Going OTD in the World of Modern Orthodoxy

There was an interesting and somewhat shocking claim made on an e-mail list to which I belong. The claim was that 50% of Orthodox Jews who attend secular universities go Off the Derech (OTD). I don’t know if that’s true but after thinking about it, it would not surprise me all that much if it is. It is unfortunately the nature of the beast in certain circumstances.

That statement requires some explanation.

Modern Orthodoxy is a huge category. It encompasses many different types of religious Jews some of whom may have less in common with each other than some they do with some Charedim at one end and Conservative Judaism on the other.

Modern Orthodoxy is not really a description of an ideology. It is more of a sociological description which encompasses many ideologies. What they all have in common is that they are observant and embrace modernity. This is in contrast to Charedi and Chasidic attitudes that see utilizing modernity only as needed - for example driving a car or going to the best doctors - but to be otherwise avoided whenever possible.

In my estimation there are three distinct groups that comprise it. Right Wing Modern Orthodox (RWMO), Left Wing Modern Orthodox (LWMO), and Modern Orthodox Lite (MO-Lite).

There is another group of Jews called Orthoprax. They consist of Jews who are religious in practice but are in fact not believers. They continue to practice the Mitzvos - but do not do so for religious reasons. They might do it for social reasons so as to be accepted by their religious peers, or to please religious parents, or simply because they believe that the observant lifestyle is the best way to live one’s life and produce the best results for their children. Or maybe even because they are simply just used to being observant. But I do not include them in the category of Modern Orthodox because this group crosses all Orthodox lines including Charedi and Chasidic ones. Orthopraxy is beyond the scope of this essay.

RWMO is that category that seeks to follow Halacha as meticulously as possible, follows long established non Halachic traditions and resists attempts to change them in order to accommodate the current Zeitgeist. I consider myself to be in this category. Ideologically we tend to follow the principles of Torah Im Derech Eretz as interpreted by Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch, or Torah U’Mada (in broad and varied interpretation). And we embrace modernity where it does not conflict with Halacha.

LWMO is pretty much the same with the exception of trying to innovate change in non Halachic but traditional areas of Jewish life - pushing the envelope of change to fit in with the spirit of the times.

MO-Lite may very well be the largest category of Modern Orthodox Jews. They tend not to be as focused on the ideological as they are on the social. They are heavily peer influenced and are in effect more modern that they are Orthodox. They were themselves raised modern in observant homes and have minimal religious educations.

They continue following in the paths of their parents, are basically observant in the major areas of Shabbos and Kashrus, but will almost always choose lifestyle over what they see as minor Halachos when they come into conflict. They will call it ‘picking and choosing’ and say something like ‘Everyone picks and chooses what they observe anyway, don’t they? ... this is what we choose.’

So for example in matters of Tznius in dress, MO-Lite women wear the kind of clothing worn by the general public. Jeans or slacks; sleeveless tops or open cut tops are fairly common. Running shorts are the apparel of choice for MO-Lite female joggers. And they generally do not cover their hair. (Both RWMO and LWMO generally do cover their hair.) MO-Lites will have mixed dance sets at their weddings usually after the separate ‘Hora’ type one sees at religious weddings.

They do value religion enough to send their children to parochial schools but insist that the secular studies be the primary focus of the school – all with the goal of getting their children into prestigious universities.

If the focus of a home is lifestyle and success at the American dream, it should not be too much of a surprise that when a son or daughter goes off to college and imbibes in the permissive and often promiscuous lifestyle of the university campus that they can easily go OTD - and often do. In effect they do what their parents did, choosing lifestyle over observance.

It is from this group that the statistics about MOs in universities going OTD at such a high rate is drawn.

Let me be quick to add that there are no hard and fast lines drawn between these three subgroups. Some have a little of this and others have a little of that. As always there exceptions to every rule. Additionally age is a factor. So for example an older woman may very well be RWMO and not cover her hair because that was simply not done by anyone in her circle when she got married.

With these descriptions of MO demographics in mind let us now look at that college attending MO -OTD statistic.

50% is a huge number and it may very well be overblown. And it also means that 50% of these kids do not go OTD and remain observant – even in the sexually permissive environment of a secular university in our day. That probably has something to do with the peer group one associates with, and the amount of religious support and services available on campus. If there are Minyanim and religious study groups and there are kosher meals available on campus, a motivated MO student can – along with other motivated students find their way there. That’s a good thing.

But even if we cut it in half 25% is still a huge number of kids going OTD. That’s one out of every four!

I don’t know that there is anything that can be done about this. Parents who are determined to send their kids to the prestigious universities will remain convinced that this is the way to go. They will point to campuses that have successfully kept Orthodox students observant. But that does not change the fact that so many kids from Orthodox backgrounds do go OTD.

To those who insist on the prestigious school for their kids - my advice would be to send your kids to a place like Yeshiva University for undergraduate school and to one of the prestigious schools for grad school or professional school. I believe the success rate for retaining observance will be much higher then.

But at the same time it is far more important for MO-Lites to start being more serious about their Judaism and choose Halacha over lifestyle. That in the end will make all the difference in the world.

Muckraking

Obvioulsy Rabbi Avi Shafran and Marvin Schick are fans of the Shomrim Society. In 2 separate articles published in Cross Currents, they take to task the Jewish Week and investigative reporter, Ms. Hella Winston for painting Shomrim in a bad light and accuse the reporter and her publisher as being unmitigated Charedi bashers.

I am a fan of both Marvin Schick and Rabbi Shafran. And I can certainly understand why they feel this way. I even agree that there is much that is positive about the Shomrim Society. And I can also understand why there is such antipathy for Ms. Winston and her publisher. They see a beautiful Torah world in communities like Boro Park and yet the only thing they see coming out of the Jewish Week and Ms. Winston are terribly negative stories about them.

The fact is that focusing on the Shomrim at virtually the same moment that the Kletzky family was sitting Shiva for the brutal murder/mutilation of their young son Leiby was a bit of an exploitation. And I agree that it was highly insensitive of the Jewish Week in light of what the Kletzky family and indeed the entire Jewish world was going through at that point in time. It did not accomplish anything to publish it so soon. They should have waited.

But the criticisms themselves about the Shomrim should not be ignored. I do not mean to say that they are necessarily valid. I don’t know whether they are or not. But to reject it out of some sense of undue animosity from a reporter seen as unsympathetic to Orthodoxy - is to ignore some possibly serious problems. Just because one does not like the accuser, that does not make the accusations invalid.

On the plus side the claim is being made that the Shomrim were a tremendous aid in trying to find Leiby Kletsky when he went missing. There is little doubt that to a certain extent this was true. Based on everything I read, they sprung into action immediately upon being called and had a massive search for him. Had it been left to the police alone, there wouldn’t have been a fraction of the manpower looking for him.

The police were not contacted until later. And there is no way of knowing– had they been contacted sooner whether their more sophisticated and better trained personnel would have helped find him sooner. That is speculation at this point. But it is well worth considering the possibility that informing the police sooner might have made a difference. Is that the fault of the Shomrim? Hard to say. They probably should have contacted the police as soon as they were contacted.

I have never been a fan of home grown vigilante groups. And although the Boro Park Shomirm are not known as vigilantes, there are Shomrim in other neighborhoods that are and have been known to take the law into their own hands. I am strongly opposed to that. Unless they are acting in self defense or protecting someone from being attacked, they have no business doing that.

If on the other hand Shomrim act as a community watchdog group, that is another story. That is a plus and to be encouraged. But only in conjunction with - and the blessing of - the police. It seems that the Boro Park Shomrim satisfy those conditions. At least I hope they do.

But at the same time if an investigative reporter finds some evidence of wrong-doing or incompetence, it should be further investigated and not rejected out of hand because of a perceived bias on the part of a reporter.

As for that bias, I’m not sure it is fair to say that a reporter is biased just because he or she focuses on the faults of a particular group instead of focusing on what’s good about them. Even if the good far outweighs the bad - as I’m sure it does in a community like Boro Park.

There may be bias and there may not be. But it is very possible that focusing on the negative is a way of crusading for changes in a community they actually support or are even a part of.

I do not know Ms. Winston. She may be biased. But she may very well be 100% L’Shma in digging for dirt. Because if you don’t dig for it, it will stay hidden underground and continue to embarrass and hurt the very community that you want to protect from the embarrassment of it being reported.

U’Biarta HaRa MeKirbecha, the Torah tells us (Devarim 21:21). Remove the evil from your midst. If it isn’t being done because the evil is hidden from public scrutiny, or because you don’t want to embarrass that community - we are obligated to uncover it so that it will be eradicated. So bias or no - Ms. Winston should be seen as a hero and not a Charedi basher.

If the stories are true and honestly reported, they should be published. Muckraking is good for the soul. Without it, it would be business as usual for far too many crooks and sex offenders in the Orthodox world for my taste.

The Frumkeit Chasers

Sara Dafner is someone who I am sure exemplifies the essence of a large segment of the Charedi world. It is derived of a Hashkafa that focuses on striving to elevate oneself religiously - and by extension - one’s children.

Raising our religious standards is not a bad thing. On the contrary. It is a good thing. We should all strive to serve God in the best way we can. But it is not the sum and substance of Judaism to endlessly chase after Chumros and become the Frummest person on the block. That is not what elevation means. And yet that is how many in the Charedi world see it.

