What does Satmar and the Edah HaCharedis (and to a lesser extent other Charedi groups) have in common with the community of Religious Zionists in Israel? Not much. I can’t think of two more diametrically opposite Hashkafos than these two groups. Which is kind of sad if you think about it.
I don’t think you could ever find the leaders of either group sitting at the same table. But there is one area in which they are virtual clones of each other. When it comes to recognizing the fatal flaws of their own heroes they are completely blind to reality – taking the concept of being Dan L’Kaf Zechus to an abusrd level and in my view turning it on its head.
Examples on the Chasidic/Charedi side abound. Like the virtual fawning over the greatness of convicted sex offender Yisroel Weingarten (convicted of sexually abusing his own daughter over a period of many years). They boldly proclaim his innocence denying all the considerable evidence to the contrary and call his conviction a travesty of justice.
There is also the reaction of the Edah HaCharedis (whose leader also joined American Chasidic and Charedi rabbinic leaders in praise of Weingarten) to the conviction of Elior Chen, one of the most sadistic cult leaders of modern times; responsible for some of the most horrific tortures to young children in his cult. From Ynet:
Rabbi Avraham Froelich, who represents the Eda Haredit, also defended the convict. "Chen is a naïve and delicate soul. The evidence proves he did nothing. This is a Dreyfus plot," he said.
Not to be outdone by their Charedi counterparts, religious Zionist leaders have recently released a letter of public support for convicted rapist Moshe Katzav, the immediate past President of Israel. It was signed by perhaps the most respected religious Zionist Rav in Israel, Rav Shlomo Aviner and other religious Zionist rabbis. They still think he is innocent:
"To our country's former president, fear not because the truth will come out," the letter begins. "And even if it takes it's time, it will be revealed, and all those who pursue lies will be ashamed."
The rabbis slam the media, implying that the press was one of the factors which led to the trial's "false results".
"All of the people of Zion are sighing and groaning under the burden of the poisonous media, waiting for the return of pureness to our public life and hoping for the day when the injustice will be removed and the truth will come out – and then many, many people will be redeemed and rejoice with you."
Blindness about one’s own heroes is apparently an equal opportunity disorder. It seems like an impossibility to them that one of their own - whose widespread reputation was built over a long period of time - could have ever done the things they are accused of.
How is it possible, say the Charedi Rabbanim that a man like Weingarten who built such a great reputation in Chinuch over so many long years have ever committed the crimes he was convicted of? How is it possible say religious Zionist Rabbanim that a man like Moshe Katzav who was given the honor of being elected President of Israel, a position reserved only for those with a lifetime of achievement and dedication to the Jewish people in Israel – how could he be guilty of the crimes he was convicted of?
As the saying goes, denial is not only a river in Egypt. No matter how much one might be against sex abuse on paper – and I’m sure all these rabbanim are – they simply do not believe it about their own. It just isn’t possible about the truly great achievers who are so Frum and have contributed so much.
Their only conclusion is that the secular government or the secular media bias against the Frum community did this in their never ending quest to destroy the Torah world.
But that is not the right conclusion. Although sometimes innocent people get convicted most people in prison are guilty of the crimes they were convicted of – although most of them still swear they are innocent even after their conviction.
Is it possible that a high achiever – someone who has actually contributed to society to have secretly been a sex abuser? Not only is it possible – but a recent story in the New York Times actually has an example of it.
Dr. Melvin D. Levine who was being sued by a group of victims after years of dodging accusations of sexual abuse was found dead near his home with a gunshot wound to his forehead. He apparently committed suicide. Who was Dr. Levine? Perhaps the most admired man in education:
Dr. Levine was a leading advocate for children with learning disabilities whose fame spread through his books, including “A Mind at a Time,” as well as through a PBS documentary, “Misunderstood Minds,” and a nationwide schedule of lectures.
With Charles Schwab, Dr. Levine founded a nonprofit group, All Kinds of Minds, that has trained thousands of teachers. Dr. Levine’s approach stressed that whatever their learning disabilities — learning differences, he called them — all children also had strengths to build on.
In 2004, the New York City Department of Education gave All Kinds of Minds a $12.5 million contract to train 20,000 teachers, without the normal competitive bidding process, because, it said, there were no comparable programs.
In 2005, Scholastic Press named Dr. Levine the most admired person in education.
And yet he spent almost his entire career molesting young boys. How is it possible that such a distinguished contributor to society led a secret life of abusing children? I can’t answer that question. But the fact that it happened serves to demonstrate that just because someone is a hero in one area of his life doesn’t mean he isn’t a monster in another. At age 71 upon the realization that he would no longer be able to cover it up with repeated denials Dr. Levine committed suicide.
I wish that these rabbinic figures would recognize the bias that blinds them. To deny all evidence of sex abuse - chalking it up to lies and media distortion – just because of the remotest possibility that an innocent man was convicted does a disservice to the Jewish community. It perpetuates the crime by giving religious sex abusers the cover they need to continue their ways.
Thankfully we do have rabbinic leaders in the world that know when to be Dan L’Kaf Zechus - and when not to be. Chief among them is Rav Aharon Lichtenstein. In spite of pressure from supporters, Rabbi Moti Elon was removed from his position as a Rosh Yeshiva after Rav Lichtenstein determined the veracity of victim accusations of sex abuse. Rav Aharon Lichtenstein stood up for the victims then and togther with other religious Zionist rabbinic leaders he has done so again:
“Without getting into the details of the former president's trial and the punishment he deserves, we view the attempt to question the women who complained and the judges and to cover up the disgrace brought upon the presidency as extremely severe,” the rabbis wrote.
“The criminal law system in our country, the State of Israel, is based on Jewish Law, which allows the government system in Israel to enact laws and activate legal proceedings and punishments as required by the public's interest and welfare.”
One of the letter's initiators explained why it was written. "The letter in support of Katsav led to a strong feeling of blasphemy and to a complete loss of faith in the Torah on the part of the religious and secular public. The manifesto came from the ground, because the rabbis were infuriated."
