Daas Torah?

An article in The Jewish Star confirms much of my thinking on the subject of Daas Torah today. As it does my thinking about those many people refer to as ‘The Gedolim’.

I have written in the past that I do not believe we have any Gedolim today. That is incorrect. And though I said that and explained what I meant, I should not have put it that way. Of course we have Gedolim. By definition and default the rabbinic leaders of our day are Gedolim. That is how Gedolim are defined. And we have to treat them with respect.

The Gemarah tells us,’Yiftach B’Doro K’Shmuel B’Doro’. Yiftach who was the Gadol HaDor of his generation and did some pretty questionable things according to one opinion in the Gemarah was nevertheless to be treated in his own generation like the Navi Shmuel was treated in his generation. Each are to be treated with respect because they are our leaders. Who those leaders currently are - how they became our leaders - or whether one group considers ‘this one’ a Gadol and another considers ‘that one a Gadol - is immaterial. If one is defined as a Gadol, we must treat them accordingly.

What I meant when I said that ‘We have no Gedolim’ is that the caliber of our Gedolim is light years apart from the previous generation, something I think they would themselves agree with. And although they are deserving of respect and honor, I cannot in all seriousness consider their pronouncements as having anywhere near the validity as those of the previous generation. The events surrounding this ban as described in this article confirms that for me …as does the subsequent ‘carrot and stick’ approach of pressuring of Lipa to ‘tow the line’. He of course succumbed to it.

Here are the key excerpts from that article:

In an interview with The Jewish Star, Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetzky, a rosh yeshiva in Philadelphia who signed the ban, said, "It is very general, you're right, but I don't think it will refer to all concerts. You have to have an outlet for kids." Rabbi Kamenetzky confirmed that he had spoken to Friedman and said that he had understood that the request for the ban originally came "from rabbis in Eretz Yisroel.

We didn't want to differ with them. It was expressed that certain performers...upset somepeople." The Rosh Yeshiva was asked whether anybody had confirmed the origin of the request. "It seems that it was a request from mouth to ear and everyone went along with them," he responded.

"What they said was that it was a request from Rav Elyashiv and Rav Steinman. I didn't:confirm that." Asked if it is unusual for distinguished rabbonim to sign a kol korei on the say-so of one person, Rabbi Kamenetzky was candid:"Usually we meet together. This time, with time pressing, we did not get together. Andmaybe it was not the right thing."

These quotes speak for themselves and show me just how these kinds of bans come about. A zealous Kannoi with an agenda contacts as many Gedolim as he can and describes his take on a performer. He then misleads them about the sources for the ban stating that two of the most prominent and elderly Israeli Gedolim are behind it. Instead of researching the veracity of this claim, due to the constraints on their time they allow this Kannoi to affix their signatures to the bottom of a declaration that they will not even read. … one that had they read, they would not have signed.

Just as was the case with Rabbi Natan Slifkin and Rabbi Nosson Kaminetsky, these Gedolim were manipulated into signing a faulty proclamation. And just as it was an injustice in the case of those two rabbis, so too it is an injustice here.

To paraphrase what Rabbi Nosson Kamitesky said about his ban, this would not have happened with the previous generation of Gedolim. Both of these rabbis reputations, and livelihoods, and Shiduch prospects for their children were all negatively affected by those actions. That Lipa Schmeltzer capitulated to this kind of pressure is therefore easily understood.

These are our Gedolim? This is Daas Torah?

What is most perplexing is that in addition to the other Gedolim, it was Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky who by his own admission so casually signed the ban. He is the brother of Rav Nosson Kaminetsky, who was treated in precisely the same way by zealous Kanoim in Israel. He knew the pain that his brother suffered, and probably suffred from it too.

Why did he sign so quickly? I don’t know but to quote him: "we didn't want to differ”. No independent thinking. They just did not want to differ from the Israeli Gedolim whom they thought initiated the ban. So in haste and without researching the facts, they signed on. No verification of any of the claims were made.

I am sure that these Gedolim are among the most knowledgeable of Torah in our time. I’m also sure that they spend countless hours of sacrifice working for the benefit of Klal Yisroel. They are Moser Nefesh and selfless to a fault. But the best of intentions do not always pave the road to a good place. And in this case we can see that quite clearly. And if they dropped the ball here, where else did they drop it? And when will they drop it again?

Torah U’Mada: Models and Perspectives

There has been some debate recently about the exact nature of Torah U’Mada. Torah is the word of God as written in the bible and expounded by the sages. Mada is the accumulated knowledge of mankind. That there is a debate is understandable considering the fact that it has only relatively recently been defiend as an independant Hashkafa …although it has probably existed undefined from the very beginnings of creation.

But the attempt to define it as a Hashkafa had never been attempted until about 20 years ago. I’m not even sure that there is a universal definition of this Hashkafa. Definitions range from a rather loose interpretation along the lines of Rav Hershel Shachter to a complex and detailed one of Dr. Lamm and Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik (affectionately called Rav Ahron by his students).

If I am not mistaken Rav Hershel Shachter’s definition was given 20 years ago in response to then sitting Yeshiva University president, Dr. Norman Lamm’s Torah U’Mada project. Rav Shachter is purported to have said simply that Torah U’Mada simply means the study of Torah and Mada in the same building.

Dr. Lamm, on the other hand wrote a book on the subject. He tried to clarinfy in detail what he thought it is…as an independent Hashkafa. Until that time Torah U’Mada was pretty amorphous. Dr. Lamm never came out with a conclusive definition either. But he brilliantly took various models and applied the perspective of each.

The models he used among others were philosophies of either individuals or existing movements. The Rambam, Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch, Rav Avraham Yitzchak Kook, The Vilna Gaon, and Chasidus come to mind… each with their own unique contributions to the subject. Dr. Lamm’s own preference was the Chasidic model.

I am not going to go into the various models because that would take an entire book. Suffice it to say that for me, these models provided tremendous insight as to how to view the two worlds of Torah on the one hand, and Mada on the other.

Aside from writing a book on the subject, Dr. Lamm initiated other projects to promote Torah U’Mada as an independent Hashkafa. One of those was the creation of the Torah U’Mada Journal. That project was undertaken by Rabbi Jacob J. Schechter who did a magnificent job in publishing articles dealing with many issues from a Torah U’Mada perspective.

Anther thing he did was ask my Rebbe, Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik, to give his own analysis of Torah U’Mada. Rav Ahron has provided us with five perspectives* from a Halachic standpoint.

Perspective number one: The study of Mada as a supplement or compliment to Torah that is necessary to achieve Ahavas HaBorei, the love of God.

Perspective number two: The study of Mada as a means to achieve Yishuv HaOlam, that is, to build up and strengthen the world.

Perspective number three: The study of Mada as a medium for self fulfillment that is the ability to achive ones own specific full potential in life serving God.

Perspective number four: as an indispensable means of a full understanding of Torah and for the application of Halacha to the multifarious vicissitudes of life.

Perspective number five: The study of Mada as a means of inspiring others, both Jews and non Jews with the beauty of Torah.

This last point is derived from the Rambam in a letter to Rav Yehonasan HaKohen that secular studies were L’Haros Ha’Amim V’Hasarim Es Yofeh Ki Tovas Mareh Hi – to inspire the nations with the beauty that is inherent in the Torah. The term ‘nations’ include our own – Am Yisroel - especially today when there are so many Jews who have no idea of the beauty of Torah.

My own views on this subject are a combination of all of the above plus my own rational thought on the subject derived from them. I have taken elements from the various models described in Dr. Lamm’s book, and the five perspectives of Rav Ahron. And though I stated my basic views on the subject in a comment thread, it is worth repeating here:

Torah U’Mada is the 'two towers' approach. Torah is one tower and Mada the other. Torah has the higher value but Mada has high value in its own right. Each is worthy of independent study and each impacts on the other. But the study of Mada alone, i.e. the study of all of mankind's accumulated knowledge about the natural universe and the study of mankind's contribution to all facets of human existence... is seen as worthy endeavor since it is all part of God's creation.

It is a way of understanding and appreciating God. It is a way to better understand His Torah. It is a way of building up the world. And it is a more all encompassing way of finding one’s true purpose in life.

*Taken from Logic of the Heart Logic of the Mind.

Looking for Your Besherte

Why are there so many young people having trouble getting married?

Part of the problem is that we grew up idealizing marriage—and that if we’d had a more realistic understanding of its cold, hard benefits, we might have done things differently. Instead, we grew up thinking that marriage meant feeling some kind of divine spark, and so we walked away from uninspiring relationships that might have made us happy in the context of a family.

These are very wise words but they are not my own. They are the words of strident feminist Ms. Lori Gottlieb from an article in Atlantic Monthly. But these words are just as apt for the Torah world as they are for Ms. Gottlieb’s world.

Feeling a divine spark might be what is expected when is one finds their Basherte. Beshert is the Yiddish term for pre-destined. But most people know it in its common usage: A Besherte is the person you are pre-destined to marry via a mandate from Heaven. The Talmud tells us that 40 days before the creation of an embryo, one’s marriage partner is determined. This is taken to mean that everyone has their soul-mate in this world... which is up to them to find and marry.

Since it is divine in nature, it implies finding a perfect mate - a soul mate. In my view this definition is inaccurate and counter productive. There is a contradiction between the concept of the pre-destiny described in the Talmud and ‘the freedom to choose’ which is the hallmark of western culture. Western culture emphasizes individuality and freedom. Pre-destiny does not go well with that. So we end up with a clash of cultures. We are free to choose and yet we are pre-destined.

I believe this is one of the major contributing factors to the Shiddach crisis. Freedom and personal choice means one has the option to wait until he or she finds their pre-destined perfect soul-mate.

Indeed such a match would be one made in Heaven. The problem is that complete compatibility is rare. And truly wise people realize that. People who hold out for their soul-mates are really looking for a clone of themselves in the form of the opposite sex - a person who has the exact same views… and likes… and dislikes of all things.

