Operation Magic Carpet

One of the first things that Israel did when it first became a state was to ‘gather in the exiles’ from Middle Eastern - Muslim countries. The biggest influx of Jews was from the country of Yemen. 49,000 Yemenite Jews were transported from Yemen to Israel then. It was called Operation Magic Carpet. It was one in response to an increasingly perilous situation for the Jews of Yemen at that time.

Yemeni Jews are one of the few cultures that have been relatively untouched by outside culture. Many people believe that their customs are more authentic since they have not had the kind of exposure to foreign cultures as have Jews of Europe. Conditions in Yemen are fairly primitive and traditions passed on through the generations were kept pretty pure and free of foreign influences – very much unlike the Jews of European origin.

It is because of that kind of isolation that many Yemenite Jews were shocked at the sight of airplanes.

It is also because of that isolation that they remained so loyal to tradition. But isolation is a double edged sword. It makes one very susceptible to outside influences when suddenly exposed to them.

That made Yemeni Jews vulnerable to the influences of the secular society. And the secular Zionists could not have been happier at the opportunity to disabuse Yemeni Jews of their religious traditions.

Some of the early Zionist pioneers were socialists and even atheists who believed that religion was ‘the opiate of the masses.

Considering the primitive nature of their existence in Yemen - it was not that hard to do considering the circumstances. Yemeni children were for various reasons unable to be with their parents were placed into anti religious Kibbutzim. Once there religious practices were ridiculed. These kids were indoctrinated out of religious observance fairly easily.

Now - I’m sure that some of this was organized and I’m equally sure that some of the early Zionist pioneers wanted to create a religion free society of Jews - and worked very hard toward that goal. I have heard some of the stories. And they are disgusting. But I question whether those individual stories were policy or isolated incidences by individual zealous anti religious ideologues.

There is however a segment of Charedi Jewry that does not leave any stone unturned when it comes to bashing the State of Israel. And this is one of their favorite clubs with which they love bash Israel. They call it the Shmad of Yaldei Teiman. They see it as a sort of forced conversion to secular Zionist - anti religious values. Then they say that secular Zioinsts are worse than Nazis. They are destroyed not only those Jews but their very Judaism.

I find that kind of comparison odious in the extreme. To compare Operation Magic Carpet in any way to Nazi atrocities can only come from a hatred that is completely irrational.

I understand that that there is some truth to their claim that there was a concerted effort to indoctrinating Yemenite children with anti religious values. But that was not their primary goal. They wanted to save the lives of those Jews. And yet I hear the term ‘Nazis’ often when this issue is discussed.

The Chazaon Ish would not have thrived in Nazi Germany. He would have been gassed right along with other Jews. Rav Kahaneman could not have built Ponevezh Yeshiva in Nazi Germany. Ponevezh would have been burned own with live Jews right inside of it. An Ponevezh would certainly not have flown a Nazi flag over their building.

It’s time for these people to stop it already. Operation Magic Carpet was not an evil plan to destroy the Jewish people. It was not ‘the final solution’. It was designed to save Yemenite Jews from a society that was increasingly threatening to them.

It is time to realize that Israeli pioneers were not the evil bunch that some Charedi Jews paint them to be. Irreligious? - Sure. And in some cases even anti religious. But for the most part they were idealistic secular Jews who wanted to build a country – a safe haven for Jews all over the world. How they did that and whether every thing they did was ‘Kosher’ will be debated by scholars for years to come. But they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

Instead of this constant bashing of the State of Israel and its founders at every turn there ought to be at least a modicum of gratitude to them for the country they built. Because there would not even be a small fraction of the Torah leaned there without them.

A Seat at the Table

How far we have come since Rav Matisyahu Salomon spoke about child sex abuse a few short years ago at an Agudah convention. He gave very short shrift to the issue then - emphasizing that sometimes - sweeping things like that under the rug is the right thing to do.

I am not here to criticize Rabbi Salomon’s remarks. There is room to interpret his words in a positive light. But neither can I fully understand rabbinic leaders past reticence to speak out forcefully on the subject. In my view that reticence has contributed to prolonging the problem - even if was done with the best of intentions. But reticence has turned out to be a bad move. Too many people have suffered because of it.

Again - I am not here to talk about past mistakes. I am here to praise a latecomer. And I for one am willing to give him a good seat at the table.

Yated Ne’eman editor Rabbi Pinchos Lipshutz is a man I do not often agree with. But he has done something remarkable in his latest editorial. He is now on board with those of us who want to see the scourge of child sexual abuse eradicated. What is important is not his past reticence - but his current stand. He has joined in the call to see our young people protected. And he does not mince words.

What is even more encouraging is that the Yated does not ‘speak’ without consulting rabbinic authorities – especially on sensitive issues like this. Rabbi Lipshutz acknowledges doing exactly that. Not only did he get their blessing, he was encouraged to use his own words.

Much of what he says has been said by others - including me. This may be a turning point in the way we deal with sex abusers in the future. With the exception of a few Charedi heroes like Rabbi Yaakov Horowitz and Dr. Ben Zion Twerski - I do not recall anyone in the Charedi world being as frank and bold in their language. Here are some excerpts from that editorial (available in full at VIN):

The sad fact is that children in our community are being abused by perpetrators who prey upon their innocence and our silence… There is no real debate about the catastrophic effects of abuse.

The innocence and purity of children is destroyed for life. The victims remain hurt, shamed and scarred. They suffer in silence, afraid to reveal their secret to anyone. They are hounded by feelings of guilt and embarrassment and live lives of tortured pain. The overwhelming majority of survivors suffer in silence, unless they are lucky enough to endure agonizing, arduous, expensive therapy.

However, even a lifetime of therapy doesn’t ensure that the victim can ever be fully healthy again. Not every young victim’s psyche can be healed. Victims are much more likely to go off the derech, become addicted to drugs and lead a life of abusing themselves and others.

Let us be clear: For too long, we weren’t tuned in to these innocent victims’ stories and their pain. For too long, we weren’t sufficiently aware that this problem existed and thus were able to ignore the quiet pleas, the sad eyes, the pained lives, and the personalities withdrawn. We didn’t recognize the warning signs and thus largely ignored the phenomenon. Equally clear, this inattention was not a function of some high level conspiracy to harm people or cover up for criminals or abet nefarious activities. It was simply a function of a lack of education about a complex and highly sophisticated problem. It was a result of our leadership simply being unaware of the depths that such sordid people could sink to, and the extreme skill perpetrators exhibit in covering their tracks. And yes, it was undeniably a gezeirah, which, as so often is the case, claims innocent holy souls…

Truly amazing. I could have written those words myself.

There is one section of his editorial that I would like to address and that is the following:

I am all too aware that it is fashionable in certain circles to blame this all on our rabbinic leadership. These people have yet to explain why our rabbonim, who devote their lives to serving people, would want to hurt anyone. … suffice it to say that it defies logic to accuse our most choshuve leaders, who exhibit much mesiras nefesh, of coldhearted indifference.

I cannot speak for others, but I for one never said that rabbinic leaders were out to hurt anyone. On the contrary - but for a few obvious exceptions I think it is fair to say as Rabbi Lipshutz does: Rabbinic leaders - of all stripes - are Moser Nefesh for the welfare of Klal Yisroel. They have indeed dedicated their lives to that end. That is one of the attributes of being a true leader.

I have said this many times and I say it again now. To say that they don’t care or in some way conspire against the welfare of the Jewish people is both ridiculous and an outrage.

These rabbinic leaders are generally men of great wisdom who work very hard. They always mean well. At the same time I also believe that some of their decisions were made in error - even while they truly believed they were acting in the best interests of the Jewish world. And in the area of child sex abuse - that ended up doing harm to victims and prolonging the danger of abuse.

Hopefully this signals an over-all change in attitude - which will lead to more effective efforts to end abuse. We will have to wait and see. But in the meantime I welcome Rabbi Lipshutz’s late entry into battle against abuse. I would hope that people of all stripes who share these concerns welcome him too.

Could it be…SATAN?

There is a custom in some circles that prevents women form giving eulogies for their loved ones at a funeral. I say custom because I doubt that it is based in Halacha. I could be wrong but I do not recall seeing anything like that in the Shulchan Aruch. But it is a very strong custom and is observed scrupulously in some circles.