So if a school opens up advertised as being Frummer than the one your child attends now, it’s a no brainer. You send your child to the new school at all cost.

Sara Dafner is upset by the reaction of those who applauded the recent ruling by Rav Shteinman opposing this very mindset and disallowing elitist Beis Yaakovs in Jerusalem. She felt it was unfair to castigate those who sought out such schools. But it is quite obvious that despite the fact that she respects Rav Shteinman’s Psak, she does not understand why he would be opposed to a parent seeking a school with the highest religious standards. In justifying why parents desire to send their children to such schools Mrs. Dafner’s says the following (on Matzav.com):

They are caring, sincere ovdei Hashem who have seen the problems in the Bais Yaakovs and want something more for their daughters. They want a standard of dress, a standard of behavior and a standard of speech that echo that which they are trying to impart to their daughters at home.

Does she think that Rav Shteinman is not aware of what goes on in the Beis Yaakov schools? Is he not concerned that the children will rebel against what is taught in the home? He was very clear about what he said:

“There is no inyan whatsoever to be frummer than Bais Yaakov. Anyone who registered their daughter at an elite school should negate the matter and re-register in the Bais Yaakov schools.”

Are Rav Shteinman’s standards not good enough for Mrs. Dafner’s children? Is she worried that they will only have Rav Shteinman’s standards of religiosity? I’m sure she wouldn’t put it that way, but her answer would in essence be ‘Yes!’ ‘There is no end to how religious one should be.’ ‘The Frummer the better.’

This attitude is what contributes to the divisiveness in Orthodoxy. It makes a competition out of being Frum and makes the ‘statement’ that those who do not compete do not quite measure up. This results in an attitude about oneself and one’s children that ‘We are holier than you!’ ‘If you want to be a part of this world join in or be left out - and you’ll be a second class Jew.’ It teaches a child to be elitist and see others as beneath themselves religiously. This is what Rav Shteinman protests and he forbids it:

“The Bais Yaakov schools do an extraordinary job in educating our girls, and there are a number of reasons why developing more “elite” schools is unwarranted. One reason is that it is important that the parents understand that a child raised in a manner that is disconnected from her friends, can and does ruin the child forever. Children learn with their peers and the elitism can be most destructive to them.”

That Mrs. Dafner does not understand that and seems pained by his decision is a major part of the reason that there is a virtual wall of separation between certain elements of the Charedi world and other - even Frum Jews. Mrs. Dafner’s attitude is anything but moderate. She may not realize it but she is an extremist.

In defending her attitude she correctly states that Achdus requires tolerance . Indeed we should respect the right of anyone to send their children to any school they wish. But there should be a realization of the full consequences of a parent’s decision to chase Frumkeit for their children. Tolerance is not fostered in elitist schools. The intolerant attitude of ‘holier than thou’ is.

Becoming increasingly Machmir in certain Halachos is not the goal of Judaism. Rav Shteinman understands that. “There is no Inyan to be Frummer than Beis Yaakov” he said. There is more to Judaism than forever increasing stringencies in one’s mode of dress or speech.

I do not believe that God wants His people to have a sort of elitist religious competition. That is not how we elevate ourselves in our Avodas HaShem – our service to God. I believe that God wants His people to be tolerant of each other. And the only way to do that is to be the opposite of elite – to fully integrate with all elements of Klal Yisroel. And the sooner Mrs. Dafner and the Frumkeit chasers in her world realize that, the sooner we will have true Achdus.

The Jewish People

Peoplehood. That is something that seems to be missing these days from the Jewish narrative. An article by David Hazony in the Forward brought this point home to me. The Jewish people are indeed a people united by a common bond. We are all the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. As Mr. Hazony points out we were a people long before we were a religion.

How far we have strayed from peoplehood. We now seem to be as divided as ever. Are we still one people? Let us examine some of the realities that put that premise into question.

Today we have the 3 major denominations of Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judaism (and some additional smaller ones) that seems to have a built in unbridgeable gap.

The divide between politically liberal and conservative Jews is so strong that it seems to bring out the worst in both when confronting one another.

Our positions on the State of Israel have never been more divided than they are now. The extremes run from expelling the Arabs from the West Bank to giving the Arabs the West Bank and entire the old city of Jerusalem …or to even dismantling the entire State and giving it all to the Arabs (ala Neturei Karta).

And even within Orthodoxy there is no unity. To some segments the concept of ‘Unzera’ – ‘our people’ includes only people with virtually identical Hashkafos and lifestyles.

What about some of our more radical elements? Should we include those groups who are constantly involved in violence?...whether it is on the extreme right religiously or extreme right politically? Is the Edah HaCharedis and Toldos Ahraon Chasdim part of ‘our people’? What about those on the extreme religious right that advocate and in some cases actually commit violence against innocent Arabs? What about those Jews who embrace Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinjad? Are they part of our people?

I have never been reticent to criticize and even condemn the extremist elements. But should I consider them part of our people?

The answer is yes. I should because they are. Are we not all one people despite our differences – strong though they may be?

We are all Jews. No matter what denomination or political persuasion. No matter how much we disagree.

Reform Jews may reject the binding nature of Halacha, but they too are still my people. Conservative Jews may reject Torah MiSinai, but they are still my people. The people of Israel. The Jewish people.

Radical elements can call for the transfer of Arabs out of the West Bank. Satmar can hate the State of Israel and believe it should be dismantled. Although I abhor their thinking they are still my brothers.

We can reject their views. But we must accept them as our people. I only condemn what their views can lead and have led to - which is harmful to us as a people. But I do not reject any of them no matter what they do - or do not believe.

I would love to change the hearts and minds of those I disagree with. But even if I don’t they are still my people and I will still love them as Jews – as long as they do not try and force their views and their ways upon others. As long as they do not try and achieve their goals violently I have no issue with them.

So what is it that really makes us a people? From the perspective of history - and my perspective as an Orthodox Jew - I would have to say that it is Halacha. Whether one follows it or not. It was our beliefs and practices throughout the millennia that have enabled us to survive as an identifiable people. Without following Halacha as a people, we would have been absorbed by the majority and by now assimilated into oblivion. We would have become one with our neighbors in our host countries. There would be no Jewish people today.

Those movements that rejected Halacha or even tried to say it was something that it wasn’t are for the most part gone. Sadducees, Essenes, Kaarites, Sabbateans, Frankists, are virtually extinct or certainly of no consequence to us. Only those who were observant were able to perpetuate their Judaism into the future via their children who continued to observe the Mitzvos. Even though there were plenty of Jews who did not and left the fold, especially in the period immediately preceding the Holocaust – it does not diminish the fact that Judaism was perpetuated by observant Jews.

But the divisiveness that exists among observant Jewry themselves may be the most threatening of all. The rejection of one segment of the legitimacy of entire other segments of observant Jewry threatens our future as a people. It is the idea that only the narrowest definition of belief and observance is acceptable. And that believing and observant Jews outside of that narrow corridor of belief and observance are not. In recent years that narrow corridor has been becoming even narrower and more exclusive.

This is not the way of the Jewish people. No segment of the Jewish people should be narrowing its base. No segment of the Jewish people should be making its circle smaller and defining Jews out of it. Observant Jewry included. We should instead all be widening the tent of observant Judaism. And we should not only acknowledge the legitimacy of non Orthodox Jews as Jews but embracing them with open arms as our legitimate brothers and sisters instead of writing them off as casualties of assimilation.

I know it’s almost a cliché but we ought to be looking at what unites us as Jews rather than divides us. We are one people. The Jewish people. We are brothers. And one of our goals as a people is to keep it that way and perpetuate it into the future.

I am not in any way predicting the demise of the Jewish people. On the contrary observant Jewry is growing. Despite the best efforts by some at narrowing the circle there is a social dynamic in place that counters that. The vast majority of observant Jews are made up of people that are accepting of others.

I have called this new social construct the new Centrism. It is defined in social rather than the ideological terms. It consists of moderate Charedim and right wing Orthodox Jews living together in full social integration. That - as I have said many times - is the wave of the future.

But on the fringes there is still plenty of divisiveness that threatens to undermine us. And as is often the case it is the extreme elements who will fight hardest to get their way. It is up to us to reject extremism and embrace tolerance and love of all our fellow Jews without condition. And to repudiate once and for all those elements who preach the intolerance and hate that will destroy us as a people if we let them.

RCA: Report Abuse Without Delay

In the interest of spreading Emes and protecting our children, I am going to do something I do not often do: Cite in its entirety a newly released statement by the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) on reporting abuse to the authorities.

I believe their position on this matter is the most sensible one. I think the Agudah ought to take a look at it and follow suit. Without further delay. Here it is:

The Rabbinical Council of America has today reaffirmed its position that those with reasonable suspicion or first hand knowledge of abuse or endangerment have a religious obligation to report that abuse to the secular legal authorities without delay. One of the unique features of Jewish law is that it imposes upon every member of the community an obligation to help others avoid danger. The biblical verse “do not stand by while your neighbor’s blood is shed" is understood by Jewish Law to mandate that one must do all in one’s power to prevent harm to others - even if monetary harm, but certainly physical harm.