But marriage is not about perfection. It is a rare occurrence when there aren’t any issues between a married couple no matter how compatible they are. So in the end being a soul-mate has less to do with perfection than it does with commitment and compromise.

I recently wrote about a religious woman whose Hashkafos were probably right wing modern Orthodox. She is getting divorced. I don’t want to minimize her complaints and I in fact defended her in my post… asking if there is something lacking in religious culture that can be improved upon so as to address her concerns.

In comparing her article to the one by Ms. Gottlieb, I found a kind of role reversal. The religious Jew is pining for a more secular approach to marriage and the secular Jew is pining for a more traditional approach. I must admit, that Ms. Gotlieb has won me over with her arguments. There is a lot of introspection and much wisdom in her words. Much of what she says can be found in the traditions of Torah Judaism. What she describes as important and unimportant are much the same as I would describe them.

Of course as Rabbi Yitzchak Adlerstein points out in cross-currents, Ms. Gottlieb does go a bit too far. She sees this as an either-or proposition. One can either look for the perfect husband and all the romance that goes with that.. or one should settle for Mr. Good Enough. The truth lies somewhere in-between. One cannot realistically expect to have it all. But one can expect to have most of it if they are willing to compromise on what’s not important.

If one will only re-adjust the attitude of a Basherte as a perfect soul-mate into an attitude of realism - where commitment and compromise are understood as the key factors to a successful and satisfying marriage - one will most certainly end up having a great life.

As pointed out by Ms. Gottlieb and some of her feminist friends who have had the same epiphany she did:

Don’t worry about passion or intense connection.

...marrying Mr. Good Enough might be an equally viable option, especially if you’re looking for a stable, reliable life companion.

Once you’re married, it’s not about whom you want to go on vacation with; it’s about whom you want to run a household with.

I would say even if he’s not the love of your life, make sure he’s someone you respect intellectually, makes you laugh, appreciates you … I bet there are plenty of these men in the older, overweight, and bald category (which they all eventually become anyway).

How refreshingly and intellectually honest these observations and conclusions are. Life experience has taught these feminist women much of what observant Judaism preaches from the start.

Leveling the Playing Field

One of the most serious issues confronting the Jewish people in modern times is that of recalcitrant husbands who refuse to grant their wives a Get, a Halachic divorce. Usually out of spite or to gain advantage in custody disputes or to extort an unfair financial gain.

According to Jewish law a woman has no legal recourse if a husband refuses to do that. The Torah tells us that in norder for a man and woman to be divorced a man must give his wife a bill of divorce. A woman must then physically accept it. The reverse is not considered a divorce. A woman who gives her husband such a document has not achieved anything.

However that doesn’t mean that some women can’t cause problems for their husbands in divorce situations. They can. If they refuse to accept the Get, they are still legally married. And since we no longer practice polygamy, a husband may not marry another woman since he is still considered married.

So why all this talk we often hear about the plight of Agunos? Well that’s because we do not have a level playing field. Part of the problem stems from the fact biblically - a man may have more than one wife. And even though Judaism no longer allows polygamy, in rare cases we make an exception.

When warranted we utilize something called the Heter Meah Rabbanim - the permit of 100 rabbis. This is a Halachic device in which a hundred rabbis are gathered, convinced, and sign on to the fact that a wife in refusing to accept a Get is unreasonable. The husband is then permitted to marry another woman while Halachicly still married to the first wife. Of course in practice the first relationship no longer exists. But Halachicly it does.

The reverse is not possible. A woman has no such recourse as a Heter Meah Rabbanim. If a husband refuses to grant his wife a Get, no matter how nefarious his motive, the woman stays married. Secular divorces are meaningless. Such women are popularly referred to as an Agunos - chained women. Although technically only woman whose husband has gone missing without a trace, are considered Agunos, the effect is the same. They are unable to marry. She is considered married and any sexual relationship with another man is considered adultery.

Most rabbis are not unsympathetic to such women. These are good people whose hands are tied. But there are some means at our disposal. Halacha tells us that in cases of husbands unwilling to grant Get, we are supposed to use even physical force until they say ‘I am willing’. But ultimately they have to actually be willing and not just say so. This method has proven to be very ineffective.

I know of one case where a local Posek had one such husband beaten into submission. And when another greater Posek heard about it, he nullified the Get. He feared that the husband was not really willing and was just afraid of further beatings.

There have been some well intentioned but unacceptable attempts to rectify this problem in recent times. The most famous (or infamous) of these attempts is the one by Rabbi Emanuel Rackman. He created a special Beis Din just for this purpose. As I understand it, they use a Halachic devise called Kedushei Taus. This is similar to the Catholic Church’s annulment. In short we say that the marriage never happened. This is a legitimate device in certain circumstances.

If a woman marries under false pretences then in fact she never accepted her Kiddushin (betrothel). The example used in the Gemarah if I recall correctly is in a case where the husbad hides some hideous physical defect about himself. If she discovers it after marriage and is repulsed by it… the assumption is that she would never have married him had she known that. The marriage is annulled as if it never happened.

The Rackman Beis Din claims that if the husband is an abuser, it is tantamount to the same thing. If abuse is the cause for the breakup then Rabbi Rackman feels that here too she would have never have acccpeted the marriage had she known that he was an abuser.

Unfortunately and for reasons that are not entirely clear to me, this reason is not accepted by any Poskim as Kidushei Taus.

One might ask, if we were truly caring about the plight of Agunos, why not rely on his reasoning? The problem is that since no one else accepts his reasoning, these women are still Halachicly married. Marriage is out of the question. Sexual relations with another man is still considered adultery. Children from such a relationship are deemed Mamzerim. This is a terrible condition for someone to be. Talk about Shiddach problems.

I would urge any woman in the dire straits of being an Agunah to refrain from using this Beis din. Because in doing so, according to the vast majority of Poskim on both the right and the left, they will violate one of the cardinal sins of Judaism: Adultry. And the children will be Mamzerim.

So the bottom line is that those who complain about the intolerable situation of Agunos are right. It is intolerable. Men have an out. Women don’t. Adding to this problem is the fact that there are unscrupulous Battei Din (religious courts) that collude with unscrupulous recalcitrant husbands. And the Heter Meah Rabbanim is abused and often granted frivolously.

To say these Batei Din are simply disgusting would be to compliment them. They are way beyond disgusting in my view. To quote Rabbi Elazar Teitz of Elizabeth New Jersey from an article in the New Jersey Jewish News:

“Just because the rabbonim have long beards equal to the length of a women’s skirt doesn’t mean they’re ethical...”

Teitz voiced sympathy for women who have sacrificed their financial independence to take care of their home and children and then are backed into a corner by greedy husbands and the courts.

“Many rabbonim are old school and have trouble with the fact there are two genders in the human race and one of them is female…” “This is the way they were brought up and the way in which they see the world.”

Teitz said he “insists” every couple he marries have a prenuptial agreement, which spells out the financial and legal obligations should the marriage be dissolved.

I think he's right.

Music and Niskatnu HaDoros

A gypsy woman working in a cigar factory in Seville, enchants and bewitches a soldier. He longingly obeys her commands and helps her escape arrest, but this action places him in prison instead. Eventually upon his release he discovers she and a handsome toreador have begun a rapturous affair, and thus she is no longer his. Bitterly and angrily, he kills her, and throws himself upon her dead body.

A young man leaves home and disguises himself as a musician to escape a distasteful marriage - and meets a beautiful girl with whom he falls in love. He desperately wants to marry her, but obstacles are cast in his way by her guardian, the Lord High Executioner, who is also in love with her and has every intention of marrying her, himself. Also causing problems is a jilted bride.

A young bohemian worker hears a knock at the door. A young female neighbor enters, wishing to relight her candle. Obviously ill, she nearly faints, and drops her room key. He is instantly attracted to her and manages to detain her by concealing her key after he secretly finds it. He snuffs out his own candle, and as the two of them search in the darkness for her key, their hands touch. Spontaneously, they pour out their love for one another.

What do these three stories have in common? They are synopses of three great operas: Carmen, The Mikado, and La Boheme. If one looks at this musical genre one will see that they all contain a common theme. They are about passionate love affairs.

I can’t imagine how today’s Gedolim would react if Bnei Torah were listening to such music. I assume that there would be a ban against it rating right up their with the recent one against Lipa Schmeltzer, whose music pales in comparison. And if any Gadol dared to say he listened to this kind of music, he would lose his Gadol credentials. I can see the words of the ban now: This music is Assur. It is written by Goyim. Its themes are anathema to our holy Torah. And should not be listened to and certainly not found in anyone’s home.

But they would be wrong in doing so. Because every single Rav who signed the ban against Lipa Shmeltzer’s music would be condemning a Gadol that they all agree is greater than any one of them, Rav Yitzchak Hutner. I am sure they would all unanimously agree that they are K’tanim compared to the Gedolim of the previous generation. This is in essence the what the concept of Niskatnu HaDoros- the dimishing of the generations – means: If the previous generations were like angels, we are like men. If they were like men, we are like donkeys. This - the Gemarah tells us - is how the sages thought about themselves compared to the previous generations.

Rav Yitzchak Hutner was an opera buff and had an extensive opera collection. That is well known. The original lyrics to the song The Lion Sleeps Tonight whose melody is used in a parody by Lipa Schmeltzer pale in comparison to the storyline of most operas.

It seems fairly clear to me that what they banned here is not based on our limited but required state of mourning of the second temple’s destruction. We are forbidden to listen to music except in special circumstances. Based on articles published in the Jewish Observer, the music of singer Abish Brodt certainly has their seal of approval. His music is just fine. Their objection is therefore not based on that Halacha but on the inspiration for Lipa Schmeltzer’s music. That is, the genre of secular popular music. They have a kind of amorphous objection to it: They say it is sourced in a culture that is anathematic to Torah. This they say will lead to behavior unbecoming of a Ben Torah.

