos B’Shogeg on a biblical level. And that those responsible for the construction were being Machtie the Rabbim, causing the public to sin, a position held had until his dying day. He based his Psak on his understanding of Rav Moshe Feinstein’s Teshuvos. And he strongly believed that Rav Moshe would have Assur’d the Eruv.

Rav Moshe’s son, Rav Dovid Feinstein disagreed and said his father would have permitted it. So the Eruv was built much to the consternation of Rav Ahron. And I’m told that Rabbi Cohen suffered greatly from Rav Ahron’s strong rejection. But he went ahead anyway and if I understand correctly it was also against the advice of his former Rosh Kollel, Rabbi Dovid Zucker who told him not to do it.

Agudath Israel Dayan, Rabbi Shmuel Feurst was also opposed to it saying that if the Zaken HaIr, the elder Rav of the city, Rabbi Soloveichik, is against it, it is a non starter.

The construction was not without threat of disruption. Brisk has its share of Kanaim who were very Makpid on the Kavod of their Rebbe and threatened to sabotage the project. But I don’t think they ever went through with it.

Rav Wosner of Monsey, an expert in citywide Eruvin was brought in to oversee the project as a Posek. As in all citywide Eruvin, in order to make them economically viable various pre-existing structures are incorporated to serve as Mechitzos (walls) to enclose the area. One of those was across the longest street in Chicago which is traversed by about 600,000 people per day. At the time of construction they actually measured and found it to be a bit under 600,000 but it was close. So they went ahead with it. This was a very controversial step. But the Rav HaMachshir, never-the-less gave his OK. There were many other Kulos utilized as there always are in every citywide Eruv. The Eruv was built, and it was given a Hecsher by Rav Wosner.

For those who rely on it, it has indeed enhanced the enjoyment of Shabbos, especially for young families with small children. They can now go out with their families to eat a Shabbos meal at a neighbor, parents or friends and they can similarly invite people with small children over to their own homes. Mothers with young children can go to Shul on Shabbos. Walks to the park with small children in the summer and all manner of outdoor activity previously unavailable are now very common occurrences. Young mothers no longer feel like prisoners in their own homes on a Shabbos.

Who uses the Eruv? Chasidim, Modern Orthodox, and most of those with young families who were Talmidim at HTC. Who does not use the Eruv? Briskers, Telzers, Lubavitchers, and members of the Chicago Community Kollel. There are individual exceptions to this but that is pretty much the breakdown.

I don’t use the Eruv in deference to my Rebbe. Besides, the Issur of Melacha on Shabbos is a pretty big one. If I am going to be Machmir in anything, it might as well be this. But I do not cast any aspersions on those who do use the Eruv. Two of my children do and two don’t.

Disagreeing with Gedolim

In my last post someone mentioned a story “from the recently published "B'Mechitzosom Shel Gedolei HaDoros", by Rav Shlomo Lorincz:”

“When there was talk of merging Poalei Agudas Yisrael back into the Agudah, Rav Aharon Kotler gave a blazing, impassioned speech in favor of the idea.In the middle of the speech, Rav Aharon got a note from Rav Shlomo Lorincz that the Brisker Rav opposed the idea vehemently. Rav Aharon stopped the speech in mid-stride, called Rabbi Lorincz to accompany him to the Brisker Rav, he got confirmation, and he went back to the meeting and gave an impassioned speech against any idea of merging with them.”

This story is supposed to show us how important it is to listen the words of our Gedolim. Rav Aharon Kotler who eventually went on to be come the Gadol HaDor to virtually the entire Yeshiva world, had changed his views “on a dime” after checking out the the story personally. Well, the logic goes, if Rav Ahron Kotler had that kind of deference, certainly we who are mere peons by comparison must.

And indeed this is the mentality. I see it espoused all the time by the more extreme element amongst Charedim: “The Gadol HaDor has spoken! How dare we disagree!” The underlying premise of course is that they represent Daas Torah, the ultimate expression of God’s wisdom to man, the Bible itself. And... the argument continues...who better to represent it than the Gedolim, who after all know more Torah than anyone else? Following this logic one can then easily conclude that the bigger the Gadol, the more authority he has in espousing Daas Torah. And that’s why Rav Aharon Kotler changed his mind so quickly and so forcefully. He was Mevatel his own Daas to that of the greater Daas of the Brisker Rav, the acknowledged Gadol of that time.

But as I have said many time Daas Torah is not the province of one single individual, no matter how great. Daas Torah can be elusive even to the greatest of minds. As human beings with various perspectives, there can be major disagreements leading to opposite conclusions... all based on each individual’s understanding of what the true Daas Torah is on any given subject. That Rav Aharon Kotler agreed to the Birsker Rav does not prove for a single instant that one must “check his intelligence at the door” on a Hashkafic subject and just accede to an individual who has greater Torah knowledge. Nowhere is this better demonstrated than the approach of my own Rebbe, Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik, the Brisker Rav’s nephew.

It is quite common knowledge that the Brisker Rav was an strong ideological opponent of the State of Israel. So much so that his views are carried to this day to the extreme by his children and grandchildren. Rav Avrohom Yehoshua Soloveichik, the Brisker Rav’s grandson, publicly disparaged Rav Elyashiv because he dared to Paskin leniently in a mater pertaining to ancient burial site. That Psak favored the government position. That led some of his Talmidim to pelt Rav Elyshiv with tomatoes in public.. But even though the Gadol HaDor of the Yeshiva world was so opposed to the State of Israel , my Rebbi, his nephew, held that one must say Hallel on Yom HaAtzmaut.