I have attended many religious funerals where religious women have given eulogies for their loved ones. They were just as dignified and poignant as any man’s eulogy might have been. The idea is to allow the bereaved to express their feelings about the deceased and to honor their memory. In just about every eulogy that I’ve ever heard - that was accomplished by the eulogizers. Whether they were men or women.

But in those communities where women are not allowed to eulogize their loved ones - what happens if a woman gets up to speak? Should a rabbi get up and physically remove her? This is what happened at a recent funeral in Israel as reported in Ynet. I find such behavior to be akin to the type of extremist behavior that has been happening all around the world by various religious zealots.

There is a certain mindset that seems to permeate some communities that will not allow anyone to violate their standards under any circumstances. The woman who lost her father and tried to eulogize him was humiliated by this fellow. He was just not going to let that happen. Here is an excerpt from the Ynet article:

"I wrote my father things that sting one's flesh. There are things you don’t say during your life, but you want them heard when bidding farewell," she says.

She went on the stage and said she would like to lament her father, but Rabbi Amar suddenly asked her to get off the podium.

"I was surprised. I looked at him and said, 'What do you mean? I want to say a few words to my father.' But he insisted," she says. "The mayor and other people tried to talk to him, and he replied, 'You are a woman, you mustn't say a word.'

"I tried to grab the microphone back, but he blocked me with his body. I felt I had to fight to say goodbye to my father. I couldn’t believe this was happening to me."

Other family members tried to convince the rabbi, but to no avail. "He acted like a dictator, arguing that she was desecrating the dead and that according to the Halacha (Jewish law) a woman is not allowed to deliver orations"

I have no idea who Rabbi Amar (...not to be confused with Sephardi Cheif Rabbi Shlomo Amar) is or what his Hashkafos are. But I do know who his spiritual partners are. They are the same bunch who attacks religious singers they don't like at religious weddings, or the type that commandeers a Lag Bomer concerts in public parks and tells everyone to go home because they don't like the family style seating arrangements. And he is not that far off from those who take the next step and use even greater violence to make their point.

Here is how this rabbi explained his motives:

Rabbi Amar confirmed the report, saying that "wise men, headed by Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, said that grave and serious things happen when women go up to deliver an oration in front of men during a funeral.

"The wise men warn that this causes, God forbid, an epidemic among the people of Israel and that Satan dances in the cemetery while women attend funerals.

So his source is an obscure Gemarah that tells us of the dire consequences of such actions. I see. I guess all those women I saw who eulogized their fathers are the reason we have this epidemic of serious things happening to us now.

I get it. We ought to re-direct out energies and stop chasing down child molesters. It’s not their fault. Satan has been let loose by those nefarious women who dared to eulogize their fathers. If we can only get them to stop - Satan will retreat and all will be well. Mr. Hikind, Dr. Twersky, Rabbi Horowitz, do you all hear that? You are barking up the wrong tree!

Un-Kosher Jews

What does one do when they find out they’ve been served a non kosher hot dog in a kosher restaurant? Resort to violence of course. Isn’t that what we are taught in the Torah? The first thing you do is start a mob type riot of yelling and screaming at the owner. Then you go over to the owner and punch out his lights out. Personally I think spitting on him would have sufficed as one astute patron did.

What is the matter with these Chasidim? I understand that being served treif in a kosher restaurant is an outrage. But reacting like a bunch of wild animals is an outrage too. As it turned out this whole episode was based on an inadvertent error that was not he fault of the owner. The New York Post describes what actually happened when the restaurant ran out of hot dogs:

Earlier in the night, a non-Jewish restaurant employee was sent out to buy frankfurters from a nearby kosher market. Instead, the worker went to a Golden Apple Farm grocery across the street and loaded up...

Once again we have violence by Chasidim in response to a violation of their standards. That the standard violated this time is universal to all religious Jews does not diminish the Chilul HaShem that results from their response.

What is it about so many Chasidim that motivates them to react in violent ways to things they don't like? There is no way that these patrons can be described as hooligans. These are mainstream Chasidim who went out to eat at a restaurant. Something went wrong and all hell broke loose. Is this the way we resolve a spiritual wrongdoing? By reacting with physical violence? I guess that’s the Chasidic way.

Now no religious Jew wants to be fed Treif meat. And one can understand the outrage at being cheated in this way by a Kosher restaurant. But violence like this doesn’t do anything accept make conspicuously religious Jews look like an uncivilized mob who resort to violence when they don’t like something. The reactions are therefore worse than the crime. And that ends up being a Chilul HaShem.

What makes this even worse is that these people reacted to a perception of being cheated when that was in fact not the case. It was a vengeful act against what turned out to be an innocent man.

When are these people going to learn how to behave in a civilized society?

Sex Abuse, Satmar, and Ger

I have had many things to say about the community of Satmar over the years. Some of them very flattering. Some of them - well – not quite so flattering. But in the face of what has to be one of the sorriest episodes in their history - I am virtually speechless.

Those reading this post may remember a story about Rabbi Avrohom Reichman. He was the former principal and is a current teacher at the United Talmudical Academy. I believe this is the flagship elementary and high school of Satmar. It is located in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn. Williamsburg is the center of Satmar Chasidus. Rabbi Reichman was accused by a former student - Joel Engelman - of molesting him. If I recall correctly Reichman was at first fired - and then immediately rehired.

Apparently the parent body of Satmar does not care that he is still teaching there. Or they are completely clueless. It is as though nothing ever happened. How can this be? How can a school continue to harbor a criminal like this and not inform their parent body about it? And how can any parent with the slightest inkling of it - send their children to that school? I am at a loss.

The following is an excerpt from a Forward article:

(Dov Hikind) told the Forward that his confrontation with Satmar leaders has been “a rather huge learning experience for me.”

Hikind stated that he has “been extremely clear publicly that I believe Rabbi Reichman has done some terrible things, and he should be out. We tried a lot of things behind the scenes to get [Satmar leaders and school officials] to remove this guy, but at the end of the day, for whatever reason — and I think it has something to do with his family being very prominent and having a lot of money — they were not going to remove this guy willingly. Period. End of story.”

Pearl Engelman, Joel’s mother, has lashed out at Hikind in the past. But at a recent public forum on child sexual abuse, she seemed more sad than angry with Hikind — though still furious at her son’s alleged molester. “The school is stronger than Dov Hikind,” she said quietly. She said people often ask her why Reichman is still teaching children.

“Honestly, I have no answer, and it needs to be asked of the community and the school that is harboring him,” she said, adding that many UTA parents don’t even know about the abuse allegations, despite widespread publicity. “Our community is so secluded that people actually don’t know the news.”

In Assemblyman Hikind’s defense it should be noted that Elliot Pasik, the attorney handling Engelman’s lawsuit - and president of the Jewish Board of Advocates for Children has said the following about the approach of Dov Hikind:

“People need to recognize that the sex abuse problem has been brewing in the Orthodox community for 30 years, and an overnight solution is simply not feasible,” …“I understand there are advocates clamoring for Mr. Hikind to publicly release the names of the alleged molesters, but we shouldn’t pursue vigilantism…. There is a validity to the path Mr. Hikind has pursued.”

Can Dov Hikind be right? Is it even conceivable that a child molester is allowed to teach young children in a school because his family is very prominent and has a lot of money?! Whether that is true or not - Satmar leadership has dropped the ball here. Big time!

I don’t know how many young people will end up suffering because of this – whether they are past victims or – God forbid - future ones. But the buck does not stop at the school. It stops with the Satmar Rebbe himself. I’m not sure which of the two heirs of the late Satmar Rebbe, Rabbi Moshe Teitelbaum - Rabbi Aaron (pictured above) or Rabbi Zalmen - are in charge. But whoever it is - the buck stops with him. The Satmar Rebbe has the power to make things happen. That makes him an enabler!

And then there’s Ger.

This is a tough one for me. I have had nothing but positive experiences with Ger Chasidus. I had the privilege of meeting with the Beis Yisroel who was Gerer Rebbe in 1974. He was very impressive. That Rebbe has passed away. Rabbi Yaakov Aryeh Alter is the current Rebbe. I know nothing about him except that some of his political polices in Israel have been very controversial in Charedi circles.