What passes for even kosher Jewish music today though isn’t really Jewishly sourced at all. It is all sourced in some very base European folk tunes. Nonetheless they permit it and define it as Jewish. How so? I presume that they have kind of a Justice Potter Stewart definition: They know it when they hear it. Do they know the sources and permit it anyway? If so why? What’s the difference between that and the cute melody from The Lion Sleeps Tonight? And how do they justify Rav Hutner’s love of opera music?

It is truly sad that Lipa Schmeltzer was pressured to withdraw from his concert. I can’t really blame him though. One would have to have super-human courage and stamina to withstand the kind of pressure he got - described in a Yeshiva World post.

As I have said in an earlier post, the Israeli trend in bans has arrived in America and it’s going ahead full steam. What will be banned next? Going to ball games? A Fourth of July parade? Going to the zoo or a museum? Have they learned nothing from last summer’s debacle in the Catskill Mountains? Take away the good clean fun of a Frum Jewish concert or any other harmless secular entertainment and young people will find their own fun privately.

I know their intent is pure. These Rabbanim want to keep our people holy. They want our children to be involved only in Torah learning or other Torah based activities. Of course that is the ideal. But it is not the real. The reality is that virtually every human being needs a break from his routine. One needs activities that do not require a heavy investment of their intellectual capacities.

While learning Torah is the ultimate joy, it is a joy that requires a lot of work. Investing one’s time in it will certainly produce tremendous satisfaction and joy. Much more than the fleeting enjoyment of a concert. But most human beings are simply incapable of constantly investing every moment of their day in intensive Torah study. In order for people to truly be able to immerse themselves in Torah learning they need a release…. a break from the routine in ways that are both satisfying and rehabilitative. Something light and entertaining. Something that will give their minds and bodies a rest. Something they can enjoy with their families.

What will accomplish that is unique to every individual. Some people like sports. Others like the zoo. And still others like music. And among those some people like one kind of music while others like another kind. Telling people that an entire genre is not kosher will almost certainly lead to violations of Halacha in many cases. Some will simply find other more secretive ways of getting that release. You can’t tell people to love only one kind of music. You cannot dictate taste. In the end if people cannot find kosher ways to achieve their release they may find alternatives in alcohol, drugs, and sex. Just ask those Yeshiva students who found their way into a drug party in the Catskills last summer. They were just looking for some fun. They didn’t have any kosher fun so they made their own. Ezeh Hu Chacam, HaRoeah Es HaNolad.

And this brings me back to Lipa Schmeltzer’s music. There are distinctions to be made in popular music. Not every song is disgusting. Certainly not the melodies Lipa has chosen. Some music is disgusting and some isn’t. Some popular songs are in fact very inspiring. Others are just plain fun with no intrinsic anti Torah content. I am very disappointed at this ban and urge them to reconsider because if they don’t they may very well have far worse consequences to deal with than attending a Lipa Schmeltzer concert.

The Camelot Factor

There is no certainly yet, but it looks like Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. is going to be the Democrat nominee for the Presidency. And that is worrisome. In a contest between McCain and Obama, it is not all that unlikely that Obama will win. And that could be a huge problem for Israel.

The fact is that Obama is a very charismatic figure reminiscent of John F. Kennedy. He inspires people with his rhetoric of ‘hope’ and ‘change’. He’s young. He’s bright. He has a beautiful family and is on the precipice of giving us Camelot 2.

For those not familiar with that term, Camelot was famous Broadway musical in the early sixties about a fictitious ‘perfect’ little medieval kingdom where living life was just a joy. This is often the term used to describe the Kennedy era at which time that play was on Broadway. JFK represented the perfect lifestyle. He was the youthful and charming President with the beautiful family and youthful lifestyle. He was idolized by the youth of that era. However one may feel about JFK, one cannot deny that he was one of the most inspirational figures of his time. He was a ‘rock star’ President.

Obama has that going for him. Youthful voters have been turning out in droves during the primaries. And he has the extra added attraction of being the first black President. That is a very motivating factor for disaffected idealistic youth who usually stay away from the polls. They see this as a substantive issue. But it is not. At least it is not as important as is foreign policy in our time. The symbolism of having out first black President isn't as important nor is the state of the economy as important... which is admittedly not in the best shape.

No matter how important issues like the economy are - they are secondary. We are at war with Islamo-fasicists who know no bounds in achieving their ends. They are willing to die - and kill members of their own people in any numbers necessary to achieve those ends. We have had no attacks in the US since 9/11 and the war situation in Iraq has improved. This means that security and foreign policy concerns are off the front pages. But that doesn’t make them any less important.

The problem is that aside from all that charisma Obama has there is little of substance that is known about him. He is all about hope and change. I’m not sure hope is a substantive issue but what his change will be is anybody’s guess.

The question mark about him is even bigger when it comes to his policies on Israel. He has recently recited all the right clichés. He supports Israel’s right to exist etc. But what will he do when he gets in to office? Who really knows? Being in office less than four years, he has no track record.

We might, however, get some clues about where he is headed by some of the things he’s said publicly. He wants to talk to Iranian leader Ahmadinejad. As if there is something we can compromise with him on. What kind of compromise does one make with a man who wants to wipe Israel off the map as one of his highest priorities?

Obama says he wants to regain the respect of the world community. That’s nice. One of the key areas where there are differences between the US and the rest of the world community is how we view the Israeli - Palestinian issue. The US has been a staunch supporter of Israel while acknowledging the plight of the Palestinians. The Europeans on the other hand have been staunch supporters of the Palestinian cause paying little more than lip service in support of Israel. Is support for Israel a bargaining chip for Obama?

I don’t think it is a stretch to say that he will very likely put more pressure on Israel than any other President in recent history to give up all territories captured during the six-day war including portions of Jerusalem for ‘peace’. He will probably push Israel to do it without any guarantees that violence against Israel by Islamo-faciasts like Hamas will cease! He’ll probably call it ‘taking a chance for peace’. That is a very naïve position to take.

Just to be clear I don’t think Obama is an anti Semite in any way. In fact he has a lot of Jewish support. But he is just a very naïve and inexperienced man who does not understand the issues despite his vaunted intelligence. His views are simplistic and do not take into account the long history of the Middle East or any of its intricacies.

Obama was endorsed recently by Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. He is one of the most strident critics of Israel and is of the ‘blame Israel for everything first’ crowd. According to political pundit William Kristol, Obama has indeed touted Brzezinski as one of his chief foreign policy advisors. That’s just great! Aside from the Carter/Brzezinski bias against Israel we can also thank them for giving us for the fall of the Shah of Iran and the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini… and by extension the rise of Islamo-fascism.

Another interesting fact to consider is Green Party Presidential candidate Ralph Nader (…yes he’s running) who today accused Obama of flip-flopping on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. According to Nader when Obama was an Illinois State Senator just a short three years ago, he was pro Palestinian. Now he is pro Israel.

So yes, Obama scares me. Needless to say, I do not support him at all. And neither should any thinking Jew who cares about the Jewish people and the State of Israel. Hillary Clinton is gold compared to him. But if Clinton loses the nomination to Obama - which seems more likely than ever - then I do think we seriously have something to worry about.

To most voters the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is off the radar screen. To the extent they have any knowledge about it at all - it is from a media whose bias is always in favor of the underdog… currently seen as the Palestinians.

Much of the American voting public sees an Obama Presidency as a return to ‘Camelot’. As much as I truly believe that an older and wiser John Sidney McCain is by far the best candidate for the Presidency, I don’t think he can beat a young and charismatic Barack Obama. I hope I’m wrong. We’ll see.

Hard Data

No, Michael J. Salamon, Ph.D. is not my secret identity. But if I had one, it would be his. In an article in the Jewish Press he brilliantly discusses many of the ills in the Torah world in the context of Shiduchim. Uncannily, he is critical of these ills in the same way I have been.

Dr. Michael Salamon, a fellow of the American Psychological Association, is the founder and director of the Adult Developmental Center in Hewlett, New York. He is the author of numerous articles and several psychological tests. So in areas where I intuit, he has expertise. And ironically we have come to the same conclusions.

Here are some of his observations:

There needs to be “an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs…if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones.”

This point applies to all human belief systems. If you do not question yourself or ask of others, you cannot grow. In contradistinction to the exquisite balance we have attempted to achieve between the insularity of inflexible orthodoxy and necessary engagement with the world at large, our children are increasingly encouraged to disengage. There is a growing rejection of the Talmudic dictum “yesh chochmah bagoyim.”

As an observant psychologist whose credentials speak for themselves Dr. Salamon tells us the following.

I often receive phone calls from rabbis seeking advice on how to deal with a “certain young man” who will spend twenty-four hours a day, every day, in the bet midrash. While the rabbi may see it as a sign of some underlying problem, the young man’s peers are often envious of him for sitting up all night and learning. Dedication, commitment and hard work are necessary for success in any endeavor, but there is a line of commitment that, when crossed, may result in pathology.

I believe this shows that a pathology of mental illness exists in the Yeshiva world which is far greater than we are aware of. Why are we not aware of it? When young people are indoctrinated to believe that learning 24/7 is the ideal, it is virtually impossible to distinguish between one who does so for psychologically healthy reasons and one who does so because he is suffering from mental illness. To the casual observer, all who do this are looked at as an ideal Ben Torah.

But as Dr. Salamon tells us he often receives phone calls from rabbis seeking advice on how to deal with this problem. The good news is that at least there are responsible rabbinic leaders who are aware of the problem and trying to do something about it. The bad news is denial on the part of the Charedi public. In my view this argues for a more aware public so as to effectively deal with this malady and to not dismiss it as an anomaly. We ought to know the truth.