Consistent with that Torah obligation, if one becomes aware of an instance of child abuse or endangerment, one is obligated to refer the matter to the secular authorities immediately, as the prohibition of mesirah (i.e., referring an allegation against a fellow Jew to government authority) does not apply in such a case.

As always where the facts are uncertain one should use common sense and consultations with experts, both lay and rabbinic, to determine how and when to report such matters to the authorities. False accusations are harmful to those falsely accused – but unreported abuse or endangerment can be life-threatening, as we have recently been tragically reminded.

In addition and as a separate matter, those within the Jewish community whom secular law deem to be “mandated reporters,” must certainly obey the particular reporting requirements, which vary from state to state in the US. A person covered by mandatory reporter laws must comply with those laws, even in a case in which Jewish law might otherwise not require a person to report such child abuse or endangerment.

A Charedi Gadol

Is the man in this picture a Centrist? Hardly. This is a picture of 99 year old HaRav Aharon Yehuda Leib Shteinman whom many consider one of the Gedolei HaDor. He is about as Charedi as one could be. And yet some of his positions on social issues are very centrist.

He can get away with that because he has earned his credentials as a Gadol. Is is the long time Rosh HaYeshiva of Ponevitch’s Yeshiva Litze’irim. And he is the author of a brilliant work on Shas entitled Ayelet HaShachar which he originally published anonymously.

So he is not only a Gadol but an Anav. One who is not worried about being called a ‘fake Gadol’. I will never forget Jonathan Rosenblum writing about one such ‘Gadol’ (unnamed) that refused to state his opinion on a controversial matter (I no longer recall what it was). He feared being labeled ‘a fake Gadol’. He was worried about his ‘Shteller’ …his position as a Gadol! …his Kavod!

Not so Rav Shteinman. Like Gedolim of the last generation, he has no such fears. He is more concerned with Emes and the welfare of Klal Yisroel than he is about how some people will label him.

In fact his positions on some of issues would be considered very un-Charedi. Just to name a few, he is not in favor of staying in full time Kollel for all Jews – even Charedim. He supports career training programs designed for Charedim. He is also in favor of Nachal Charedi – where Charedim can fulfill their military obligations to the State of Israel and then go into the workforce.

He is opposed to the kind of anti Sephardi racism that exists in certain Charedi circles. He actually once famously scolded a school principal who tried to explain why he did not permit Sephardi girls into his Ashkenazi school. If I recall correctly he said that all of this principal’s ‘reasons’ were nothing more than excuses and that his motives were less than pure.

He is also very opposed to the elitism that seems to be increasing in the Torah world. The idea that we must be selective in whom we do or do not allow into our schools. This echoes my own views on the subject. Which I expressed in a couple of posts not long ago.

It was reported in a recent article in the 5 Towns Jewish Times that Rav Shteinman was asked for his blessings for a new elitist Beis Yaakov school in Jerusalem. It was to be a school designed for the best of the best – children from only the finest of homes which included children of Roshei Yeshiva and Roshei Kollel. The Avreichim who approached him were certain that their new schools with its ‘improved’ religious standards would be given the best of recommendations from this Zaken and Gadol. But they were sadly mistaken. He rejected it completely.

From the 5 Towns artilce:

Rav Shteinman responded that… the plans for the school should be negated immediately. The group attempted to explain to the Rosh Yeshiva the dire need for the new type of institution, but they were unable to budge Rav Shteinman. They were stuck and had to scramble to register their daughters in the other Bais Yaakov institutions.

Word quickly spread throughout Yerushalayim. There were other elite schools too, that were established for the same purpose. Kollel Yungerleit flocked to Rav Shteinman, only to receive the same response, “There is no inyan whatsoever to be frummer than Bais Yaakov. Anyone who registered their daughter at an elite school should negate the matter and re-register in the Bais Yaakov schools.”

Yerushalayim, this past month, was in a state of shock. A few days after the incident developed Rav Shteinman explained, “The Bais Yaakov schools do an extraordinary job in educating our girls, and there are a number of reasons why developing more “elite” schools is unwarranted. One reason is that it is important that the parents understand that a child raised in a manner that is disconnected from her friends, can and does ruin the child forever. Children learn with their peers and the elitism can be most destructive to them.”

It can be seen from this statement that Rav Shteinman is opposed to the kind of isolation that is currently the rage in Charedi circles. The more separation there is from those with ‘lower religious standards’ the better. Rav Shteinman’s response to that: It’s destructive!

My gut feeling is that if the Charedi world in Israel would listen to this Gadol as much as they respect him, they wouldn’t be having half the problems they now have.

This is not to say that I agree with his every position. I doubt for example that he views Torah U’Mada in the same way I do. But it doesn’t matter. I respect him as a true Gadol and I agree with him on the issues mentioned here.

I honor this man’s purity of heart and his wisdom. He is a Gadol. But he is not from this generation of ‘Gedolim’. At age 99 he is from the last. If only there were more like him.

Loving the Sinner, Hating the Sin

There was something unsettling about a Jewish mayor of a city whose Jewish population is such a large portion of the total performing a marriage ceremony between two men. Yesterday was the first day that homosexuals could get legally married in New York.

Those who read this blog regularly should know well my position on homosexuality. In a nutshell it is ‘hate the sin, love the sinner’. I have no issues whatsoever with Orthodox Jews who are attracted to members of the same sex. As long as they do not try and legitimize behavior that the Torah explicitly forbids.

That they may succumb to sin is no different than when any of us succumb to sin. The important thing is to realize that behavior which is sinful is wrong and that if one violates Halacha one should do Teshuva. Which requires admitting the sin and resolving never to do it again. The Torah recognizes human nature. We all have desires. Sometimes they are for things which are permitted and sometimes they are for things which are forbidden. The Torah requires that we control our desires for the forbidden and not act upon them. But the Torah does not require that we change our nature. So if someone is homosexual by nature that is not a problem in Halacha.

Whenever this topic is brought up, it will bring out strong emotions on all sides. Admittedly, I am somewhat conflicted by it. I guess that’s the nature of hating the sin and loving the sinner. So I think it’s important to analyze the reality of gay marriage in the light of human nature and Halacha.

Homosexuals are very much like heterosexuals when it comes to leading their lives. There is no uniform homosexual type. The personalities run the gamut from flamboyant to very private. Their lifestyles can be very conservative or very liberal. They can be very immoral and very moral. Whatever applies to a heterosexual applies to a homosexual.

My approach is to look at the individual. If he is promiscuous or flamboyant about his sexual escapades and flaunts that kind of lifestyle, he has little respect from me – whether he is gay or straight. But if he is modest in his ways and keeps his sex life to himself, it is none of my business what he does behind closed doors. That is between him, his partner (whether male or female), and God. For me this is not a gay or straight issue. It is an issue of morally acceptable public behavior.

That said I am opposed to homosexual marriage. (...although I am not opposed to granting homosexuals certain rights usually reserved for married couples - like inheritance rights). Marriage formalizes a relationship that involves sinful behavior. It not only puts a public imprimatur on such behavior it normalizes it. It is saying to society that homosexual behavior is not only normal but state sanctioned. That goes far beyond loving the sinner and hating the sin. It is saying ‘Love the sin!’ That homosexual sex is morally the same as heterosexual sex. Marriage is a religiously based concept – hence the term holy matrimony. There is nothing holy about 2 men getting married to each other.

That said I fully understand why moral and decent homosexuals are so happy about this. They want to be as fully accepted in society as are heterosexual couples. They want the fullness of life that only a happy marriage can offer them - with all the legal and social benefits. I can’t really blame them. They are stuck with their sexual orientation in the same way that heterosexuals are stuck with theirs. They do not want to be forever seen as... (pick your pejorative)! Legalizing marriage takes a big step in that direction. And although I truly sympathize with them, this is a wrong step. It goes too far. If one is a religious Jew one cannot accept normalizing behavior that the Torah forbids. This is the Jewish view. It is our heritage based on the Torah.

So when New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg performed a marriage ceremony on a gay member of his staff and his male partner, it was in essence a repudiation of his own heritage. I realize the mayor is not an Orthodox Jew nor is he particularly religious. But just because one rejects his heritage doesn’t mean he doesn’t have one.

I am as sorry to see this happen as I would be if any Issur in the Torah was given societal approbation. Although this was being done with the best of intentions it was misguided. It takes the United States down one notch on the morality scale to legalize a forbidden relationship via the act of marriage - which is supposed to holy.

I watched the media frenzy with all reporters seeing this as a great breakthrough in the area of gay rights. That drove home to me just how acceptable gay marriage has become – at least as it is seen by the media. The reporters all had smiling faces happy to see a gay couple who had been living together monogamously for years finally getting married! On the face of it, I could understand the sympathy. Two nice people finally being recognized as normal by the state with tears of joy streaming down their faces. It’s hard not to be sympathetic when you see something like that.

However, if one is a religious Jew then one cannot see this as anything but misplaced sympathy. Nor do I think this is necessarily the way most Americans see it. But that may be changing. Media figures are very influential and many people learn to react to events of the world by seeing how the media reacts.

This is giant step backwards on the morality scale. It Kashers gay sex – something which the Torah explicitly forbids. Both for Jews and for all of humanity.