Is it possible to say that Rav Ahron Soloveichik was Mevazeh his uncle? Of course not. My Rebbe’s Hashkafa was different and even though he knew that his unlce was more knowledgeable in Torah than he was, he still disagreed and lived his life accordoingly. He did not “turn on a dime”: the way Rav Ahron Kotler did.

Rabbi Soloveichik understood that Hashkafic perspective color one’s Psak no matter how great they are. And if one is knowledgeable and sincerely grounded in Halacha one can disagree even with a Gadol and a Zaken who is much older.

This should be a lesson to all Bnei Torah. Just because a Gadol Paskins in a matter of Hashkafa, it is not necessarily the sum and substance of Daas Torah on the subject. One may disagree if one has sufficient Torah knowledgre, especially if there are others of great stature who disagree as well.

And so my Rebbe is the role model for me, not Rav Ahron Kotler. One is entitled to do as one wishes but must never say that there is a Halachic requirement to abide by the decision of the Gadol HaDor in matters of Hashkafa. My Rebbe has shown that indeed Gedolim are NOT infallible and need not be treated that way.

The Greening of Torah Jewry

Rabbi Berel Wein is an interesting fellow. He is a Musmach of my alma mater, HTC, and maintains a close relationship with the Yeshiva. He is also the brother-in-law of Telshe Rosh HaYeshiva, Rav Avrohom Chaim Levin. And he has a very close relationship with him as well.

His views on issues affecting the Torah world are well known and have been recorded and published in various media. His history tapes are legendary and were turned into a very successful three volume book series. He is also a prolific writer and has written many articles on issues having to do with the Torah world.

And he speaks his mind. He does not try to be politically correct. This is probably one of the reasons his writings did not pass muster with Mesorah Publications (Artscroll). His books are instead published by Shaar Press and distributed by Mesorah. I’m not exactly sure what this means but I surmise that his books are “Kosher” enough to be distributed by them but not “Kosher” enough to be published by them.

In any case I am a fan and more often than not, I agree with his views.

There is one article he wrote a while back about his analysis of the current state of Torah world with respct to Charedism and Modern Orthodoxy. He believes that they will eventually merge, incorporating elements of both worlds. I think he is right about that.

He views this phenomenon from a practical rather than ideological perspective. And he points to evidence that it is already happening. I see that too. Ideologies seem to be almost beside the point to the vast majority of the members of both communities.

What is happening is that many Chareidm have adopted many of the modern orthodox modalities for paranssa and are attending colleges, graduate schools, or professional schools while maintaining their status as Charedim. And many Modern Orthodox, in part because of the “move to the right” have gravitated to the lifestyles choices of Charedim, by putting on the black hats, throwing out TVs and spending more of their free time learning. Of course in both cases, they have maintained their connection to their source Hashkafos, but they have also been moving towards each other in how they lead their lives.

I’m not sure how far this is going to go… whether it will be a complete synthesis of the two Hashkafos. But I’m inclined to think that at some point in time, at least in America, there will be that synthesis. Torah Im Derech Eretz, Torah U’Mada, and Charedism will meld into one sociological grouping that will encompass the vast majority of Klal Yisroel.

I don’t like the idea of my own Hashkafa of Torah U’Mada going the way of the dinosaur. It may take a while but I fear that it is. But the fact is that the Charedim are winning. They have all the Mechanchim (or most of them) and their Hashkafos are the ones most widely being taught. The more thoughtful Charedim who actually think about the future are now thinking, and will increasingly think of Parnassa as a necessary requirement for a decent Torah lifestyle.

True, we have a long way to go before it becomes the standard for all Charedim to think of preparing themselves early on for Parnassa, but, I think it is inevitable, and of course it is already happening to a large extent. There are many Charedi professionals, doctors, lawyers, accountants and what have you, all of whom had the foresight to prepare themselves for a decent Parnassa. They understood the practical importance of doing so early on.

Of course the Charedi Hashkafa of learning as long as possible and not thinking about Parnassa until the proverbial “knife is at your throat” is still the guiding principle. But things do seem to be changing, albeit at a snails pace.

By the same token, Modern Orthodox Centrist Jews of the type found in the Yeshiva University Beis HaMedrash have been, and still are, moving to the right, many of them rejecting or ignoring the Hashkafos of Torah U’Mada and looking at their secular education as a means for a decent Parnassa. Same as those Charedim.

There is one monkey wrench in the works however, the situation in Charedi Israel. The Hashkafos of learning Torah full time for as long as possible is very strong there. Combine that with the complete disdain and rejection of secular studies makes the Parnassa situation there more dire. To be fair one of the main problems is the army service requirement before entering the labor force. But equally responsible is the strong insistence of their Roshei Yeshiva or their Gedolim to stay in learning and ignore any Parnassa concerns. This has been testified to many times by “victims” of that mentality. And that kind of thinking has crossed the Atlantic too and has taken hold to some degree here.

Never-the-less, there is a definite trend here amongst many Charedim to prepare themselves for Parnassa at some point. And I think that trend is increasing. I don’t know what kind of rift may occur between those who have adopted the Israeli educational model and those who have moderated their Charedism to allow for better Parnassa preparation. That remains to be seen. But it is a definite phenomenon in the Charedi world.