According to the initiator, in personal conversations and yeshiva lessons senior rabbis slammed the letter supporting Katsav, using harsh words like "defamation of God" and "scandal".
My admiration for this man continues to increase. He is a truly a Gadol in my eyes in so many different ways. If only the rabbinic leaders in other segments of Orthodox Jewry would have his courage, I truly believe we would begin to turn the tide against the plague of sex abuse in the Torah world.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Sunday, February 27, 2011
When Image Trumps Substance
One of the biggest impediments to solving many of the problems facing Orthodox Jewry is its obsession with image. Whether it is trying to hide financial irregularities or sex abuse, it seems that the primary concern is not with the victims of various crimes but with how it will reflect on the Torah world if it is made public. In no issue is this a greater problem than that of sex abuse.
I completely understand the motivation behind it. Rabbinic leaders do not want the world to see our warts. They constitute a Chilul HaShem. It is only natural to try and hide them. Of course there are plenty of ‘in house’ reasons for keeping things quiet. A family that has a victim of sex abuse is tainted and Shiduchim become exponentially difficult for any member of the family – even those who were not abused. With the Torah world abuzz with what has come to be known as ‘the Shidduch crisis’, one can certainly sympathize with the desire to keep these things quiet.
Keeping things quiet may be better for Shiduchim - and the overall reputation of both the family and community, but it spells disaster for the victim - and ultimately for the entire Torah world.
I am not one of those who sees only villains and heroes here. Yes there are plenty of both, but the rabbinic leaders who seek to keep things quiet are not villains. They truly believe that their decisions on these matters are for the over-all benefit for the Klal. I can certainly understand their perspective, but I believe that the events of the past few years has proven their decisions to be wrong. And I believe they have themselves come to realize that ‘sweeping things under the carpet’ is not necessarily the correct Torah approach they once thought it was.
At the same time I don’t believe they have gone anywhere near - far enough to change the old paradigm of ‘keeping it amongst ourselves’.
The most recent manifestation of this unfortunate attitude was reported in an article in the Jewish Week.
It tells us the story of a Chasidic Satmar type 30-something mother who was herself sexually abused as a child and then later sexually abused her own child. She went to Ohel for treatment. Ohel is a premier social service agency serving primarily the Orthodox Jewish community in New York. Ohel did not report her to the authorities - although eventually the authorities did become involved.
Just to be clear Ohel had broken no laws. Even though they are subject to the mandatory reporting laws, they are often able to use loopholes in the law to avoid reporting abusers. In this case treatment was voluntary and since there was no complaining victim - they claimed doctor/patient actually prevented Ohel from reporting the abuse. If Ohel can legally get out of reporting it to the authorities, they don’t report. They still feel that the best way to handle the problems is to do it without the authorities getting involved.
I would add that Satmar lives in a world of its own when it comes to sex abuse. No where is there greater denial. One need only look at how convicted abusers and their victims are seen by their rabbinic leaders even after they are convicted. The abusers are seen as heroes who have been vilified by sick accusers who are lying about it every time.
Back to Ohel. I want to make clear that I absolutely believe that Ohel means well. In the case of the Satmar mother - they tried to help her without getting the authorities involved. They clearly saw this through the old lens of ‘We can handle our own problems’. It is therefore better to not get the outside authorities involved. And they had a professional staff and a program to treat sex abusers that would prevent them from further sexually abusing children. This way - everyone would come out ahead.
I am not here to criticize Ohel. They have a wonderful and well deserved reputation dealing with foster children. But when it comes to sex abuse, I’m afraid they are still living in the past. ‘Hushing it up’ as much as they can. But no matter what their intentions are, they are playing right into the hands of sex abusers who rely on this attitude to keep on doing what they do without fear of any serious repercussion. Especially in areas like Williamsburg where denial is the strongest.
Time and again it has been shown that the best way to handle sex abuse is to report all incidences of it to the people who are best trained to deal with it - the police and the state social service agencies.
No they are not perfect. Mistakes can be made there too. But few others have the training and resources they do. Reporting sex abuse to the authorities has gotten the approval of many rabbinic leaders, including Rav Elyashiv. There is no issue of Mesirah when it comes to the safety of our children. And yet even with a mandate by someone whom many consider the Gadol HaDor - there is still reluctance to do it. I guess it’s harder to put it into practice than it is to accept it in principle.
I agree with Rabbi Yosef Blau and I conclude with the following excerpt from the Jewish Week:
Rabbi Yosef Blau, mashgiach ruchani (spiritual adviser) of Yeshiva University’s Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary and a longtime advocate for abuse survivors, told The Jewish Week referring to the mother’s case as well as others of which he has knowledge.
“They have been the point men for the community [on this issue] and they have accepted the approach of the community, which is never to go to the police. They endlessly [hide] behind technicalities,” Rabbi Blau continued.
“Because [Ohel is] an agency that does wonderful things for children,” Rabbi Blau added, referring to the homes and services Ohel provides for foster children, it is not an agency he would like to see disappear. However, with respect to the handling of child sexual abuse, Rabbi Blau believes that Ohel “is the problem, in a nutshell. They [have shown that they are] not able to deal with the situation that they are legally required and morally required [to deal with]. The workers are all sincere people,” the rabbi added. “Solutions [to the current problem] would involve changing [Ohel’s] leadership. [And] you will know there’s change when they start reporting.”
I completely understand the motivation behind it. Rabbinic leaders do not want the world to see our warts. They constitute a Chilul HaShem. It is only natural to try and hide them. Of course there are plenty of ‘in house’ reasons for keeping things quiet. A family that has a victim of sex abuse is tainted and Shiduchim become exponentially difficult for any member of the family – even those who were not abused. With the Torah world abuzz with what has come to be known as ‘the Shidduch crisis’, one can certainly sympathize with the desire to keep these things quiet.