Lest someone say that it’s not of our business as Jews what non Jewish Americans do, I would counter that it is very much our business to be a light unto the nations. It is also in our interests to try and get society in general to have high moral standards. We Jews cannot help but be influenced by the culture in which we live - no matter how much we try not to be. On that level we have to raise our objections to legitimizing something which we see as forbidden.

It was not a good day for America. It was in fact a sad day.

Agudah - A Clarification in the Wrong Direction

Update: I had originally written this post as an appreciation of a long sought after change of heart by Agudah on the issue of reporting sex abuse to the authorities. Unfortunately wishful thinking got the better of me. The following is a revised post. Based on my search for Emes and the points rightly raised by some of my readers– I have re-written and re-titled it. It follows.

‘OK – here’s what we meant’. That is pretty much how Agudah frames its most recent statement on reporting sex abuse to the authorities. They have issued a clarification of their recent but controversial statement on that issue. The original statement said that any report of sex abuse must first be vetted by a rabbi with ‘experience’ in these matters. As I understood it, the idea was that unless an abuser was caught in the act, one must first consult with a Rav before reporting an accusation to the police. That interpretation was recently reinforced in a recorded statement by Agudah Moetzes member HaRav Shmuel Kaminetsky during a public appearance.

Many people in the forefront of fighting sex abuse were upset by this as they saw it giving preference to an accused abuser over the victim while extending opportunities for the accused to continue his abuse. The consensus feeling among virtually all of us who objected to it was that rabbis who are not trained professionals are ill equipped to handle these issues.

Additionally that statement seemed to require mandated reporters (e.g. teachers or mental health professionals) to first consult with their rabbis before reporting anything to the authorities – which would have been advising them to break the law and jeopardize their jobs. The question raised by many was why Agudah seemed to be requiring more rabbinic participation in the reporting process than even Rav Elyashiv did.

In what seems to be a reaction to this concern, Agudah has responded. But nothing has really changed. Although they have come a bit closer to reporting cases of abuse to the authorities they still require every report to be vetted by rabbis. In a cleverly worded statement they explain that if there are ‘Raglayim L’Davar’ – credible evidence of sex abuse – it should be reported to the police. They further seem to say that not only should mandated reporters like teachers and mental health professionals should do so - Halacha goes beyond the law in mandating everyone to report sex abuse. They still insist however that rabbis and not professionals be the ones to determine what is and is not credible.

Speaking of misleading - I must object to their use of the words ‘misleading claims’ about their original statement as their reason for issuing this ‘clarification’. That word implies that the widely understood interpretation of that statement was purposely distorted – presumably by those with an anti Agudah agenda. That is an unfair characterization of what most of us did. We read it and understood it in exactly the way Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky reiterated it. While there are some people who are anti Agudah, I am not one of them and neither are many others who have expressed the same concerns.

It is interesting that they begin their clarification by citing that Torah Jews are guided by Halacha – as if there were any question about that. It was never an issue of whether we follow Halacha or not. It was a question of what Halacha dictates. The Agudah Moetzes (which was curiously not even mentioned in this clarification) had at first determined that Halacha prevented people from using their own judgment in all but ‘caught in the act’ cases. Now they clarify and say that Raglayim L’Davar is enough. However they have not changed the requirement that it should be rabbis who determine credibility rather than professionals. Although they do say that rabbis should be in consultation with them when needed.

Why have rabbis involved at all? Especially if they are going to consult with professionals anyway? Can we not trust the professionals to deal with it directly? Are they not the ones best equipped to determine whether cases have credible evidence or are ‘mere conjecture’? Do we not trust professionals to be discreet at investigating cases of mere conjecture?

That said I still believe that this is a step in the right direction. It seems that there will be less reticence by rabbis to report abuse. This was certainly the case recently in Chicago. But no matter how fair and objective a Rav is it will be almost impossible for him to be completely objective about an accusation against a respected member of the community. That is only natural. Why not let an objective professional evaluate every claim? The police are better equipped to do that and are also more objective.

In my view - if God forbid your child - or any child - ever tells you he was in any way molested – do not hesitate. Go directly to the police!

Learning Tradition from Our Past

This is not the first time I’ve seen a picture like this. It is featured on Matzav as part of an article about the Yahrzeit of Rav Avrohom Yitzchok Bloch - an early Telshe Rosh HaYeshiva and the grandson of Telshe founder Rav Eliezer Gordon. It is hard to tell exactly who the people in this picture are – whether they are faculty, senior students of the entire student body of the Beis HaMedrash. It is simply labled ‘Telz – Lita’ by Matzav.

Telshe is one of the more Charedi Yeshivos today. Although in Europe it was seen as comparatively progressive it certainly was considered mainstream Charedi. I have also seen similar pictures of students in Mir and in Ponevitch from that era.

Many people long for the days of yore where the level of Torah learning was at much greater heights than it is today. Back in those days it was about quality, not quantity. Today it is the reverse. Assuming that these were students - a comparable picture would have thousands of people in it. Of course there are some very high caliber students in these Yeshivos, but I’m not sure how even they would compare with the students in these pictures.

Learning Torah on an intense and high level in those days was reserved for the elite. Only students with the greatest potential were recruited to spend their days learning full time in a Yeshiva. That approach paid off. The full time students of that era were for the most part brilliant people. Today’s virtually open door policy can’t compete with that.

We blow that generation out of the water in quantity, but in quality – they win hands down. The caliber of that generation of Gedolim do not exist today. There are no ‘Rav Moshes’.

However what we lack in quality has been replaced by Frumkeit – a Frumkeit that relies heavily on appearance. It is an appearance that requires looking radically different than the rest of society. Contrast what we see today - with what is seen in this picture (and others from that era that are very similar).

The people in this picture look quite modern and well dressed. They are all clean shaven and although I can’t say for certain, it does not look like any of them have Peyos. And the clothing varies somewhat. Some are wearing lighter suits; some darker suits; one fellow is not wearing a hat at all, and the others seem to be wearing differing hat styles.

I have been told by people who are very knowledgeable about the Yeshiva world of that era, that this look was encouraged by the Roshei Yeshiva. They wanted their Bachurim (boys) - who represented Torah - to be respected by the larger society. Anything less than the clean cut look in this picture was not tolerated. There are stories about certain Bachurim who tried to grow beards. This was not allowed. They were required to shave. There were exceptions made for those Bachurim from Chasidic backgrounds. But they were in the minority and were not to be copied.

Today, it is all about a uniformity that separates rather than unifies. What was considered a must by Roshei Yehiva in those days is considered virtually forbidden in our day. Today, if student does not wear the uniform he will be ostracized. One will never see anything but sameness in dress. Black suits and hats. White shirts. Today it is about the look – the symbol!

A Talmid Chacham who does not ‘look the part’ will be seen as Krum. There is no concern for what the rest of the world sees. Today it’s all about being different. Peyos are the order of the day. The vast majority of Charedi Yeshiva students have them. Beards are practically mandated after marriage – and if an unmarried student has a beard – wonderful! The idea today is to be as different as can be from the modern world. To be un-modern is to be a Ben Torah. To look modern is to be – well – YU and ‘Nisht Fun Unzera’!

But when it comes to the high level of Torah learning one wonders just how many of today’s Yeshiva Bachurim measure up. Yes - there are some very high caliber students. But what about the typical student that wears the black hat, beard, and Peyos? Are they as much about substance as they are about style?

Lately I have been wondering about that as I over hear conversations between Roshei Yeshiva complaining about the material that comes out of high schools into their Yeshivos. With notable exceptions – the learning is not very high caliber at all. It’s almost like what’s happening in many universities these days. As the population of applicants increases the entry requirements decrease and level of academic excellence decreases.

I do not mean to say that the level of Hasmada – diligence isn’t there. It is. The vast majority of students in Yeshivos try very hard. I’ve seen it. It’s there. (I’m not talking about the small percentage of students who waste their time and don’t belong there – that is a different subject. I’m talking about the vast majority of students that do not waste time.) But is Hasmada enough? I don’t thinks so. It doesn’t really matter what they look like.

Today’s Yeshiva ought to take a cue from the Yeshivos of old and return to the high learning standards of that day. Only the elite should be invited to learn full time- and they ought to have the same look as the students did then. Those Roshei Yeshiva had the right idea. There is so much talk about following the Mesorah of past generations. I agree. Roshei Yeshiva in our day could do a lot worse than following that Mesorah.

Hatzalah and Shomrim

I have never been a fan of creating our own services when these services were already available via the city or state. If there is a police force or an emergency trauma response force like 911 in place sufficient for the public welfare, I see no need to create a parallel system that caters specifically to Jews.

Hatzalah which is the Orthodox Jewish community’s version of 911 and Shomrim which is basically the Orthodox version of a civilian police force are two such organizations.

As I understand it Hatzalah was created to better deal with emergencies in the Frum Community. Apparently response times from ambulances to 911 calls in New York had always been relatively slow. Delays of even a few minutes can make the difference between life and death sometimes.

It’s hard to argue with that. If Hatzalah saves lives, that’s the end of the conversation for me. But even though I support it under these conditions it still bothers me because it gives the appearance of not trusting the system already in place. And worse it has the potential for real Chilul HaShem if it is seen as catering only to Jews. And if there is ever an accident between one of these vehicles and a innocent bystander… not good!

