A Heart Felt Apology: One Given – One Needed

One of the most painful things for victims of sex abuse (aside from the actual abuse) is the lack of any sincere public apologies from the rabbinic leaders who allowed abuse to continue via their inaction. The most famous result of their inaction is the case of Rabbi Yehuda Kolko. He was accused by a victim of sexual abuse. After consultation with rabbinic leaders both here and in Israel Rabbi Kolko was allowed to continue as a Rebbe in a Yeshiva and continue sexually abusing or molesting young students.

It took an expose in a Jewish blog followed by an explosive article in a national magazine to once and for all end his career (which included a 20 year period on ongoing sexual abuse). That event set into motion a change in the way these things are now handled among these rabbinic leaders. While there is still work to be done – we’ve come a long way.

But the one thing that has not happened is the kind of thing that happened back in 2004 in the Yeshiva University Beis HaMedrash. It was an extraordinary event. A YU Rosh Yeshiva, Rabbi Mordechai Willig, called for a meeting. To an overflow crowd he publicly apologized on behalf of all 3 members of that Beis Din for their role in the Lanner affair.

They admitted that during the 1989 proceedings, they had made "errors in judgment and procedure that caused unnecessary pain and aggravation." They formally apologized to Elie Hiller, who brought the initial allegations of abuse against Rabbi Lanner, and to witnesses, victims, and their families.

It was a similar circumstance. Rabbi Baruch Lanner was abusing young women in his charge as an NCSY official. (I believe it was for a period of 20 years in his case too). When an adolescent young woman complained about him in 1989 - formal charges were brought before a Beis Din. It consisted of 3 rabbis: Mordechai Willig, Yosef Blau, and Aaron Levine. They exonerated Rabbi Lanner. This enabled him to continue his abuse.

It took some great investigative reporting by the Jewish Week and then the New York Times to finally get some justice. Rabbi Lanner was convicted of sex abuse and sentenced to a 7 year prison term. He has served 3 years of that sentence in prison and is currently serving the rest on parole.

That event caused heads to roll at NCSY. A blue ribbon panel was commissioned by the OU - NCSY’s parent organization - to investigate who knew; what did they know; and when did they know it. It was headed by Richard Joel – the current President of YU. The investigation revealed that the cover up went all the way to the top. Heads rolled and new guidelines were put in place to prevent anything like that from ever happening again. These guidelines are now scrupulously followed.

But the initial Beis Din that exonerated Rabbi Lanner had not apologized until that day in 2004. And it was a remarkable event. It takes a lot of courage to admit a mistake that resulted in extending the reign of sex abuse by an abuser. Rabbi Willig pulled no punches and apologized profusely on behalf of all three members of the Beis Din. Some had criticized him - accusing him of doing so only because of mounting public pressure. Others questioned why he didn’t use a larger venue - anticipating the overflow crowd. Many who wanted to attend – could not be accommodated. But these issues are irrelevant to the amazing apology of a respected Rosh Yeshiva to such a grievous error in judgment. The far more appropriate reaction was described in the artilce:

"There is no greater form of mussar than a rebbe giving mussar to himself in front of his students," opined Ephraim Shapiro YC '01. "Rabbi Willig's sorely-needed message to his talmidim that no one is infallible is best served up as a mussar shmooze in their makom torah rather than a press conference." YSU vice president Yaakov Green concurred. "Coming from a former NCSY'er and a current NCSY administrator, I thought it was one of the most powerful and appropriate messages to be delivered in a Sichas Mussar. To hear a gadol BaTorah and one of a handful of poskei hador get up in front of an enormous crowd of his own talmidim and unequivocally admit his mistakes sends the message that not only are gedolim not infallible, but that it is the fact that they are able to admit their mistakes that makes them gedolim.

Imagine if this were an article in the Yated or in Hamodia. And imagine it was describing the words of an Agudah Moetzes member or any other rabbinic leader of that stature about their role in the Kolko affair. Substitute any name in place of Rabbi Willing in the article. Substitute the Lakewood Beis HaMedrash for the YU Beis HaMedrash. I think it would make a difference to the victims who suffered abuse because of their silence – to hear an Agudah Moetzes member talk like that.

As it stands now there is much bitterness among the victims. They feel ignored – even cast aside as in the rabbinic attempts to thwart a bill from passing in the New York State Assembly. The Markey Bill would have allowed a one year window of opportunity to sue abusers and their enablers whose time has expired due to the statute of limitations.

These victims need healing. Their lives have been unalterably affected by sex abuse. Though many of them have managed to get on with their lives – the pain and anguish of those memories is seared into their brains. Added to that is the pain of silence by the rabbinic leadership which continues to eat away at them. How can they feel anything but disappointment and anger?! Healing can only begin with the kind of sincere and heartfelt public apology issued by Rabbi Willig back in 2004. I agree with Yaakov Green - it is the fact that they are able to admit their mistakes that makes them gedolim.

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik’s Indispensible Imprint on Modern Orthodoxy

There is a fascinating insight by Rav Soloveietichk’s daughter, Mrs. Tovah Lichtenstein into the world of Modern Orthodoxy and her father’s role in it. It is referenced in a Forward review of a new book: Rabbi in the New World: The Influence of Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik on Culture, Education and Jewish Thought:

The book gives the last word to Tovah Lichtenstein, Soloveitchik’s daughter, who argues quite plausibly that without her father, Modern Orthodoxy would have been swallowed up by the Conservative movement, leaving the Haredi version as the only kind of Orthodox Judaism in America. And the Israel-based Lichtenstein ends with a chilling judgment of the contemporary American scene, claiming that while many cite Soloveitchik to further their own agendas, few follow in his path. Perhaps his example of living in two intellectual worlds simultaneously was too complex or too demanding, she says, but whatever the reason, her father’s form of Orthodoxy is in danger of disappearing in America.

I think she has hit the nail on its head. I don’t think Modern Orthodoxy could have survived without Rav Soloveitchik. Although the Rav never referred to himself as Modern Orthodox he clearly gave it its philosophical underpinnings. He was the quintessential role model for Torah U’Mada – at least as it pertains the the value given to secular studies. He was a world class Talmid Chacham on par with the greatest Torah minds of his generation – this at a very young age.

As a PhD in philosophy and a world class Jewish philosopher in his own right – he showed the world how it’s done. He studied the discipline at the University of Berlin in a non Jewish completely objective context– in a secular university of world renown. But he did not study it without first having a serious grounding in the Judaism of his forefathers. And he never put his secular studies ahead of Torah. Torah was always the most important thing on his agenda.

Not that he was an avowed adherent of Torah U’Mada but his actions spoke loudly on this subject. His studying the Mada in its unadulterated form without any Jewish biases on the part of his professors and then understanding it via his Halachic and Hashkafic mind is the essence of the philosophy of Torah U’Mada as I understand it. In my view - this is how he was able to create such masterpieces of Jewish though as Halakhik Man and Lonely Man of Faith.

Of course this was not his only contribution to modern Orthodoxy. He was the guiding light of all who had him as his Rebbe. And his light shone forth through a multi-faceted prism – with each facet being relevant to those who saw him through it. So that he could be either a Rebbe; a profound influence on; or even a role model to, people like Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, Rav Hershel Schachter, Rav Aaron Rakeffet, Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, Rabbi Avi Weiss, Rav Gedaliah Schwartz, Rabbi David Hartman, Rabbi Sholom Carmy, Rabbi Jacob J. Schachter, and many many others whose Hashkafos are in some cases far apart from each other.

The Rav’s detractors on the right saw this as a failing. How - they ask - could he be a Rebbe to such a wide variety of people some of whom are vehemently opposed to the Hashkafos of others? Could the Rav be so contradictory – saying one thing to one person and virtually the opposite to another?

The answer of course is that many on this list have diverged quite far from their Rebbe and have admitted doing so. But there are others who will say that their Hashkafos are entirely based on the Rav even as others say the Rav rejected those Hashkafos. The reason should be obvious. The Rav believed in Chanoch L’Naar Al Pi Darko.

In matters of Hashkafa a lot depends on who is asking and what the circumstances are. So as it pertains to something like Women’s Teffilah Groups which he opposed – he actually gave Halachic advice to one of his ordained rabbis on how to do it halachicly. This is not a contradiction. It is an example of knowing when to permit something that one might ordinarily frown upon because of a greater good. The Rav knew to whom and under what circumstances to say yes - and when to say no. That was his strength not his weakness.

Of course there were issues that he did not compromise on – such as removing Mechitzos from a Shul. He unequivocally forbade doing that under any circumstances. On the other hand the Rav was not afraid to go against the tide even if he was alone in doing so. For example he had positive views on the State of Israel. And he permitted serving on a rabbinical council comprised of Conservative and Reform Rabbis on non theological matters that affected the Klal.

He was truly a giant.

There are of course other influences that have greatly impacted Modern Orthodoxy including the Rav’s brother Rav Ahron Soloveichik; Rabbi Drs: Eliezer Berkovits, Bernard Revel, Samuel Belkin, and Norman Lamm to name but a few. But I do not believe they alone could have sustained it.

So even though as Mrs. Lichtenstein points out very few if any follow his path, I believe - as she does - that without the Rav’s guidance; his influence; his imprint - Modern Orthodoxy could have quite easily been swallowed up by the Conservative movement.

A Tale of Two Patients

I have been out of commission for most of the day today – spending a good deal of it in a hospital emergency room.