Keeping things quiet may be better for Shiduchim - and the overall reputation of both the family and community, but it spells disaster for the victim - and ultimately for the entire Torah world.
I am not one of those who sees only villains and heroes here. Yes there are plenty of both, but the rabbinic leaders who seek to keep things quiet are not villains. They truly believe that their decisions on these matters are for the over-all benefit for the Klal. I can certainly understand their perspective, but I believe that the events of the past few years has proven their decisions to be wrong. And I believe they have themselves come to realize that ‘sweeping things under the carpet’ is not necessarily the correct Torah approach they once thought it was.
At the same time I don’t believe they have gone anywhere near - far enough to change the old paradigm of ‘keeping it amongst ourselves’.
The most recent manifestation of this unfortunate attitude was reported in an article in the Jewish Week.
It tells us the story of a Chasidic Satmar type 30-something mother who was herself sexually abused as a child and then later sexually abused her own child. She went to Ohel for treatment. Ohel is a premier social service agency serving primarily the Orthodox Jewish community in New York. Ohel did not report her to the authorities - although eventually the authorities did become involved.
Just to be clear Ohel had broken no laws. Even though they are subject to the mandatory reporting laws, they are often able to use loopholes in the law to avoid reporting abusers. In this case treatment was voluntary and since there was no complaining victim - they claimed doctor/patient actually prevented Ohel from reporting the abuse. If Ohel can legally get out of reporting it to the authorities, they don’t report. They still feel that the best way to handle the problems is to do it without the authorities getting involved.
I would add that Satmar lives in a world of its own when it comes to sex abuse. No where is there greater denial. One need only look at how convicted abusers and their victims are seen by their rabbinic leaders even after they are convicted. The abusers are seen as heroes who have been vilified by sick accusers who are lying about it every time.
Back to Ohel. I want to make clear that I absolutely believe that Ohel means well. In the case of the Satmar mother - they tried to help her without getting the authorities involved. They clearly saw this through the old lens of ‘We can handle our own problems’. It is therefore better to not get the outside authorities involved. And they had a professional staff and a program to treat sex abusers that would prevent them from further sexually abusing children. This way - everyone would come out ahead.
I am not here to criticize Ohel. They have a wonderful and well deserved reputation dealing with foster children. But when it comes to sex abuse, I’m afraid they are still living in the past. ‘Hushing it up’ as much as they can. But no matter what their intentions are, they are playing right into the hands of sex abusers who rely on this attitude to keep on doing what they do without fear of any serious repercussion. Especially in areas like Williamsburg where denial is the strongest.
Time and again it has been shown that the best way to handle sex abuse is to report all incidences of it to the people who are best trained to deal with it - the police and the state social service agencies.
No they are not perfect. Mistakes can be made there too. But few others have the training and resources they do. Reporting sex abuse to the authorities has gotten the approval of many rabbinic leaders, including Rav Elyashiv. There is no issue of Mesirah when it comes to the safety of our children. And yet even with a mandate by someone whom many consider the Gadol HaDor - there is still reluctance to do it. I guess it’s harder to put it into practice than it is to accept it in principle.
I agree with Rabbi Yosef Blau and I conclude with the following excerpt from the Jewish Week:
Rabbi Yosef Blau, mashgiach ruchani (spiritual adviser) of Yeshiva University’s Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary and a longtime advocate for abuse survivors, told The Jewish Week referring to the mother’s case as well as others of which he has knowledge.
“They have been the point men for the community [on this issue] and they have accepted the approach of the community, which is never to go to the police. They endlessly [hide] behind technicalities,” Rabbi Blau continued.
“Because [Ohel is] an agency that does wonderful things for children,” Rabbi Blau added, referring to the homes and services Ohel provides for foster children, it is not an agency he would like to see disappear. However, with respect to the handling of child sexual abuse, Rabbi Blau believes that Ohel “is the problem, in a nutshell. They [have shown that they are] not able to deal with the situation that they are legally required and morally required [to deal with]. The workers are all sincere people,” the rabbi added. “Solutions [to the current problem] would involve changing [Ohel’s] leadership. [And] you will know there’s change when they start reporting.”
Friday, February 25, 2011
Gay Marriage
Some of the most beautiful words one will ever hear were written in Hebrew and are recorded by Chazal in the Gemarah (Kidushin 5b): Hare At Mikudeshes Li – ‘Behold you are made holy unto me’. This declaration made by a groom to his bride is the formula that cements the bonds of love between a man and a woman through marriage. The key word in this formula is holy. That is how the Torah views marriage. It is a state of holiness between a man and a woman. There is no other human interpersonal relationship in the Torah that is characterized that way.
It is with this in mind that, I am in basic agreement with Agudah’s recent statement in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) - signed into law 15 years ago by then President Clinton.
The purpose of that law is to clearly state that as a nation we affirm that marriage is defined only as it applies to a bond between a man and a woman. The Obama administration has withdrawn support for DOMA because of what they say is a changed ‘legal landscape’. I’m not sure what that means but I do not find those words a compelling argument for change. What I do find is a further erosion of our national sense of what is right and proper in the eyes of God.
I say all this with a sense of pride in Judaism and at the same time a feeling of pathos for homosexuals who feel offended by the fact that they cannot get married to each other. I have written many times in the past that there is absolutely nothing immoral in same sex attractions. A human being can’t help what he is attracted to. Whether that is the result of biology or environment is not an issue. It doesn’t really matter why one has these feelings.
It is also pretty clear to me that same sex attractions can rarely be changed – even if behavior resulting from it occasionally can. This is why I sympathize with homosexuals and it outrages me when there is discrimination in any form against them. It far more important to judge someone by the content of his character than by whom he is attracted to. Judging someone by his sexual proclivities is just plain wrong. That certain sexual acts common to male homosexuals is considered by the Torah to be a capital offense is immaterial. We are today and for the last 2000 years in no position to carry out capital punishment on any Torah violation. At this moment – it is in God’s hands – not ours.