What will happen on the other side of the Atlantic also remains to be seen although it’s not looking so good for them right now. The poverty there is tremendous and some marriages have seen the breaking point in part because of it.

So the future from a sociological standpoint isn’t so bad, at least for Americans. But from a Hashkafic standpoint, I am disappointed. I truly believe that the study of Mada is important beyond just Parnassa needs. That Hashkafa is on the wane. But Klal Yisorel is not going to starve in their process of maturing. At least not in America.

Paying a Price

We have yet another story in the secular press relating to the controversy over Mehadrin busses, (those which segregate women to the back of a bus). Nothing really new is reported there. But the story will just not go away. And all those who defended the Charedim who beat up Miriam Shear and who are staunch advocates of Mehadrin buses are witnessing a strong challenge to its very existence. This challenge can be directly attributed to the events I wrote about last December. If there is any justice in the world, Naomi Regan’s lawsuit against the Mehadrin buses will succeed. And Mehadrin busses will be severely restricted by law in the State of Israel. Certainly there should be no more “unofficial” Mehadrin lines.

It’s not that I am against a Mehadrin bus line for the community that chooses to have it. Let them have it Gezunte Heit (in complete health). But it is about time that actions like the one that took place against Mrs. Shear have serious consequences. And the severe restriction of Mehadrin buses would be a just consequence of such actions, the price to be paid for the priviledge.

Claims that religious rights of Charedim would be violated are nonsense. It is not Halachicly forbidden to ride a bus with mixed seating as Rav Moshe Feinstein Paskin’d. And I doubt that Mehadrin buses are anything more than the name implies: a Hidur. I understand the need in parts of the Charedi world to act Lifnim Meshuras HaDin, to go beyond the minimum requirements of Halacha. But not limiting an individual's right to act Lifnim Meshuras Hadin does not violate his or her religious rightsm. And it should in no way ever again be a reason for a Frum Tznius woman be forced out of her seat on a bus when there are plenty of other empty seats available.

And this brings me to Mrs. Shira Leibowitz-Schmidt. Mrs. Schmidt is a very talented writer and frequent contributer to cross-currents. It seems to be her habit to almost always defends the most Charedi of perspectives and she did it again here. It is as though she feels a need to constantly establish her “Frum” credentials and at the same time show how decadent secular society is… as if she is saying… “I’m from an assimilated background. (See her bio at the bottom of an article here.) I’ve been there and I can tell you from experience how bad it is.” And that perhaps explains the following qoutes from the article:

"Shira Leibowitz-Schmidt, a teacher at the Haredi College for Women who has fought back against Ragen, says sex-segregated bus lines uphold Haredi traditions and values."

"The vocal demands for modesty and heightened restrictions on women, she says, are a natural reaction to the midriffs and spaghetti-strapped tank tops worn by many secular Israeli women."

"It goes back to the spiralling permissiveness and creeping eroticism, this lasciviousness in the public square," says Leibowitz-Schmidt. "Women want to encourage their husbands, sons and brothers to be focused on family and on Torah and not on the barely dressed women entering the bus."

OK. I understand this perspective. But why is she fighting back? Isn’t it just possible that those who oppose Mehadrin busses have these same values? Does she think Ms. Ragen does not agree with her perceptions on the lack of modesty standards in secular Israel? Must she frame the Mehadrin buses as a reaction to "spiralling permissiveness and creeping eroticism"? Isn't it possible to live a totally Tznius life and not have a Mehadrin Bus line? or at least not have unofficial spontaneously generated ones?

I think it is overkill to say the least. Israeli buses do not contain eroticism and lasciviousness, last time I checked. If Charedim want to avoid the “barely dressed women” Mrs. Schmidt speaks of they would have to stay locked in their homes 24/7. If they leave their homes, they are going to be encountering it in the street. Forcing women to the back of the buss will not eliminate that Michshol (stumbling block).

Segregating busses in Israel has little to do with avoiding immodestly dressed women. It has more to do with the extremism so prevalent in Charedi society there. And Charedim should have no right to impose their extreme standards on others for no other reason that to show them “who’s boss”.

Rebbe Worship

Lubavitch is in the news again. Their problems seem to be getting worse. And nowhere is it better illustrated than in this article in Ha’Aretz.

Just a couple of weeks ago I wrote of my own shocking experience in a mainstream Lubavitch Shul.

Full disclosure: I still Daven at that Shul. It is close by and convenient. More importantly I have been attending the morning Daf Yomi Shiur there for over 16 years. Frankly, I’m a bit surprised they haven’t thrown me out yet. My views are probably pretty well known there.

More surprising is the fact that mainstream rabbinic leadership hasn’t banned everyone from Daveing there. But they haven’t. Add to that the fact that my Rebbe, Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik Paskin’d that their Meshichist beliefs are not Apikursus, just simple nonsense, I still go there for some of my Tefila B’Tzibur.

But the fact that it is not Apikursus does not take away the sad facts described in this article. There is nothing in it that is new to me. But for the first time, their beliefs and activities are described in one place. This article should not be missed.

One thing that is rarely discussed is the reason Lubavitch has turned out this way. I think it would be helpful to know that, in order to be able to deal with this movement properly. To review the problematic substance of their beliefs, Lubavitch holds that it is possible for a man to be the Messiah on earth, die, and be resurrected in a second coming.