I am OK.

But that was not the case at about 10:00 this morning when I was literally writhing in pain (in my stomach). My wife rushed me to the emergency room. I had an IV attached that fed me a pain killer – which stopped the pain. After a CT scan I was told that I had a kidney stone that was moving through the ureter from my kidney to my bladder. The nurses there all told me that the pain experienced by a moving kidney stone is comparable to that of the pain of giving birth.

In any case I am now fine and recovering from the grogginess that the pain killer gave me. I will also be working a wedding tonight. This leaves no time to post anything today – except for this brief history of my day today.

Speaking of hospitals, my grandson Reuven had successful surgery on his skull to remove a fast growing tumor. It penetrated the membrane between the skull and the brain. But the surgeon said he was able to remove all visible traces of the tumor without damaging the brain. He is in recovery now and conscious.

What a day!

Chitzonius - Do Clothes Make the Man?

We know that our Hashkafos are different. Charedim and Modern Orthodox Jews have different ways of approaching the Torah. In a nutshell the former rejects modernity except where absolutely necessary and the latter embraces it where it does not conflict with Halacha.

There are many other differences but I think that in terms of lifestyle this is what defines us. I have no quarrel with the Charedi Hashkafos. Just because I have a different outlook I certainly find their views acceptable. But the reverse is not true. They do not accept us. And I believe that they go to great lengths to keep us separate and apart.

One of the ways they achieve this is through their insistence on a certain look. The de rigueur dress code for Charedim these days is what is called the ‘black hat’ look. This look is comprised of wearing dark dress slacks and a white shirt at all times and a black hat and suit type jacket for prayer. This look is so entrenched that many Charedi elementary schools require their 8th graders to wear the look. These young students are led to believe that it has always been like this.

But it wasn’t always like this. As recently as the early sixties when I was in Telshe Yeshiva in Cleveland, none of the high school students looked like that. They looked like any other young teenagers of that era – plaid shirts, flannel shirts, colored shirts, pull-over type shirts... were the order of the day. Blue Jeans were not allowed but wash pants were. Hats and jackets were required for prayer – but they did not require the black felt fedoras and suit type jackets that are universally required today. Jackets were a mix of suit type jackets and casual type jackets (e.g. ‘members only’ style jackets or even leather jackets) and hats could be a cap – even a baseball cap. In my day there were few students who wore their tzitzis out. And the only students who had peyos were the few Chasidim that were in the Yeshiva. None of the rest of us did.

If one goes back further in time one will see amazing pictures of what the Yeshiva world looked like. And as can clearly be seen by these photos there were no peyos on these rabbinic leaders. They looked – well – normal.

The question is why? What happened? Why the change? Why the uniform? What motivated the current fashion trend? Why was it OK for the famed Lakewood Rosh HaYeshiva, Rav Shneur Kotler (pictured above) to look like he did when he attended the Chevron Yeshiva in Israel? Or to look like Rav Aharon Leib Shteineman did as a young man? Charedi publications rarely if ever publish pictures like this. They need to protect the current image - as though this is how it has always been.

I can only speculate but here is my theory. There are two reasons. One is the influence of Chasidim on the Yeshiva world. Whereas in the Europe of the past the two communities were separate and distinct – for the most part living in different areas – today there is integration. And with integration comes influence.

The dress of Chasidim always looked different and distinctive. They clearly wanted to completely separate themselves from the rest of the world so they did everything they could to isolate themselves from it – including dressing radically different. They wanted a distinctively ‘Jewish look’. Although I doubt there is anything intrinsically Jewish about their clothing - much of it borrowed from the style of clothing worn by the Polish nobility of old - they succeeded in looking nothing like the rest of the world does now.

The Yeshiva world looked at that and adopted the idea of a distinctive look, But in its desire to maintain a separate look from Chasidm they have instead chosen a look that is at its base modern (suit and tie) but yet different enough to separate themselves from the rest of Orthodoxy.

It used to be enough to just wear a Kipa in public. But now a Kipa is not enough of a difference for them. Modern Orthodox Jews wear a Kipa. Even some Conservative Jews and Reform rabbis now wear a one. Charedim do not want to be perceived in any of those categories.

With the move to the right going on along the entire spectrum of Judaism – Orthodoxy is certainly no less immune to such moves. As the look of the modern Orthodox students started to look more like the Charedi students – Charedim needed to do more to separate themselves and have gradually changed their appearance into the ‘black hat’ look.

How important is that look now? I’m fairly certain that a student would be expelled from a Charedi Yeshiva high school if he insisted on wearing a non white shirt on occasion. I have spoken to young Charedi women looking for Shiduchim who say they would never date a guy who wore even a striped shirt.

In one instance a young student in a major Yeshiva was harassed by a Rosh Yeshiva – trying to get him to wear the typical Charedi velvet Kipa. He wore a suede Kipa that was just as large as the velvet ones. But that nonetheless violated their dress code. They did not expel him for that, but that they considered it so important tells a story. They do not want their students to look like a student at Yeshiva University.

Insisting on being different does a great disservice to the idea of Klal – of people-hood. It is divisive. Achdus is now off the radar for the right. The only Achdus they see is Charedi Achdus.

This may breed a sense of loyalty and belonging to the ‘club’ of Charedim. But at what price? What does this attitude say about even the most Ehrlich student at YU?

If anyone thinks I am exaggerating, I am reminded that not long ago a blue shirted student was photo-shopped out of a picture taken of a right wing Yeshiva Beis HaMedrash, lest anyone doubt its Charedi credentials.

One might say who cares about how anyone dresses? Clothes do not make the man. I believe that’s true. But I don’t think that the right wing Yeshivos think that. At least not anymore. Chitzonius is now a high priority. It is almost as though it is more important to look Charedi than to be Charedi. They are way too focused on appearances. Why? I think it’s because they don’t want to have anything to do with modernity. That is a shame and it was clearly not the intent of their predecessors as can be seen from those photos. Times have changed and in my opinion we are worse off for it.

The O Word

An e-mail list to which I belong is debating the value of using the term Orthodox to describe those of us who have traditional beliefs about the God, Torah and Mitzvah observance. One of the more famous statements about this was by Rav Gifter – the great Rosh HaYeshiva of Telshe. He hated the term. He felt that it was thrust upon us unwillingly by the Reform as a pejorative. He therefore never used it. He preferred using terms like observant.

In the course of the discussion on that list someone quoted a passage from the writings of Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch that spells out this attitude:

It was not the 'Orthodox' Jews who introduced the word 'orthodoxy' into Jewish discussion. It was the modern 'progressive' Jews who first applied this name to 'old', 'backward' Jews as a derogatory term. This name was at first resented by 'old' Jews. And rightly so. 'Orthodox' Judaism does not know any varieties of Judaism. It conceives Judaism as one and indivisible. It does not know a Mosaic, prophetic and rabbinic Judaism, nor Orthodox and Liberal Judaism. It only knows Judaism and non-Judaism. It does not know Orthodox and Liberal Jews. It does indeed know conscientious and indifferent Jews, good Jews, bad Jews or baptised Jews; all, nevertheless, Jews with a mission which they cannot cast off. They are only distinguished accordingly as they fulfil or reject their mission.

I find Rav Hirsch’s explanation falls short. His premise is that we are defined by a mission that we cannot cast off. Reform might say exactly the same thing. They just define the mission differently. This can in fact be stated by all denominations.

How we define that mission is what denominations are all about.

The word has no pejorative meaning attached to it. Here is Wikipedia's definition:

The word orthodox, from Greek orthos ("right", "true", "straight") + doxa ("opinion" or "belief", related to dokein, "to think"),[1] is generally used to mean the adherence to accepted norms, more specifically to creeds, especially in religion...

Orthodox Jewry is right, true, and straight in its opinions and beliefs; and we adhere to accepted norms. Why fight the term? There is nothing wrong with it!

Some might counter that by calling ourselves Orthodox we lend credence to the idea that there are other legitimate denominations of Judaism. Perhaps one could interpret it that way. But that is not necessarily the case. We refer to other religions by their name too. Does that mean we lend credence to their theologies?

It is useful to refer to groups of people by the names they call themselves. Without identifying them it would be impossible to have intelligent conversations about them. Even if we were to say observant versus non-observant – how would that tell us whether we are talking about Conservative or Reform? Besides Conservative Rabbis would say they are observant. And even Reform Jews might say that in the sense that they mean it.

So with all due respect to Rav Gifter and Rav Hirsch (and as I have said in the past) the definition fits and I wear that label proudly. I don't care who thought up the label 'Orthodox' ...or why.

I'm sure that the Orthodox Union (OU) feels the same way.

When ‘Daas Torah’ is Not Daas Torah

When Pinny Taub speaks, it’s hard not to listen. Pinny is a survivor of sex abuse. He tells his story in a two part video uploaded to YouTube. I featured it in a post last year when Chicago hosted the first in a series of lectures sponsored by the Jewish Board of Advocates for Children (JBAC).

He has recently written an impassioned defense of the Agudah Moetzes with respect to reporting sex abuse - requiring first going to rabbis and getting their permission before going to the police. He also had a scathing attack against bloggers and others for impugning the integrity and competence of rabbinic leaders on the Agudah Moetzes calling it Chutzpah and a Chilul HaShem beyond words.

He says that the kind of garbage being hurled at the Gedolim and their holy organizations is unprecedented in our day. And although it pains him to do it, he directs his anger toward people he believed were protectors of the abused in the Jewish community – people he once called friends.