One of the finest people I know is a Gerrer Chasid. I say that without any hesitation. He has done more personal Chasodim - kindnesses - for my family and Jewish people of all stripes than just about anyone I know.

But the current Rebbe of Ger has dropped the ball on this issue as well. Notorious child molester Avreimal Mondrowitz is a Gerrer Chasid and it is Gerrer Chasidm that are blocking his extradition to the United States to face trial for his sex crimes. This cannot happen without the knowledge and approval of the Gerrer Rebbe.

How low these two great Chasidic movements have sunk if they can stoop to protecting and enabling child molesters like Reichman and Mondrowitz!

Assemblyman Dov Hikind Responds

I received the following letter from the office of New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind yesterday. It was in response to my plea for him to release the names of people accused child molestation. I think it clarifies his position.

I am still conflicted by this issue. As I've been saying all along - my primary concern is for the victim.

For those victims who have gone public - justice demands that their abusers be punished. But for many who have not gone public - the fear of their exposure by identifying the names of their abusers to the police is overwhelming. As for the safety of the community the only real justice is to expose and prosecute all abusers.

These are tough and conflicting choices to make.

What follows is the unedited response from Dov Hikind’s office:

Rabbi Maryles,

Assemblyman Hikind asked me to reach out to you concerning your article titled 'Please Mr. Hikind.....'.

I would like to bring to your attention some information that may be helpful in addressing your concerns.

Assemblyman Hikind has gathered information from many different Jewish communities, some as far away as Belgium, and some as near as Borough Park. The timeline of abuse incidents range from thirty years ago, and as recently as a couple of months.

Victims reputations have unfortunately been decimated when disclosing abuse, and survivors who gathered the resolve and courage to report incidents have been compromised on many occasions, even though current law tries as best possible to protect the identity of those pressing charges. When reporting allegations of abuse, victims have been threatened, pressured to keep silent and have been labelled pariah's who have no regard for Jewish law.

This is the sad reality.

Concerned individuals who reach out to the secular authorities will find a different reality then what is being reported, that in fact there is a working relationship between our office, the NYPD and district attorney regarding these matters.

Finally, unless victims are willing to present their information to the district attorney, providing information to the public and the secular authorities without providing a source to substantiate it will not achieve the necessary response in properly addressing this issue, and will not answer the prevailing doubt in the community's mind as to the prevalence and severity of said condition.

I hope you find this information helpful and thank you for your dignified critique.

Elliot S. Schreiber
Legislative Aide
Assemblyman Dov Hikind
48th A.D.
District Office 1310 48th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11219
718-853-9616/17718-436-5734 (Fax)
eschreiber48@gmail.com
hikindd@assembly.state.ny.us

Desperation plus Insularity Equals Gullibility

There is a community about 20 minutes from Jerusalem called Cheftziba that has many Charedi families. It also has a lot of unfinished homes built by a contractor who is now serving time in an Israeli prison for fraud. What he did was sell these unfinished homes to vulnerable young Charedi families of very modest means at a huge discount for cash.

The catch was they were not guaranteed. So that if anything happened to those homes there would be no refund. The builder had a decent reputation and so many Charedi families took a chance.

Shortly after they gave him their money he went bankrupt, stopped building, and left the country. Of course he knew he was going tom go bankrupt long before he sold these homes. But he wanted to take advantage of the moment. He took off with millions of Charedi dollars. He left these poor Avreichim with nothing but empty unlivable shells in various states of construction.

The builder is now paying for his crime. Not enough according to his victims - and I agree. He should be made to either reimburse his victims or find ways to complete the construction of those homes. But that’s another story.

I don’t think I have to say how dire the economic straits of Charedim in Israel are. It makes the world economic crises look like a full blown prosperity by comparison. This very public fraud should have been a lesson to a vulnerable community where every dollar spent is measured and scrutinized.

But apparently it wasn’t - as this article in Vos Iz Neias (VIN) clearly shows. In light of the exposure of Bernard Madoff’s 50 billion dollar ponzi scheme - an Israeli journalist went undercover to see whether that event had any impact on Charedim. How easy would it be to scam Charedi investors?

He found out. The answer was that it was quite easy.

Their naiveté persists when it comes to financial matters. Unfortunately there are all too many con artists who realize that Charedim are an easy mark. Fortunately for the victims in this story - the scam was not real and their money was safe.

It is, however, obvious to me that Charedim are particularly vulnerable to such scam artists. Their needs are great and their finances are low. So when they see what they think is a legitimate opportunity for a high return on their investments, they lose all perspective and take chances that I think most people would be pretty skeptical of.

What happened here that made it even more attractive was an official looking seal on the brochure by rabbis that endorsed the ‘investment. Of course that was fake too. But it looked real and that’s all they needed to push them over the top.

Part of this gullibility can be blamed on their insularity. They have little to no experience with the outside world. Many do not read, listen to, or watch secular media reports that expose many scam artists. Those that read anything at all - do so in the filtered accounts of Charedi publications.

I truly feel bad for the Charedi public. They need the money, are more naïve about finances than the general public, and are therefore overly vulnerable to fraud like this.

As I have said many times in the past, isolating oneself from the outside world has many pluses and minuses. But as we see here this is yet another minus. They are so skeptical of the outside world but when to comes to making a quick and easy buck their financial needs blind them and their skepticism turns into enthusiasm.

I hope this hoax by a journalist will be a lesson learned.

Is NPR Anti Semitic?

One of the things that sometimes bothers me is how easily one can characterize as anti Semitic - any media outlet that does not lavish praise on Israel or that expresses sympathy towards Palestinians. One of the favorite ‘whipping boys’ in this regard is National Public Radio (NPR). I have heard it said many times that they are anti Semitic because of their often very negative characterizations of Israel and their often sympathetic portrayals of the plight of the Palestinians.

I must admit that whenever I hear one of these reports, it turns my stomach. But in no way do I think they are anti Semitic. But they are biased.

The question is why do they seem to favor the Palestinian cause and look at Israel so negatively? If they are not anti Semitic, what gives? I think it is important to understand that what motivates these people is not anti Semitism. Far from it.

I see certain media people like those at NPR as moral relativists. I believe that this mostly accounts for their attitude. Moral relativism is the ‘religion’ of the liberal agnostic mind. They are married to the notion that nothing can be proven. God therefore may very possibly not exist - at least not in any active sense. Once they become agnostic they further conclude that there are no provable moral absolutes – with the possible exception of the basic humanist value of not hurting others in the course of pursuing one’s goals.

To the moral relativist there is no absolute right and wrong. Because who is to say what is right and what is wrong? One man’s right may be another man’s wrong. Everything is relative. The debate over embryonic stem cell research illustrates that.

This attitude finds itself most comfortable in the intellectual world of Academia. This is where absolutes are constantly being challenged. Scientific inquiry is in their nature. And it is why an Ivy League university like Princeton can employ a moral ethicist who advocates euthanasia – or worse.

NPR is of that intellectual mindset. They too reject absolutes because they see many absolutes in conflict with each other – especially when it comes to religious values.

When it comes to Israel this same thought process takes place. They see Israel and the Palestinians as two peoples – both with legitimate claims and grievances. History plays little if any role in their thinking. They do not delve into the past. What happened - happened. They look at the here and now.

So when these kinds of people seem to bash Israel, it isn’t because they are necessarily anti-Semitic. It’s because the Palestinians are seen as the oppressed minority. Israel is seen as the bully with all the power which they use brutally against the poor indigenous Arabs.

In other words, Palestinians are the underdogs and their side needs to be emphasized. They are the more in need than the wealthy and powerful Israelis. Moral relativism impels them to favor the underdog.

How can I be sure that NPR and their ‘spiritual’ partners aren’t just plain anti Semitic?

Let’s look at history.

The fact is that when Israel was seen as the underdog - pre 67, they were the darlings of this type of liberal mindset. The Arabs were then seen as all powerful and ready to drive the poor holocaust surviving Jews that populated tiny Israel into the sea. These are the same people who would put their careers on the line in the cause of agitating to help the Jewish people in Europe during the Holocaust.