Another point Dr. Salamon makes is one that I have made based on anecdotal evidence. But now we have an expert with hard data on the subject saying it:

It is a commonly held belief in our community that the rates of domestic violence are exceptionally low. If this violence does exist, the reasoning goes, it can be eliminated by seeing to it that our children do not marry someone raised in a family where there has been domestic violence.

Both these beliefs are fallacious. Research has shown that the rate of domestic violence in the Jewish community, including the Orthodox community, are virtually the same as in the secular world.

On sex abuse and drugs:

Similar inconsistencies exist in dealing with the problems of substance abuse, sexual abuse, and even learning disabilities. We have disengaged from the reality of research that shows rates for these ills are virtually the same among the Orthodox as they are in the secular world. But when an attempt is made to address these problems, it is often done in ways that ignore or even deny the best intervention methods currently known.

On insularity and Chumros:

Because we have become more insular, we have begun to lose our rationality. Questions of halacha resolved years ago return to the fore despite a lack of change or new information, and a more stringent, even strident, approach is applied. This approach strongly presumes that the more we disengage from society the healthier we become. I believe, as do most other frum mental health professionals, that the opposite is true.

So there you have it. Not my speculation but the words of a respected professional based on hard data. And the agreement of most Frum mental health professionals.

In short, this article is a must read. And it ought to be a basis for carefully considered but dramatic change in attitude and policy in the Torah world if we ever hope to rid it of these kinds of problems.

Two Lipas

Well it’s finally happened. A major concert has now been banned in America. I suppose it was only a matter of time that a ban like this made its way here from Israel. Just like every other Charedi Psak from there.

Secular studies are banned in all Charedi Yeshivos in Israel. That’s now happening here too. It’s just a matter of time before we will see no Limudei Chol in any American Charedi high schools. Those Yeshivos that don’t follow suit… will be second class at best and will eventually fall into obsolescence if they insist on calling themselves Charedi.

Eventually one will only be able to get a high school education in (horror of horrors) a modern Orthodox high school. Schools like Torah VoDaath, Ner Israel, HTC and even Telshe will have to make a decision about whether it will offer any secular studies: Which camp do you want to belong to? (I can guess which one Telshe will choose.)

But I digress.

The issue here is concerts. And a major one in Madison Square Garden has been banned. The signatories read like a who’s who of the Charedi Torah world, Yeshivish and Chasdisic. Even Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky’s name is on it.

Who exactly are they banning? And why are they banning him? Well the ‘star’ of this concert is a very talented Chasidic singer by the name of Lipa Schmeltzer. Anyone with the slightest sense of humor will appreciate his music. Most of it pokes gentle fun at some of the stereotypical behaviors in some of the Frum world. The melodies are taken from the some of the more popular secular tunes of our era.

The poster announcing this ban tells us that the concert is a great stumbling block, Rachmana Litzlan (God save us)! It is a great sin to attend. Those participating in this concert - great is their sin for they are causing the public to sin greatly.

Frankly I am bit skeptical of posters like this. This isn’t the first time signatures were affixed at the bottom of such announcements that were fraudulent. I suspect that many of these names were added without the permission or even the knowledge of the people whose names were undersigned. At best these ‘banners’ misrepresented the concert if permission to use their names were given at all.

I suspect that much of this is sourced in the Chasidic world’s vendetta against Lipa Shmeltzer. Last year he had came out with a very funny video parody to the tune of ‘The Lion Sleeps Tonight’. For some reason that song put Lipa in virtual Cherem. Apparently some Chasidic leaders have absolutely no sense of humor and were grossly insulted by it. They saw it as an attack against their community and their values. So they Assur'd Lipa Schmeltzer and his music. The claim was that it was Leitzanus (scoffing at the Torah) and that the music was grossly un-Jewish (or something to that effect). I'll bet this is just more of the same and is being done by the very same people.

It should be pointed out that many Poskim hold that listening to any music in our day is forbidden since the era of the destruction of the second Temple. But this cannot be the reason here. Otherwise we wouldn’t be having any concerts of the type that have been going on over the last 20 or 30 years. There are obviously Heterim by many Poskim to have concerts. One should also be aware that this concert is indoors with separate seating for men and women. Even the concerts banned in Israel were only banned if they were out-doors where men and women could God forbid end up talking to each other. I do not believe that indoor separate seating concerts were banned. I guess we one-upped the Israeli Poskim. It's their turn now.

If this ban is true than I am at a loss for words. What’s more - here is the kicker. One of the sad ironies of this so called ban is that there is another Lipa who signed on to it, Rabbi Lipa Margolis. If that name sounds familiar, it should. He is the Rosh HaYeshiva who thought it was perfectly fine to allow a Rebbe in his Yeshiva to teach there for over twenty years even though there were many accusations of child molestation during that period. Rabbi Margolis knew about it. He even asked Shailos about it. Those Shailos were based on whether the specific sexually abberative behavior was cause for dismissal. He was told, no! ...not serious enough!

So that Rebbe was allowed to continue molesting children for 20 years until this horrible situation was made public. The Rebbe was then finally dismissed and arrested. Rabbi Lipa Margolis apparently feels that allowing a Rebbe like this to continue teaching is of little significance compared to attending a concert by Lipa Shmeltzer.

Now that’s Daas Torah! I get it.

The Platonic Touch between the Sexes

Recently the issue of men and women shaking hands with each other came up again. This time a Canadian public official, Richmond Hill deputy mayor Brenda Hogg, was embarrassed by a virtual recoiling of 2 Chasidic rabbis (I believe they were Lubavitcher rabbis) when they refused to shake her hand. As columnist Barabra Kay put it:

Two Hasidic rabbis who embarrassed Richmond Hill deputy mayor Brenda Hogg at a menorah-lighting ceremony last year (news of which only reached the public recently) when they not only refused to take her proffered hand in a receiving line, they reacted with disgust at the very idea.

Frankly I am embarrassed by their behavior. Not that they don’t have a Halachic basis in never touching women under any circumstances. They certainly do. The Halacha is based on a dispute about whether physical contact between the sexes is permissible when there is no erotic context. According to some authorities it is still forbidden.

The stringency is based on the idea of preventing any sexual activity that could result via erotic thoughts that might be generated. The sages have developed a code of behavior so as to avoid that eventuality. Any pre-sexual activity such as kissing is forbidden except in a marital context. Taken to its extreme some Poskim say that any physical contact at all should be avoided. The s;ightest touch is to be treated as though it were the most severe violation of Halacha. A term often used by those Poskim is Yehorag V’Al Yavor. One should give up his life before transgressing.

Chasidim are generally the most adherent of this stringent approach. That is of course their right. Violation of sexual intimacy laws is so severe that they simply refrain from all physical contact. But how far should that attitude go? Should one be so adamant about it that it will cause embarrassment to another human being who is unaware of such religious stringencies - never to rely on a leniency?

I think the answer is not only may that one rely… but one should rely… on such leniencies in situations where embarrassment results, even if one is generally stringent.

The leniency is based on Halachic sources that allow contact She’Lo B’Derech Chiba. This means when there is no erotic connotation, then touching between the sexes is permitted. Certainly social handshaking that is a common practice in western culture falls into that category.

Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik has agreed with this rationale based on the Jeruslaem Talmud’s description of the biblical Sotah (19A) process. The Gemarah there talks about the Kohen’s obligation to place his hands under the Sotah’s hand, raise it together with his hand, and wave them together. One of the ways of doing that described in that Gemarah so as to avoid violating rabbinic law with respect to physical conact is to use an older Kohen who is beyond the age of erotic thoughts. This clearly shows the intent of those laws. It is to prevent erotic thoughts which often lead to violating laws of sexual behavior.

There are many other such proofs. Another one is the Gemarah in Kesuvos (17A) that tells us about the Amora Rav Acha who carried a bride (not his wife) on his shoulders at a wedding. True the answer given is that in his mind she was like a ‘stick of wood’ which the saintly Rav Acha was uniquely qualified to state about his personal state of mind. But this clearly shows the intent of the law. It is the concern about arousing sexual impulses. When there is clearly no such context as is the case in a public handshaking, then there should be no violation of Halacha.

Nonetheless, there are some Rabbanim who Paskin that one should avoid any and all contact, no matter what.

And that brings me back to Barbara Kay. She is righteously indignant at the behavior of those Chasidic rabbis who publicaly recoiled at the thought of shaking a woman’s hand.

The humiliation deputy mayor Hogg felt because of those rabbis should be enough of a reason to not have done so. Instead they should have relied on the majority of Poskim who permit touching between the sexes SheLo B’Derech Chiba – when there is no erotic context.

But even if one wants to go the extra mile and avoid all contact… a disgusted reaction to her is certainly not part of that.

A simple explanation of their religious beliefs to the deputy mayor prior to their public meeting might have been sufficient and proabably would have avoided this entire incident. Public handshaking is a very common practice and should have been anticipated. But once a human being extends a hand in friendly non erotic context and it then is left hanging while the respondent recoils… well that is pretty insulting. And it’s ultimately a Chilul HaShem in my view especially when there were so many ways to have avoided it.

Yet there are far too many people who defended these rabbis.

This is not a Charedi or modern Orthodox issue. Even Charedi Poskim who are normally very stringent about this issue are lenient when it comes to embarrassing others in public. Among many, Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky has been quoted as saying that one should shake hands and not embarrass others at the expense of one’s Chumros.

Unfortunately when columnist Barbara Kay wrote about it criticizing those Chasidic rabbis it generated the following response:

In regards to your recent piece opining on Deputy Mayor Brenda Hogg's treatment by some Chabadnik Chasidim, I'm not going to call you a self-hating Jew. Actually, I am sure you're quite fond of yourself. It's other Jews you seem to hate, specifically those who try to make their lives fit to what they think the Torah requires of them, instead of the more popular secular attitude that says the Torah should be adjusted to fit our lives.