I have no quarrel with someone who has been sexually abused. He has certainly more than earned the right to speak his mind on a subject like this. I would even agree that some of the criticism of the Agudah (and by implication – their Moetzes) has been overdone and undeserved. They have indeed made much progress in recent years in this area. But that doesn’t mean they are beyond criticism.

If one perceives a flaw in their attitude that they believe should be corrected, they not only have a right to say so, they have an obligation. They may be wrong about it. But speaking up is certainly better than keeping quiet. They may in fact be right. And urging the Agudah Moetzes to change its attitude may actually be the right thing to do as long as it is done respectfully.

The Agudah Moetzes reaction to any criticism should be taken in the spirit that it is given, and their response should of course be whatever they think is right. If the end result is no change, at least the objection was heard and considered. I would of course add that if the criticism is mean spirited and made merely to denigrate them; it should be treated that way and discarded.

I must however respectfully disagree with Pinny Taub here. I do not see those who advocate for the victims of abuse guilty of denigrating the Agudah Moetzes. They have simply questioned their most recent proclamation to first discuss evidence of abuse with a Rabbi before going to the police.

First - they fear that even a small delay may have harmful consequences. They also fear that rabbis no matter how sincere may be unduly influenced by the religiosity of the accused or his good reputation in the community. Or that rabbis unduly fear the consequences to his wife and children. Or that the concern for a falsely accused victim – which is indeed a legitimate concern – might make them too reluctant to report a case of abuse.

That Gedoloim can make such mistakes is clear. They definitely have the best of intentions. I have no doubt about that. But they can make grievous errors and this actually happened. Read on.

There is another individual for whom I have great respect. Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn’s Seforim can be found in Yeshivos, Kollelim, and Jewish homes all over the world. In a recent essay he describes one such error made by people he calls ‘genuine gedolim’. It led to devastating consequences even though it was done with the best intentions – totally L’Shem Shamayim.

The decision was made in complete ignorance of knowledge quite readily available. Had they consulted with experts, they would not have made the fateful decision they did. But they did not consult. They believed they had found a solution on their own - Daas Torah.

This was not Daas Torah. It was a decision made in ignorance and made by people not competent to make it. Here is what happened as told to Rabbi Eidensohn by a group of rabbis who have extensive experience dealing with these issues.

There was a brilliant young man from a distinguished family who was a Masmid with great character traits and very good looking. He did have one slight flaw, however. He was a pedophile who had abused over 100 children by the time he was 24.

The Roshei Yeshiva of the major Yeshiva this pedophile was at - became aware of the problem. They came up with what they thought was a brilliant solution to his Taavos - his lustful deviancy. They would marry him off and he could re-direct his Taavos toward his wife. They found a wonderful young woman who was orphaned and was ecstatic that these great Roshei Yeshiva thought of her and matched her up with such a wonderful catch. She had complete Emunas Chachamin and trusted them. They of course did not tell her about the young man’s predilections or his past.

To quote Rabbi Eidensohn:

Since they "knew" that the problem would be solved by marriage there obviously wasn't any reason to mention to her that this young man had destroyed the life of 100 children. They also didn't bother checking with a psychologist with expertise with pedophiles - after all what does a psychologist know?

The predictable happened. They got married and had a family. But her husband continued to feed his pedophile appetite - unbeknownst to her. Rumors persisted about him and eventually she found out about it ‘the hard way’. It was via a visit from the police investigating charges against him.

Needless to say she was ‘traumatized’ and the family was destroyed. She had been raised to think that all those who are considered Gedolim are near infallible in their decisions – born Tazadikim created as such while still in the womb. She trusted them. Now she was in fear that her husband might be abusing her own children. With the aid of a caring rabbi who raised the money, she obtained a divorce.

End of story. So I ask this of Pinny Taub. Does he not worry that this attitude might still exist at some level? I realize of course that there has been enough improvement in this area so that the above story would not happen today. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t criticize a judgment call by the Agudah Moetzes. Just because a particular story would not happen today, does not mean a bad decision might not generate some other trauma.

I’m sure the Agudah Moetzes gave their decision in this matter a lot of thought and believe this is Daas Torah. But then again so did the ‘genuine gedolim’ in the story above.

Bottom line is that no matter how much improvement there has been in how the Torah world deals with these issues it is imperative that we do not rely unquestioningly on the views of even great Rabbanim. We are obligated to ask and re-ask questions when we have them (respectfully – of course) about their decisions. If we don’t - we shirking our duty to our children and to Klal Yisroel.

Update:
Pinny Taub clarified his original post on Cross Currents in their comment section. Apparently he did not criticize those who have had constructive criticism - only hate filled criticism. I think we can all agree that hate filled criticism is wrong - as I said above. I only wish he had made that distinction in the body of the post instead of the comments. His post made it seem like any criticism of the Agudah is evil. I apologize to him for the misunderstanding.

Fourteen Facts about Sex

Guest Post by ‘Someone with Experience’

The following was sent to me by an Orthodox Jew who deals professionally with people who have porn addictions and related problems. He is also very knowledgeable in matters of Halacha and Hashkafa. He has however chosen to remain anonymous. So without giving away his identity, I will only say that he is someone whose opinion I truly value. What follows are his words unedited in their entirety.

Here are a few facts (or opinions) from someone with experience:

1) Sexual addictions exist (despite the DSM), and can have withdrawal symptoms.

2) Every addiction has a satiation point. One can drink/drug until passing out, or OD/poisoning. One can gamble until all money is gone. Even sexual behavior has its satiation point. In contrast, porn lacks an end point. It is visual stimulation, and it is only through imagery that one gets any excitement from it. Since it is close to endless, it has potential to become extremely ingrained.

3) The porn addict is not so because his wife fails to satisfy him. She is not responsible. Rather, everyone has desires, and needs to learn how to channel them toward kedusha and marriage rather than to leave them unbridled.

4) Porn addiction existed before internet. The internet just rendered this accessible to every computer and most cell phones.

5) Today’s streets lack tznius, even in the frummest neighborhoods. Women circulate, and the eyes of men wander all the time. One gadol stated clearly that a man who has just seen something on the street is not evil or guilty, but the second glance is the issur. Even a tzniusdige style can be provocative to a gazer.

6) The points about education prior to marriage were valid, but omitted one basic aspect. Our Chasanim and Kallahs generally have a teacher for halachos. Sadly, many of these are far from competent. Since they are often the first authority figures that engage in discussing these subjects, they are first to be consulted by newlyweds. Here is where their incompetence shines. And if these incompetents are then the "experts" consulted for Shalom Bayis problems, or even porn viewing, some people are in a lot of trouble.

7) The most important message needed for the prevention and rehabilitation for porn addiction is that human sexuality exists within a spiritual and emotional context. It is a human (animalistic) drive that becomes holy when contained and properly channeled. It becomes unholy and frankly animal when left to just satisfying lust.

8) In healthy marriage, there are no secrets. No hidden accounts, friendships, activities. Keeping such secrets fosters the "bungalow colony" syndromes that were discussed in recent articles.

9) As a community, we have been unnecessarily lax in permitting inter-gender relationships, so that the couples A and B will get together, with considerable discussion between Mr. A and Mrs. B. and vice versa. These relationships are halachically problematic, and even where one might challenge the stringency about the din, they are not smart. Similar inter-gender cavorting can occur in work situations, and these also need to be recognized as potential danger zones. Casual discussion of personal subjects was once taboo, but that is no longer the case. The dangers are very real. Deviancy has been defined downward, and much of prior taboo is accepted today. That is not for our ultimate good. Our chachomim used prophetic foresight in telling us, "Al tarbeh sichoh im ho'isho."

10) Anything a husband does that involves sexuality outside of the marital relationship will be experienced by the wife as betrayal, even if no other person was involved (such as voyeurism or porn). If such behavior is kept secret, it can create barriers where none should be. If not, the wife will likely feel terribly hurt and violated.

11) Marriage cures singlehood, nothing else. It will not change a man's libido nor his choices for how to satisfy it. That is determined by his adherence to moral values. It will not change his tendency to be impulsive, tense, depressed, or anything else. As one of the marriage books states, "Marriage is not a hospital."

12) Check out the website "guardureyes". It links to support systems, treatment professionals, literature and other print and online resources, filters, and monitors.

13) Filters control what material is permitted to enter your computer. Filters are not foolproof, and some people know how to "beat the system" and circumvent the filter. Monitoring software tracks the internet activity, and reports this to a designated outside party. There is a well known Rov in Brooklyn who requires every member of his kehila who has internet access to install such software and designate him as the receiver of the report. Some of these tools are available for cell phones as well.

14) Lastly, the world seems to have imposed universal internet activity on us, whether we like it or not. There is so much of business transaction that must involve internet access, and it is only getting stronger. We cannot download food, but it is soon that even grocery shopping will be more online than in stores. It is important to discuss the problems associated with porn. It is more important to develop better methods to build in protection in our computer use, and to build ourselves up as a "Mamleches Kohanim Vegoy Kodosh" so we are better able to resist the many temptations that comprise our environment.

My Prayer for Reuven Ben Tova Chaya

Although he is a near picture of health – a cat-scan done yesterday of my grandson Reuven Ben Tova Chaya shows otherwise. The Tumors in his lungs have dramatically increased in size. And a growth on his skull that was surgically removed last year has reappeared.