However - if I understand correctly - this is not the case. Hatzalah comes to the aid of non Jews as well as Jews if called upon in the neighborhoods they serve. My guess is that Hatzalah also works hand in hand with city’s existing emergency responders and actually acts as an aid to them. So Hatzalah may actually be a Kiddush HaShem.

I don’t really have an issue with Hatzalah if that’s true. But I am still concerned that when a speeding vehicle with Hebrew letters comes screaming through a neighborhood, there is potential for real danger as well as being perceived as ‘those Jews only caring about themsleves.’

In those cities where emergency response time is quick, Hatzalah would give the negative impressions I fear without any real benefit. I would therefore oppose a fleet of Hatzalah trauma units here in Chicago. The response time for emergency vehicles here is very fast. There is no need to have our own fleet.

I would add that I have no problem with Frum Jews knowing how to save lives via the kinds of courses EMTs take. Chicago has initiated such a program.

But Shomrim is a different situation. I am far less inclined to see them in a positive light for a number of reasons. First of all, to the best of my knowledge they are unarmed. 2nd of all, they are untrained – at least as compared to the police. And 3rd - they are in a position to be seen as Jewish vigilantes not unlike the ‘Guardian Angles’. The chances for Chilul HaShem are greatly increased.

Do they save lives? I don’t know. Perhaps their mere presence in certain Jewish but neighborhoods acts as a deterrent. If that's all they were. I'd be fine with it. But they are more than about deterrence. They are about doing police work.

I have to wonder if they are any more effective than the police. Are they quicker to respond? Are they equipped and trained to deal with a suspect when they encounter him? Is there tension between the police and the Shomrim? Apparently there is. From the Jewish Week.

Those tensions became more apparent in recent days as sources in the community and the NYPD expressed frustration with how the Shomrim (Hebrew for “guardians”) operate – however well intentioned – with little accountability, sometimes hindering the work of the police.

Part of the problem is that since Shomrim are religious Jews they are more trusted than the police. They therefore become the ‘go to’ people when a member of their community gets into trouble. And sometimes that can lead to tragedy too. Especially if they do not themselves call the police.

It was the Shomrim that were contacted by his mother when Leiby went missing. While their immediate jump into action was praised by the police commissioner...

An NYPD official with experience in the Orthodox community told The Jewish Week it was “unconscionable” for the Brooklyn South Shomrim (which covers Borough Park) to have not called the police immediately upon learning of young Leiby going missing.

Asserting that the Shomrim members tend to “play cops” and take matters into their own hands, he called on the community to “ask the questions that need to be asked and answered” about how these groups operate.

“Who are they accountable to?” the official asked, adding that “we will never know” if the Shomrim, who keep their own files on neighborhood figures suspected of foul play, had prior information on the alleged killer. (Those files are not shared with the police.)

Two and a half hours went by before the police were contacted by these Shomrim. There is no way of knowing whether it would have made any difference. But it is more than troubling to think that it just might have.

That said, I don’t know that I would disband this group. But I would most certainly rein them in and make sure that they stop playing cops. I would insist that they call the police immediately upon any call for help they receive. I would also forbid any physical contact between a suspect and the Shomrim except in circumstances where it was self defense or to protect imminent violence to an innocent victim. Community policing is a good idea if done right. But the minute they turn into vigilantes the potential for harm to themselves and others increases and so does the potential for Chilul HaShem.

While many of these Shomrim are well intentioned and do work very hard at what they do, it can easily become a power trip for them. And nothing corrupts more than power. They can easily think of themselves as equal to or better than the police and give themselves license to act like them. And since they do not have to answer to anyone but themselves, they may just cut a corner or two and break the law – all with the best of intentions.

The fact that they did not report a missing child to the police may just be a function of their sense of power and an exaggerated sense of efficacy. ‘We don’t need the police!’ ‘We got this!’ ‘It all under control.’ And that can spell trouble.

If Shomrim are going to work as a positive force in the Jewish community, they have to work as civilians and not as some sort of faux police force or vigilantes. They have follow rules and work with the police department. Not against them. To ignore them is to work against them. To withhold information is to work against them. To not call them immediately is to work against them.

As I said there is no way of knowing whether a closer relationship with the police would have made any difference in Leiby’s case. But it certainly would not have hurt.

Updated at 7:18pm CDT

Whose Fault is it, Anyway?

The Buck Stops Here! That was on a sign President Harry Truman kept on his desk in the Oval Office. It was in response to a cliché about passing the buck. The idea being that often responsibility is passed along to others. Harry Truman would have none of that. As President he accepted responsibility for what happened under his watch.

It is with that in mind that I see the head of the Eida haCharedis, Rabbi Tuvia Weiss, and the Toldos Aharon Rebbe to be responsible for any violence that results from the mass protests about things they don’t like. Like the opening of a parking lot on Shabbos in a nearby Jerusalem neighborhood.

According to the Eida’s unofficial spokesman, Shmuel Chaim Pappenheim (pictured) - Rabbi Weiss is the only one of the Eida’s rabbinic leadership who continues to support such protests.

And the following is also illustrative of why these kinds of protests continue. From Ynet:

This past weekend, following intense pressure, the Toldos Aharon Rebbe decided to lead the protestors for several minutes, and this prompted hundreds of his followers to join the demonstration.

"They nagged him constantly, also because of what happened at the slaughterhouse in Mea Shearim last week, and he agreed to go out and protest so as not to humiliate Rabbi Weiss," says Pappenheim.

"But in principle, the Toldos Aharon Rebbe – and many of the Eda Haredit members – doesn't appreciate these things. He understands that the lawlessness and desecration of Shabbat are not worth it."

According to the article there seems to be a consensus among most people that protesting Chilul Shabbos in nearby neighborhoods is counter-productive.

So why do they do it? Shmuel Pappenheim says the following:

Those opposing the protests say the organizers are driven by ulterior motives, such as the desire to impress and please the Eda Haredit's potential donors abroad, who are much more radical than them, or simply young people's boredom during the summer months and long Shabbat, which makes them to look for "action" on the streets.

This means that what really motivates them is money, not ethics. Not even their religious values. They want to appeal to wealthy radicals from Neturei Karta or Satmar overseas! I have no respect for people whose version of spectator sports include watching Jerusalem burn from abroad.

But neither do I have respect for a rabbinic leader in Israel who advocates protests knowing the kind of violence that ultimately results. He ought to know by now that calls for peaceful protests never end up peaceful.

Nor can I respect the leadership of someone who feels pressured to participate in something that in principle he opposes. The buck stops with these leaders. They are the ones that should ultimately be held responsible for any violence, injuries, and Chilul HaShem that results from these protests.

Is the Lipa Video Exploitative?

First let me say that I am a fan of Lipa Schmeltzer. I know a lot of people don't like him but I do. In my view he is currently the hottest thing in Jewish music. And with good reason. He is extremely talented. In the world of Jewish music which is a genre starving for creativity he is astoundingly creative. He has an uncanny ability to combine a sincere and warm feeling about his world while at the same time poking fun at it. Lipa is one of a kind – perhaps even a genius.

But he is also a human being and he too was devastated by the murder of young Leiby Kletzky. He sat down soon after that horrible tragedy, wrote and produced a video expressing his feelings about it.

There has been some criticism of that, notably by Binyomin Ginzberg in an article in the Forward. And up to a point I agree with him. There does seem to be a bit of exploitation of that event. The Shiva had barely begun for Leiby’s family and this video was already on YouTube. After reading that article I was all set to agree that Lipa took advantage of the moment and while well intentioned ‘struck while the iron was still hot’.

But after watching that video, I have to disagree. It is a truly touching video that makes its point far better than a simple article. It is obviously done from a sense of sorrow.

Was it done too soon? Perhaps. But I do not see it as exploitation. Everyone has their own way of dealing with this. This was Lipa’s way.

As I said, I admit to having a bit of the same feeling in general that Mr. Ginzberg does. I do think that this tragedy has been somewhat exploited – even though it was done in most cases with the best of intentions. There have been many articles written about what happened and what it means. Or what we can learn of should not learn from it. I may be guilty of that myself even by writing this very essay. And though I agree with the content of many of those articles, I nevertheless feel that there is a certain amount of exploitation involved in using this tragedy for other - even good - causes while the family was still in Shiva.

The Lipa video does very little of that. But it does hit you over the head with the enormity of the loss. Mr. Ginzberg objects to that as unsubtle and insensitive. ‘Imagine if Leiby’s family were to hear it now!’ he says.

He may be right about that. It may be too soon for them to hear it now. But I think there is little chance of that. It would not surprise me if they refused to see, hear, or read anything about it. The pain must still be very great. And it probably will continue to be painful for some time to come. But at the same time, I do not believe that they would object to the content and intent of the video. It says what they already know. But it says it to the world, not to them.

Postscript: As I write these words I have just been made aware of one of the most disgusting and exploitative videos by an observant Jew to ever to hit the internet. Truly nauseating. Nothing that has been said or written about it tops this agendized exploitation of Leiby's death than what Rabbi Yehudah Levin has said. No matter what one believes about the issue of same sex marriage - to link Leiby's murder/mutilation to that is both cruel and the height of irresponsibility!