The range of that belief is all the way from saying it is possible but unlikely… to believing it as fact that not only is he the Messiah but that he is god in a body! And there is the entire spectrum of belief in-between. I suspect that the vast majority of non Meshichist Lubavitchers believe that although he is not God, the Rebbe is at least possibly Moshiach and may very well at some point be resurrected as such. The main dividing line between them and the outspoken Meshichsts seems to be in how likely and how public that belief should be.

Another aspect is what the proportions of Lubavitchers along the Meshichist belief spectrum that believe in any of the various Meshichist options. I think that the so-called anti Meshichist Lubavitchers, are either misleading the non Lubavitch world or are themselves deluded about the proportions. That a mainstream anti-Meshichist Lubavitch girls high school can print pamphlets saying that the Rebbe is god in a body clearly shows how mainstream such a Christian type theology is in Chabad.

Back to why. Why have they evolved into a Messianist group at any level?

The answer is not so simple. But here is my analysis. I am convinced that the problem starts with the Chasidic concept of a Rebbe. A man is set up as the intermediary to God, a man who is deemed so spiritual that is treated as royalty, a near icon of worship. People ask him for blessings as though he had a mystical power to grant them. Of course the more educated among Chasidim realize that he is only a man, great though he may be, and that the Brachos that are requested are Min HaShamyim. The Rebbe being so holy is the best person to request those Brachos. But I question if that is so well understood amongst the majority of Chasidim. They stand in line for hours sometimes just to get “a Bracha from the Rebbe”.

Lubavitch has taken this to the ultimate extreme. They worship the Lubavitcher Rebbe like no other Chasid worships their Rebbe. And all this was helped along by the Rebbe himself who, while still alive was promoting the Messianist idea as a primary focus. He proclaimed that “the time of our redemption is now”. He focused constantly on Messianism during the latter part of his life saying things like “we’ve done all we can to bring Moshiach”. He urged his Chasidim to focus on it in order to hurry Moshiach’s arrival.

The current popular phrase “We want Moshiach, Now!” was a common refrain during this last years of his life. And of course there is the very popular “Yechi Adoneinu…” which declares the Rebbe to be Moshiach. This phrase was chanted many times in front of the Rebbe and he never discouraged it although he publicly denied he was. I think the Rebbe actually believed that there was a very good chance he was going to be anointed Moshiach. And although the anti-Meshichist Lubavitchers would take umbrage and vehemently deny this, the Meshichists would say that in fact this is what the Rebbe believed and that his denials were just an expression of modesty. I think they are right. I think the Lubavitcher Rebbe believed it himself.

Now that the Rebbe is dead, the worship has not abated. It is stronger than ever. Meshichist or not, just about all of the focus of Lubavitch is on the Rebbe. The majority of their learning is on the Rebbe’s words and thoughts. His Likutei Sichos and his many videotaped speeches and appearances abound. It is rare to hear any other Torah luminary from the past or present mentioned. It is “All Rebbe, all the time”.

It is as if they get their life sustenance from his words. As a friend of mine once put it, taking the Rebbe out of Lubavitch would be like taking Torah learning out of Lakewood.

I realize that many will question my take on this as being extreme or way off. But the tell-tale signs are all there, from my little experience a couple of weeks ago, to the constant references to the Rebbe as a Moshicah in disguised ways. As in ending a speech I heard with words like… “with the hope that Bimherah Uv’yamenu, the Rebbe will arise and lead us all out of this bitter Galus.” This phrase sticks in my mind because it was uttered by the son of Lubavitch Rabbi Harold P. Shusterman who was an outspoken opponent of the Meshichists, at the latter's Shloshim memorial.

So this is the problem. And I believe it is getting worse. Articles like the one in Ha’aretz certainly point in that direction. Based on the many conversations and discussions I’ve had with many Lubavitchers, and the many articles I have read, including Dr. David Berger's masterful work on the subject, I believe that the that majority of all Lubavitchers harbor beliefs that the Rebbe will yet have a second coming. And that there are a lot more elohists than they are willing to publicly admit to.

Where will it all end? Who knows. But it isn’t looking so good.

Yet Another Chilul HaShem

It causes me great pain and sorrow to write the following. But I feel I have an obligation to speak out when Kavod HaTorah is so publicly compromised.

Dov Hikind, an Orthodox Jew, is an elected Democratic Assemblyman for the State of New York. He represents that portion of Brooklyn that includes Boro Park. I have never met the gentleman but have read much about him. I know him to be an ardent supporter of Israel. At least the political right wing portion of it. He is also a Religious Zionist who supports very right wing Religious Zionist Yeshivos like Ateres Kohanim.

By all acounts he is a decent fellow, with decent values. In fact I recall quoting him when he rightfully criticized the ultra Orthodox rioters in his distrcit about a year or so ago, who were so violent and destructive that they went so far as torching police squad cars. I honor his integrity in that instance.

But I can’t allow my sincere praise for what he did there to obscure my utter conempt for what he did now, as reported in an article in The Jewish Week:

“Brooklyn Assemblyman Dov Hikind raised some $40,000 to run full-page ads in Jewish newspapers last month calling on Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to quit and urging supporters to back his cause by writing tax-deductible checks to a charity called Yad Moshe."

"The ads, however, instructed donors to mail the checks to an address that was not the charity’s but the headquarters of Hikind’s campaign finance committee, Friends of Dov Hikind."

I strongly object to his lack of ethics in this regard. He is guilty of a cardinal sin in my book: that of justifying unethical means to achieve his own political ends, in this case for the State of Israel. He defends his effort as a non politcal and therefore a tax-deductable enterprise. He makes this claim based on the fact he does not advocate for the election of a specific candidate.