As long as this behavior is not flaunted or legitimized, it’s none of my business. A homosexual Jew must be treated the same way any other Jew is treated. With dignity and respect. To that end I have no problem with any of the legislation protecting their civil rights. And though I am in general not a big fan of hate crime laws – I certainly agree that where they exist they should apply equally to homosexuals as they do to Blacks, Jews, and any other minority who is hurt because of bigotry and hatred.
But when it comes to how we define ourselves as a country, I think it is important to separate religion from politics. Gay marriage is nothing more than a political issue. Marriage is a religious act. It is not just a civil union. It is a religious union. Even though there is such a thing as civil marriage – is it really anything more than a civil union? Is it really anything more than a formal contract between two people granting them certain rights as a couple? Calling it marriage is just a social convention in my view - so as to have a common national definition of a man and woman living together that is sanctioned by the state. It is a civil legitimating of a religious concept.
This is not the case with people of the same sex. Marriage cannot apply to them by definition. Calling it marriage doesn’t make it so. One can call an apple a banana, but it is still not a banana. There is nothing holy in one man asking another to be ‘holy unto him’. What redefining marriage to include gays does however do is create an aura of acceptability and even respectability of the gay lifestyle.
This is different from accepting the gay as an individual. Any homosexual that considers himself Orthodox should in fact oppose the idea of gay marriage too. They have to admit that the Torah could not possibly sanction a marriage between two men. That would be turning the Torah on its head. It would also foster an environment where a religious capital offense will more than likely occur.
Giving dignity and respect to a gay man does not mean we have to approve of a lifestyle that often includes acts that are biblically prohibited. By redefining marriage to include members of the same sex we are in essence saying that gay sex and heterosexual sex are an equally moral act …that there is no moral difference between gay sex and heterosexual sex... that they are equivalent. This is absolutely against the Bible from which much of the American ethos is taken. We are a Judeo-Christian society. And though many of our values are indeed libertarian - they are nonetheless tempered by biblical concepts of morality.
If we are going to define ourselves as a moral society formed of Judeo-Christian values – and I believe that the vast majority of Americans see themselves this way - undermining them is not the way to do that.
There is no material gain in calling a civil union marriage other than to further undermine current societal values. Civil unions already grants them any material benefit that marriage would. The only thing gained is breaking down religious and moral barriers with the ultimate goal of equating gay sex to heterosexual sex. That is anathema to the Torah and to Judeo-Christian values upon which this country was built. If this country chooses to embrace a purely libertarian ideal and abandon the Judeo-Christian ethic, then anything goes.
The ultimate libertarian ideal is to make no value judgment at all placed on any behavior that is private and among consenting adults. As long as you do not hurt or force yourslef on others – who cares what goes on in the bedroom? Sex between siblings – if they agree - why not? Mother-son, father–daughter? …as long as they are adults and agree, why stop them? Do we as a nation really want to go down that path? Without the bible what possible objection could one have?
Think it can’t happen? If one goes back a mere 40 or so years one would see a world that could never have imagined the attitudes about gay sex that we have today. It was just as taboo as incest and considered abnormal deviant behavior by all the behavioral sciences. But now it is considered by much of liberal society almost as normal as eating apple pie.
It is with this in mind that, I am in basic agreement with Agudah’s recent statement in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) - signed into law 15 years ago by then President Clinton.
The purpose of that law is to clearly state that as a nation we affirm that marriage is defined only as it applies to a bond between a man and a woman. The Obama administration has withdrawn support for DOMA because of what they say is a changed ‘legal landscape’. I’m not sure what that means but I do not find those words a compelling argument for change. What I do find is a further erosion of our national sense of what is right and proper in the eyes of God.
I say all this with a sense of pride in Judaism and at the same time a feeling of pathos for homosexuals who feel offended by the fact that they cannot get married to each other. I have written many times in the past that there is absolutely nothing immoral in same sex attractions. A human being can’t help what he is attracted to. Whether that is the result of biology or environment is not an issue. It doesn’t really matter why one has these feelings.
It is also pretty clear to me that same sex attractions can rarely be changed – even if behavior resulting from it occasionally can. This is why I sympathize with homosexuals and it outrages me when there is discrimination in any form against them. It far more important to judge someone by the content of his character than by whom he is attracted to. Judging someone by his sexual proclivities is just plain wrong. That certain sexual acts common to male homosexuals is considered by the Torah to be a capital offense is immaterial. We are today and for the last 2000 years in no position to carry out capital punishment on any Torah violation. At this moment – it is in God’s hands – not ours.
As long as this behavior is not flaunted or legitimized, it’s none of my business. A homosexual Jew must be treated the same way any other Jew is treated. With dignity and respect. To that end I have no problem with any of the legislation protecting their civil rights. And though I am in general not a big fan of hate crime laws – I certainly agree that where they exist they should apply equally to homosexuals as they do to Blacks, Jews, and any other minority who is hurt because of bigotry and hatred.
But when it comes to how we define ourselves as a country, I think it is important to separate religion from politics. Gay marriage is nothing more than a political issue. Marriage is a religious act. It is not just a civil union. It is a religious union. Even though there is such a thing as civil marriage – is it really anything more than a civil union? Is it really anything more than a formal contract between two people granting them certain rights as a couple? Calling it marriage is just a social convention in my view - so as to have a common national definition of a man and woman living together that is sanctioned by the state. It is a civil legitimating of a religious concept.
This is not the case with people of the same sex. Marriage cannot apply to them by definition. Calling it marriage doesn’t make it so. One can call an apple a banana, but it is still not a banana. There is nothing holy in one man asking another to be ‘holy unto him’. What redefining marriage to include gays does however do is create an aura of acceptability and even respectability of the gay lifestyle.
This is different from accepting the gay as an individual. Any homosexual that considers himself Orthodox should in fact oppose the idea of gay marriage too. They have to admit that the Torah could not possibly sanction a marriage between two men. That would be turning the Torah on its head. It would also foster an environment where a religious capital offense will more than likely occur.