The news was not all bad. Other tumors either shrank or disappeared entirely. But this was not the news we were hoping for.

Doctors have not given up hope. And his prognosis has not changed for the worse. There will apparently be more surgery to remove the tumor on his skull (his brain is not affected) and he will resume his regimen of oral chemo-therapy.

Reuven is also on a specially designed diet that has helped many cancer patients reduce and even eliminate tumors. I personally know of a few such cases. He will continue on that regimen.

Tens of thousands of people world wide have been praying for him. Some in their daily Shemonah Esreh some saying Tehillim in groups or as individuals. Others have been learning Torah or doing Chesed in his Zechus. Your Teffilos are very much needed and appreciated. I know they are helping. He has already beat the odds. But he has a long way to go.

Please! Keep them coming.

I do not cry easily. But I cried like a baby after watching a YouTube video of actor Alfie Boe (as Jean Valjean) singing ‘Bring Him Home’ from the musical version of Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables. I thought of it earlier today as I was agonizing over the news and accessed it .

While not an exact match to our situation these words express my current state of mind. It is a prayer to God.

God on high
Hear my prayer
In my need
You have always been there

He is young
He's afraid
Let him rest
Heaven blessed.
Bring him home
Bring him home
Bring him home.

He's like the son I might have known
If God had granted me a son.
The summers die
One by one
How soon they fly
On and on
And I am old
And will be gone.

Bring him peace
Bring him joy
He is young
He is only a boy

You can take
You can give
Let him be
Let him live
If I die, let me die
Let him live
Bring him home
Bring him home
Bring him home.

Terrorist Charedim - Hooligans or Mainstream?

I know I should be used to it by now. But the idea of young Charedi Jews acting like gangs of juvenile delinquents still gets to me. In yet another article - this time in the Jerusalem Post -we find a young Chiloni couple who were terrorized by these young punks screaming ‘Shabbes’ as they tried to drive through Neveim - a Jerusalem street located near Meah Shearim.

I understand their sensibilities about Chilul Shabbos. I even understand why they would be upset by the desecration of Shabbos in their neighborhood. When one lives in the holy city of Jerusalem in a neighborhood that is as Charedi as Meah Shearim and its environs, it is disconcerting to have one’ s Sabbath peace so flagrantly and carelessly violated. So I actually sympathize with their anguish at seeing this. I might even excuse a shout or two of ‘Shabbes’.

But what I cannot excuse is the lawlessness that follows. From a victim of an encounter with them as reported in Jeruslam Post:

These people attempt to persuade the ‘heathen’ by putting dumpsters in the road, by throwing trash around and burning it, by throwing rocks at passing cars, and by shouting, “Shaaaaaabbbbbaaaaaasssss!” like a horde of zombies. And the most disgusting thing about it is that the majority of the rioters are young boys; even children hurl trash and insults at passing cars…

A few weeks ago, I was driving back to Jerusalem from the Galilee with my boyfriend Anis. We were both commenting on how nice it was to be out of the city for a while to breathe lighter air. But we both felt the familiar Jerusalem tension return and build within us as we arrived and drove deeper into the Holy City. As we were driving up Hanevi’im Street, a couple of punk kids were still standing at the street corner trying to provoke people. We gently swerved around trash and a big dumpster when a 12-year-old boy looked us in the eye before kicking a large plastic box directly in our way.

Of course we all know the response of the some in the Charedi world to these so called juvenile delinquents. They deplore what these kids do. However this is always followed with a ‘but’! Here is the typical argument:

The Chilonim driving down Nevi’im on Shabbos should have known better, they were only there to stir up trouble. And these kids are indeed punks – hooligans with lots of time on their hands. Nobody gives them permission to do this. Don’t judge the entire community of Meah Shearim by these JDs. Their leaders have exhorted them to stop but to no avail. What are they supposed to do? The exhortations of the rabbinic leaders fall on deaf ears. Every community in the world has their share of gangs and hooligans - criminals and Juvenile delinquents.

Here is my response. These kids are not juvenile delinquents. They have distinctive Peyos and the black ‘uniform’ found amongst only the most Charedi of Charedi people. And they are the only ones involved in this. These are not people who have left the fold to become drug dealers and pimps. These are not gun toting gang members who participate in drive by shootings. No one is trying to feed a drug habit by mugging passers-by. These are all kids who believe they are the guardians of the faith. They truly believe that their actions are protecting the sancity of Shabbos.

They are mainstream in their thinking if not their actions. They are L’Shma in their motives - motives shared by the entire community. They have parents who love them and feel a sense of outrage when Shabbos is violated by a Chiloni driving through their streets. The contemptuous attitude against these Chiloni Shabbos desecraters are angrily communicated to their kids. The kids see it; they live it;. they eat; it they breathe it! These are ‘religious’ kids would sooner cut off their right arm that cut off their peyos. They dress the part; look the part; …and are the part!

That ‘look’ is one of the primary focuses of their education. A real juvenile delinquent from their circles wouldn’t bother with that look. They maintain that look and do what they do in the name of God! They see themselves as the vanguard in the fight against Chilul Shabbos - soldiers for God. Their methods may not be approved of by their parents, rabbinic leaders, or the rest of their community. But their motives are applauded!

These young punks know that and this fuels their terrorist tactics. All the protestations in the world from their own religious leaders are seen merely as their public face – not actual disapproval. They believe that in their hearts those rabbis actually sympathize and praise these young Kaanaim for their Milchemta Shel Mitzvah. Their holy war.

I have said this in the past. Many times. I blame their parents, their rabbinic leadership, and the entire community for creating this ‘monster’ and maintaining it. If they really wanted this to stop – it would. There people know how to discipline their kids. The reason this continues is because they want it too. They could care less what the rest of even the religious world thinks.

I realize that I am spitting in the wind. But I needed to vent!

Why I Do Not Give Up on Achdus

The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) is anti religious. So goes the conventional wisdom. But is that true? The answer is clearly no. It is not anti religious. This is not to say that they are entirely religion friendly – as their standard issue miniskirt uniforms for females attests to. But they are definitely not anti religious.

Still one may ask – how can I say that? Think about all those orders given to Religious Zionist (RZ) soldiers about evacuating settlers from illegal settlements. Some RZ Rabbis urged soldiers to disobey those orders. Many of them said they would. Is that not proof that they are anti religious? The answer of course is that it is not at all proof. It only proves that they do not recognize Religious Zionist claims that dismantling settlements is a violation of Halacha.

The fact is that not only are they not anti religious, they actually value religious soldiers. So much so that they have gone to great lengths to accommodate them. This is not something they just thought of yesterday. If one looks at the Hesder Yeshiva program one would see that valuing and accommodating the religious soldier is almost as old as the State of Israel itself.

For those who don’t know what the Hesder program is, Religious Zionist soldiers are allowed to serve in the IDF simultaneously with a Yeshiva learning program - alternating periods of learning with periods of army service all under the guidance of Hesder Roshei Yeshiva. They serve in units together with fellow religious Zionists and have distinguished themselves in past wars of survival by volunteering in groups for the most dangerous combat assignments. This was a well known fact among the entirety of Israel – including secular Jews.

It is only recently that Religious Zionist soldiers have become controversial as they continue to cling to their own notions of the Halachic status of West Bank settlements. Up until recently Hesder Soldiers were admired by all for their bravery. All this made for a major Kiddush HaShem.

Nonetheless the right wing Charedi world never really approved of Hesder and did not allow any of their students to join. They view any part of the IDF including Hesder very negatively. The IDF was considered an evil place to be avoided at all cost.

But that has changed in a major way. So much so that 76 year old Rav Yitzchok Zilberstein – a major Charedi Posek from Bnei Brak, son in law of Rav Elyashiv, and brother in law to Rav Kanievsky has actually praised them. The IDF not only values the Hesder soldier, they value the Charedi soldier.

Why?

Cross-Currents has a post by a Charedi Avreich who joined Shachar - an IDF program specially designed for Charedim who have been in a Yeshiva or Kollel for more than 4 years past age 18. Here is what he said.

We’ve been told multiple times by different officers who come to speak to us that what the army is really lacking today isn’t manpower, but quality manpower. That’s what they see in the charedi community; a community in which learning is valued and which maintains a high moral standard both of which are important qualities that the IDF looks for in a soldier. Because of that, they are willing to bend over backwards to accommodate us.

This program is so accommodating that the commanding officer who is not religious said the following during an introductory speech:

…the army wants to ensure that we keep “the Kutzo Shel Yud (smallest detail) of Halacha.” If at any point we feel pressured in this area, we should know that it is only as a result of ignorance on their part and they would appreciate it if we would bring it to their attention so that they can resolve the issue.

The standard of Kashrus is Eida HaCharedis. There is strict separation of the sexes and all officers are male. Learning in Kollel is not only permitted but one may use Semicha in lieu of the college degree required for promotion to the office of Lieutenant Colonel or higher:

There was an officer from Cholon who decided that instead of getting a BA he wanted to learn for smicha at Rav Zilbershtein’s kollel, and so he arranged all the paperwork for the kollel to be officialy recognized by the army. That officer now heads one of the branches of Shachar.

But nothing I read prepared me for the following. It almost made me tear as it was so against type:

At one point during the time I spent there, Rav Zilbershtein was coming to Yerushalayim to speak at the Agudas Yisroel Yarchei Kallah, so I got approval from my commander to go to the speech instead of going to the kollel that day. Being that I was only traveling locally, I decided to come in a hat and jacket as opposed to my army uniform that I wore daily to the kollel. The next day Rav Zilbershtein called me over.