But he does advocate for the removal of a sitting Prime Minister of a foreign country. One can quibble about how correct his own right wing Religious Zionist poitical views are. But one cannot quibble that he is raising money to support his own views and the methods employed in raising funds.

It is disingenuous for him to call his views non politcal. I am reminded of President Nixon’s strongly held views that his own politcal views were so important to the welfare of the nation and his political opponent’s views so harmful that Watergate was in the end totally justified. He called “all of his men” great patriots. And they probably were. But they were also unethcical criminals. But Nixon felt the ends, getting re-elected, justified the means, the Watergate break-in to Democratic national headquaters. One can be a great patriot and still be an unethical criminal. And this is what Mr. Hikind seems to be by doing this. He believes that the policies of the current government in Israel justify his unethical activty in the United States.

His official position is that he has done nothing wrong and he is well within the law in doing what he did. That will be up to those investigating him. But even if he is exonerated, his actions are still a Chilul HaShem. And this isn’t the first time he has gotten himself into trouble either:

“Hikind was acquitted of federal bribery charges in 1998 in a case in which two officials of a Brooklyn charity were convicted of having misappropriated government funds by directing them to benefit Hikind.”

True he was acquitted. But do we really want high profile Jews skirting around the law, even if they have supposedly noble reasons for doing so? I don’t think so. First of all what is legitmate to him may not be legitimate to others. Trying to oust the sitting Prime Minister of Israel is not exactly a universally agreed upon proposition. Not everyone has the same views about Prime Minister Olmert that he does. But even if they did, that does not justify unethical means in acehiving those ends.

And to make matters worse, he recruited in his cause a convicted felon, Rabbi Gershon Tannenbaum, a man who:

"...pleaded guilty to tax evasion in 1996 and served 10 months in prison for the felony." "More recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission has charged Rabbi Tannenbaum with securities fraud in a civil case. And a jury in 2002 found him guilty in a federal civil suit filed by a plaintiff who claimed he was a victim of the fraud, which involved false claims about the assets of a company whose stock Rabbi Tannenbaum and others were promoting."

Nice.

Assemblyman Hikind and Rabbi Tannenbaum seem to have concocted a scheme to raise funds for a foreign political cause and launder donations through Rabbi Tannenbaum’s tax exempt charity, Yad Moshe.

The Chilul HaShem is further aggravated by the vlie language he uses in ads of that campaign.

"The ad went on to denounce Olmert, also in upper case type, as, “ARROGANT,” “IRRESPONSIBLE,” “DELUSIONAL,” “INEPT,” “CONFUSED,” “INDECISIVE,” “OVER WHELMED,” AND “INCOMPETENT."

"Its sponsor was identified as “ASSEMBLYMAN DOV HIKIND,” adding, “COMMITTEE IN FORMATION.” Smaller type on the bottom instructed donors wishing to “participate in this campaign” to “forward your tax deductible contributions to Yad Moshe."

Even if one agrees with MR. Hikind’s views with respect to Prime Minister Olmert, it is unconscionable to use such vile language with respect to a sitting Israeli leader. One can call for his removal without doing that. A high profile, Kippa wearing Orthodox Jewish figure like Mr. Hikind accomplishes nothing except creating a Chilul HaShem by using such invectives. And that says nothing about the Chilul HaShem of the unethical means used to obtain the funds used to put out those ads.

At this point it doesn’t even matter to me if he is found to have been technically within the limits of the law. I cannot conceive of any defense of these activities. They are a disgrace. If Mr. Hikind has any honor left at all, he ought to resign.

The Wisdom in the Air of Israel

The Gemara in Bava Basra (158b) records a Machlokes between R Zeira and R. Eila on the question of who the legitimate heirs are in a matter concerning a wall that collapses upon a mother and a son and it is not known who died first. When R. Zeira went to Israel he changed his position and agreed to R. Eila’s position. And then concludes that he changed his mind because Avira D’ara Machkim, the very air of Israel makes one wiser.

Maybe that was true at the time of the Gemarah but I really question it now. I happened to read Chicago Jewish News publisher Joe Aaron’s weekly column over Shabbos. And I could not agree with him more. Indeed it seems that Israel’s air makes you stupider! Maybe it’s all that dust constantly being thrown up in the air by all the incessant construction. I don’t know. But it is clear that the secular leadership in Israel is far from wise: As Joe Aaron puts it:

“The man who was the previous president of Israel had to resign in disgrace after it was revealed he had taken bribes. The man who is the current president of Israel almost certainly will have to resign in disgrace, having just been indicted for committing rape. Rape. A president of the state of Israel. I truly don't get it. Two presidents of the state of Israel, one after the other, one a thief, the other a pervert. …It's one thing to have mediocre leaders. It's quite another to have criminal ones.”

Mr. Araon goes on to list many other stupidities which he says is only a partial list. And he further states that in part it is the fault or world wide Jewry, the Jews of Chutz La’Aretz… especially Americans who always give Israel a pass on its indiscretions. One might try to explain that we are just being Dan L’Kaf Zchus… judging favorably and choosing the most flattering of explanations when there are many to choose from. But we do Israel no favor by doing so because there are then no checks and balances and thereby encourage the very behavior we are now seeing. Israeli leaders know they are going to be supporeted and end up having a sense of infallibility or at the very least they believe mistakes will be “spun” in their favor. Mr. Aaron is right. We have an obligation to tell the truth to power. When they are wrong we ought to stand up and say so. If a Jew creates a clear public Chilul HaShem it ought to be condemned and not explained away.