Giving dignity and respect to a gay man does not mean we have to approve of a lifestyle that often includes acts that are biblically prohibited. By redefining marriage to include members of the same sex we are in essence saying that gay sex and heterosexual sex are an equally moral act …that there is no moral difference between gay sex and heterosexual sex... that they are equivalent. This is absolutely against the Bible from which much of the American ethos is taken. We are a Judeo-Christian society. And though many of our values are indeed libertarian - they are nonetheless tempered by biblical concepts of morality.
If we are going to define ourselves as a moral society formed of Judeo-Christian values – and I believe that the vast majority of Americans see themselves this way - undermining them is not the way to do that.
There is no material gain in calling a civil union marriage other than to further undermine current societal values. Civil unions already grants them any material benefit that marriage would. The only thing gained is breaking down religious and moral barriers with the ultimate goal of equating gay sex to heterosexual sex. That is anathema to the Torah and to Judeo-Christian values upon which this country was built. If this country chooses to embrace a purely libertarian ideal and abandon the Judeo-Christian ethic, then anything goes.
The ultimate libertarian ideal is to make no value judgment at all placed on any behavior that is private and among consenting adults. As long as you do not hurt or force yourslef on others – who cares what goes on in the bedroom? Sex between siblings – if they agree - why not? Mother-son, father–daughter? …as long as they are adults and agree, why stop them? Do we as a nation really want to go down that path? Without the bible what possible objection could one have?
Think it can’t happen? If one goes back a mere 40 or so years one would see a world that could never have imagined the attitudes about gay sex that we have today. It was just as taboo as incest and considered abnormal deviant behavior by all the behavioral sciences. But now it is considered by much of liberal society almost as normal as eating apple pie.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Rape and the Obsession with Tznius
Do members of a Tznius Vaad tend to be sexual perverts? If your name is Nechemya Weberman the answer appears to be yes. If you live in Williamsburg – home of Satmar - denial continues to be the order of the day. And molesters continue to flourish because of it. Even though attitudes are beginning to change even in Charedi circles - the world of Chasidim lags far behind and nowhere is denial greater than in a place like Williamsburg.
But at least residents in Williamsburg will have one less rapist to worry about. The New York Post reports that Rabbi Weberman was arrested and charged yesterday with repeatedly molesting and raping a 12-year-old girl (she is now 16) over a three year period (2007 – 2010). And like every child molester before him he claims complete innocence.
According to blogger Yerachmiel Lopin, Rabbi Weberman is one of the most active members of the Williamsburg Vaad HaTznius. This Vaad is of the same type that got VIN banned and harassed people who tried to advertise with them or defend them, including me.
I have said it before. The obsession with Tznius is the signature of the perverse sexual nature of these Vaad members. And now we have one with enough evidence to be arrested. On one day he rails against sexual immorality and on the next day he rapes innocent young girls. After which he continues to rail against it.
The story in the Post tells us that he councils troubled families. I guess the best way to drum up business is by raping a young girl. I’m sure her family is very troubled now.
Almost exactly three years ago, Rabbi Yakov Horowitz was interviewed by blogger Rafi Goldmeier, former Chicagoan and current resident of Ramat Bet Shemesh. Here is an excerpt from that interview that has proven to be very prescient:
Rabbi Horowitz said that anybody who is violently forcing his chumrohs on others, and especially those who are physically assaulting women are prime candidates for being sexual predators, pedophiles and wife beaters. He repeatedly told us that over the course of time, it will become evident to all that a disproportionately high percentage of these thugs are not only abusing the women on the buses, but are committing far worse on those close to them. He said that, in his view, these people have a distorted and perverse obsession with women and sexual matters…
But at least residents in Williamsburg will have one less rapist to worry about. The New York Post reports that Rabbi Weberman was arrested and charged yesterday with repeatedly molesting and raping a 12-year-old girl (she is now 16) over a three year period (2007 – 2010). And like every child molester before him he claims complete innocence.
According to blogger Yerachmiel Lopin, Rabbi Weberman is one of the most active members of the Williamsburg Vaad HaTznius. This Vaad is of the same type that got VIN banned and harassed people who tried to advertise with them or defend them, including me.
I have said it before. The obsession with Tznius is the signature of the perverse sexual nature of these Vaad members. And now we have one with enough evidence to be arrested. On one day he rails against sexual immorality and on the next day he rapes innocent young girls. After which he continues to rail against it.
The story in the Post tells us that he councils troubled families. I guess the best way to drum up business is by raping a young girl. I’m sure her family is very troubled now.
Almost exactly three years ago, Rabbi Yakov Horowitz was interviewed by blogger Rafi Goldmeier, former Chicagoan and current resident of Ramat Bet Shemesh. Here is an excerpt from that interview that has proven to be very prescient:
Rabbi Horowitz said that anybody who is violently forcing his chumrohs on others, and especially those who are physically assaulting women are prime candidates for being sexual predators, pedophiles and wife beaters. He repeatedly told us that over the course of time, it will become evident to all that a disproportionately high percentage of these thugs are not only abusing the women on the buses, but are committing far worse on those close to them. He said that, in his view, these people have a distorted and perverse obsession with women and sexual matters…
Lara Logan
When writing his memoirs about the Holocaust my father in law who was a survivor made the following observation about his fellow countrymen in the Ukraine (consisting of 10% Poles and 90% Ukrainians). Although they were always fighting each other they were united in their hatred of Jews. In essence he said 90% of the Ukrainian population were anti Semites.
This thought now frequently comes to mind as I watch the Middle East as we once knew it falling apart.
As I write these words the domino effect continues. One country after another is falling to grassroots protesters, some of them rioting, and in some cases even devolving into civil war. It seems that the citizens of Libya who have been led by the despotic dictator Muammar Gadaffi for an over 41 year reign are about end his murderous regime.
In every instance of rebellion the clarion call is ‘democracy’. Ordinarily this would be a welcome development. One after another these countries are finally being brought into the 21st century. But how does this affect the Jewish people – or more precisely the State of Israel? The answer is far from clear but I am not optimistic.