The actor - Marlon Brando was a good example of this kind of person. He was in the forefront of protesting the American government's unwillingness to help the Jewish concentration camp inmates during the Holocaust. He participated in public productions about it at the behest of screen writer Ben Hecht and Holocaust hero Peter Bergson.

But before he died Marlon Brando was critical of Israel and one of the biggest supporters of the Palestinian cause. Was he an anti Semite? No. He was just a human being with relativist values. To people like Marlon Brando and those who work at NPR there is no right or wrong. Just who is on top and who on the bottom. And they must always support those on the bottom.

So the next time anyone wants to call these kinds of people anti Semites, I think they ought to reconsider. Because I really don’t think they are. They are just misguided. The real villain is moral relativism.

Righting a Wrong

May a convert sit on a conversion Beis Din? The answer is not that simple. There is dispute among Poskim about that. So what if it happened? The answer is that one should probably undergo a pro forma conversion just so he or she can cover all their bases.

This is not my opinion. I am not qualified to make such determinations. It is the opinion of Rabbi Barry Freundel who is chairman of the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) Gerus Policies and Standards (GPS) committee. He reflects their views. It was written in an op-ed in the Jewish Week in response to question raised by Rabbi Avi Weiss who recently criticized the RCA.

Rabbi Weiss felt the creation of GPS came with the promise that any conversion performed previously by a member of the RCA would automatically be endorsed. Since that has not occurred, he alleges that the RCA is guilty of misleading the Jewish world, and of undertaking a wholesale reevaluation of previously performed conversions.

But that is not what the GPS promised. It promised that upon request the RCA would ratify conversions performed under the auspices of individual rabbis if such conversions met its standards. In issuing such ratifications, the RCA has never based its decision on a convert’s “ongoing and current level of observance.” What is of significance to the RCA is the halachic requirement that a convert sincerely accept the fundamentals of Jewish belief and observance at the time of conversion itself. This is best evidenced by his or her behavior in the period immediately following the conversion.

In light of this comment, I wonder how many people still question a Gerus performed by an RCA rabbi? It seems clear to me that the standards used are the same standards used by Charedi Battei Din. It is a standard that has no disputants as far as I know. It is also the standard that has been in force for about two years now. The Yated knows this. And yet they printed a bold faced lie about one of its rabbis. (It was not Rabbi Avi Weiss.)

If I were the RCA I would sue the Yated into oblivion! That would be the best way to right this wrong – and in the process eliminate this public 'Chilul HaShem making' nuisance once and for all.

The Butchers of Truth

Rabbis from the US-based Rabbinical Council of America have "converted" to Judaism a woman who openly declared her loyalty to Christian beliefs.

When I hear a statement like this my ears perk up. Is it possible that the RCA did that? There can be only one answer to that question. No.

It is not possible for any Beis Din no matter how left wing it may be to convert a Jew who believes in Christian beliefs. It just would not happen. But that does not stop the Yated from reporting exactly that. That is where the above quote was taken from.

Will the Yated stop at nothing to discredit their ideological opponents? I will not accept that this is even an error based on faulty information - even if that was told to them in earnest by someone they trust. Even they can’t be that stupid – to believe that any Orthodox Jew – or even a Conservative Jew for that matter - would participate in the conversion of a someone who maintains their belief in Christianity. They might as well have said that the RCA accepts ‘Jews for Jesus’ as legitimate!

The only conclusion I can have is that their agenda of discrediting the RCA supersedes their loyalty to truth. That end justifies any means - even perpetuating a lie! If anyone can come up with even the slightest explanation to exonerate the Yated from purposely publishing a lie, I’d like to hear it.

I have spoken to someone who knows the rabbi involved in this event. He was very clear about it. This is a complete fabrication. But as I said, I did not need him to deny it.

What is perhaps true is that the convert in question visited her family for their Christmas party. That is hardly the same thing as professing a belief in Christianity.

But there’s more:

In another development, the RCA granted a problematic rabbi from their ranks permission to perform conversions. This rabbi is well-known in the US for allowing low mechitzos in botei knesses, Torah readings in women's minyanim and he even advised appointing a woman posek in every shul "to avoid discriminating against women."

Assuming these accusations are anywhere near true, - which is obviously far from certain if the Yated is reporting it – These are far from a disqualifying factors.

First of all I doubt that anyone has advised Shuls to appoint women Poskim. Even Rabbi Avi Weiss hasn’t gone that far. He has appointed female rabbinic interns that have taken on some rabbinic functions. But to the best of my knowledge he has not said they should be considered Poskim. That doesn’t stop the Yated from accusing a rabbi from that Hashkafa of advocating it.

As for the other two items - if a low Mechitza is a disqualifier - then I guess Rav Moshe Feinstein would have been disqualified too. He permits them. ‘Women’s Tefilah Groups’ where things like Torah readings take place are also not done in ways which violate Halacha. None of these factors shoud disqualify a rabbi from serving on any Bais Din – conversion or otherwise.

I have written of my own opposition to these practices. But they are not disqualifiers. Just Hashkafic differences. To disqualify any one from serving as a Dayan on a Beis Din because of a difference of opinion on Hashakfa is just plain wrong. If a conversion is revoked on this basis, I think it is a travesty of justice and in my view violates the Torah’s prohibition against mistreating converts.

If this is the kind of Judaism the Yated and their rabbinic advisors advocate, they will find a very small and diminishing following amongst religious Jewry. Deservedly so.

What was Their Point?

OK. I know Israel is a democracy. And that gives its citizens the right to march in protest peacefully anywhere they wish. I have no clue why these right wing Israelis decided to do that in Umm al-Fahm, the largest Arab city in Israel. The article in Ha’artez doesn’t say. But the fact that Kach leader Baruch Marzel (pictured - above) was invloved leads me to believe that it was for no other reason than to assert Jewish Sovereignty in the land of Israel and incite the anger of Arab residents.

Because Israel is a democracy - the ‘evil anti religious – anti settler’ Israeli Supreme Court gave them permission to do so – probably knowing full well this could lead to serious violence. But that does not make what those extremists did right. If there were fears of violence - they were indeed warranted because that’s what happened. Arab Israeli citizens of Umm al-Fahm reacted violently. I believe this is exactly the reaction these right wing extremists were hoping for.

I cannot condemn strongly enough the actions of these Jews. Unless they were protesting some specific and ongoing wrongdoing by citizens of Umm al-Fahm they accomplished only one thing. They exacerbated the hatred of all Israeli Arabs against the Jewish people. Not that that hatred needed any enhancement. Why must they incite Arabs to violence?! What is gained? Do the Jewish people need a group of rabble-rousers to assert what we know is our God given right to the land?

I’m sorry but I have no respect for those who would incite anger and violence on the part of our enemies. Who knows what kind of retaliation this will bring? How many Palestinians that were close to the edge will be pushed over the edge by this action and be motivated to hit back with some kind of terrorist attack? They probably saw this protest as threatening their very existence as Arab citizens in Israel. Who can blame then for being angry and lashing out? Of course they did. If I were one of them I would have been just as angry.

I know these protesters are idealists. They want a Jewish State free of Arabs. And they will use any means available to achieve that. The problem is they are doing just the opposite – and in the process actions like this can cause more Jews to be killed and maimed by some suicide bomber pushed toward retaliation by this event.

If any of these protesters are religious in any way, they should be condemned at the highest level of religious rabbinic leadership – especially those in the religious Zionist camp. They must not be tolerated. They are inciters of violence against us by our enemies. And for that - they ought to be condemned and ostracized.

Theodor Herzl - Hero or Villain

I am not a Religious Zionist - at least not in the traditional meaning of the word. I do not belong to Mizrachi and do not believe that we are in the first flowerings of the redemption.

This is in fact one of the reasons I so strongly criticize the extremists among Religious Zionists. They act as though our redemption is at hand. And to that extent they advocate even violent resistance to government anti settlement activity in the West Bank - which I condemn.

But that is not the subject of this post. I come here in praise of Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism.

Theodor Herzl was a secular Jew with absolutely no religious background or any interest in Judaism. At one point he advocated conversion to Christianity as a solution to anti Semitism – so removed was he from his religion!