Right. She hates all other Jews except herself. This is how far too many Jews see people like Barbara Kay who believe it is better to rely on the leniencies than to embarrass others. I guess that makes Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky a Jew hater too – except for himself of course.

Maturity and Learning How to Love

I find myself in the interesting situation of agreeing with two articles about marriage that are almost exactly opposite of each other.

In a Jerusalem Post article, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach exhorts people to not have shallow values when seeking out their mates. He then goes into some detail about where our values are and where they ought to be. His examples of the shallow values are similar across the Orthodox religious spectrum, from very Charedi to very modern Orthodox. These values focus mostly on looks for men and money for women. He instead argues that character should be the primary focus. Yet even the most sincere of Shadchanim in the Torah world are guilty of focusing on these shallow values. To put it the way Rabbi Boteach does:

Seeing today's matchmakers catering to the male addiction to sex objects and the female addiction to success objects is turning me off.

I can vouch for this mentality at least as far as young men are concerned. It doesn’t matter whether they are Charedi or modern Orthodox. Far too many young men have told me that they will only date thin women. That usually means ‘model’ thin. A young woman’s character is important to be sure, but secondary and/or taken for granted. I have advocated getting married as young as possible assuming the maturity level is there. That is far more important than age. But if ‘thin’ is the most important ‘in’ to these young men, then the maturity level just isn’t there.

But is the maturity level enough? Not if you read a very poignant article in Ynet by a young religious woman who is getting divorced for exactly the opposite reasons. She was ‘too mature’. She put Torah values above all else.

Torah values. That sounds nice when it is put that way. What can be more important than Torah values to an observant Jew? Perhaps but the sad truth is that the more religious one is, the less likelihood there is that there will be ‘hands on’ learning about an essential feature of marriage: the emotional needs of the spouse. That is where the western culture of secular world has us beat.

Not that I advocate emulating the sexual morals much of western culture. I don’t. But I do understand where this young woman is coming from. She is getting divorced because both she - and more importantly her husband - never learned the social interactive skills between men and women. They both entered the marriage Hashkafically mature. They both had the same religious values and goals but her husband lacked a basic understanding of his wife's emotional needs. He lacked basic knowledge about the opposite sex that secular people in western cultures learn naturally as they interact.

Some people may say that this isn’t important… that her problems are of an immature nature. But I beg to differ. There is definitely something to be said for both males and females learning how to interact with each other via experience. Both physically and emotionally. But matters of intimacy are just not the focus of the Torah world. And though it is dealt with in many Kallah and Chassan classes, it is far from enough. Courses and lectures do not substitute for actual experience. The following paragraphs are the thoughts of a woman who is suffering as a result.

He (her husband) doesn’t know how to conduct himself with me. He doesn’t know how to touch, how to show interest, or how to make my happy with small gestures. Yes, he does everything I ask him to do, but sometimes I want him to do a little more – to hug me from behind, or send a romantic text message.

Suddenly, I woke up. I’m a child. A baby. Yet I have a husband and a child in my stomach. …We’ve all been brainwashed that this is the right way, but it isn’t so.

My husband is a truly good guy, but it appears that he just doesn’t know what to do. He never learned how to conduct himself with a woman. We, at the all-female school, had a class about intimacy and family. I’m not sure that this will make a difference, as ultimately we mostly beat around the bush. The lessons were mostly irrelevant for us at that stage of our life. But at least we had something, which is much more than nothing.

How can we expect a guy who never held a conversation that was more than a minute long with a girl to enter a life of marriage without proper preparation? How can we expect him to build bridges that he never learned to build? Don’t the rabbis see the distress faced by their students, and especially by their students’ wives?

Now, I’m sure her thoughts do not reflect the view of every married religious young woman. Nor do I think most marriages break up for solely this reason. In fact most of the religious young married couples I know are very happily married. In many cases the couples did not interact with any members of the opposite sex prior to marriage at all. But I wonder if this isn’t a silent problem that most women just learn to live with?

Rabbi Boteach mentions a startling statistic in this reagard: 40 million Americans whose marriages are utterly sexless.

Aside from the procreative aspect of it, I wonder what the numbers are in Orthodox marriages where there was no experiential learning by men about the emotional needs of women and to a lesser extent, by women about men? I know of one very sad Charedi case where this was precidely the issue that led to a divorce. The husband… a good man, with great Midos, and a true Talmid Chacham who learns full time in a Kollel was just not interested in intimacy other than procreation. Is he an exception? Or is he symptomatic of a greater problem?

Like I said, I do not advocate a sudden shift to coeducation in our schools. I am opposed to that, especially in high schools. But I think this woman’s words ought to be paid attention to. There has to be a better way to solve the kinds of problems she is talking about.

I have advocated limited proactive social interaction between the sexes throughout one’s educational lifetime… mostly in the form of family settings ala the Shabbos table, or at public social events like weddings, or perhaps in religious social groups like Bnei Akiva.

I fear this woman’s story represents a far greater problem than we are currently aware of ...and is at least in part, an underlying reason for the alarming increases we've seen in recent years in the rates of divorces between Orthodox couples.

A Chabad ‘House’

A recent episode of the television series House featured a heavily themed Jewish episode. For those who are not familiar with the show’s premise it is about a group of expert medical diagnosticians who every week try and figure out ‘what’s wrong with the patient’ …using their brilliant minds, professional skills, and all the modern technology at their disposal. Dr. Gregory House is the group’s leader. He is a self ish and self absorbed genius and though nominally Christian is an avowed atheist. He is quite knowledgeable about religious practices of all major faiths no less Orthodox Judaism.

In this episode the storyline featured a Chasid and his newlywed wife who was a Balas Teshuva. She was the patient who had the puzzling ‘disease of the week’. By the end of the episode - as is almost always the case - Dr. House figured out what the medical problem was and its cure. What is interesting about this program aside from the interesting medical cases is that it often discusses the ‘big issues’ - such as atheism versus belief. This week was no exception.

Without getting into the details of this episode, I was duly impressed by the relative accuracy in portraying an Orthodox newlywed couple. There were some minor inaccuracies but for the most part it was dead on. The caricatures that one usually sees when Orthodox Jews are portrayed by Hollywood were almost entirely absent. The young religious couple was portrayed as normal, dedicated, and devout …and in a very positive light.

The wedding they potryaed was one that had a Mechitza and separate dancing. The issues of Hilchos Niddah (family purity laws) and modesty was accurately portrayed and in a fairly positive light. As was Shabbos and Kashrus. As was the issue of saving a life superceding Shabbos. I never thought I would ever hear Eishes Chayil being sung on a popular nationally broadcast drama series.

How did the producers of that show get it so right? Here is a hint. As is often the case in shows like this the couple had a distinctly Lubavitch look. Yet none of the people involved with the show are anywhere near Chabad or even Orthodoxy - although many are Jewish. They had an advisor. He was a Lubavitcher Chasid, the rabbi of a Chabad House somewhere in the Hollywood area by the name of Yossi Mintz. He was called in as a technical advisor. After reading the script he had many portions re-written to reflect an accurate portrayal of religious Jews. He even had a cameo appearance.

And that is the brilliance of Chabad’s Kiruv. They are not afraid to plunge in with both feet. Their attitude about this is the correct one. They engage with the culture and utilize it toward the benefit of their Kiruv efforts. By participating in this show they were able to communicate to countless numbers of secular Jews via this program the beauty of a Torah lifestyle.

To the best of my knowledge, it is only Lubavitch which does this... which is why when there is any accuracy about Jewish religious practices in a Hollywood production, it has a distinctly Lubavitch stamp to it.

By contrast I believe that the attitude of most other Kiruv organizations is to stay as far away from Hollywood as possible. If for example Ohr Sameach were asked for technical assistance on a Jewish themed episode of a TV series, I doubt very much that they would accept. They look for other ways to be Mekarev secular Jews. And though they are a pretty successful organization they are nowhere near Chabad in terms of reaching out.

People who are involved in Kiruv ought to take a page from the Lubavitch play book. Lubavitch knows what they’re doing. It is in the interests of Kiruv and Klal Yisroel to not allow opportunities like this to pass them by.

I have been very critical of Lubavitch in many areas, including some of their Kiruv methods. But not in this one. This is something they do right. Very right! And it is one reason that they are so valuable to Klal Yisroel. And it is a reason I am so grieved by their problems and so strident in my criticisms. They cannot and should not be ignored. We cannot and should not remain indifferent. Their current problems are serious. But their ultimate value is to Klal Yisroel is immeasurable. And we ought to do everything we can to be Mekarev Lubavitch into mainstream Judaism.

Devout Convicts

Well… I see we have another ‘rights’ issue before us in this great country of ours. A Chasidic rabbi is being discriminated against. He is not being allowed to pray by virtue of his forced location. He is currently imprisoned at the Otisville Correctional Facility in Otisville, New York. And the toilet in his cell prevents him from Davening. So he is suing for his right to pray in a halachicly permissible location outside his prison cell.

I’ve dealt with this in the past. Same prison… different prisoner... and slightly different issue. This one pertains to the obligation of every Jew to pray three times a day. And prayer may only be done in a location that is in concert with the dignity one would expect when communicating with God. Hence a room with a toilet is inappropriate.

Is a modern era bathroom an inappropriate location for prayer? That isn’t so clear. In our day indoor plumbing makes that requirement less of a problem. The Halacha is based on the prohibition to pray where there is excrement. Before indoor plumbing bathrooms were outhouses. Excrement was obviously a problem there. Indoor plumbing has eliminated that problem. But we are still careful not to say any words of prayer even in a bathroom that has indoor plumbing.

With that in mind, one might still be inclined to support this Chasidic rabbi's right to practice his religion as long as it does not put an undue burden on the state. Perhaps. Although I don’t know that he couldn’t exercise his requirement to pray as a matter of basic Halacha by praying in his cell.