Unzera

As noted in the Forward and other publications – a survey conducted every 10 years by the Chicago Jewish Federation produced some interesting statistics this year. For one thing Chicago’s Jewish population has increased to almost 300,000 Jews. This is an increase of more than 21,000 people. That’s an increase of 8% compared to an overall population increase of 3.5%. But that is not what piqued my interest. It was the following:

Intermarriage had increased from 30 percent in 2000 to 37 percent in 2010, and that more than 90,000 of the 148,100 Jewish households had at least one non-Jewish member.

This was followed by another interesting – almost opposite observation:

86 percent of children aged 6-18 have had a formal Jewish education and nearly all the respondents said that being Jewish was important to them.

If this isn’t a clarion call to action nothing is. A while back I wrote about the comparatively little outreach being done in Orthodoxy. With the exception of Chabad and a few very fine but targeted outreach organizations like NCSY there is almost an opposite attitude among Frum Jews. It is a separatist view that encourages isolation and near enmity – an almost ‘them versus us’ mentality. The word ‘Unzere’ used in Jewish parlance tells us that story.

‘Unzere’ is a Yiddish word meaning ‘ours’. In certain religious circles that word is meant as ‘our people’ which implies a pejorative and exclusionary attitude about anyone that isn’t like their own narrowly defined segment of Jewry. It not only excludes secular Jews, it excludes even major segments of Orthodox Jews!

Excluding other Shomer Shabbos Jews is in and of itself a major problem contributing to much of the divisiveness in the Torah world. But that is a separate issue. As it effects the statistics quoted about intermarriage on the one hand - and on the other the importance of being Jewish expressed by nearly all respondents in the survey – this attitude is the opposite of outreach. It is in not only a missed opportunity I see it as an accelerant. It accelerates the exit of Jews from Judaism.

This is not to say that I blame the increased intermarriage rate on this ‘Unzere’ attitude. There are other reasons for that. But I do blame that attitude for contributing to it.

If being Jewish is important to secular Jews, don’t we have an obligation to enlighten them as to what being Jewish really means? Instead of separating ourselves from them shouldn’t we be inviting them in to our world and showing them the beauty of an observant lifestyle?

This does not mean we barge into our neighbors home and force observance down their throats. But it does mean inviting them over for a Shabbos or Yom Tov meal. And in general being warm and welcoming to them without criticizing their unobservant ways. We should instead be teaching by example – showing them how beautiful the lifestyle of a religious family is like, how our children turn out – most of whom get married and have beautiful family lives themselves. It’s called teaching by example.

I can’t tell you how many times a secular Jew has expressed envy. He sees my children living normal family lives while their children are off doing their thing. Some of them intermarrying and others never getting married but living together with a significant other – which sometimes means a lifestyle that is anything but normal.

How often have I had a secular parent tell me that the only child they have any Nachas from is the one who became a Baal Teshuva. That is the one who got married and had a family. Their other children are single and following career or lifestyle paths that precludes having a family. Sometimes this includes leading a self indulgent and even immoral and self destructive lifestyle.

Of course this isn’t always true. There are many fine young secular families out there perhaps even the majority. But in my experience with parents and siblings of Baalei Teshuva versus parents and siblings of religious Jews- a religious upbringing brings a greater chance of one’s children leading a normal family life.

There are many ways to reach out to our fellow Jew that do not require much effort. By coincidence, Rabbi Avi Shafran posted his recent article in Ami Magazine at Cross-Currents with one such example. But outreach by example works best. However one must engage with their Jewish neighbors in order for them to see it.

Nearly all of Chicago’s’ Jews seem ripe for that. Being Jewish is important to them. And I don’t think that living in the Midwest has anything to do with that. I believe it is important to the vast majority of Jews all over the world. But the increase in intermarriage works against those feelings. It doesn’t have to be that way. Things can change if we change ‘Unzera’ to include all of us.

A Beating in Lakewood

Once again we are witness to violence in the name of God - this time by a religious couple in Lakewood. From ABC News:

According to the criminal complaint, the Waxes convinced the victim, known only by his initials, Y.M.B, to come to their Lakewood home in the early morning hours of Oct. 17, 2010 to discuss the Talmud. After he arrived, two unidentified males jumped him in a second-floor bedroom, punching him in the face.

After the attackers allegedly handcuffed, bound and blindfolded the victim, the victim said that he heard them say he had to grant his wife a divorce without receiving custody of the children. The victim said that David Wax then picked the victim's head off the floor, allowing him to see under the blindfold. Wax was wearing a white cowboy hat. "Do you like my hat?" asked Wax, before allegedly kicking the victim in the ribs.

The victim was also allegedly shown a body bag and told "that if he did not comply, he would be buried alive in the Pocono Mountains," according to the complaint. The Poconos are a popular resort area in Eastern Pennsylvania. Wax allegedly laid the body bag on the victim and said, "For you to get used to the size."

This case is not so simple. Only the violence is. If the accusations are true - it was brutal, disgusting and in no way justified. It was a mafia like tactic. And it ought to be condemned by all civilized people.

The reason for the beating may very well have been generated by altruistic motives for the following reasons.

In cases of divorce Judaism requires that a man give his wife a Get – a Halachic divorce. Jewish law has specific requirements without which a divorce is not valid. One of those requirements is that a man willingly hand his wife a Get. We cannot force him to do so. That is called a Get Me’usah (a forced Get) and it is not valid.

Withouth a valid Get any the husband and wife remain Halachicly married. It doesn’t matter whether they have a civil divorce or not. Even if they never see each other again, they are still Halachicly married.

Although there are consequences for both the husband and wife - the wife’s consequences are far more severe. A Halachicly married woman cannot re-marry. If she does she violates the prohibition against adultery and all resulting children are Mamzerim. A Halachicly married man is also forbidden to re-marry but he does not violate adultery in so doing and the resulting children are not Mamzerim.

A woman under these circumstances is called an Agunah. Technically an Agunah is someone who can never be married because of uncertainty about her husband’s death. But the effects here are the same. This woman can never re-marry. She is ‘chained’ to her marriage.

The plight of Agunos is one of the most troubling issues of our day. One over which many Poskim have agonized for generations. If a husband refuses to give his wife a Get, there is precious little that can be done about it. It is in fact a Halacha that is impossible for me to understand. I do not see the fairness in it. But that doesn’t make it any less Halacha.

There have been many attempts to remedy the situation in the past. Some are more accepted than others. Some have caused more Mamzerim to be brought into the world. I will not be getting into those issues.

There is one solution that is relevant here. It is mentioned by the Rambam in Hilchos Gerushin - the laws of divorce (2:20). He says that if a couple files for divorce in Beis Din and it rules that the husband must give the Get and he refuses - Beis Din may give him lashes until he says ‘I want to (give her the Get)’ - Kofin Oso Ad SheYomar Rotzeh Ani! This is not a Get Me’usah because we are not forcing him to give the Get but instead forcing him to change his mind and give it willingly.

The question may be asked, Isn’t this just playing with semantics? The answer is that since it is a Mitzvah to give a Get and ‘free’ his wife to re-marry, he in reality wants to do the Mitzvah. It is only his evil inclination – the Yetzer Hara - that prevents him from doing so. Giving him lashes removes the Yetzer Hara, gets him to see the light, and do the right thing willingly.

We don't give lashes today. But we do have alternative methods of persuasion. One tactic used by Beis Din in the past to accomplish this is to put a recalcitrant husband in a sort of quasi Cherem. They completely ostracise him from the community in various concrete ways. Another tactic is putting a husband in jail until he he changes his mind and gives his wife a Get willingly. Surprisingly even that doesn’t always work.

But the tactic used by the Waxes has gone too far here. They broke the law egregiously –acting like mobsters and thugs.

Besides I do not believe that such tactics work Halachicly. This man gave a divorce after he was kidnapped, physically beaten, and threatened with a horrible death. There is no way one can say that the victim rationally decided he was wrong here and saw the light. He was beaten to a pulp! … and threatened with a horrible death. In my view any Get resulting from this is Passul – completely invalid.

If found guilty this couple ought to be put in jail.

This does not mean I let the recalcitrant husband off the hook. Although there are always two sides to a story a Get should never be used for leverage. Not for custody issues and certainly not for financial ones. Any contentious issues should be worked out in a court after the Get is given. If a man uses a Get for extortion purposes, he is evil in my view.

The recalcitrant husband in this case may very well have been doing that. On the other hand, we do not really know his side of the story. And in any case beating him to a pulp was not the way to fix things. I believe the Get given as a result of that beating is invalid so the Waxes probably did not achieve their intended goal. But they probably did achieve a Chilul HaShem.

Bogoff, the Agudah, and Reporting Sex Abuse

Unless you’ve ‘been there’ you cannot imagine it. Not only can one not imagine being sexually abused - it is difficult for us to imagine people that we know well and who are on the surface fine people to be sexual predators. Especially in cases where it is a beloved family member, a popular teacher, or even a well integrated member of your community. I believe that is in part why this is even an issue today.

I was hoping that the rumor I heard wasn’t true. Alas it seems to be more than a rumor. From today’s Chicago Tribune:

Bail was set at $250,000 in Cook County Bond Court today for a 59-year-old Wheeling man whose alleged sexual abuse of his son's friend began over a decade ago and continued for four years, according to prosecutors.