He devoted his early life to journalism. It was in his context as a journalist that he saw anti-Semitism flourish in the supposedly enlightened Paris of his day. That happened at the trial of a Jewish army officer. It was then that he had his ‘conversion’. He conceived and became dedicated to the concept of a Jewish State. He felt that anti-Semitism could never be eradciated unless Jews could have their own state. And thus secular Zionism was born.

The little he knew about Judaism pointed him in the direction of Israel. But short of that any area in the world would do and famously (or infamously as some would put it) he had considered Uganda as a possible alternative.

In his quest for support he sought rabbinic approval for his cause but was rebuffed. The Rabbis felt it was anathema to approve of a secular state creatred by a secular Jew who knew nothing about Judaism. Especially since he seemed to be advocating for a state devoid of Torah.

There were some Rabbis that were sympathetic to the idea of returning to Israel and creating a religious state. They were the spiritual heirs of the Chovevi Tzion – forerunners of Religious Zionism. The Chovevei Tzion boasted such Gedolim as the Netziv.

Long story short - Herzl succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. He worked hard for his cause and convinced many Jews to join his band wagon. He also tried to convince world leaders of the justness of his cause. He never lived to see the Balfour declaration – an official British declaration that looked favorably on the concept of making Palestine a homeland for the Jews. Herzl died at age 44. But if not for Herzl’s efforts that would have never happened. The Balfour declaration is credited for giving many Jews - mostly secular - the impetus to make Alyiah and physically build up the land.

So - how are we to look at Herzl? Was he a hero or a villain? Tzadik or Rahsa?

There is much debate about that in the Torah world. The more Charedi one is, the more he is seen as a Rasha. But I do not see him that way at all. I would not describe him as a Tzadik. But neither was he a Rasha.

The claim is that he was anti Torah, but I don’t think that is accurate . I think history shows that at worst he was neutral on the issue of Torah. He couldn’t have cared less one way or the other. And the fact that he at first sought out rabbinic approval shows that he at least valued their support. But their rejection was so swift and strident that he became turned off from them.

I see him in a favorable light. One must understand where he was coming from, his motive, and the level of dedication to his cause.

His motive was to rid the world of anti-Semitism. That was truly an altruistic goal. He had no need to do that for himself as he was so assimilated that no one would have even known he was Jewish and he could have lived the good life as an assimilated Jew. But he didn’t do that. He instead dedicated his life to the cause. His background was devoid of any real Jewish education. His parents were only interested in assimilating their son into the culture as completely as possible and he had no personal interest in anything Jewish.

He was a complete Tinok Shenishba – a captured infant. That is a Halachic term applied to Jews who were not raised religious and grow up knowing nothing about Judaism. He nevertheless dedicated his life to the welfare of the Jewish people. And to the best of my knowledge there is no evidence that he opposed to religious practice by those who wanted to be observant.

If one takes all that into consideration, how can anyone see him as a Rahsa – an evil person? At worst one can say he was misguided - and that was only because he was not raised with Torah vlaues.

One of the biggest complaints about him was that he looked at Uganda as a possible location for a homeland for the Jews. But who can blame a man ignorant of his heritage for seeking an alterative to Israel as a means of fighting anti-Semitism? That was his only reason. There were no theological reasons. Only for historical ones.

His vision was for a modern State that could compete in the world. He realized that Israel would be a stronger draw for Jews than Uganda. Can we fault him for that considering his purpose and background? Idon’t think so.

We must look at Herzel in his own context and in the context of history. He was a visionary. And he started the ball rolling to what we have today – a flourishing State where Torah exists at a level not seen since the destruction of the second Temple. It was spiritual heirs that made it happen and though they didn’t realize it or acknowledge it, God was on their sie. It was Siyata D’Shmaya that enabled them to succeed in establishing a State through many hidden miracles.

It is true that some of his spiritual heirs who were the State of Israel’s founders were anti Torah and worked very hard against it. But their efforts backfired.

Herzl’s positive contributions cannot not be denied. And we should recognize him for that instead of condemning him.

Please Mr. Hikind - Do the Right Thing

Imagine living in a community where there are 65 toxic waste dumps in unidentified locations. No one knows exactly where they are but it is known that they are mostly in places where children are found. This is the situation in Boro Park. Only it isn’t the kind toxic waste one normally thinks of. It is the toxic waste of 65 child molesters who roam the streets of Boro Park with impunity.

I’ve been doing some thinking about this over the past few days. I have spoken to a victim of multiple instances of child sex abuse by different abusers. And I have spoken to a Rav who deals with this issue on a full time basis.

I have come to the conclusion that the dichotomy of victim versus community welfare is false.

I first want to reiterate that my primary concern is for the victim - even over potential future victims. But serving both past and future victims is not a mutually exclusive enterprise.

My initial misgivings about the welfare of the victim are unwarranted. That’s because a victim’s welfare will not be compromised at all by revealing his abuser’s name. The victim’s identity will be kept private if he so wishes. I have been informed that the law in the state of New York protects the identity of minors from being revealed in such cases. Even if they must testify in court - they may do so privately.

I have further been reminded of the following very important detail that is essential and common to all victims. They want justice. That means they want the abuser punished. And that cannot begin to happen until their abusers are identified.

I have therefore come to the conclusion that a parent whose child comes to them with a credible story of abuse must report it to the police immediately. Only that can stop the abuser from hurting other victims and begin the process of bringing them to justice.

A word about innocent people who may be accused.

That is possible and tragic if it happens. But looking at the available information, it is far less likely that there will be false accusations than it is that children will be exposed to abuse because of the fear of accusing an innocent man. It seems that the overwhelming evidence is that the vast majority of abuse reports are true.

With that in mind the public welfare should take precedence. Although there have been incidents of police ineptitude in these kinds of investigations, they are still the most qualified to do so. They have been trained in proper investigative procedures and they will more often than not come to the right conclusions.

If, on the other hand we leave it to those within our own communities to do the investigation we leave it in the hands of the untrained. That will make for much greater chances for error - especially since we are so reluctant to believe such things about religious people.

So even though there is risk that an innocent man will be accused, there is a greater probability of danger to potential victims if nothing is done. This demands that we do the right thing and report any information we have about an accused abuser - no matter who he is.

If an innocent man is accused, it is very sad and tragic - for him and his family, but the truth will come out in the end with proper investigation and he will be exonerated and the probability of future child molestations will be greatly reduced.

Which brings me to Assemblyman Dov Hikind. I do not now understand his reluctance to report to the police the names of the abusers he has accumulated. If his goal is to protect his community then he must release those names to the police immediately. I know him to be an honorable man with good intentions and a good heart. That is probably why he took up this cause in such a determined and public way.

His reluctance to release those names is therefore inexplicable to me. I have been told that he has in his possession approximately 65 names of people identified by their victims as sex abusers. I know that he truly cares about his stated goal of protecting his constituents. There is no reason for him to hold back. And yet he has said he would sooner go to prison than release those names. I just don't get it.

By not doing so these child molesters are free to continue sexually abusing countless numbers of present and future victims with complete impunity. And that means that he is in part enabling them to continue wrecking the lives of their victims and families.

I therefore ask him to do the right thing for the Jewish people and report these abusers to the police - right now!

Updated: 3/21/09 - 10:17 AM CST

Of Jewish Ethics and Frum Drug Couriers

A few weeks ago Ben Zion Miller, a Satmar Chasid, (pictured at left) was indicted on drug smuggling charges. He is one of those who were behind the terrible situation that resulted in 3 very youngYeshiva students being held in detention by Japanese officials.

The three Yeshiva students were convinced by Mr. Miller and his cohorts to carry three suitcases to Japan. They were packed with illegal drugs in false bottoms. Each was paid $1500.00 and provided with tickets for the flight. They were caught and arrested. If I understand correctly they are still awaiting trial.

The situation is tragic on several levels. They were wrong for what they did. But as far as I can tell the punishment will not fit the crime. Japan does not have a sense of humor about international drug smuggling. That said - all efforts should be made to have them returned to Israel and face justice there. But one cannot overlook the implications of this incident.