But even though Mr. Aaron does not allude to it, the same thing applies to much of the excesses in the Torah world now taking place in Israel. Whether it is in the Charedi camp or in the Religious Zionist camp, excess seems to rule the day. A recent article in the Globe and Mail illustrates the extremes I am talking about at least as it applies to the Charedi world. The story contains a litany of recent edicts that can at best be characterized as not well thought out. And it describes activities by members of that community that can only be described as zealotry gone mad. I have written about all of them but just to mention a few: The Takanos about limiting Charedi women’s education, overly stringent edicts about Tznius (eg. Shaitels that are too long), mandating Tznius patrols by Avreichim, mandating a requirement to only patronize clothing stores given an official Tznius Hechsher.

And in the realm of zealotry: the beating of a woman on an unofficial Mehadrin bus, the spray bleaching of clothes on innocent passers-by in Charedi enclaves, and the torching of clothing stores deemed selling immodest clothing by Charedi standards. There many additional such examples of what can only call extremism, by both the Charedi rabbinic leadership in the form of expected behavior, and by overly zealous members of the Charedi community.

If one contrasts the edicts by American Charedi rabbinic leaders and even zealotry of their Charedi Amercian counterparts, the Americans pale in comparison. Although there is plenty to be criticised on the “American side” too, there is no contest.

If this is how the air in Israel makes one wiser, whether in the secular world or the religious world, I’d rather remain here and be stupid.

Of course, I do not really believe that the American system is stupid, although there is certainly room for improvement. And I don't think that the American rabbinic leadership thinks it is stupid either.

But... even though American rabbinic leadership has not instituted the excesses found in Israel they have not spoken out against them either. And they should. It is not in the best interests of Klal Yisroel to remain silent.

There is an understandable reticence to do so on their part. When asked about it Agudah, for example, will say they do not comment on the pronouncements of the Israeli rabbinic leadership. They probably feel that such public disagreement would be a sign of disrespect to the Gedolim of Israel.

But it isn’t so. There can be respectful disagreement between Poskim. And it ought to be forthcoming. Because without it, you have Shtika: acquiescence. And Shtika as we all know is K’Hoda’ah. It is tantamount to endorsement of Israeli excesses. By not speaking out against the policices of the Israeli rabbinic leadership, they are in essence saying it is OK for them, because they are “holier”.

Before you know it such thinking will find its way back here and because of the never ending quest for increased Kedusha, all manner of Chumra that exists in Israel will be adopted here. To some extent it is already happening. At some point a policy of no secular studies at all for boys could eventually be institued here in the Yeshiva system.

Such schools already exist. It’s not yet universally the case. Far from it. But I can see it happening. And can anyone imagine going taking a walk in Boro Park and getting spray bleached? It could happen. Is this truly a prescription for a great Torah society? Is modern day Charedi Israel our model for behavior? I don’t think so.

The Tsedek Hekhsher

The Tsedek Hekhsher. What is that? It is an attempt by the Conservative movement to certify labor standards at kosher food plants. Why are they doing this? From an article in The Forward:

“The Conservative movement decided last December to create a Tsedek Hekhsher, or justice certification, after finding substandard working conditions at the country’s largest kosher slaughterhouse in Postville, Iowa.”

“(Their)committee began looking into the issue of labor conditions after an article in the Forward detailed complaints from workers at AgriProcessors, the Iowa slaughterhouse that is the country’s largest kosher meatpacking plant. The USCJ and the Conservative Rabbinical Assembly created a task force to investigate the allegations. After numerous visits to the Iowa plant — and to another slaughterhouse in Pennsylvania — the task force issued a report declaring that “there are significant issues of concern at the plant, including issues of health and safety.”

Of course there has been a total rejection by the rabbinic administrator at the Satmar affiliated Hechsher organization, The Central Rabbinical Congress, Yitzchok Glick. He advocates refusing Conservative rabbis into kosher food processing facilites. “The Orthodox kosher producers are all of the same opinion. They will adhere to our proclamation. They will not allow them into the plant.” Rabbi Gershon Tennenbaum of the Jewish Press said Jews should “repulse any attempts of introducing such alien impositions.”

The lady doth protests too much, methinks.

Not all Orthodox rabbinic authorities are so strident:
“Rabbi Menachem Genack, head of the largest kosher supervision agency, the Orthodox Union, said his organization is “not taking a position” on the Tsedek Hekhsher. But Genack said he believed that labor issues would be better left to governmental authorities.”

I would prefer we first policed ourselves and not leave it to the government. They are a “court” of last resort. Unfortunately we have here a situation of complex factors impacting on each other. And that obfuscates the real issue: The mistreatment of the labor force. AgriProcessors, known better by its trade name, Rubashkin, is indeed the largest kosher meat processors in the country. And in a scathing investigative article a while back they were accused of seriously mistreating their non Jewish laborers and if I remember correctly inhumane treatment of animals as well.

Rubashkin has vehemently denied this and to this day I don’t know where the truth lies. But the idea of creating an oversight body to prevent labor abuses which are, at the very least. a big Chilul HaShem is not a bad one, especially in light of all the negative publicity that has since been generated.