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has noted that the one word he has not heard in this entire game-changing episode is ‘Israel’. I suppose what he meant is that for the very first time since the establishment of the State in 1948, Israel is not the focus of all their problems. Virtually all the rhetoric in the streets of protest is against the leadership they are trying to overthrow.
Does this mean that all the anti Israel rhetoric of the past in the Arab world was mainly from those in power? Is Libya anti Semitic only because of Gadaffi? Are the Egyptian people not inherently anti Semitic? And once they become a true democracy they will come to ‘love thy neighbor’ in the person of the Israeli people?
Hardly. The anti Semitism is as inherent in Arab culture as it was (and may still be) in the Ukraine. To me that has always been obvious. When ‘Mein Kampf’ can be found on bookshelves in Egyptian bookstores and ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ is still a best seller, it isn’t too hard to deduce that most Arabs – including their ‘democrats’ - hate the Jewish people.
For one brief moment, I thought that maybe regional political change in the Middle East will not necessarily spell trouble for Israel. Many of the more responsible Egyptians ( those with potential to become national leaders) have said they would maintain the peace treaty with Israel. But many of them also said they might condition it on Israel’s treatment of Palestinians or the creation of a Palestinian State. And these were the supposed moderates.
This does not even take into account the more organized and powerful Muslim Brotherhood – a group of fundamentalist Muslims whose attitude about Israel is about the same as Hamas. They are 25% of the population! It is not all that much of a stretch to predict that at some point after a democracy is set up and people will be able to choose their leaders, that the Muslim Brotherhood will be voted into power – much the same way Hamas was in Gaza.
Like Hamas - the Brotherhood are tremendous Baalei Chesed to their own people. They have free medical clinics set up for their poor and are very charitable to them in many other ways. Their Gemilas Chasodim for their own people rivals Satmar’s Gemilas Chesed for our people. That they are vehement haters of Israel has no meaning to fellow Egyptians one way or the other. They see a benevolent religious group who goes out of their way for each and every one of them… and that is all they care about.
That most Egyptians would not necessary want to turn their attention to Israel in hostile ways and instead concentrate on building their new democracy - does not mean they are opposed to the idea in principle. If the Brotherhood comes into power they could easily make hostility to Israel their number one priority. Breaking the peace treaty will be the least of Israel’s concerns.
What evidence is there that street hatred of Jews and Israel is so deeply ingrained into the Arab psyche? Ask Lara Logan. She is a very liberal reporter for CBS who tends to bend over backwards to understand the plight of the Palestinians and often focuses on them much more than she does on the problems Israel faces. Like indiscriminate rocket attacks from Gaza or Lebanon against innocent Israeli civilians.
While reporting on the Egyptian uprising she was sexually assaulted and brutally beaten by a 200 man Egyptian mob chanting ‘Jew, Jew’! So badly was she beaten that she had to be hospitalized.
Lara Logan is not Jewish. All that mattered to that mob is that they thought she was. It was all they needed. The Jewish Week noted that the anti Jewish aspect of this story was at first covered up - not mentioned at all by the mainstream media. The excuse has been that it was not verified. But after a while belief among media set in and they did start mentioning it in subsequent stories.
That was not the only incident of anti Semitism among the protesters:
According to a statement from Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, there have been “at least three … violent episodes,” including Logan, in which “the perpetrators accused the journalists of being Jewish, or of spying for Israel.”
Alexander Flax, associate director for media relations at the ADL, told The Jewish Week that in addition to Logan, two members of a Fox News crew were severely beaten and hospitalized after being accused of being Israeli spies. The online New York Times linked to that story but did not report it.
And a news team from Sweden was attacked and hospitalized with severe injuries, accused of spying for Israel. That story also was almost exclusively online in the United States, not in print.
Now I am absolutely certain that the media is not anti Semitic. They are just liberal wishful thinkers – the ‘monkey in the middle’ who prefers ‘not to see evil’. And ignore the potential devastating consequences for Israel that this upheaval may bring. God forbid.
All they see is ‘Democracy’. The smile on the reporters as they report among jubilant crowds says it all. How myopic of them! You would think that in the over sixty years since the holocaust they would become a little more suspicious about the ‘peace in our time ’that Arab democracies might bring. The Arabs of today are not much different than the pre-war Poles and Ukrainians – united in their hatred of the Jewish people.
The difference is that fundamentalist Islam allows for a kind of martyrdom that did not exist among Europeans. That religious fervor will almost certainly change the dynamic of these new regimes as democracy frees up fundamentalist groups like the Islamic Brotherhood to take power.
I have no way of predicting the future. But the one thing I do know is that since 1973 peace in the Middle East has never been more uncertain than it is now. And Israel has never needed to be more vigilant than it does now. I hope they are up to the task. Oseh Shalom Bimromov - Hu Ya’aseh Shalom Aleinu V’Al Kol Yiroel - V'Imeru Amen! May God protect us.
This thought now frequently comes to mind as I watch the Middle East as we once knew it falling apart.
As I write these words the domino effect continues. One country after another is falling to grassroots protesters, some of them rioting, and in some cases even devolving into civil war. It seems that the citizens of Libya who have been led by the despotic dictator Muammar Gadaffi for an over 41 year reign are about end his murderous regime.
In every instance of rebellion the clarion call is ‘democracy’. Ordinarily this would be a welcome development. One after another these countries are finally being brought into the 21st century. But how does this affect the Jewish people – or more precisely the State of Israel? The answer is far from clear but I am not optimistic.
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has noted that the one word he has not heard in this entire game-changing episode is ‘Israel’. I suppose what he meant is that for the very first time since the establishment of the State in 1948, Israel is not the focus of all their problems. Virtually all the rhetoric in the streets of protest is against the leadership they are trying to overthrow.