The young boys claim that they did not know they were carrying drugs. I will grant them that. But they must have known they were doing something wrong. They probably thought these fellows were just trying to get something past Japanese customs. But why did they feel free to do even that?

I believe the answer lies in bad over-all Chinuch in certain parts of the Torah world. Improper attitudes about the secular world are being transmitted by certain Types of Rebbeim in certain types of Yeshivos. Young people are indoctrinated with a belief that they do not have to honor non Jewish laws – as long as Halacha is not against it and they do not get caught.... because then it would be a Chilul HaShem

So smuggling some harmless items past Japan’s customs officials? Pffft! What an easy way to make some money!

I cannot emphasize enough the fact that there is something terribly wrong with a system that does not educate it’s youth that smuggling anything in a civilized society of just laws is absolutely wrong.

Lest anyone say that this is not the fault of their education and that these youths are the exception that proves the rule - I beg to differ. How many times have I heard some people claim that one can cheat on their taxes or the like as long as they don’t get caught. They will cite chapter and verse to show why it is permitted to do so in Halacha!

There is an undercurrent of disdain and contempt for the secular world that permeates the halls of certain Yeshivos. This attitude is taught either directly or indirectly by certain types of Rebbeim. And the young students pick it up very quickly – thinking that it is so cool that the Torah allows them to cheat like that.

The result is that three young Yeshiva students who are probably more or less fine Bachurim did something stupid for what they saw as a quick buck!

I wonder though if this event will even prove to be a lesson to those who insist on providing Torah based excuses for such behavior. I tend to doubt it. The excuses will still be forthcoming - fast and furious as before. And these young people will not even have learned the very hard lesson they should have. Oh… I don’t think they will be smuggling anything again any time soon. Not because they think it’s wrong. But because they don’t ever want to go through anything like that again.

If it were up to me, I would make certain that this attitude is never again taught in any Jewish school. Rebbeim caught indoctrinating their students with this attitude in any way should be barred from teaching. And I would make Rav Ahron Soloveitchik’s chapters on relationships between Jews and non Jews in Logic of the Heart Logic of the Mind mandatory reading in every Yeshiva!

Do Victims of Sex Abuse Come First?

A young 9 year old boy wakes up his father in the middle of the night and says that he can’t sleep. He then tells him what happened that day in school. He was sexually abused by one of his teachers. His father startled and outraged wants to immediately call the police and report the perpetrator.

Upon hearing this his mother – already in tears says, ‘Wait!’ What will this do to our son? Is it worth the additional trauma he will almost certainly have to go through? …the public exposure and humiliation? ...the possible trial and recounting of (and thereby mentally re-living) the experience? What about future Shiddach problems that will almost certainly arise?

After discussing the issue for a few hours they decide that the best thing they can do for their son is to handle it as discreetly as possible. The next day they call a psychologist who is an expert in treating abused children …and keep things quiet. The child is grateful for that. He does not want to be known by his friends as an abuse victim. That will almost certainly change the way he is looked at by his friends forever – even if they are sympathetic to him.

Did they do the right thing? By not disclosing the incident to the police they also do not reveal the identity of the abuser. That means the abuser is allowed to roam free and seek new victims – endangering the entire population of the school.

As reported by the Jewish Week this is essentially the issue that was debated at a conference recently in Teaneck, New Jersey sponsored by the Union for Traditional Judaism.

Rabbi Mark Dratch who addressed the conference is an individual for whom I have great admiration. He he has done a great deal in the area of combating sex abuse. He believes that the victim’s welfare is trumped by the greater needs of the community that needs to be protected from sexual predators.

As such the decision by the parents in hypothetical case I presented is wrong. And by extension so is the decision by Assemblyman Dov Hikind. He has withheld the names of perpetrators revealed to him in confidence by their victims.

Although Rabbi Dratch acknowledged the legitimate conflict between the victim’s welfare and the public need, he feels that the names must be revealed so as to prevent endangering untold future victims.

But... I am still not so sure about that.

This approach is contradicted by Professor Rachel Yehuda, who teaches psychiatry at Mt. Sinai Medical School. She said:

‘Reporting is not the very first thing that needs to happen.’ When a child discloses - the No. 1, most important thing that needs to happen is to help the child.’

This is a dilemma whose solution does not necessarily have a universally good outcome. The question of whether the ends justify the means is nowhere better demonstrated then here. Two approaches - and when one side wins the other side loses. Which one should be taken?

I am afraid that I simply do not have an answer. I tend to side with the victims over the potential victims. But I am not so sure I am right.

I have said in the past that victims should come forward themselves and reveal the names to the police directly. But that is a lot easier said than done. Walk a mile in a victim’s shoes before telling him or her to do that.

Unfortunately the fears expressed by the victim and his parents in the hypothetical case I presented are all to real. The victims life – already changed by the abuse will have to go though untold additional misery by a community unprepared in how to deal with him.

And the community’s fears about abuse victims as Shiddach prospects for their children are not all that illegitimate. The prospect of an unstable marriage when one of the spouses was a victim of sex abuse is real. Who can blame the victim of abuse or a parent for wanting to avoid the public stigma?

They would much rather that their child be treated privately and successfully by a professional and then be able to go on with their lives without the attending social branding that will almost certainly be the case when it comes time for Shiduchim. Who is to say they are so wrong for wanting to protect their child?

So I am conflicted. And I have no solutions.

Modern Day Essenes

A serious question was asked in response to my post Blaming the Victim. Here is the hypothetical scenario and the question (edited slightly for clarity):

How would you deal with someone living in the center of an isolated Charedi neighborhood, who constantly lures Charedi men to have relations with her? Speaking with her doesn't help. Must nothing be done to stop a chote u'machte es harabim – someone who sins and causes others to sin? Should people just sit on their hands and let more people get ensnared?

Although I am far from convinced that this type of scenario is typical of what causes violent depraved responses like those of Elahan Buzglo - let us assume that there is hard evidence of the kind of seductive behavior described in the hypothtical.

My post dealt with inappropriate responses. What indeed is the appropriate response?

There is no easy answer to this question. Suffice it to say that a community has the right to protect itself from negative influences. As such all legal means may be used to insure that those influences are eliminated.

However, the best way to deal with the kind of scenario suggested above is to change the mindset of isolationism that is increasingly taking hold in Charedi communities all over the world - in particular those in Israel. One needs to learn how to deal with adversity rather than hide from it.

The solution to these kinds of problems is not by sticking their heads deeper and deeper into the sand. That is over-isolation! In some people that can result in a sexual repression that can ignite lust at the drop of a hat. I believe that there is a lot of repressed sexuality in isolated Frum communities. That is why one can find Chasidim with long Peyos and even longer beards frequenting the brothels of New York - as was depicted on a Law and Order episode last night.

I’ve said this many times and I always get trashed by some of the more cynical Charedim for saying it: There has to be more exposure to the outside world. That usually gets a retort like: So… your solution for Charedim to watch porn or frequent brothels?!

That is not God forbid what I am suggesting in the slightest. Exposure is not an all ‘or nothing / black and white’ situation - which is how certain Charedim see everything. There is exposure… and there is exposure. There has to be balance between too much and too little.

By isolating oneself from all outside influences one becomes a modern day Essene. Essenes were an ancient sect of Frum isolationist Jews. They too couldn’t stand what they saw in the streets of Jerusalem in their day over 2000 years ago. They too wanted to live a life free of such influences. So they moved to a community just outside Jerusalem in order to isolate themselves from such sights. Even though they were extremely Frum Jews - Chazal frowned upon these people – and rightly so. Living like that is not the Torah ideal. Torah Jews are not mandated to withdraw from the world. We are supposed to participate in it.

We need to therefore learn how to better deal with things we don’t like. We need to learn how to better fend off temptations. This does not mean that one must watch porn everyday.

There are many Frum Jews in the US - Charedim among them - who work among non Jews every single day. They encounter all kinds of immodesty on a daily basis. There are women who come to work everyday in all manner of undress. And yet Charedi men have for the most part learned to deal with them - despite their allure.