“Why didn’t you wear your uniform yesterday?” He asked me. “I was only traveling locally. I felt more comfortable in my hat and jacket,” I replied. “I think you should have come in your uniform,” he responded. When I seemed puzzled, he continued, “Do you know what a Limud Zechus you are on the Medina? Here the Medina pays you a salary and tells you ‘Make sure to keep your religious lifestyle, make sure that you learn Torah.’ You need to publicize that! I think that whenever you go to a public place of learning, you should wear your uniform.”

I never could have imagined a comment like this from a Charedi Posek. He actually cared that we see the IDF in a favorable way religiously. I could almost feel a sense of pride in the Medina in a statement like this.

How different this is from what one usually hears from Charedi circles. Just about every word out of the mouth of the Charedi Kenesset members about the State is a disparagement. And now a man who is clearly about as Charedi as can be – literally a Zaken - an elder among Israeli Charedi leaders talking about publicly showing the IDF in a favorable light.

The only word I can think of to describe my feelings is ‘Wow!’ What a sea change in attitude. Isn’t it amazing what a little good will can do?

That said I do not delude myself to think that Charedim, Religious Zionists, and Chilonim will all now live happily ever after in unison as one people with one heart and one goal. There is still plenty of acrimony and resentment from all sides to go around. Too many years have passed where the status quo was enmity. That is not going to change overnight. But it was so refreshing to see Rav Zilberstein say these things about the IDF and the State of Israel itself. Maybe – just maybe – this is a turning point in the relationship between factions. You never know.

The Increasing Problem of Porn Addiction

I’m beginning to wonder just how common this problem is. But it does seem to be big and growing. I am talking about porn addiction in the Frum world. Yet again I read a letter to an advice columnist about a wife that discovered her husband has been frequenting porn sites. She was devastated by it and confronted her husband. At first denied it but then blamed it on a past involving women and drugs and the male sex drive. She does not see her marriage surviving.

The advice columnist, Emuna Braverman, responded that their situation was far from hopeless and that the problem exists even with people from ‘pristine backgrounds’. She advises that her husband see a therapist that deals with porn addiction. Good advice.

Mrs. Braverman also notes that the male sex drive is indeed very strong and that is why there are so many Halachos dealing with men avoiding erotic images.

Why is this such a problem these days? Here are my thoughts.

I believe the Gemara’s famous statement forbidding gazing at even the baby finger of a woman is a clear recognition of the power of the male sex drive. It does not always take the most erotic image to arouse the male libido. It depends on the individual and it is not necessarily related to background or level of observance.

It’s more the mental state of the individual man than it is the image he is viewing. The Rambam Paskins that men are forbidden from gazing at the baby finger of a woman (Issurei Biah 21:2). But it is only forbidden if one intends it for pleasure in which case it is the same as looking at her nakedness – the Makom Erva.

It is therefore pretty clear that it is the erotic intent of the viewer rather than the image itself that is the culprit. Chazal understood the nature of the male libido. It’s not about the finger. It is about what’s on the mind of the viewer when he looks at it. This is supported by the fact that no Halacha Sefer in the world requires women to cover their baby finger.

So why would anyone see a woman’s baby finger as erotic today? I think it is because western culture bombards us with a constant flow of erotic images of varying degree. It is almost impossible to walk down a street and not see an erotic image somewhere. Whether on a billboard or on the side of a passing bus - advertisement images like this are everywhere. Advertisers long ago learned that ‘sex sells’. People will pay attention to a product or service if there is a beautiful woman in the picture selling it.

Images like this are stored somewhere in the brain and are kept just barely below consciousness to those who so constantly see them. For those whose self control is weak it doesn’t take much to want to access porn on an I-phone in the privacy of an office or study after the libido has been stimulated all day long.

The ease of viewing porn is just too great of a temptation in a culture such as ours. Especially since it can be easily hidden from one’s loved ones most of the time. All that is needed in far too many cases apparently is the slightest urge to view it - and instantly it’s on an I-phone.

This is why there is so much antagonism by rabbinic leaders toward the internet these days. It is for a good reason. Many marriages have been ruined by husbands who access porn on the internet. And many more are in trouble. As the above mentioned article indicates

It is all too easy to say that one should exercise self control. But - Ein Apitropus L’Arayos. There is no way to guard against immoral behavior. Given the opportunity we can all succumb. The Gemarah sites cases where even Tanaim were tempted – given the right stimuli and circumstances for them. No one is immune.

On the other hand, we also know that simply banning the internet from our lives will not work. Aside from the fact that there is far too much value in it to ban it - it is unrealistic since online proliferation seems to be saturating all manner of communication devices. And no one is really paying attention to internet bans anyway.

So how do we handle this brave new world we live in? The answer is that we can’t fully control it. Self control may work for most of us most of the time. But it is far from foolproof. The same thing is true about internet filters. Functioning in the modern world gives us little choice but to have - and to use the iternet. Increasingly so. The internet has become an invaluable tool for the vast majority of the civilized world. Trying to ban it is almost like trying to ban air. For the potential porn addict – he will find his porn and his libido will keep him coming back.

I truly believe that the internet is responsible for the current rash of porn addictions in the Frum community. Although it is obvious that self control is an important element in dealing with this problem it is just as obvious that self control is not enough. It might work for most people but the fact is that there are increasing numbers of porn addicts in the Frum community. I also know is that all the banning and exhortations about its evils in the world do not work. That is obvious too.

It seems we have a real and probably growing problem… with no real solution except vigilance and understanding. Obvioulsy all precuations should be taken to avoid looking at porn. But in far too many cases its going to happen anyway. The only way to really deal with it then is post facto.

If a problem is discovered with a loved one, anger and frustration may result – but that should not determine outcome. In my view the only realistic way to deal with the problem is by overcoming one’s anger upon discovery, understanding that it is not an insurmountable problem, and insisting on professional help for the discovered addict.

The Rav and Teaching Gemarah to Women

Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer who is familiar with the works of Rav Soloveitchik (hereafter called the Rav) contacted me about what he felt was an error in one of my recent posts. It is an error that is sure to stir controversy.

In a post about PhDs in Talmud, I mentioned the more or less famous view of the Rav that he permitted and even encouraged women to study all manner of Torah – both SheB’Ksav and SheBal Peh – written and oral.

Even though women have historically been denied the opportunity to learn Gemarah based on the Mishna in Sotah (20a) which says teaching women Torah equals Tiflus – he felt that it was an Eis Laasos - a time act and change that paradigm. He had a precedent for such change when back in the early part of 2oth century Rav Yisroel Meir Kagan, the Chafetz Chaim, approved of the new Beis Yaakov movement. For the first time women were formally taught Chumash with Meforshim – as many are today in Beis Yaakovs all over the world.

The Rav took this one step further. He had been quoted to the effect that it would be wrong to deny women the opportunity to study Gemarah in an era where they earn PhDs in all manner of study. And to prove his dedication to that idea he gave the inaugural Shiur in Talmud at Yeshiva University’s Stern College for Women.

But the truth of the matter is that there seems to be a dispute about just how far this permit went.

In all the literature that I had seen heretofore I was pretty convinced that his permit was complete. That he did not mean to in any way limit women being taught Torah. That may be the case. But there is evidence to the contrary.

Rabbi Bechhofer informed me of a passage in ‘An American Dreamer’. This is a book written by Rabbi Dr. Seth Farber( based on his doctoral dissertation) that focused on the Maimonides School in Boston - founded by the Rav . Therein he quotes the views of the Rav’s illustrious grandson Rabbi Mayer Twersky. Rabbi Twersky asserts that the Rav’s views on teaching women Gemarah were not that they could be taught all of it in the same manner as men were taught.

Here is how Rabbi Farber puts it.

(The Rav felt that) the teaching of Talmud to women was not an innovation at all but rather an expression of what might be called ‘Torah intuition’. According to his approach the drive for women to study Torah arose from a breakdown in the system of the Jewish community. Only optional study, in Rabbi Twersky’s view, was prohibited by the Talmudic injunction. Since Torah study, particularly the oral tradition, is essential to provide a firm foundation for faith in the modern period, the Talmudic prohibition was rendered inapplicable.

The strength of Rabbi Twersky’s position is that it accounts for the nontraditional curriculum instituted at the school (Maimonides). The Talmud curriculum instituted by Rabbi Soloveitchik was composed exclusively of practical tractates such as Shabbat, Chullin and Pesachim, a clear deviation from European norms. Rabbi Twersky explained that women were only permitted to study texts that were practiced.

Rabbi Farber asserts that it is difficult to accept that the classes at Maimonides were not innovative. He references Rabbi Walter Wurzburger’s disagreement with Rabbi Twersky. Rabbi Wurzburger felt that the Talmud curriculum for girls was for the purpose of ensuring that the girls would acquire a thorough knowledge of Halacha and that they develop a ‘genuinely Jewish perspective’ …and to show that the curriculum for both boys and girls was the same.