Does this mean that all the anti Israel rhetoric of the past in the Arab world was mainly from those in power? Is Libya anti Semitic only because of Gadaffi? Are the Egyptian people not inherently anti Semitic? And once they become a true democracy they will come to ‘love thy neighbor’ in the person of the Israeli people?
Hardly. The anti Semitism is as inherent in Arab culture as it was (and may still be) in the Ukraine. To me that has always been obvious. When ‘Mein Kampf’ can be found on bookshelves in Egyptian bookstores and ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ is still a best seller, it isn’t too hard to deduce that most Arabs – including their ‘democrats’ - hate the Jewish people.
For one brief moment, I thought that maybe regional political change in the Middle East will not necessarily spell trouble for Israel. Many of the more responsible Egyptians ( those with potential to become national leaders) have said they would maintain the peace treaty with Israel. But many of them also said they might condition it on Israel’s treatment of Palestinians or the creation of a Palestinian State. And these were the supposed moderates.
This does not even take into account the more organized and powerful Muslim Brotherhood – a group of fundamentalist Muslims whose attitude about Israel is about the same as Hamas. They are 25% of the population! It is not all that much of a stretch to predict that at some point after a democracy is set up and people will be able to choose their leaders, that the Muslim Brotherhood will be voted into power – much the same way Hamas was in Gaza.
Like Hamas - the Brotherhood are tremendous Baalei Chesed to their own people. They have free medical clinics set up for their poor and are very charitable to them in many other ways. Their Gemilas Chasodim for their own people rivals Satmar’s Gemilas Chesed for our people. That they are vehement haters of Israel has no meaning to fellow Egyptians one way or the other. They see a benevolent religious group who goes out of their way for each and every one of them… and that is all they care about.
That most Egyptians would not necessary want to turn their attention to Israel in hostile ways and instead concentrate on building their new democracy - does not mean they are opposed to the idea in principle. If the Brotherhood comes into power they could easily make hostility to Israel their number one priority. Breaking the peace treaty will be the least of Israel’s concerns.
What evidence is there that street hatred of Jews and Israel is so deeply ingrained into the Arab psyche? Ask Lara Logan. She is a very liberal reporter for CBS who tends to bend over backwards to understand the plight of the Palestinians and often focuses on them much more than she does on the problems Israel faces. Like indiscriminate rocket attacks from Gaza or Lebanon against innocent Israeli civilians.
While reporting on the Egyptian uprising she was sexually assaulted and brutally beaten by a 200 man Egyptian mob chanting ‘Jew, Jew’! So badly was she beaten that she had to be hospitalized.
Lara Logan is not Jewish. All that mattered to that mob is that they thought she was. It was all they needed. The Jewish Week noted that the anti Jewish aspect of this story was at first covered up - not mentioned at all by the mainstream media. The excuse has been that it was not verified. But after a while belief among media set in and they did start mentioning it in subsequent stories.
That was not the only incident of anti Semitism among the protesters:
According to a statement from Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, there have been “at least three … violent episodes,” including Logan, in which “the perpetrators accused the journalists of being Jewish, or of spying for Israel.”
Alexander Flax, associate director for media relations at the ADL, told The Jewish Week that in addition to Logan, two members of a Fox News crew were severely beaten and hospitalized after being accused of being Israeli spies. The online New York Times linked to that story but did not report it.
And a news team from Sweden was attacked and hospitalized with severe injuries, accused of spying for Israel. That story also was almost exclusively online in the United States, not in print.
Now I am absolutely certain that the media is not anti Semitic. They are just liberal wishful thinkers – the ‘monkey in the middle’ who prefers ‘not to see evil’. And ignore the potential devastating consequences for Israel that this upheaval may bring. God forbid.
All they see is ‘Democracy’. The smile on the reporters as they report among jubilant crowds says it all. How myopic of them! You would think that in the over sixty years since the holocaust they would become a little more suspicious about the ‘peace in our time ’that Arab democracies might bring. The Arabs of today are not much different than the pre-war Poles and Ukrainians – united in their hatred of the Jewish people.
The difference is that fundamentalist Islam allows for a kind of martyrdom that did not exist among Europeans. That religious fervor will almost certainly change the dynamic of these new regimes as democracy frees up fundamentalist groups like the Islamic Brotherhood to take power.
I have no way of predicting the future. But the one thing I do know is that since 1973 peace in the Middle East has never been more uncertain than it is now. And Israel has never needed to be more vigilant than it does now. I hope they are up to the task. Oseh Shalom Bimromov - Hu Ya’aseh Shalom Aleinu V’Al Kol Yiroel - V'Imeru Amen! May God protect us.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
The Transplant Conundrum
My friend Rabbi Shael Siegel makes an interesting point about the singular most difficult issue in the controversy over brain stem death, organ transplants. I think that this is one of those areas where a common sense approach when combined with Halacha and ethics can have negative life or death consequences.
Just to summarize the issue – there is a controversy over whether brain stem death is a proper Halachic indicator of death. Until relatively recently both science and Halacha looked at pretty much the same thing to determine the point of death: the cessation of heart-lung function.
But modern science has changed all that. Halacha still looks at the cessation of breathing and a lack of a heartbeat to determine death. But medical advances have enabled doctors to literally bring people back to life – resuscitating them after the heart stops beating. And they have found ways (via a heart-lung machine) to keep a heart beating long after natural causes would have caused it to stop. This can be done even after a medically determined death via cessation of brain function - something that Halacha does not explicitly recognize.
My understanding is that modern medicine can determine a whether a person is dead or alive in other more precise ways via something called brain stem death. The patient is then considered dead even though he can still be breathing and his heart still beating via a machine.
The Halachic definition of death would however seem to indicate that Halachicly the patient is still alive. Removing any medical instruments that keep the patient breathing can therefore be seen as murder. This seems to be the dominant view among Poskim.