This does not mean that that one should not avoid such daily images if possible. But it does mean that one has a better chance of avoiding lustful responses as they become used to encountering them. Most Charedim in the US working place have learned how to control their urges - and do not run for the hills as soon as they see a woman wearing a short sleeve blouse or even a tight skirt.

I am not saying that women in all Charedi communities should start dressing in promiscuous ways. I am saying that there are ways to train Charedi men to better handle the kind of situation presented in the hypothetical.

That is a long term solution. In the short term there are things that can be done. Mussar talks by every Shul Rav in that community will help. Let them speak out loud and clear about the evils of illicit sexual relations. Avoid walking on the block where she lives. Keep your children away – especially teenagers.

If that fails have the city set up surveillance cameras on her block. Let men who are seen entering her home know that their images will be captured on film taken by cameras placed in strategic areas around the woman’s house. Compile a ‘John List’ and publish names and pictures in all the Charedi papers of her visitors. But in no way should she be touched or threatened with any harm.

Again – all this assumes the facts of the hypothetical. Speculations about unproven accusations should never entail even this kind of soft harassment.

Protecting our Women and Restoring Our Honor

My admiration for his courage knows no bounds.

Once again Rabbi Yakov Horowitz has risen to the occasion. He has taken yet another courageous step in trying to right the some of the more serious wrongs that exist in the world of Orthodoxy.

In an op-ed published in today’s Jerusalem Post, Rabbi Horowitz has written words that are almost an exact reflection of what I believe – words I might have written myself. But he goes further than I did - or than I could have done. He has called on members of his own Charedi community to stand up and do something concrete.

Here are some excerpts from a truly trailblazing article:

I appeal to all haredi Knesset members to display moxie and genuine leadership by calling a joint press conference where they repudiate all forms of violence and vow to bring to justice all those who perpetrate these types of attacks from this day forward. They should bring all law enforcement resources to bear to bring law and order to the streets of Jerusalem, Beit Shemesh, Bnei Brak and other areas where these people operate. If elected officials cannot commit themselves to protecting innocent women from vicious beatings, they should all resign and be replaced by people who will.

I would only add that the rabbinic leaders who guide these Knesset join them at that press conference.

Here is more of his sentiment which is amazingly similar to my own:

From my vantage point, it is unfortunate that all those who participated in the vicious beating of a defenseless woman are not facing long prison sentences. But it is a great step forward and hopefully will mark a turning point in the attitude of law enforcement officials to these thugs.

The time has come for us to speak out, telling our children and students in unequivocal terms, "These people are criminals and sinners - and do not represent us!" Our publications should begin reporting these incidents in the news sections of our papers, condemn them in our editorials and call upon the police to arrest and prosecute the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law.

Here is what he thinks the proper attitude should be – rather than what some people think it should be:

Many members of our community are reluctant to speak out publicly, fearing that doing so will cause a hillul Hashem, a desecration of God's name. However, I propose that remaining silent in the face of violent and lawless acts perpetrated by individuals purporting to represent Torah values is the greatest hillul Hashem of all.

There is more – so much more. But rather than republishing the entire article - I ask that all who care about the future of Torah Judaism to go and read his article. It is available at either the Jerusalem Post or at his website. I will end this post with his last two paragraphs of his column and urge everyone to go to his website and sign on. I did.

I am posting this column on my Web site (www.rabbihorowitz.com) and I respectfully call upon haredim worldwide to post a comment at the bottom with your name and the city where you live supporting the sentiments expressed here.

If enough Torah-observant individuals stand up, distance ourselves from these criminals and demand action from our elected officials, we might affect changes which will restore honor to God's name and end these acts of terror that plague us.

Blaming the Victim

One of the biggest impediments to changing the dynamic with respect to the thuggish violence that happens so frequently in places like Meah Shearim is the apologetics by some for that beahvior.

I am speaking of basically good and decent people who would never dream of beating defenseless people of whom they disapprove - the way convicted Charedi thug Elhanan Buzaglo did.

Most human beings in the world from left to right abhor this kind of behavior under almost any circumstances. But there are a significant number of people who offer apologetics by blaming the victim. In response to an article on the subject two people commented in this way. Here are pertinent excerpts from them:

I'm very conflicted by this article. Not that I think such violence may be acceptable (but) - was she wearing a shaitel instead of a tichel? a tight skirt? flirting? or having an affair?)

And:

Although I do not condone violence, I agree with (the above commenter) that many of the reported incidents are either exaggerated, fabricated, or were deliberate attempts at incitement that, unfortunately, achieved their aims. Such things are not uncommon here, whether the issue is tznius or Shabbos observance or grave desecration or any one of a host of issues.

The fact of the matter is that incidents of chareidi violence, even when they do occur, do not occur in a vaccuum. There seems to be an undercurrent of sentiment on this post and other forums that not only is the violence unexcusable - which it is - it is not even comprehensible, a feeling that "How could someone even be moved to violence in such a situation?" The truth is that many of us feel very passionately about the standards of tznius and the level of insulation of our communities. Do most of us resort to violence? Absolutely not. Are those who do ALL total crazies? Despite the fact that their actions are wrong, no, they are not.

Here is the correct response to them:

As you may know, I have done quite a bit of work with abuse victims. The mindset of your posts is exactly how some people respond to rape and wife beating

1) she was dressed in a way that provoked him to rape her

2) he is really a nice guy who only does this a tiny percent of the time

3) he beat her cause she got him so angry that he lost it.

I am not chas v’shalom suggesting that you 2 are like that --only that you have been conditioned to think this way.

"Miriam Shear started up with the kaniom by sitting in the front of the bus -- that's why they beat her"

Sound familiar????

I have privately said for years now -- this is the first time I am writing this in public -- that a high percentage of these violent criminals are child molestors, wife beaters and worse. This has nothing to do with religion. Nothing. They have an unhealthy obsession with women.

Mark my words. When the dust settles, you will be shocked to see how high the percentage is. I suspect each and every one of these thugs of the worst averos.

Thank you Rabbi Yakov Horowitz.

Of Form, Subtance, and Feminism

A couple of weeks ago The Five Towns Jewish Times reported on the successful implementation of a Yoetzet Halacha program in several synagogues in the New York area.

Yoatzot are women specially trained in matters dealing with Taharas HaMishpacha. These are the religious laws dealing with sexual matters between husband and wife. These laws are among the most important ones in Judaism. They often require Shailos to be asked of a Rabbi or a Posek. Understandably such questions can be embarrassing to a woman asking them to an Orthodox man.

However, throughout history Jews committed to following Halacha ‘bit the bullet’ and asked those questions. Sometimes a woman might ask the Rabbi’s wife and she would be able to answer ‘often asked’ non specific questions. She would relay the more difficult ones to her husband.

In our day many communities still do that. But there are many communities that do not. Many Shailos simply do not get asked out of embarrassment. Potential Baalei Teshuva might be ‘scared off’ upon finding out that these kinds of problems might require them to ask intimate Shailos to a Rabbi.

For these sincere Jews asking a Yoetzet is a comfortable way to deal with these issues. In our day when the Shtet’l mentality no longer exists and we are no longer confined to a homogeneous community, older historical customs are not as easily followed. Orthodox Judaism is a much bigger tent now and is no longer located in a singular environment. There are modern cosmopolitan women who want to observe Halacha in a framework of general society. They want to follow Halacha but might be too embarrassed to ask Shailos in traditional ways.

That’s where the Yoetzet comes in. A woman with a sensitive personal issue can now go to another woman who is knowledgeable in these laws and ask her questions that she is trained to answer. She has learned the pertinent Halachos, has been tested, and passed. She is at least as fully capable of dealing with common Shailos as the rabbi's wife of old was. She is just more formally trained. And just like the rabbi’s wife of the past if a Shaila requires a rabbinic Psak, she will refer to - or ask a Rav or Posek.

To me this is a no brainer. And yet prominent Charedi rabbis like Rabbi Yaakov Feitman are opposed to it. The reasons given however fail to impress me. In fact they are completely unsatisfactory in light of the obvious benefits of such programs.

Rabbi Feitman’s objections are based on the importance Judaism puts on form. He says that such programs tamper with the ‘form’ of the Halachic process and that the innovation of Yoatzot enters the ‘precincts of the Reform’.