Police arrested Reuven "Randy" Bogoff, 59, of the 400 block of Plum Creek Drive, on Saturday evening. He is charged with two counts of predatory criminal sexual assault after the alleged victim, a male who is now 22 years old, came forward to police, according to court records.

What is so perplexing to me is that I know this guy. I’ve known him for decades. He is a nice guy. Or so I thought. He apparently is not so nice after all.

The story says he lives in Wheeling - a suburb far from any of the Frum neighborhoods in Chicago. But that is a brand new address for him. Reliable sources tell me that when the news broke his wife immediately divorced him. This was just a couple of weeks ago ending a long and seemingly happy marriage. Until then he lived in the heart of the heavily Orthodox neighborhood of West Rogers Park in Chicago where there are a lot of young families –many of them Davening in the same Shul where he Davened.

His profile is anything but nefarious. He is a Baal Teshuva... a Viet Nam war veteran who lost his arm there and had it re-attached - or so he claims. He used to live near me and Davened in the same Shul I did. He later moved to a more upscale religious neighborhood.

There was never any indication of abuse at all. He was well liked and well respected. He was the candy man in his Shul and used to hang out a lot with the kids there. I'm told by his former neighbors that he used to give 'over the top' expensive gifts to Bar and Bas Mitzvah kids... like laptops and high end SLR digital cameras. He loved children. Apparently he loved them just a little too much.

As a Baal Teshuva he was someone I admired. But it was all bogus for Bogoff. He had a dark side that apparently no one knew about except for his victims.

I have been told by another reliable source that this is an instance where the rabbis were informed and they went straight to the police. I don’t know why the victim went to the Rabbis first but at least there was seemingly no delay in reporting the abuse to the authorities once it was known.

This once again raises the question about reporting sex abuse to the police immediately rather than going through a filtering process by rabbis.

By now it is well known that the Agudah Moetzes says that one must first consult with rabbis before reporting any abuse to the authorities. They claim that rabbis are better equipped to evaluate the validity of the alleged abuse than the average person. They fear that the accused may actually be the victim and that reporting it will cause him lifelong harm. I believe that this is a legitimate fear. Nonetheless I strongly believe they should reconsider.

Fearing false accusations does not mean that abuse should not be reported immediately to authorities. If anyone is trained to ferret out the truth of an accusation, they are. Much more so than a Rav with little to no training in these matters. Rabbis may be more objective than a parent of neighbor reporting the abuse. But they can be led astray by a popular and charming individual with a sterling reputation who secretly preys on children when no one is looking. Especially when it is only a child’s word against theirs.

Add to that statistics which have shown that the vast majority of accusations of sex abuse by children are true and there is absolutely no reason not to go directly to the authorities. Not doing so increases the chances that sex abuse will continue.

I recently heard a recording by a member of the Agudah Moetzes reiterating his call to first report it to the rabbis in response to a questioner in an audience he was addressing. He insisted upon it. And that saddens me. It is just too easy to give the accused the benefit of the doubt when he denies it in the face of a child who is seen as an unreliable accuser.

In the Bogoff case, the accuser is a 22 year old - reporting past abuse. I guess the rabbis believed him.

But what if he had been a child that ran to his parents with an accusation? The parents go the the rabbis and ask whether to report it to the police. What if the accused was a well liked and well respected member of the community? What if he was also a married man with children of his own; no history of abuse; and no criminal record of any kind? Would they have believed the child’s parent? Or would they believe the accused who vehemently denied the whole thing? A Rabbi might give the accused the benefit of the doubt – especially if he knows him.

The police and state child services on the other hand will investigate it and find out the truth. They are trained to do it. That’s the difference. It is a difference with lifelong and sometimes fatal consequences. By giving the accused the benefit of the doubt - the abuse will continue and the number of victims could increase. Experts say that victims often do not come forward out of embarrassment. This may be the case with Bogoff. To the best of my knowledge there has so far been only one accuser.

All of this being said - Mr. Bogoff is presumed innocent until proven guilty. But that is only his legal status. As I understand it the standard for guilt is very high and often difficult to prove in cases like this. Unless there were witnesses or unless more victims come forward, he may very well be acquitted. But is he innocent? Does anyone think Casey Anthony is innocent?

Mishpacha, Jews, and America

There were two articles in this week’s Mishpacha Magazine that corroborate much of what I often say here about how Jews are seen in America.

One article by Avi Freidman asks the question about whether the approximately 70 million people identified as Evangelical Christians still support for the State of Israel. Is it being eroded by an Islamic push to win them over? The artilce does cite a few Evangelical preachers that have been persuaded as Christians to pay more attention to the poverty of Palestinians than to supporting a Jewish state.

But the fact still is that the vast majority of Christians still do strongly support Israel. Many of them more than most Jews do. So strong is their support that they are the ones who insist Israel retain control over East Jerusalem. Any talk of compromise by Jewish leaders undermines them. These Christians are bible believing people. They believe in our Torah as much as they do in their New Testament. They see Eretz Yisroel as the ‘eternal inheritance of the children of Abraham’.

The article notes a distinction between Fundementalists and Evangelcials. Both believe in the Jewish right to the land. But Fundementlists are more inclined to not forgive us (or any other group) for rejecting Christian trinty theology. On the other hand Evangelicals like those who belong to Pastor John Hagee’s CUFI (Christians United for Israel - 670,000 strong) consider the Jewish people and Halachic Judaism to be the correct path for us. The bottom line for them is that they support Israel and the Jewish people because the Torah tells them to. Several times.

This is not really news to me. But I love seeing it every time there is a story on it.

Pro Israel rallies by non Jewish religious and political conservatives are beginning to pop up more and more - both here and in Israel. And the support is not superficial. It is deep. it is not elitist but grass roots. CUFI’s David Brog says that many of its members have scrimped and saved very hard to come to a July 18th to 20th rally in Washington DC. Some have canceled vacations or sold cars to be a part of it - and for no material benefit!

JoAnn Magnuson, former director of Christians for Yad VaShem said the following about her own motivation:

She is ‘humble enough’ to know that God might just know more than a little bit more than we do.

Of course there is the more liberal mainstream Christian element that seems to be tilting toward the Palestinian narrative. But I don’t think that tilt represents anything more than the view of a few church elders in their repective churches. Statistics I have seen in the past indicate that most mainstream Christians do not agree with them. Mainstream American support for Israel and the Jewish people is at an all time high despite the best efforts of the Academic left to undermine it.

It is a plus that Israel is so strongly supported by so many Americans and that it is to the right of even most Jews – even some religious Jews. For example I may be more open to compromise in order to obtain a real peace - but it still gives me great comfort to know that there are a huge number of non Jewish Americans that are more Zionist than even I am.

A 2nd article by Eytan Kobre is about Orthodox Jewish Judges in New York. The highest ranking member is David Friedman, a Chaim Berlin Yeshiva product. He has a rarefied position on the Appellate division of the New York State Supreme Court. Appointed to that position in 1999 by then Governor George Pataki - he has ‘earned a sterling reputation for integrity, fairness, and excellence in the law’… as did the other judges profiled in the article. How much integrity? The following anecdote describes just how far he runs away from Sheker.

During the interview he was asked to be photographed picking up a gavel (given to him as a gift with inscription ‘Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof’) and pounding it on the table as a judge might do in court. He politely refused to do it because this is not what he does as an appellate Judge. It would be misleading. His duties never involve pounding a gavel.

The article points out the high esteem these judges have not only among their non Jewish peers but even among their non Jewish public.

But his kind of respect doesn’t just happen. It is earned. These Judges are truly the best of the best of us and they apparently make a Kiddush Hashem in their every public act.

Contrast that with the Chilul HaShem I often complain about done by some others of our ‘religious’ people – especially some who are seen as leaders! Fortunately the American people are a fair minded people and do not judge us by the actions of the worst among us. They see us in the same way they see themselves. They believe in the American creed that is embedded in the Declaration of Independence – that all men are created equal. Individual bad acts are judged individually and are not seen as indicative of a group. Thank God.

My hat is off to Mishpacha Magazine for doing stories like this.

One more thing. It is a side point but a very important one. Judge Freidman was asked whether he thought there was anti Semitism in the judicial system based on the high profile cases of Orthodox Jews who have been found guilty of crimes. He says that he never saw any indication of it at any time. He then passionately adds:

When people engage in illegal schemes or come to you with schemes, you’re supposed to know there’s something wrong with that. The penalties for that illegal behavior are just never worth it, but more importantly those are things it’s not right for anyone to do. And it’s extremely not right for a person who believes in the Torah to do.

All I can say to this is Amen. It is in fact a constant refrain here. Now if only the Agudah had said this instead of giving a platform to a Chasidic Rebbe before he went to to prison so he could apologize for getting caught (and warn others not to try it).

The Need for Calm in the Face of Insanity

I am still in an unsettled state of mind from the brutal murder/dismemberment of 8 year old Leiby Kletsky earlier this week. The pain and shock of this sudden and horrific death must still weigh heavily on the hearts of his parents and the rest of his family and their friends. I don’t know how they can ever learn to cope with it. Life does go on. But I am sure that for them life will never be the same.