The problem of course is that it is a non Halachic movement who wants to do this oversight, a movement which is in the throes of trying to figure out whether it is Halachic even by its own definition. So the resistance is high. And I understand that. But I question whether the Halachic consideration is the sole motivation behind this resistance.

The idea is a good one and ought to be implemented. I would however agree that we should continue to follow the practice of not joining with the Conservative movement in anything even remotely connected to theology. Doing so would imply endorsement of their views. True, this kind of supervision would have nothing to do with Kashrus, per se but the perceptions that Conservative rabbis are in some way involved together with Orthodox rabbis in Kosher supervision of food could all too easily be misconstrued by the public.

But the idea of this type of supervision should not be rejected or ignored. It would behoove the kosher certification industry to create their own standards and Hashgacha on this issue and to make Hechsherim (kosher certification) contingent on whether these guidelines are followed. Just because “they thought of it” doesn’t mean we can’t implement it. It is a good idea. Only I would take it a step further and make certain that not only are laborers fairly treated but that animals are humanely treated as well.

The Kosher meat industry has not performed well in this area and this was true even before Rubashkin ever existed. Rav Ahron told our Shiur way back in the seventies that he was disgusted by the wide spread practice at the time of shackling the cattle by its hind legs, then hoisting and suspending them upside down for slaughter. This is a completely inhumane and unnecessary practice.

He also felt that the way in which veal was and still is produced today is inhumane and unacceptable. I believe Rabbi Soloveichik never touched veal because of it. Our appetites for veal should not trump the torture those calves must go through. I’m not sure if the practice of hoisting and shackling still exists or how common it is. But it ought to be stopped if it exists at all. Animals mistreated in this or any other way in the Shechita (Kosher slaughtering) process must be barred from getting any kind of Hechsher. Slaughtering animals should be done as humanely as possible. It is long past time we implemented such standards so we can truly be a light unto the nations instead of an embarrassment to God.

The Sins of the Fathers

There is an news item from Ha'Aretz mentioned in Yeshiva World. (Unfortunately for some reason I cannot access the original story directly from Ha’artez). Here is an excerpt:

“The children of Moshe Aryeh Friedman who attended the Holocaust Denial Conference in Iran, have been expelled from their school on Monday - and were told that no other Jewish school in Austria will take them, their father said Tuesday.”

If there is any incident that has united virtually all segments of Orthodox Jewry and even non Orthodox Jewry it is this one. These people are amongst the most despicable to inhabit the face of the planet. And that they claim to be observant and have the appearance of observant Jews makes their Chilul HaShem very great.

But the obvious question is, is the expulsion of their children justified? I am not so sure about that.

I don’t know what kind of school they attend but I doubt that it is a religious Zionist one. It is more than likely a Satmar oriented one. As such their views with respect the illegitimacy of the State of Israel are in harmony with those of Moshe Aryeh Friedman’s Neturei Karta views. The only difference being how far that antipathy should go.

Clearly Satmar believes that a line was more than crossed deserving the response of expulsion of Moshe Aryeh Friedman’s children. But is it in the best interests of those children to leave all indoctrination to their father? Would it not be better to try and teach them another way to express their antipathy? I think so. Expulsion does nothing except publicize how opposed Satmar is to these depraved Neturei Kartaniks. But that message is not worth the cost of contributing to the creation of even more Moshe Aryeh Friedmans. Of course there is no guarantee that these children wouldn’t turn out like their father anyway. But at least in the school they have a chance at learning a more acceptable way to protest the Medina.

This story brings up an incident that happened a few years ago in Chicago. A Frum lesbian parent wanted to enroll her daughter into one of the Orthodox day schools here. Normally it wouldn’t have been a problem except that she chose to reveal her living arrangements with another woman up front thereby making public her status as a lesbian. The three major days schools here all refused admission to the child.

Now I am thoroughly convinced that the statistical probability is pretty high that there already are homosexual parents in at least one if not all the schools. But they are in the closet. No one knows who they are or if they even exist. But when a parent reveals their sexual orientation to be homosexual, it put the schools into the difficult position of knowingly accepting a homosexual individual into the parent body and thereby seeming to endorse their lifestyle choice which, they felt, is tantamount to endorsing a lifestyle of Toevah. Of course for a woman it is not a Toevah. But the the public, they felt, would not make that distinction and they would be seen as endorsing homosexuality, thus creating a Chilul HaShem.

To the best of my knowledge all three of the largest day schools refused to take her. That includes the Modern Orthodox one, the Centrist one, and the Charedi one. I know that there were Shailos asked and Teshuvos given. At the time I supported their actionss but had always had some serious reservations about it. But I felt that a school can no more be seen as supporting a gay lifestyle than they can be seen supporting a lifestyle of Chilul Shabbos.

But over time, my reservations never ceased. The problem of refusing a Jewish education to a child because of the sins of a parent has always troubled me. And because of that very important factor, I have now changed my mind and have taken the opposite view. There are many non-Shomer Shabbos parents in the day school system. Many of those parents are open about it. But we do not expel their children at all. Why should a child be denied a Jewish education because her parent decided to be open about her sexuality? Why is that any worse than being open about Chilul Shabbos?

I think it would have been best had she not revealed it up front. If discovered later on, the child would already be in the school and I doubt that she would have been expelled. The school could have thereby saved face. But for her own reasons, this lesbian woman, a very sincere and knowledgeable Jew, decided to be open about it. She probably believed that it was best to be honest and up front about it rather than to be “exposed” later.