But forgive me if I do not have much sympathy for this fellow. The Chilul HaShem he perpetrated is so bad that I question his level of observance in any case. It is so typical in certain circles to be extremely fervent in one's ritual observance and yet so lax in the basic common decency required towards one’s fellow man.

As is so often the case here is a fervently religious Jew who thinks that cheating people is just fine. He believes that he is a Jew in good standing as long as Jews weren’t the victims - and he could get away with it. Just like the people at Oorah apparently feel. In this case however it wasn’t just immoral - it was criminal. The financial crimes were pretty outrageous and the Chilul HaShem was enormous! ‘A jury convicted him of financial fraud, which included soliciting money for a fake lottery, submitting false death claims to insurance companies, and defrauding banks with counterfeit checks.’ … to the tune of 4 million dollars!

There seems to be a pattern here. The Spinka Rebbe, and this fellow both feel like they are devout Jews despite the Chilul HaShem they have each been responsible for. None of them would ever dream of missing Shachris, Mincha, or Maariv! That is exemplified by this convicted Chasidic rabbi. He is so very concerned about Hilchos Tefilah - the rules governing prayer. But cheating gentiles?! …No biggie. That’s just making a Parnassa at the expense of the dumb subhuman Goy! Chandeliers are expensive, you know! It cost money to live in Boro Park.

So now this 47 year old rabbi is paying a heavy price. 27 years in a federal prison.

Should he be granted the right to pray outside of his prison cell? I don’t know. And in his case, I don’t really care.

Modified: 2/18/08 5:56 PM CST

Oorah and Cars-For-Kids

There has been an expose of the charity organization Oorah broadcast on New York television station WPIX, channel 11. In response YeshivaWorld world featured a letter which was written in disgusted response to channel 11.

Unfortunatley for some reason I can’t access the link provided on YeshivaWorld even though I’ve tried several different ways of doing it. So I am at a bit of a disadvantage. With that disclaimer in place I will proceed. In any case the issue I address is not really so much to defend channel 11 as it is to critisize Oorah about something that has bothered me for quite some time.

The general feeling in the Frum community seems to be that Oorah - a worthy charitable organization was smeared. At least that’s what the letter writer seemed to say. Most of the commentary seems to be righteous indignation against channel 11 characterization of Oorah, calling it a smear campaign and yellow journalism. The feeling seems to be that a great Tzedaka organization has been been seriously damaged in their fund raising efforts.

I don’t know that much about Oorah. But I do know about their 1-800 cars-for-kids ad campaign. In fact I’m sure that most people who listen to the radio have heard their catchy jingle. People are asked to donate their old ‘clunker’ cars to the organization in exchange for a huge tax deduction - the maximum legally allowable. The ad suggests that the money will go towards the education of poor children or some such generic description. No mention of the name Oorah as the sponsoring organization. No mention that the organization is an Orthodox Jewish one and that the recipients are all Jews… probably mostly Orthodox Jews.

If as I suspect the expose was about this deceptive tactic, then the expose is legitimate. It may have looked like a smear but I would not characterize exposing this information as a smear. Again, I didn’t see the piece so I have to reserve judgment – pro or con – about channel 11. But I do not reserve judgment on their deceptive tactic.

I’m sad for the recipients of the charities that Oorah provides for. They will likely suffer. But G’nevas Daas (deception – which is forbidden by Halacha - Jewish law - against Jew and gentile) is not the way to raise money. And that is exactly what the cars-for-kids campaign is doing. The average person who listens to these ads and donates their cars to it thinks ot is a non sectarian charity. And donates their cars primarily on that premise.

Now I’m sure that there are many good Christians out there that would willingly give charity to a Jewish organization that provides for the Jewish poor even without a tax deduction. But it is not fair that they are not made aware of that when they donate.

To demonstrate the extent of this deception let's imagine the following.

Let’s say it was Evangelicals doing this. They advertise a charity campaign that implies it is non sectarian not revealing who is behind it. But in fact all donations go only to Evangelical causes. There are many good hearted Jews who give to secular charity organizations. Many Jews are motivated to give a donation to an organization that helps feed the poor in America… or anywhere else. Jews give charity in large amounts. Is it right that they are not informed that the money is going to fund only Evangelical charitable organizations? I don’t think so.

Add to this the possibility that a significant portion of that money goes towards teaching the recipient children about religious practices. Does anyone think omitting pertinent facts about the religious affiliation of the organization and their religiously exclusive recipients is OK?

What Oorah does may be legal but is wrong. It is G'neivas Daas and it is a sorry situation when an Orthodox Jewish organization gets caught in this deception - legal or not. That other religions may have similarly deceptive programs doesn’t really matter. Wrong is wrong.

And if as I suspect Oorah was exposed in this manner, the indignation by the letter write on YeshivaWorld is misplaced. The indignation ought to be against Oorah!

Kramer vs Kramer

Kramer vs Kramer was the 1979 Academy Award winner for Best Picture. It was about a divorce and a child custody battle between the divorcing parents. Divorce and child custody have come up in a New York Times article in a way which has significance to Orthodox Judaism. In fact I believe this is increasingly becoming a problem as more and more secular Jews embrace observant Judaism while at the same time divorces are becoming increasingly more common.

The article tells us of a custody battle between two parents. The issue is religion. The mother has become a ‘Baalas Teshuva’ embracing a very right wing branch of her religion. The father argues that the strict religious upbringing their daughter now receives at her mother’s home, which involved modest dress, teaching her about sin etc. and insisting on limited exposure to popular culture, was damaging her.

The mother’s reaction was “We were easy targets because we were made to look like cultists.”

I can hear these arguments being made in exactly the same way if the parents were Jewish.

The court case in question does not one involve Jews. But it does raise interesting and legitimate questions. Who should get custody in these kinds of situations? Should religion be a factor? Should it be the only factor? If a couple enters a marriage with the same set of values be they secular of religious and one of them changes drastically, is it fair to expect the other to just go along and change?

In divorces should the Baal Teshuva always be in the right? Even if he or she is the one who departed radically from what was a secular beginning? What about the reverse? If a parent becomes unobservant, should he or she ever be given custody? Or should the observant parent always get custody? Should the child have any say in the matter? How old must the child be before we pay attention to their preferences? And how much weight do we give the child about determining their own welfare?

Despite what might be conventional wisdom for religious Jews, I do not necessarily think that the religious parent should always triumph.

Obviously the goal for any Jew should be for the welfare of his fellow Jew. Kol Yisroel Areivm Zeh LaZeh. This means every Jew is ultimately responsible for each other’s welfare - physical as well as spiritual. One cannot only look at which parent is religious and which parent is not. One needs to consider the ultimate consequences of any decision.

In order for a human being to function as a religious Jew he or she must first have a healthy mental state. People who are raised in dysfunctional families fare poorly in that regard. If a child has been raised in a secular home and is suddenly required to adhere to some very strict codes of conduct unlike anything he or she has ever known, it is a prescription for dysfunction and rebellion.

By rebellion I don’t only mean rebelling against religion but rebelling against society. Including adopting the self abusive lifestyle of the drug culture, all manner of illicit and even dangerous sexual activity, and God knows what else. By forcing an unwilling older child to live with a parent who suddenly and radically changes from being completely secular to being very religious it produces a an untenable situation for a child.

Suddenly demanding the modest dress of Orthodoxy, focusing on the very restrictive behavior demanded by Orthodox standards, limiting exposure to popular culture, all of which is perfectly acceptable to the other parent… and there is hardly any chance that a child will succeed in becoming truly observant. This kind of sudden change will certainly be damaging to them. In the end it will be counter-productive.

Children in these circumstances may at first be compliant. But not without a huge amount of resentment. And they will end up hating religion and fighting it at every turn.

In my view, from about age 7 or 8 if a child was raised in a secular home until then and suddenly one parent becomes a Baal Teshuva, unless the child is a willing participant in the new code of behavior, it is probably wiser to leave him or her with the secular parent… as long as there is no general animosity to religious observance by that secular parent.

The counter argument might be that we have to always try and place the child with the religious parent as that is the soul saving activity. The argument might also be that putting that child in an irreligious secular environment will guarantee non-obervance. Whereas in the environment of the religious parent at least there is a chance that he or she will stop rebelling and ‘see the light’.

But I would argue that the opposite is more likely. Forced observance begets rebellion. Compliance by a child under those conditions comes at a price. Any observance will be grudgingly done and probably resented for the rest of their lives. But if a child is granted custody to a loving secular parent… as long as observant Judaism is seen at least as neutral, there is a good chance that that child will retain a good relationship with the religious parent too.

Then at some point in the future there may be an opportunity by the child to see observant Judaism as a realistic option. Children raised in a stable and loving secular environment have a far better chance of becoming observant than children suddenly forced into what they see as a straight jacket lifestyle. Just some thoughts.

Sex and the Shiddach Crisis

GoingGoingGone is the pseudonym of a commenter who has a made a very challenging comment on my post about Mikvah use by singles. After reading it she had the following to say: ‘The lack of empathy shown in this article really disappoints me.’

I understand why she read the post that way. But the fact is I do have empathy… or at least sympathy… for people who can't express normal… or even abnormal sexual urges. As a student of psychology and as a member of the human race I fully realize the importance of the libido - more commonly known as the sex drive. But as sad as it is for people to be unable to express themselves sexually in forbidden contexts, it still remains forbidden to do so.

The sages understood the libido quite well. That's probably why they said Shemoneh Esreh L'Chupa. That is…they considered 18 to be the appropriate age for marriage. The problem is not in forbidding expression of the sexual urges at a early age. Halacha permits that in the context of marriage. The real problem is the Shidach crisis. And it is a crisis that cuts across the entire spectrum of Orthodoxy with the possible exception of Chasidim.

This is a problem that has evolved in the modern era. The sex urge remains the same today as it did 200 years ago. But our people have become very diverse and affected by the various subcultures they are in. Let's examine this in a bit more detail.