Although it is understandable that many of us start playing the blame game asking who’s at fault here, demanding that muderer Levi Aron be given the death penalty, I wonder if at least some of our thoughts are not misplaced here. We are all screaming for justice here. But what is justice in this case?

My initial reaction to this event was pure shock and horror. That was followed almost immediately with anger perhaps even rage at the perpetrator. It is only natural to see him that way - to see him as evil incarnate. But upon reflection I have to ask myself whether there is any real issue about him. Does he deserve the death penalty? Perhaps he does. But If I understand correctly there is no death penalty in New York. Furthermore he was only charged with 2nd degree murder. Again, if I understand correctly the death penalty is never given to anyone anywhere with this charge.

Levi Aron is at the very least a psychopath. It seems increasingly likely that he may even be a paranoid type schizophrenic. The Gemarah calls this type of person a Shoteh – someone who is not responsible for his actions. Mr. Aron may never see the inside of a prison, let alone be executed for his crime. I don’t mean to say that he will be allowed to go free. He will probably be institutionalized in a high security facility for the criminally insane. Probably for the rest of his life.

Should we be outraged by this possible outcome? Not necessarily. This was an anomalous act of a deranged man.

What about all the angst by many reporters and bloggers - all people of good will using this as a lesson in better protecting our children? I agree that we all need to do a better job of that.

This includes those among the rabbinic leaders who are reticent to report suspected abuse to the authorities – requiring that it first be reported to the rabbis. While I completely disagree with them as do other rabbinic leaders - including Rav Elyashiv, I do not agree that this particular incident undermines them. There are a great many arguments that do. But this is not one of them.

First of all, there was no evidence of sex abuse or any kind of abuse against the victim. Nor do I believe that there was ever any evidence of abuse by this murderer of anyone in his past. 2nd of all, this was not a case of not reporting suspected behavior to the police. This was a case of deranged man who - without any warning murdered and dismembered a child.

This kind of thing is something that is almost impossible to protect ourselves or our children from. It is quite possible that a psychotic person can walk around undetected and undiagnosed until it’s too late – as was the case with Mr. Aron.

Yes - there are definitely lessons to be learned here. We must educate our children to be careful about going up to strangers and asking them for help – even if they are lost. I have heard suggestions that children who need help should be taught to approach only women – preferably mothers with children – and ask them for help; or to go into a store and ask a clerk for help; or better yet, to look for a uniformed police officer if possible; and to stay away from single men walking in the street under all circumstances.

These are all probably good ideas. But at the same time we must realize that psychotic killers are an anomaly and the circumstances of this murder are extremely rare. Experts tell us that it is much more likely for abuse to be perpetrated by people we know and trust – often very charming ones. Sexual predators are known be very charming people. They could be family members, close friends, or teachers. Rarely is it ‘stranger danger’.

But that is exactly who Levi Aron was – stranger danger. Should we indoctrinate our children to fear every man they don’t know as a potential danger to them? Teaching children to be wary of anyone and everyone is no way to raise a human being. The vast majority of civilized people are not sexual predators. I’m not quite sure how to advise a parent on teaching a child the ‘golden mean’ of not being overly suspicious of everyone and yet protecting a him from an unlikely event like encountering a psychotic killer like Levi Aron.

Should we all now keep our children locked up in the house? Must we accompany them at all times both to and from an event like a baseball game with their friends in the park? How old should our children be before we trust them for the first time to walk alone in the street? 9? 10? …12? 13? Were Leiby’s parents negligent in allowing their almost 9 year old child to walk home from a camp in a zero crime area like Boro Park? Especially since they rehearsed it with him and were meeting him half way?

The answer is clearly no. They were not negligent. They had every reason to believe their son would be safe in broad daylight in an area like Boro Park. We cannot treat our children like eternal prey to psychotic killers. What happened here was that ‘lightening’ struck. A deranged man came out of nowhere and was in the ‘right place at the right time’. And there is no way of completely protecting a child from something like that.

I think it’s important that we all take a deep breath and realize all these things despite our gut instincts.

Important Update:

I just received the following from Rabbi Yakov Horowitz. He asked if I would post it and I am happy to do so:

Dear All:

In order to assist you in your efforts to simultaneously calm your children and inform them of their critical need to be vigilant about their personal safety, I will be conducting a conference call tomorrow night, Motzoei Shabbos, at 10:30 p.m. in English and a similar call in Yiddish at 11:00 p.m.

Many parents are finding themselves in need of “tech support” to supplement the initial information they received on speaking to their children and we will be devoting time to responding to your questions during the call. Kindly email any questions you would like addressed to yhprojectyes@gmail.com and we will do our very best to respond to your emails. Please note that we will only be discussing questions that are global in nature so you should contact Chai Lifeline (917-710-8399) or a mental health professional should you have questions that are more specific.

Additionally, it will be simply impossible to respond to the hundreds of emails we received during the initial conference call or to those we will get prior to the Motzoei Shabbos call. Finally, please email your questions as early as you can so we can organize and prepare responses to them.

We will be using the Chazak line this time and we thank them for their assistance. To join the call, kindly dial 718-258-2008, and when prompted, dial 9 and then 9 again (if you dial the 9 numbers before the prompt, you will be unable to join.)

Should you be unable to join the call, Chazak will be recording it and you will be able to listen to it by dialing 718-258-2008 and follow the prompts.

Best wishes for a gutten Shabbos

Yakov Horowitz
Director, Project YES

Making Sense of Insanity

Guest Post by Yossi Ginzberg

Clearly, a murderer of children is not a normal person. No proof is necessary, no commentary is adequate, and no elaboration is needed. There is no way to make sense of this, and any attempt is futile. The only possible response is Emunah, faith that Hashem knows what he’s doing and that somehow in the heavenly accounting system this all meshes sensibly.

There are a million defensive responses: Look how rarely a Jew is a killer, look at how many killers thought to be Jewish turned out not to be (like the “Son of Sam” and the killer of Yoseph Robinson last year), a dog biting a mailman doesn’t make the news but a mailman biting a dog does, and so on.

But how do we get past the knee-jerking, past the defensiveness, to reach a place of safety, a place where we can actually effect change to prevent such things? Stipulated that at this early point it seems that there were no obvious signs that there was anything seriously wrong with the accused killer, but we all know- or should know- that there are others out there, if not killers molesters and perverts of all types. Is a rapist any better? How about a gay rapist? A serial molester?

We’ve all heard if not seen actions like this within the Charedi community. I myself once saw from my second-floor window a young Charedi-looking man sitting in his car in front of my house, looking very innocent until he called the children playing in front over and opened the car door to show his pants down. He escaped before I got down, probably luckily for me too as I was too incensed to control my actions.

One of my daughter’s once (foolishly!) on a freezing day accepted a short ride from Flatbush to Boro Park along the bus route from a man with a long beard and Peyos. One block into the eight-block ride he pulled out a large picture, apparently a Playboy magazine centerfold. Frightening to this young girl, but potentially deadly to one who might jump out of a car without looking, reacting in fear.

But what is the answer? Should we stop adulating insane responses- the girls who allegedly pinned their skirts to their skin, the girl who jumped from a stalled tram car rather than stay alone with a boy, the girl who apparently is being taught to mutilate herself rather than wear a too-short skirt?

Or do we react in horror to the perversions of the Chofetz Chaim’s philosophy, whereby we never relate anything bad about anybody, enabling them to continue harming others?
Perhaps it’s the time to speak again of the enablers, the many schools, rabbis, and organizations that have been protecting molesters and abusers for decades. Israel, the USA, the UK and Australia have all had significant scandals in recent years, and aside from the most important human damages, there have been significant Chilul Hashem issues. How can we allow this to continue? Those responsible have never apologized or paid in any way. Had they been CEO’s of a company, they’d have paid with their jobs and perhaps their freedom. As rabbis and heads of schools, they have walked away free while the abused suffer forever.

More, most experts apparently attribute a majority share of the OTD phenomenon to these abuses. If true, this would make the responsible rabbis greater damagers of our youth than any missionaries! Despite the great efforts and expenditures of the missions, one never hears of a Frum child actually leaving Judaism for any Christian sect, but it’s every day we hear and see “Datlashim” (Dati l’she’avar, or formerly Frum), a one-time rare phenomenon but now so common it has its own well-known acronym.

Admittedly, I am writing in anger and in frustration, enraged over the senseless murder of little Leiby z”l, and that might be affecting my judgment in posting this. It is clearly not possible to draw a straight causative line from being overly strict on Tznius and Lashon Harah to abuse, rape, and murder.

Still, as Charedim we adhere to the concept that the body is only temporal while the soul is eternal.

Given that, the destruction of the souls forced off the path of Judaism by having been abused or molested, is actually (in religious terms only, of course) WORSE than being killed. Yet we scream about today’s headlines and ignore the thousands now OTD because of these reasons.
Can we get past our visceral reactions to put our anger and frustration to good use?

There are some who do- we have seen the growing acceptance of Rabbi Horowitz’s words, and there have been a few positive statements by qualified rabbis calling for police reporting without waiting for permission from the Agudah. But still, the abusers laugh at justice, and as long as they do, we will continue to suffer as their progeny- the evildoers they helped create by their inaction, if nothing else - multiply, as each abuser creates more and more abusers.