This is an unfair comparison. Reform tampering with ‘form’ was for the purpose of destroying the substance of Mitzvah observance. The purpose and result of Yoatzot is better observance by more observers.

Rabbi Feitman claims that Gedolei Yisrael have always made great sacrifices for ‘form’ - as much as they did for the substance. Perhaps that’s true. But one cannot make a blanket statement like that because at times form was sacrificed for the greater good of substance.

That’s why the Beis Yaakov school system for girls education was created. It was supported by the very same Gedolim of the past that Rabbi Feitman says fought innovation in form. Not all the Gedolim of that era supported it either. But who can now question the legitimacy and success of that change?

Rabbi Feitman goes on to make one of the most unbelievable statements I’ve have ever heard any Rav make:

The institution of a chavrusah, learning at a shtender, the format of a shiur are all time-honored and hallowed.

I’m not exactly sure how this ‘institution’ is being challenged. But to say that there is any sanctity to a shtender is tantamount to saying there is sanctity to a black hat!

Then he makes the most outrageous comparison of his entire article:

An assault upon the process has always been treated as seriously as an attack upon the Torah itself. For instance, the Netziv closed the great Yeshiva of Volozhin rather than introduce government-mandated innovations.

How he can compare the Netziv’s choice to shut down his Yeshiva with the Yoatzot program? The Netziv was being forced by an anti-Semitic Czarist government at the instigation of a Reform Jew to install a secular studies program – designed to wean religious Jews away from observant Judaism. The Yoatzot program is trying to do the exact opposite!

There is however an area that has a more legitimate basis for protest. It is a problem that Rabbi Hershel Shachter has addressed in the past- that of Tznius. Rabbi Schachter has pointed out that we - as a people - are to seek privacy whenever possible and shun the public square.

That is true for both men and women. It’s just that men are required by Halacha to do certain things publicly – and we therefore have no choice. Women have no such mandate. and ought to choose privacy of the home rather than the public square of Yoatzot. Rabbi Feitman alludes to this historically:

In ancient times, women were in fact very private people, rarely venturing forth into any kind of public venue.

That is true. But it is not enough of a reason to be opposed to this program since the good far outweighs this consideration. Sometimes past is not prologue. When new situations arise we need to meet the challenge and not retreat from seeking new solutions that benefit us all. The changes in religious society in the 21st century no longer justify the Tznius argument. Women no longer stay in the home. The old European model has been obliterated. The Charedi Kollel system could not exist if that model were the standard.

Rabbi Feitman uses this fact to argue that women today are far more sophisticated and cosmopolitan and that therefore a claim of embarrassment does not ring true.

I find this to be far from compelling. That a religious woman can be comfortable in the environment of a modern world does not mean she will feel comfortable speaking with an Orthodox man about matters of sexual intimacy.

Rabbi Feitman then goes right to what I believe is his real issue:

One cannot help but detect an influence of modern feminism and societal pressure rather than a true problem in the comfort level of 21st-century Jewish women.

I have had the same thought about other innovations such as Women’s Tefilah Groups or Rabbinic Interns. I can see feminist influences there. But Yoatzot are completely different. They are about wider and better Mitzvah observance, not about feminism.

Update:

I have been made aware of a second letter on this issue by Rabbi Feitman sent to Ezzie which he posted on his blog, SerandEz. I link to it here. I did not however find it all satisfying as an answer to the points I have raised. Instead I found it to be more of the same.

Rabbi Meir Kahane’s Legacy

I am told that the most recent issue of the magazine Jewish Action has published an article on Rabbi Meir Kahane. I do not subscribe to Jewish Action and did not read the article. So I cannot comment on it specifically. But I do have some thoughts about this man who was in many ways an inspirational figure.

Meir Kahane was a very unique individual. There were few Jews in the world who were as passionately committed to the Jewish people as he was. He was all heart and soul when it came to his brethren. His experiences as a young Jewish child living in America during the Holocaust - having no ability to do anything about it haunted him all of his life and I believe helped shape his character. I believe that this over-whelming guilt haunted him all the days of his life. And it motivated much if his activity.

Yeshiva educated and holding a law degree - he began his adult career as a pulpit rabbi. But his calling was elsewhere. When he saw elderly Jews in poor Jewish neighborhoods in the New York area regularly being attacked or mugged, he decided to form a group of Jewish ‘toughs’ to protect them. He called it the Jewish Defense League (JDL). I will never forget when I heard him speak about it in the late 1960s in a Catskill Mountains summer resort.

He was there to raise funds for his organization. He told the crowd there that the JDL was about protecting Jews and using Jewish ‘Shkatzim’ to do it. These were rough edged non religious young Jews on their way towards juvenile delinquency that had no interest in following the Torah. He felt that he could turn that energy into a positive force. And thus JDL was born. But violence is not the Jewish way and the JDL was later referred to by the FBI as a "violent extremist Jewish organization".

I heard him speak one other time when he came to Chicago. This was after he made Aliyah and had won a seat in the Israeli Knesset as the leader of his newly formed party, Kach.

His message was inspiring. He spoke of his goal of making a Jewish State where Halacha ruled and where non Jews could live only if they agreed to being a Ger Toshav – a citizen with full civil rights but non voting rights that acknowledged Jewish rule and abided by it.

He was also a brilliant writer. I used to read his column in The Jewish Press every week and found it almost impossible to disagree with his philosophy. The man was completely L’Shma. He loved the Torah and he loved the Jewish people.

Nowhere was this demonstrated better than his activities surrounding the plight of Soviet Jewry. He was one of the first to speak out and protest publicly on this issue – way before it became popular to do so. And I believe it was Rabbi Kahane who coined the phrase ‘Never Again’ in reference to the Holocaust.

Unfortunately he had a down side that was not so positive. And because of it he had virtually no rabbinic support from any circle. He was all alone in his ‘fight’ with no other religious segments of Jewry joining him. His passion and zeal got in the way of his better judgment.

The polices he preached when he was in the Knesset were actually dangerous to the existence of the Jewish people and threatened the very existence of the State. The State of Israel called them racist and his political party, Kach was outlawed. One can debate whether they were actually racist but they were certainly inflaming. They bordered on violence - calling for the forced removal against Arabs living in Israel who refused to accept his terms for staying in the country.

Many of his statements about Arabs in general were extremely negative calling them a ‘cancer in our midst’ that had to be cut out. Of course he wasn’t referring to all Arabs. He even counted some of them amongst his friends. But his many statements like that were all too easy to take out of context and they were stated in such anger that it made him look like a madman.

And it was Rabbi Kahane that was the inspiration for people like Dr. Baruch Goldstein, who massacred 29 Arabs while they were in prayer at Maaras HaMachpelah – the Cave of the Patriarchs. Though I seriously doubt that Rabbi Kahane would have ever done or condoned that - he most certainly was very likely the inspiration behind such acts. And there were more than one like it perpetrated by his admirers.

My Rebbe, Rav Ahron Soloveichik was vehemently opposed to him. I will never forget when in the middle of a Shiur he went off on a tangent about Rabbi Kahane and angrily condemned him. At the time I was a bit taken aback by the stridency of Rav Ahron’s position. But after reflecting on my Rebbe’s words I understood him and agreed with him. Rabbi Kahane’s ways were not the ways of the Torah. They were the ways of his ‘Jewish Shkatzim’ of the JDL - later transferred into his political party, Kach. That is why he was not supported by any rabbinic leaders of stature on the right or the left.

That said, Rabbi Kahane’s death at the hands of a Muslim assassin in New York makes him a martyr and a Kadosh. He died Al Kiddush HaShem – being murdered because he was a Jew. Rav Ahron said as much upon hearing of his death.

But that does not make him a role model. Far from it. We don’t need any more Baruch Goldsteins.

Update: My thanks to Mr. Baruch Pelta who provided this link. I was thus able to read the Jewish Action article by Rabbi Rakeffet. It is a review of Mrs. Libby Kahane's biography of her husband, Meir. As always Rabbi Rakeffet who is a brilliant writer does a magnificent job reviewing the book. Nor do I think that we necessarily disagree all that much. The point is that it does it not diminish my message about Rabbi Kahane at all.