At age 18 one is normally way too young for the responsibilty of marriage in most cases. In our culture one rarely is mature enough at that age. Marriage at that age can easily lead to an early divorce. In some cases there are children. Not a great way for them to start out life.

It is also important to recognize that we are no longer an agrarian society as was the case during the days of Chazal. We are a cosmopolitan one that has many different roles for different people... roles that take more time to prepare for.

Some professions take many years of hard work to prepare for and that often delays marriage. This phenomenon is compounded by the fact that the older one gets the more set in their ways they become. That makes it even harder to find a compatible marriage partner.

In communities like the Upper West Side of New York there is an additional factor which in my view is the most harmful of all... the development of a singles culture where the biggest obstacle to marriage is the social disease of commitment phobia. Again, I fault the culture for this.

In short there are many reasons for putting off marriage. So in truth it is not Halacha that is denying anyone from expressing their normal sexual urges. In large part it is the Shiddach crisis That society has evolved this way cannot be blamed on Halacha. That doesn’t mean we can’t find a solution to the problem. But it ought to be one in concert with the holiness associated with the creative act.

It is Halacha does that infuses holiness into the creative act. That is why placing the ring on a woman's finger is called Kiddsuhin. A man makes the following declaration to a woman at that time: ‘Harei At Mekudeshes Li B' Tabaas Zu K’Das Moshe V' Yisroel. ‘Behold, you are hereby sanctified to me according to the laws of Moses and Israel.

Sanctified... made holy. That is what sex is about in Halacha. The creative act is a pleasurable one that God considers holy if done according to Halacha... the laws of Moses and Israel. And though the primary purpose of that act is procreation, it is not the only purpose. Expressing love and affection are legitimate in and of themselves. The Torah recognizes that and that is why pregnant women may continue to have sex without the burden of a monthly period of abstinence. And that’s why in many cases certain types of contraception are permitted.

This of course does not diminish the problem of a 30 and over single. That population includes many Charedim as well. They too have not married and are also unable to express their sexual urges.

The problem in the Charedi world is a bit different than it is in the modern Orthodox world. In that community there are far too many people missing out for the dumbest of reasons. Obstacles have developed that have probably left thousands of Charedi singles out in the cold.

Here are just some that come immediately to mind.

There is an over- emphasis on youth of the female. 23 is considered over the hill in most Charedi communities.

There is an unreasonable fear of illneses in a family - both physical and mental. One family member that suffers from an illness taints the entire family. Even when there is no genetic component to that illness.

There is an over-emphases on looks, mostly on how thin a young woman is.

Other stupid considerations are on the color of one’s Shabbos tablecloth. The color of a boy’s shirt, The compatibility between in-laws… and God knows how many other ridiculous and artificial parameters there now are.

And then there is the grand-daddy of them all. I call it the ‘best boy in Lakewood’ syndrome. That’s a phenomemon which includes high price tags on top students. And it also includes the indoctrination of young women in Beis Yaakovs and seminaries to look only for young men who are learning fulltime… preferably in a place like Lakewood.

And in both cultures if one factors in all the erotica that permeates the culture… the ready symbols of love and sex… then a delay in marriage becomes an even greater catastrophe than it already is. Sex urges are then denied halachicly at the same time we are being bombarded by sexual cues.

The answer to this problem is not in allowing halachicly questionable means for singles to express their sexual ugres. The answer is to reduce the number of singes in every Orthodox enclave, whether Charedi or modern Orthodox. Will everyone get married and have great sex if that we change our ways? No. there will always unfortunately be exceptions. Even marriage doesn’t guarantee that. I don’t have all the answers. But solving the Shidach crisis will go a long way to eliminating the problem for the vast majority of singles in the Torah world.

Tip of the Iceberg - Charedi Dropouts

I am beginning to think Jonathan Rosenblum is a closet Centrist. Well… not really. I know that he disagrees with the Hashkafa of Torah U’Mada. Although I do believe he is an adherent of Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch’s classic Torah Im Derech Eretz which is also a Centrist approach. What I am referring to is his attitude about the Charedi educational system. His views are virtually identical to mine. His approach may be a bit different but his perceptions of the problem are the same.

Here is an excerpt from his Mishpacha Magazine column involving dropouts which is available at Cross Currents:

The truth is that drop-outs constitute only the most glaring example of a larger probelm of alienation. That is why one famous lecturer on parenting bases almost all his examples on drop-outs: They serve to highlight more general problems in chinuch.

Drop-outs represent only one end of a continuum – the tip of the ice-berg. At the other end of the continuum are the hundreds of bochurim that one sees learning full-blast in the local beis medrash every bein hazmanim. In between, there is a whole range. And so it is among girls as well.

Anyone with eyes in his head knows that there are plenty of kids of both sexes who are still in regular yeshivos or Bais Yaakovs and, more or less, in uniform, but whose faces do not reflect much enthusiasm for their lives and for whom thoughts of the Ribbono shel Olam are rarely uppermost in their minds.

Signs of alienation among those still in the system are easy enough to pinpoint. Every time a proposal is raised to lower the burden of the army draft there are protests from certain segments of the chareidi world, who are concerned that any lessening of the fear of the army will result in many bochurim leaving the yeshivos.

Why is that? Why… no enthusiasm? There is no one single answer. But there is one thing that can be pointed to as a sure contributing factor to the problem. It is the refusal by the Charedi Torah world to recognize the simple fact that not all students are capable of becoming R. Chaim Briskers.

The fact is many are not capable of it. But instead of finding a niche for them that they can excel in, they are encouraged to keep trying. That can only lead to a feeling of failure and worthlessness. I don’t know what the percentage of children fall victim to this but I’d be willing to bet that the numbers are pretty large. How many of the 1000 kids that we throw into the system have to fall through the cracks before anything is done about it? Does God really want to sacrifice 999 of them to get one R. Chaim? I don’t think so, nor do I believe for a moment that it’s necessary.

Even though the Torah world could use a few R. Chaims right now, it can ill afford to sacrifice over 99 percent of its people. They will never fulfill their potential because opportunities were denied to them by the system. Mechanchim are all about learning Torah full time to the exclusion of all other types of learning. A large number of them who don’t ‘make it’ in leaning will then either drop out young or drop out as an adult. Not all. Perhaps not even most. But a large number. That should be obvious to everyone by now.

But that is not the only problem. Somehow the Charedi world has been indoctrinated - intentionally or otherwise - to believe that bans and insularity are a substitute for Chinuch.

A point I have repeatedly made is that our youth need to be taught how to live in the real world and not in the artificial insular world that is created for them. Building walls around walls which surround even more walls is a temporary stopgap at best. We are no longer living in 19th century ghettos where walls were forced upon us by anti-Semitic governments and thus preventing most Jews from having any significant contact with the outside world.. It is the 21st century.

No matter how much children are isolated these wall will almost certainly be breached and the outside world will come pouring in like a tidal wave. The more sheltering one gets, the more of a shock the outside world will be. And the more difficult it might be to resist its temptations many of which are unholy. Instead of over sheltering one’s children one ought to be inoculating them. That means controlled exposure and teaching them how to deal with it. This is something I have been advocating for many years.

Of those who are in the educational system and uninspired by it some may drop out while they are still in it. Others dropout later in life… the so-called adults at risk. They managed to survive the system relatively unscathed going through the motions. Their lack of achievement at the high levels expected of them may have made them feel inadequate. In other cases there may have had some deep questions of faith that were denied answers. At some point in their lives it led to dropping out to an exciting and welcoming outside world.

For those who have serious questions of faith, the attitude among Charedi Mechanchim at best is to give overly simplistic answers which are very unsatisfying. More often children who ask such questions are either hushed up or severely admonished for even entertaining them... including threats of expulsion, social isolation, and Shidach problems in the future. Parents who are asked such questions often pass the buck and tell their children that the Rebbeim will address them at some point. Is it any wonder that a curious mind wanting to find out answers and dismissed by both his parents and teachers will find answers elsewhere? And drop out at some point in their lives - even as adults?

Jonathan says that the bans and the walls built in the Charedi world are necessary. Although I agree that one must control the environment of a child to a certain extent, I do not agree with the gross over-sheltering that goes on in that world. The results of a couple of generations of that are all too clear. Combined with the freedoms we now have to move freely in all walks of life and the virtual assault on the senses of all manner of improper images through various media such as billboards and the internet… it should not be unexpected that there are so many dropouts. I don’t know the numbers but as Jonathan says it is the tip of the iceberg.

This is not to say that Charedi schools system is a massive failure. They are not. In fact in a major way they are a massive success. There are more people committed to the Torah way of life and more Torah knowledge being learned by more people than at any time in history. But it has come with a price… one that does not have to be paid. Children and adults are dropping out at record numbers.

I want to make clear that there are plenty of people dropping out in all segments of the Torah world - modern Orthodox included. I have heard many formerly observant Jews who have become skeptics say they are from modern Orthodox backgrounds. But in all the cases I personally know here in Chicago they are from Charedi families. Just yesterday I received a phone call about one such young person, a teen sent to Lakewood now in trouble with the law and asking if I know of anyone who could help.

Which is greater? I don’t know. Does that make any difference? The numbers are great in both communities. And one thing seems certain: Sheltering is not the answer. Bans are not the answer. Denying answers to serious questions or worse - scolding children for asking them - is not the answer. And as Jonathan indicated the problem is really with the great number of children who are just getting by in the system and are completely uninspired and alienated by it.

In my view every Charedi rabbinic leader ought to pay attention to what Jonathan Rosenblum wrote and do something about it. The alternative is now playing itself out and can only result in one of the biggest spiritual catastrophes of our time.

Existential Angst

I have been requested by Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn to post a message from Edah HaCharedis leader HaRav Moshe Sternbuch. It is an authorized English translation from the Hebrew by Rabbi Eidensohn himself. I have agreed and it is presented verbatim in full below.