To bolster Rabbi Twersky’s position I was pointed in the direction of the author of ‘Shu’t Bnei Banim’, Rabbi Yehuda Herzl Henkin. He is the Rav and Halachic advisor of Nishmat - a woman’s Yeshiva in Israel founded by his wife, Rebbetzin Chana Henkin. Rav Henkin seems to corroborate Rabbi Twersky’s view of the Rav’s position:

R. Joseph B.Soloveichik z"l recommended teaching them sections that pertain to everyday life, such as parts of Mo'ed...

Rabbi Henkin then expanded the permit to the level of equalizing men and women’s Torah learning in all areas.

As I see it there is ample room for interpreting the Rav’s words with respect to teaching women Gemarah as being on the same high level as teaching top male Yeshiva students in the major Yeshivos. But I will admit that it remains unclear. One has to acknowledge that Rabbi Twersky is a legitimate interpreter of his grandfather’s Hashkafos. As well one has to admire Rabbi Henkin’s intellectual honesty in interpreting the Rav the same way.

What is clear is that the Rav’s view of teaching Torah to women even as Rabbi Twersky interpreted it is unheard of prior to the Rav. It is also clear - at least to me - that a woman is certainly permitted to learn any Gemarah she wishes at any level she wishes on he own or with other women. The only question is whether it is permitted to set up Yeshivos for women on par with – say a Lakewood, Mir, or Brisk.

In my view that is a moot question. There simply is not a critical mass of women that can be found that are willing to devote years of their lives sitting in a Beis HaMedrash poring over Gemarah, Rashi, Tosephos, Rishonim, and the many Achronim on Shas. Whether that is because of societal roles, Torah roles, or their own temperament is beside the point. It is just never going to happen on any mass basis. But individually, it may very possible for a woman to rise to very high level of Torah learning.

Rabbi Bechhofer had a final comment:

One of the greatest tragedies in male education is the universal skewing of the system towards Gemara b'iyun. The typical Bais Yaakov curriculum is the ideal for the overwhelming majority of people. The immersion in Lomdus was never, ever meant by Hashem or Chazal for more than the creme de la creme, the shufra d'shufra.

The tragic skewing is why girls who finish a Bais Yaakov HS are more often than not accomplished human beings and Orthodox Jews. Whereas boys who finish most yeshiva high schools have very imperfect middos and very imperfect knowledge of Judaism.

That is something to definitely think about.

Update - 12:11 PM CDT:
I have modified the post and identified the Talmid Chacham I had communicated with on this issue. I was unsure if he wanted to be identified so I held back his name. He has subsequently given his permission.

Let's Stay Safe

Rabbi Yaakov Horowitz has asked me to share this with my readers and I am happy to do so.

ArtScroll has just released the Project YES safety book written by Bracha Goetz - a project that he has worked on for 2 years. It is basically designed to give parents a script to speak to their kids about personal space and abuse prevention in the context of a general discussion of safety matters. It has received the approbation of of Torah Umesorah and Agudah. Hopefully this will be a real game-changer. It can be purchased here.

The Right to be Called a Gadol

Is if to reinforce my views that true Gedolim espouse their views regardless of the consequences to their reputations, Israeli Gadol Rav Aharon Leib Shteinman has once again shown the world his true mettle. His support for two controversial Israeli innovations that are opposed by most other mainstream Charedim has again come into focus.

Rav Shteinman supports the Tal law. This law allows Yeshiva students who upon reaching age 22 are given an option to fulfill their required military obligations by either joining the army for brief peirod (four months) or volunteering for civilian service for a year. Army service is a requirement before entering the workforce. He also supports Nachal Charedi which is a military unit designed specifically for Charedim so they can do army serve in an atmosphere conducive to their religious practices, beliefs, and customs.

As I said both of these things are generally opposed by mainstream Charedi leaders. In some quarters this kind of opposition is followed by action. This is what happened to Rav Elyashiv a few years ago when he ruled against conventional Charedi wisdom and permitted buried corpses to be removed from a grave site discovered during a construction project. A group of zealous Charedi students later pummeled him with rotten tomatoes for that as he was walking in the street.

Although one can certainly not gauge the mainstream by what a few extremists from Neturei Karta says or does, it is till noteworthy to see just how far some people will go to make their point. This past Tisha B'Av as a program featuring Rav Shteinman was being broadcast in Williamsburg live from Israel they held a protest against him where they uttered the words Yemach Shemo after his name.

Yemach Shemo means ‘may his name be erased’. Stemming for the Torah’s command to erase the memory of Amalek (Devorim 25:19) that appellation is usually reserved for some of the greatest anti Semitic villains in history. People like Hitler.

Needless to say putting R’ Shteinman in the same category as Hitler is so beyond disgusting and outrageous that it makes whatever point they tried to make (which presumably was that joining the Israeli army prevents the arrival of Moshiach) nonexistent by comparison. But that doesn’t mean that the more mainstream anti Zionists don’t agree with their sentiments about the State.

Virtually all of Satmar feel exactly the same way about Israel as does the Neturei Karta extremists. The only difference being that they would never say anything like that against a Gadol Like R’ Shteinman – even while condemning his views. Nor - I presume - would they ever organize a protest like that. I’m sure they would strongly condemn what these members of Neturei Karta did and said!

Rav Shteinman knows how Satmar feels. He also knows how other Charedi Gedolim feel - including Rav Elyashiv, if I understand correctly. They oppose the Tal Law and Nachal Charedi. But Rav Shteinman is not afraid of being called a ‘fake Gadol’. He is not worried that someone will say Yemach Shemo after his name. He even realizes – I’m sure – that some Charedi zealots may even physically attack him for his views.

Rav Shteinman doesn’t care. His only concern is Emes. He tells it like it is! This is not to say that I agree with everything he says – although in this case I do. But one thing is certain. Only a person who has the courage to stand up for what he believes despite personal consequences has a right to be called a Gadol.

Compatibility Scales in the Dating Game

I have been told that Frumster – an Orthodox Jewish dating site has the following categories in their questionnaire about your profile when you apply for their service:

Modern Orthodox
Liberal
Modern Orthodox Machmir
Yeshivish Modern
Yeshivish Black Hat
Chassidish
Carlebachian
Shomer Mitzvot

I must admit that these categories leave me scratching my head a bit. It seems like there ought to be more categories or at least better descriptions of those listed. Here is how I interpret them:

Modern Orthodox Liberal – MO Lite or LWMO . This category can be seen as descriptive of either of those, although they are very different from each other.

Modern Orthodox Machmir – RWMO

Yeshivish Modern – Charedi Lite or Moderate Charedi. This category too can be seen as descriptive of either of those, although they are very different from each other.

Yeshivish Black Hat - RW Charedi

Chasidish - Chasidish

Carlebachian - ??? (I didn’t know being a Carlebach Chasid was a Hashkafa or a lifestyle choice)

Shomer Mitzvot - Orthodox

Of course this list isn’t really a breakdown of Hashkafos. It is more of a list of lifestyles for purposes of compatibility. And I suppose it is a good idea to date someone whose lifestyle choices are similar to your own. I would also note that there are really no rigid lines between these categories. Nor do most people fit neatly into these categories. I suppose most people probably reside somewhere in one of them but may have one or two characteristics of another.

The question arises as to whether one should even identify where their sympathies lie. Perhaps one should only consider the last category – Shomer Mitzvot – to be the only relevant one? Isn’t it divisive to label people? Doesn’t that undermine Jewish unity - Achdus? And doesn’t it preclude the possibility of two perfectly compatible people meeting if they try and match up based on those labels?

First I would say the spectrum of Hashkafos is so wide that some lines do need to be drawn. So in the end - labels are important.

While it is true that labeling people can be divisive it need not be so. Even though simply identifying oneself as a Shomer Mitzvos does avoid conflcit - which in turn promotes Achdus - simply being Shomer Mitzvos is simply not enough information. Just because 2 people choose to define themselves that way doesn't mean that there aren't major differences between them that would make them incompatible.

Are not a Satmar Chasid and a Religious Zionist Shomer Mitzvos? Certainly as it applies to Shiduchim - it is of major import to know where a potential couple reside Hashkafically. I cannot imagine an ardent Satmar Chasid marrying a woman who is a strong Religious Zionist.

Lifestyle choices do make a difference even when both people are Orthodox. When setting up a date between two people it helps to know as much about them as possible. However coming from different backgrounds need not be a game-ender. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. Some people are flexible some are rigid. Some people straddle lines between Hashkafos - or accept a point or two from another Hashkafa into their own. The trick is for the person setting up the date to know when there is a chance for compatibilty or not regardless of the Hashkafos.

So the bottom line in my view is that there is no real formula for successful dating. But common sense should play a major part when setting people up. I would for example never set up a Satmar Chasid with a Religious Zionist. But I would set up someone from a Chasidic background with a Modern Orthodox background – if their basic lifestyles and goals are similar. I know a few marriages like that which are very successful.

What Does it Mean to Get a Doctorate in Talmud?

I have long advocated that women should have the right to study any holy text that Judaism has to offer. This includes Gemarah. All that should be required for them to do that is their own desire. And any accomplishment by a woman in doing so ought to be recognized. So it is with that in mind that I wish to offer Ms. Shana Strauch Schick my heartfelt congratulations on being so recognized. She is the first woman to receive a doctorate in Talmud from Yeshiva University’s Bernard Revel Graduate School of Jewish Studies.