It is a tough call. But just as I believe the Neturei Karta children should be admitted to their school, so too should the lesbian woman’s daughter have been admitted to the day school of her choice. Acceptance of a child into a school should never be seen as an endorsement of the view or the lifestyle of the parent. Nor do I think it would be perceived that way. No Halacha that I know of would be violated. It all boils down to image. Mariyas Ayin. And that, in my view is not enough to sacrifice the Jewish eduaction of a single child.

The End of the Line?

*A group of five feminists, including novelist Naomi Ragen, has petitioned BaGaTz against the Mehadrin lines maintained by two publicly-subsidized bus companies: Egged and Dan. Petitioner do not demand the immediate cessation of Mehadrin service, but rather that the Court order the Transport Ministry to conduct a study of the necessity of separate seating bus lines and require Mehadrin buses to be clearly labeled.

At the hearing before BaGaTz, a good deal of attention is likely to focus on an incident that took place on the number 2 bus between Har Nof and the Kotel last November 24. In a widely circulated Email, Mrs. Miriam Shear, an Orthodox grandmother from Toronto described an alleged attack on her that day. According to her Email, she rode the number 2 bus to the neitz minyan at the Kotel daily over a period of five weeks that she was visiting in Jerusalem. Though that particular bus line is not a Mehadrin line, the majority of passengers on the line are chareidi, and she was asked on a number of occasions to move to a seat on the back of the bus. In each case, she refused.

According to the Email, on the morning in question, a male passenger told Mrs. Shear that he wanted to sit in her seat and asked her to move to the back of the bus. She noted that there were two open seats in front of her and another across the aisle, and again refused. At that point the man spit at the middle-aged grandmother, and she reciprocated in kind. That led to a knockdown brawl, in which Mrs. Shear’s hair-covering fell off and was thrown out of her reach, she was kicked in the face, and she was surrounded and jostled by four men, including the original assailant. (I was able to confirm from Mrs. Shear’s host in Har Nof that she returned home hysterical from this encounter and with a badly swollen face.)

Predictably, this particular Email began spread like wildfire through cyberspace. Mrs. Shear was sought out for feature stories and interviews by some of the world’s largest TV and print media, most of which, to her credit, she refused. Equally predictably, a Reform leader penned an op-ed piece in the Jerusalem Post in which he compared Mrs. Shear to Rosa Parks, the black woman whose refusal to move to the back of a public bus in Montgomery, Alabama helped spark the American civil rights movement. For good measure, he also compared chareidim to the Taliban in Afghanistan, and that comparison has been picked up and repeated ad nauseum.

If BaGaTz eventually bans Mehadrin public buses, those who were so insistent that Mrs. Shear vacate her seat will have made a significant contribution to the final decision. Certainly they have already made helped make Torah Judaism appear as something ugly and fanatical in the eyes of hundreds of thousands around the world.

It is unlikely, however, that those involved in the bus incident will ever know of their “achievements.” But what concerns me more is the fear that even if they knew of them that they would have no regrets. There is, unfortunately, a small, but not negligible, segment of our community for whom the image of Torah Judaism in the larger world is a matter of utter indifference. All that matters, in any given situation, is what they perceive as the immediate religious imperative. Concern with the spiritual state of their fellow Jews is not even on the radar screen.

No doubt among my readers there are those who will point the finger of blame at Mrs. Shear: Why couldn’t she have moved to the back of the bus? Why did she have to distribute her Email so widely, knowing that it would generate great attention? And perhaps they are right.

But to focus only on her actions is to miss the point. There is a growing tendency in our community to attempt to impose our halachic standards, even chumrot, whenever we have a momentary majority, such as on the early morning bus to the Kotel. Even leaving aside the consequences of such a strategy on the attitude of traditional and secular Jews towards the chareidi community and Torah itself, I fear it is a dangerous approach.

Democracy may not be the Torah’s ideal form of government, but in recent history it has generally proven to be the best protector of the rights of Jews and of our ability to flourish as Torah Jews. Therefore Torah Jews have an interest in playing by the rules of a democratic society. If we want the majority of Israeli society to respect the rights of the chareidi minority, then we have to also respect the rights of the majority.

To argue that the rules of the game followed by Torah Jews in America do not apply to the chareidi community in Israel is, in my mind, a perverse form of Zionism.

Adopting violence as a tool would be a disastrous mistake, even from the most narrow and short-range perspective. As Yossi Sarid and other secular politicians have been only too happy to remind us over the years, at the end of the day, the secular public is much larger and has lots more guns.

Separate seating on buses may be a very positive thing. And if it is important enough to the chareidi community, then the community will support our own separate bus lines (though hopefully not by throwing stones at competing public lines, as has happened in Ramat Beit Shemesh).

But separate seating is not the only Torah value at stake. Yereim v’shleimim in New York regularly ride the New York City subways, on which the crowding is far greater than anything experienced on Egged buses in Jerusalem. And the late posek hador, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, zt”l, long-ago ruled that there was not even the hint of an issur d’rabbanan in riding New York City subways.

As in so many cases, if we don’t keep values in perspective, we risk losing much more, including the command to make Torah beloved through our actions. The pending BaGaTz is but one example.

*Do these lines sound vaguely familiar? Have you heard me say them before? Well I have, more or less. But these words are not my own. They are the words of Rabbi Jonathan Rosenblum from a verbatim article posted on cross-currents and published in Mispahcha. Of course I agree with it in its entirety and salute him for his courage in writing it.