The message is about an agreement by the Israeli government to establish a committee to make conversions easier. Conversion is very controversial matter that is in the forefront of heated debate in the Torah world. And nowhere is this debate more evident than in Rav Sternbuch’s words.

As mentioned here in the past there is a tremendous problem with the conversions today. This is largely due to the influx into Israel of many Russian Jews who are products of an intermarriage. They immigrated thinking they are Jews, but of course they are not (if the mother was not). … and need to be converted. The problem is that they are not religious in any significant way (e.g. Sabbath observance) nor do most of them intend to be. Without a sincere commitment to be observant as part of the conversion process, their conversions are deemed false.

There has been a movement by many sincere religious individuals to try and get as many of these people converted as possible. They have Jewish fathers and believe they are Jewish. And it’s up to us to see to it that somehow that Judaism is actualized through a Halachic conversion.

One might think that there would be some sort of universal Orthodox approach to this problem. But that is far from the reality. The differences are so strong in fact that Rav Sternbuch believes that if his opponents get their way it will endanger the very existence of the Jewish people!

His opponents in this case are prominent Orthodox religious Zionist rabbis, one of whom, HaRav Chaim Druckman, has been involved in many such conversions. Another of his opponents is the Sephardic Chief Rabbi, HaRav Shlomo Amar. If I understand correctly this means that the Sephardi rabbinic leader, HaRav Ovadia Yosef is on board with this too. I doubt that Rabbi Amar would take a position on such a serious matter without the approval of Rav Yosef. This makes Rav Sternbuch’s accusations and fears quite serious and very alarming!

There is quite an anomaly that should be noted here as well. Rav Sternbuch actually leans toward an Israeli government proposal as a far better approach to this problem than the approach taken by his Orthodox rabbinic opponents.

It should also be noted that Rav Sternbuch has also accused HaRav Druckman of ‘converting hundred’s and thousand’s not in accordance with the requirements of Halacha’.

I don’t know how Rabbi Druckman answers this charge but I don’t think he does anything that isn’t 100 percent L’Shma.

I also don’t how HaRav Sternbuch’s opponents will respond. Nor do I know where all this is going. But based on his strong words, I don’t think it is going in the direction of Achdus.

Here now - HaRav Sternbuch’s words as translated by Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn.

Proposed Conversion Process Threatens Our Existence

We strongly protest against the Israeli governments decision (unfortunately supported by the religious Sefardim) to establish a committee to make conversions easier.

This government effort is being made despite the fact that up until now thousands have been converted in disregard of the halacha. Now the government wants tens of thousands converted and at greater speed.

To accomplish this greater quantity and speed of conversion they have established a committee together with the Sefardic Chief Rabbi and HaRav Druckman (who is well known for converting hundred’s and thousand’s not in accordance with the requirements of halacha). Anybody with basic intelligence knows that the Russian Christians who are converted are not interested in fully observing the mitzvos.

In fact their motivation for conversion is simply to acquire the status of Jew because of social pressures or to obtain additional benefits. Not even one in a thousand of these gerim meet the requirements of the halacha. Therefore if until know there were thousands who converted against the halachic requirements, now we can anticipate tens of thousands of problematic gerim.

In addition they will all now have the stamp of approval of the rabbonim mentioned above – certifying that all was done according to the “spirit” of halacha. This is truly a great disaster. In fact from the destruction of the Second Temple until now there has been nothing comparable to this.

The Israeli government has offered a “solution” for this problem. They have offered to create a registry of those goyim who want to be “Jews” without conversion and the acceptance of mitzvos. They want to record on their Israeli identity cards and marriage certificates that these people are “Jews according to the standards of the government.” In this way these “gerim” will be distinct and separate from us.

In other words they propose that the major limbs of the body will be amputated but they assure us that the body will remain alive and very strong! Their proposal needs additional thought and clarification.

However even though it is problematic it is still better than what the rabbis are trying to do. In fact these Zionist rabbis and the religious parties - that still believe that the Israeli government is an integral part of the beginning of the Messianic Era and adheres to the spirit of the halacha – don’t agree to deal with this reality.

However little by little, day by day these “Jews” will assimilate into our midst. The holy Shechina will depart from us. That is because it doesn’t rest amongst us except when we preserve our pedigree as our Sages (Kiddushin 70b) have told us. Consequently we are in great and horrible danger because of these developments.

“I call out but there is no one who responds” (Yeshaya 66:4). “O that they would be wise so that they understand” (Devarim 32:29) that in the near future the land of Israel and its inhabitants will be in great danger. Anyone who is intelligent needs to simply open his eyes and he will understand the danger these proposal entail – and will distance himself from these compromisers.

G-d should give understanding to these mistaken people and they should merit to do His will and save us from these perilous times that are coming soon. We should merit the complete redemption – it should come speedily in the near future.

The Science of the Sages

Rabbi Gil Student has posted a link to a must read essay by Rabbi Natan Silfkin. It is a lengthy response to the ongoing strident criticism of his supposedly heretical views. The primarily antagonists are supporters of Rav Moshe Shapiro, a Torah giant in Israel... a man for whom Rabbi Slifkin still has profound respect. The issue here is not about the age of the universe. It is about the infallibility of Chazal in matters of science. Here in part is what Rabbi Moshe Shapiro has said about Rabbi Slifkin’s words:

(Rabbi Slifkin’s) words shake the heart of anyone who trembles at the word of God – words of absolute heresy regarding the truth of Torah, and renunciation of its sages. The matter is terrible, for the matter outwardly appears as though, Heaven forbid, this thing is permitted, and place has been given to allow these things to enter our community, Heaven forbid. …there is desecration of God’s Name, and these books are the books of heretics.

It is just as our master the Maharal wrote about the book Me’or Einayim which was released in his generation “Cursed is the day on which these things were exposed and revealed. A person who does not know how to understand the words of the Sages, even one thing from their minor statements… how did he not fear to speak of the Sages, and he speaks of them as though they are people in his generation, his friends…

And furthermore these words were put into print… they are worthy of being burned like the books of heretics, and they are even worse than them, and they were printed as though they are holy books…

Heaven forbid to bring these books into the homes of those of Israel that possess complete faith, and heaven forbid for Torah students to look at them; they are muktzeh, and it is even forbidden to move them on Shabbos.

These words are shocking. As I said, the issue here is whether Chazal (The Talmidic sages) could have been mistaken in matters of science. In his books Rabbi Slifkin has been promoting that view as acceptable. And that is being condemned as heresy. Rabbi Shapiro and his disciples view is that everything written in the Talmid is true no matter what science tells us about the facts today.

There are a few famous examples of scientific statements by the sages that are clearly at odds with the scientific facts. The one that stopped me in my tracks the first time I saw it in the Gemarah is the following (as described by Rabbi Slifkin):

The Jewish Sages stated that at night, the sun travels behind the solid roof of the sky back to its morning starting position, hidden from our sight. The non-Jewish scholars believed that the sun travels around the far side of the earth at night.

Can there be any more stark description of an errant belief than this? Chazal believed that the sun did a sort of ‘back and forth’. During the day it traveled beneath a dome - east to west and at night out of view below the horizon it slipped above a dome covering the sky and traveled in the opposite direction. That... according to Chazal was its motion.

There are two different ways to understand a Gemarah like this. Rabbi Shapiro holds that the only legitimate explanation is that we simply do not understand what the Chazal meant. These statements were not meant to be taken as descriptive of nature but had some deeper mystical meaning such as that described by the Maharal. The other approach is that Chazal were simply mistaken in matters of science.

The second approach does not take away from the Halachic knowledge of Chazal. That was based on a direct Siniatic transmission: Torah MiSinai. To the extent where there were conflicts about what was transmitted, we were given the means by the Torah itself to decide which side of a conflict to choose as the correct Halachic path. We believe the sages were therefore in essence infallible in matters of Halacha. But - for many Rishonim - not in matters of science.

Am I entitled to choose which of these explanations makes the most sense to me? I have always thought so. That is because both are paths taken by various Rishonim, whose words we follow in matters of Halacha. The Shulcahn Aruch - our code of Jewish Law is precisely that… the words of Rishomim who decided upon Talmudic disputes in Halacha.

The problem is that the view that Chazal were mistaken in matters of science has fallen out of favor by some Rabbinic figures. So much so that it is now deemed heresy! This is the view of Rav Moshe Shapiro and his protégés. They say that the only legitimate view is that Chazal were infallible in all their statements - Halachic and otherwise - and that we just don’t understand the scientific ones.

I have no quarrel with this view at all. I only have a problem with rejecting as heresy the alternative view. Not because it makes more sense to me… which it does. But because it in essence tells us that many of the greatest Rishonim had heretical beliefs!

This is one of the basic arguments put forth by Rabbi Slifkin. And I don’t see how anyone can dispute it. Some will answer the that Rishonim were permitted to believe something whereas we are considered heretics for believing the same thing. But that is completely irrational.

As is often the case with those who promote irrational ideas, instead of trying to make their case, they just attack those who dare to disagree. They will compare the relative Torah knowledge of the disputants and say that since the Torah knowledge of one is so superior to that of the other - the 'other' must be wrong. To the best of my knowledge that is the sum and substance of their argument. Any argument put forth to the contrary is discounted as impudence. One of the opening paragraphs in Rabbi Slifkin’s essay is very telling of that approach:

A few months ago, I was introduced to someone in a shul and we began talking about the ban just before mincha. After mincha, I went over to him to correct him on some details, and he screamed aloud in front of everyone, “I don’t want to hear anything that you have to say! When you get up to Shamayim, we’ll see if you know as much as Rav Moshe Shapiro!”

It doesn’t matter to them that his beliefs are based on the Rishonim. All that matters is that one has the chutzpah to disagree with a Torah giant. If he says it is heresy than it must be heresy. Questions about Rishonim who held the same views are put aside.

How intelligent people can think this way is beyond me!