But as sure as I sit here offering congratulations there are still those who believe that it is forbidden for a woman to study advanced Jewish texts. They base their views on the famous Mishna in Sotah (20a)that quotes R’ Eliezer who says, ‘Whoever teaches their daughter Torah – teaches her Tiflus - immorality. The Shulchan Aruch (YD 246: 6) deals with this Halacha and the Poskim differ as to how it is to be applied. In some cases like Satmar, women do not learn even Rashi on Chumash because Gemaros are cited therein. On the other hand in Beis Yaakovs all over the world women learn Chumash and Navi with not only Rashi but with other complicated Meforshim including Rishonim like the Ramban and Achronim like Oznayim LaTorah (Rav Zalman Sorotzkin).

The bottom line is that women do learn Torah in our day – even though about a century ago it was pretty rare and frowned upon by the Torah world.

The issue was resolved by two of the greatest minds of the 20th century. First by the Chafetz Chaim and then by Rav Soloveitchik. The Rav famously said something to the effect that it is ridiculous to close off Gemarah to a woman who can master the most difficult concepts in universities - earning doctorates in all manner of subjects. So when YU’s Stern College for woman initiated the first Talmud course for women, Rav Soloveitchik gave the first Shiur.

Although there is still controversy in certain circles about women learning Gemara, it is clear to me that in our day, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it provided it is undertaken in a serious vein. A woman who is motivated to learn Torah ought to be given the opportunity to do so. And if she succeeds in achieving great heights in learning - she ought to be recognized.

Those who still consider it immoral to teach women Torah should take it up the Chafetz Chaim and Rav Soloveitchik.

The problem is that there are no real opportunities for women to fulfill such goals in the same way as there is for men. There is no Yeshiva for women. At best there are a few institutes like Drisha that have programs that are similar to a Yeshiva but have nowhere near the intense atmosphere that is almost a requirement for real depth in Torah learning. I do not believe that the ameilus – hard work and dedication at Drisha is the same as it is in a good Yeshiva.

I don’t know if there ever will be such Yeshivos for women. I wonder if there even can be. Even though there is absolutely nothing wrong with it - it is the nature of our system that prevents it. And more importantly there is a real lack of financial resources to support it. There is no segment of Orthodoxy - no matter how left wing – that has a Mir or Lakewood for women. I don’t think there ever will be. If a woman is going to achieve greatness in Torah learning on par with a man – she is probably going to have to do it alone.

Which brings me back to a doctorate in Talmud. Obvioulsy Bernard Revel Graduate School is not a Yeshiva. I do not mean to minimize Ms. Schick’s achievement. I'm sure she worked very hard and that it is well deserved. But I have to wonder - does getting a doctorate in Talmud mean that one is on par with the top tier of Lomdei Torah in Yeshivos? I honestly don’t know but my gut feeling is that it is not the same thing at all.

What are the requirements for getting a doctorate in Talmud? Do candidates have to learn Shas? Bekius? Iyun? Do they have to learn all the Rishonim? Most of them? Some of them? Rashi and Tosephos? Achronim? Do they have to write Chidushim and get them published? And what are legitimate topics for a dissertation? Indeed – what did Ms. Schick write her dissertation on?

I get a sense that a doctorate in Talmud might just mean something other than great proficiency in learning Gemarah – although it might include that. On the other hand for all I know it might mean something entirely different that does not include learning it in any great depth. I say this because of the following experience.

At a wedding I attended - I once sat next to a professor who had a PhD in Talmud - a man who was probably in his mid fifties. He taught the subject at a university in Israel. He also sat next to a young Talmid Chacham who had been learning in one of the great Charedi Yeshivos for many years and at the time was in an advanced Kollel.

Knowing that the professor was a PhD in Talmud he tried engaging him in a discussion about a topic often discussed in the Gemarah. In Yeshivishe vernacular this is called ‘speaking in learning’. The professor looked at him like a deer on a mountain road in the middle of the night looking into the headlights of an oncoming car. He had no clue what the young Talmid Chacham was talking about. Obviously the conversation ended rather quickly.

After witnessing that, I have always wondered what it means to get a doctorate in Talmud. And I still do.

Michael Lesher Responds

Guest Post by Michael Lesher

I am generally not disposed to extending discussion on singular topics without end on any given subject – no matter how serious. At some point it becomes overkill and counter-prodcuitve. Especially when I have done several posts in relative succession. So unless there is new information, I tend to move on to other topical issues. This had been the case on my recent posts on Shomrim. I have indeed moved on.

But I am returning to the issue one more time. One of my blog posts was based on an attack by a New York Rabbi against attorney Michael Lesher - who had written a New York Post op-ed critical of the Shomrim. He was severely – and in my opinion unfairly attacked by people commenting on that post. Some even called him a liar! I have offered him the opportunity to respond. He has accepted and his words follow.

Looking quickly through the responses here to my July 31 column, I'm struck by how easily, for some people, the discourse spins off into irrelevancy. Certain critics both misrepresent details of the column and completely ignore very serious issues it raises. Those twin intellectual sins are symptoms of denial, not of engagement with the facts.

Let's dispose quickly of the misrepresentations. My column correctly stated that the police were "belatedly" called in the Kletzky case -- that fact was widely reported, confirmed by Ray Kelly and not denied by anyone, so far as I know -- and correctly stated that Shomrim reportedly had video evidence that was unused during a crucial period of the investigation. This statement was made explicitly by Yaakov German on the radio -- I think it was Zev Brenner's show -- and reported in writing on Failed Messiah on July 24, in a posting that included a full recording of the radio interview.

German said that Shomrim had looked at the video but had concluded, wrongly, that the boy did not appear in any of the footage. For that reason, the evidence wasn't used as it should have been until some time later, when, according to German, he himself concluded that the boy did appear in the video. (German's handling of the video evidence was also widely reported, and no one, to my knowledge, has denied that Shomrim failed to identify the boy on the video in question.)

Of course, no one will ever know if this evidence could have been handled any better or faster by the police, just as we'll never know whether the delay in reporting cost the boy his life. I didn't make either claim, and none of that affects in the least the point made in the column.

The (undisputed) facts are: that Shomrim patrollers DID delay in calling the police and DID try to run an investigation themselves; that this is bad law enforcement procedure; and that in some cases this can have disastrous results. (Police sources are unanimous in stressing that everything connected with a suspected crime should be reported immediately.)

More important -- as emphasized in the column -- in some cases Shomrim and similar organizations, even those receiving government money, simply don't WANT suspected criminals reported to police.

I think I made all this as clear as humanly possible in the July 31 column. In fact, those who read it without a hostile bias seem to have understood me perfectly. What I find very significant, and very disappointing, is that the most vociferous critics are not only misrepresenting tiny pieces of the column, in a transparent effort to discredit me by falsifying what I wrote, but are completely ignoring the column's main claims. For instance, not one person has bothered to deny the organized coverup of the sex abuse case mentioned in the column (and described in detail in Tempest in the Temple).

Not one person has even tried to refute my description of Ohel's (non)reporting policy of child sex abuse. Not one person has denied that Rabbi Kamenetsky specifically requires everyone (by implication, even mandated reporters) to consult a rabbi before going to secular authorities -- and no one has denied that such a position, which in some cases runs counter to state law, can have substantial influence on groups like Shomrim. (Ohel's parallel example only underscores this point.)

Now, since these things aren't being denied, it's rather jejune of my critics to keep trying to misinterpret one or two lines in the column and then to pretend that everything's been resolved. Even they must know better. I can't really believe that they, or anyone else, fail to see how serious a matter it is when an organization that claims to protect the community actually suppresses evidence of crimes against its members. And when those organizations take public funding, that perversion of justice becomes, irretrievably, everyone's problem.

To ignore these issues -- clearly raised in the column and backed by evidence at each point -- is to fiddle while Rome burns. Does a blogger who doesn't even have the guts to use his name (though he'll sling calumnies manfully enough), let alone to cite evidence for HIS claims, as I did mine, really expect anyone to be taken in by this nonsense? But then, denial has its own logic.

My work on behalf of abuse victims, many of them Orthodox Jews, is well known and speaks for itself. What I have to say on the Jewish side of the subject can be found in my longish essay "The Disposable Jew: Reflections on Child Sexual Abuse and Religious Culture," which one can link at http://www.amyneustein.com/pubs/disposablejew.doc. My credentials and so on can easily be checked at my web site, http://www.michaellesher.com/.

But what's more important are the facts. That's where my (mostly anonymous) critics are always found wanting. And not only there. People who care about the truth can see it well enough, as Dr. Lipner does, just for instance, from his own professional experience. But people who have other priorities can't help exposing them, even as they mangle the facts and toss their slanders. Let's not mince words about this. To complain about truth-telling is to endorse lying.

To attack someone for exposing abuses of justice is to support injustice -- in this case, to take the side of suspected criminals against their victims. What such people think of me is not important -- though I'm happy enough not to be in that sort of company. What is appalling is that they aren't in the least bothered by the company THEY keep. I refer the reader to Aboth 4:5 for the likely fate of the coverup crowd. As for me, I can only hope that most Orthodox Jews choose another course.

Torah and Mada - A Forbidden Mixture?

If there is anyone who is responsible for divisiveness in Klal Yisroel it is people like Rabbi Avrohom Birnbaum whose article indicating this appeared recently in the Yated Ne’eman.

Rabbi Birnbaum asks whether Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch’s teachings are relevant today in the context of a new translation of Rav Hirsch’s classic work, The Nineteen Letters. He interviews Rabbi Joseph Elias who did his own translation many years ago and contributed a comprehensive commentary to the new translation.

I don’t think there is any question about the relevance of Rav Hirsch’s work today. His Hashkafa of Torah Im Derech Eretz (TIDE) is certainly relevant - perhaps now more than ever. Whether one is an adherent of this Hashkafa or not, I think most Orthodox Jews would agree with this.

But that is not the subject of this post. It is the last segment of Rabbi Birnbaum’s article with which I take issue and strongly protest.

Instead of ending his essay with the deserved accolades he gives to Rav Hirsch’s Hashkafa, he decided to end it by bashing modern Orthodoxy. What was his complaint? That Modern Orthodox Jews have the Chutzpah to claim Rav Hirsch is their progenitor. He calls it historical revisionism and hogwash! He says that foolish and underhanded for anyone from Modern Orthodoxy to try and ‘box’ Rav Hirsch into their viewpoint.

And then to top things off he calls the Hashkafa of Torah U’Mada (TUM) Kilayim. Kilayim are mixtures that are forbidden by the Torah – like weaving linen together with wool or working two different species of animal harnessed together.

Hogwash? Underhanded? Kilayim? You would think he was talking about heretics! Not Frum Jews.

I don’t know Rabbi Birnbaum. But I do know where this kind of thinking comes from. It comes from hating his fellow Jews. Sinas Chinam. Right after Tisha B’Av where we still suffer the consequences of a day that came about because of it - comes an article that just had to include bashing fellow observant Jews. It wasn’t enough to say he disagreed or even that Modern Orthodoxy is mistaken. He had to call them foolish and underhanded - and their Hashkafos a forbidden mixture!

First of all, he is completely mistaken about Modern Orthodxy (MO). MO - as I have written about many times - is not a Hashkafa but a sociological category. And it applies broadly to a group of observant Jews with widely varying Hashkafos, from right wing to left wing. MO does not equal TuM.

To be MO is to be Torah observant and to appreciate and embrace secular studies and secular culture. Certainly TIDE qualifies on both counts. This is not to say that TIDE and TuM are the same thing. They are not and I don’t know anybody who claims that they are. But both Hashkafos can find a home in Modern Orthodoxy. And certainly one’s appreciation of secular studies and culture can point to Rav Hirsch’s own appreciation of those things. For example we know Rav Hirsch admired the great German poet, historian and philosopher Johann Christoph Friedrich von Schiller. And he made a point of using his secular name Samson (Shamshon in the German vernacular) rather than his Jewish Name Shimshon - seeing nothing wrong with that. As does Avrohom Birnbaum apparently. Fortunately my elementary school principal, Rabbi Joseph Elias for whom he has justifiably effusive praise doesn’t see anything wrong with using one’s secular name either. Nor do I.

His reasons for appreciating things secular were different from the reasons of those who believe in TuM. But the bottom line is that there were (and are) many PhDs in Rav Hirsch’s Germany who are strict followers of TIDE. Just as there are PhDs among those who believe in TuM.

I don’t think anyone in Modern Orthodoxy claims that Rav Hirsch was thinking of Modern Orthodoxy when he developed TIDE. But that doesn’t mean that Modern Orthodoxy can’t think of Rav Hirsch as a progenitor of sorts.

As for calling TuM Kilayim, that is beyond insulting. First of all TuM is not a monolithic Hashkafa with specific parameters. The Hashkafa is not limted to one definition. Depending on who one talks to, it has many definitions.

Rav Ahron Soloveichik has two chapters in his book ‘Logic of the Heart Logic of the Mind’ on Torah U’Mada. Is Rabbi Birmbaum accusing Rav Ahron of promoting Kilayim? Rav Ahron sees TuM in much the same way that Rav Hirsch sees TIDE. Even Dr. Lamm who tries to explain TuM from many perspectives sees TIDE as one such perspective. Rabbi Birnbaum doesn’t have to agree with TuM. But to call it Kilayim is insulting in the extreme.

I am disgusted by his attitude. I wish I could say that he is a Daas Yachid – someone whose views are outside the mainstream of Charedi thinking. Unfortunatley I think this is exactly how far too many mainstream Charedim think. They see only the extreme left of Modern Orthodoxy or those who are very light in their observance and conclude that this is what defines us. Yes they are a part of us, but they do not define us anymore than Chasidim define the Charedism of the Yeshiva world

There is a large segment of Modern Orthodoxy that are in its right wing that are virtually indistinguishable from the vast majority of Charedim - those I call moderate Charedim. And Charedi Jewry certainly has its own share of light observers. I know plenty of MO Jews who are adherents of TIDE.

Is TIDE limited to MO? No. I know some Chasidic and Yeshivishe Jews who are adherents of it too. But it is certainly fair to say that TIDE has just as much of a home in Modern Orthodoxy as it does in Charedi Orthodoxy and certainly MO can claim Rav Hirsch as a progenitor of sorts.

Modern Orthodox Jewry deserves an apology from Rabbi Birnbaum. As do adherents of TuM.

At the beginning of Sefer Devarim (1:5)the Torah says: Ho’il Moshe Bier Es HaTorah HaZos. Rashi cites Chazal who tell us that this Pasuk means to say that when Moshe started explaining the words of the Torah to the people of Israel he did so in the 70 known languages of the world.

But there is another interpretation mentioned by Rav Yaakov Tzvi Meklenburg in his Sefer HaKsav V’Hakbala. What – he asks - was the point of telling them the same thing in 70 different languages? Instead he interprets the word of Chazal to mean Shivim Panim – the seventy facets or perspectives of the Torah.

Until the Charedi world understands this there will never be Achdus. They must understand that there are Shivim Panim LaTorah and only one of them is Charedi.

Achdus does not mean abdicating one’s Hashkafos. But it does mean respecting that there are other Hashkfos that are legitimate too. And one of them might just be TuM.

Leading out of Fear

I must say that I am heartened by the words of Rav Daniel Eidensohn. Because of him Emes is prevailing.

Rabbi Eidensohn has famously published two Seforim - both Hebrew and English versions – one that alphabetically indexes the entire Mishna Berurah and the other doing the same for the entire Igros Moshe. I own a copy of both volumes and they are an invaluable aid to me. Rabbi Eidensohn is also very close the Rav Moshe Sternbuch a Charedi Posek who is a member of the leadership of the Eida HaCharedis.

Rabbi Eidesnohn has also recently self published a book on sex abuse. Mainstream Orthodox publishers like Mesorah (ArtScroll) and Feldheim refused to publish it. But it has otherwise been well received. It was recently shown to a world class mainstream Talmid Chacham to get his reaction. The reaction to the book and the words that followed were unfortunately no surprise to me – But I was gald to see them. They reflect truth and are contained in a post on Rabbi Eidensohn’s blog, Daas Torah - a post that took a lot of courage to publish.

It clearly corroborates much of what I have been saying about the rabbinic leadership of our day. They simply do not have what it takes to lead and often rule or fail to rule out of the fear of losing their reputations.

This was first noted by Jonathan Rosenblum who reported that he spoke to one such Gadol on the Agudah Moetzes that feared losing his reputation as a Gadol (i.e. being called a ‘fake Gadol’). It was for that reason that this Gadol was afraid to speak his mind on the economic situation of the Charedi world. Now the same thing has happened on the issue of sex abuse.

Many have challenged and will continue to challenge this observation as a lie- being Motzie Laz on Gedolei Yisroel. I think it is just a plain Emes. One that – as I say - was corroborated by Jonathan Rosenblum and now by Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn. If I am guilty so are they. But I do not believe any of us are. The truth speaks for itself. Here is an excerpt from Rabbi Eidensohn’s blog - which says it all:

Someone had just given him a copy of my book on child abuse. He had called me to express gratitude for my book to let me know that he felt it was necessary and that it was well done.

We talked a while about the issue of child abuse. I mentioned to him the Aguda position and the nasty editorial in Ami magazine. I said that I felt that their requirement that rabbis had to moderate going to police - even at the expense of the welfare of the children - has no justification in halacha. He agreed without any hesitation. He added that he did not think abuse was being handled properly by the rabbis.

I was surprised at his candor on the issue, so I asked the obvious question - so why aren't the rabbinic leaders following halacha. Why are they taking positions which are against the halacha?
His answer was simply and blunt- they were afraid. they were worried about being labeled a shaygetz - a liberal who is lenient regarding mesira - by other rabbis.

Bemakom SheEin Ish… where there is no one doing the job – someone has to step up and do it.

Hashgacha Pratis. God rules the world. God saw to it that victims of abuse were not going to be abandoned - that criminal acts of sex abuse would not continue to be swept under the rug as was once the protocol of the Orthodoxy. This was famously articulated by Lakewood Mashgiach Rav Matisyahu Salomon at an Agudah Convention a few years ago.

The rise of the internet and blogging took up the cause of the victim and that changed everything. Whether they realize it is because of this that Agudah has changed their entire approach from one of keeping things hidden to one of reporting abuse to the police. But even this seismic change in attitude is not without a caveat. They still require vetting all reports of abuse through a Rav. On this they are still lagging behind others. That’s why I believe a mainstream Talmid Chacham has indicated that - he did not think abuse was being handled properly by the rabbis.

God has seen to it that Emes will still prevail and that fear is no way to lead a nation. He has given us the internet.

These great Talmidei Chachamim, Zekainim, U’Noraim are indeed due tremendous respect for what they have accomplished in the Torah world and the amount of time they dedicate to Klal Yisroel. Nevertheless I think they are failing us. This is unfortunately becoming more and more apparent.