Rabbi Moshe Tendler has courageously staked out a very controversial position that brain stem death is in fact actual death. As one poster (Raphael Kaufman) put it -Rav Tendler's position on brain stem death requires that there be no breathing reflex and complete lack of blood flow to the brain stem (inferred or determined by angiogram). An individual can have no discernable brain waves and still be capable of spontaneous respiration. In such a case, no halachic authority would consider the individual to be dead. Rabbi Dr. William Gewirtz points out that key to brain stem death is its irreversiblity.
He has claimed that his father in law, Rav Moshe Feinstein, agreed with him on this. Others dispute that and say that Rav Moshe never said that. I do not believe there is any written record of Rav Moshe’s views on this subject.
This has caused an uproar among many Poskim. They have condemned Rabbi Tendler’s views and maintain that Chazal’s definition of death is the only Halachic standard.
This battle between Rabbi Tendler and other Poskim impacts the relatively new lifesaving medical advance of organ transpalnts by donors who have ‘died’ as determined by brain stem death.
In order for an organ to be viable for transplant it must still be ‘working’. A heart for example must be beating before it is removed from the donor to the recipient or it becomes necrotic and unusable. By keeping it going via a heart-lung machine transplants become possible and many lives can be saved. But if death is only determined by a stopped heart, heart transplants become impossible. This is one of the reasons that Orthodox Jews are discouraged from signing organ donor cards.
And yet when an Orthodox Jew needs a heart transplant Halacha permits him to take it. I guess the explanation for this is in part that once the heart is offered in a situation where we have no control over the donor – and doctors have removed it pronouncing the patient dead via the cessation of brain stem activlty – then it would be criminal to let a patient die at that point and not give it to him even if he would himself never be able to donate his heart if the tables were turned.
The question arises about the morality of taking without giving. Rabbi Avi Shafran has made a moral argument for that. But my friend Shael takes him to task for it. The following is a slightly edited excerpt from his blog:
The… issue I have is with the few who risked wading into the area of medical ethics and the ethical decision-making process. Frankly I was shocked at the apparent lack of sensitivity of two of the scholars who exploited the proverbial halachic loopholes in order to benefit from the transplants while at the same time ruling that BSD (brain stem death) can be ruled on not only as murder but double murder.
Rabbi Avi Shafran, Director of Public Affairs for Agudath Israel of America reasoned the following: “Can a potential recipients religious beliefs…constitute valid grounds for penalizing him…? Legally speaking, denying someone a transplant simply because joining an organ donation system would force him to dishonor his religious beliefs would…amount to curtailing his constitutional rights….”
Rabbi Shafran’s views seems to leave something to be desired. In a society where organs are in short supply and limited, and people are asked to participate on a “give-get” basis, it would stand to reason that those who do participate ought to benefit before those who refuse to participate.
No one is being coerced, and no one’s religious freedoms are being trampled upon. However, the decisions we make do have consequences. Choosing to live apart, for whatever the reason, whether it is personal convictions or religious belief doesn’t entitle one to reap the same benefits as those who choose to participate and contribute.
If one decides not to participate in “give-get” he ought to be prepared to forego a possible transplant. Isn’t that what standing on principles really mean: to talk the talk and walk the walk? The ethics of “give-get” become even more convincing when we also consider the normative halachic practice in Israel where BSD is an accepted clinical criterion of declaring someone dead. In spite of the responsible and sagacious advise of the Chief Rabbinate, if one decides to choose to listen to his local rabbi and opt for the heartbeat criteria instead of BSD, the consequence ought to be clear.
I hear you, Shael. And I find it hard to argue with you.
Just to summarize the issue – there is a controversy over whether brain stem death is a proper Halachic indicator of death. Until relatively recently both science and Halacha looked at pretty much the same thing to determine the point of death: the cessation of heart-lung function.
But modern science has changed all that. Halacha still looks at the cessation of breathing and a lack of a heartbeat to determine death. But medical advances have enabled doctors to literally bring people back to life – resuscitating them after the heart stops beating. And they have found ways (via a heart-lung machine) to keep a heart beating long after natural causes would have caused it to stop. This can be done even after a medically determined death via cessation of brain function - something that Halacha does not explicitly recognize.
My understanding is that modern medicine can determine a whether a person is dead or alive in other more precise ways via something called brain stem death. The patient is then considered dead even though he can still be breathing and his heart still beating via a machine.
The Halachic definition of death would however seem to indicate that Halachicly the patient is still alive. Removing any medical instruments that keep the patient breathing can therefore be seen as murder. This seems to be the dominant view among Poskim.
Rabbi Moshe Tendler has courageously staked out a very controversial position that brain stem death is in fact actual death. As one poster (Raphael Kaufman) put it -Rav Tendler's position on brain stem death requires that there be no breathing reflex and complete lack of blood flow to the brain stem (inferred or determined by angiogram). An individual can have no discernable brain waves and still be capable of spontaneous respiration. In such a case, no halachic authority would consider the individual to be dead. Rabbi Dr. William Gewirtz points out that key to brain stem death is its irreversiblity.
He has claimed that his father in law, Rav Moshe Feinstein, agreed with him on this. Others dispute that and say that Rav Moshe never said that. I do not believe there is any written record of Rav Moshe’s views on this subject.
This has caused an uproar among many Poskim. They have condemned Rabbi Tendler’s views and maintain that Chazal’s definition of death is the only Halachic standard.
This battle between Rabbi Tendler and other Poskim impacts the relatively new lifesaving medical advance of organ transpalnts by donors who have ‘died’ as determined by brain stem death.
In order for an organ to be viable for transplant it must still be ‘working’. A heart for example must be beating before it is removed from the donor to the recipient or it becomes necrotic and unusable. By keeping it going via a heart-lung machine transplants become possible and many lives can be saved. But if death is only determined by a stopped heart, heart transplants become impossible. This is one of the reasons that Orthodox Jews are discouraged from signing organ donor cards.
And yet when an Orthodox Jew needs a heart transplant Halacha permits him to take it. I guess the explanation for this is in part that once the heart is offered in a situation where we have no control over the donor – and doctors have removed it pronouncing the patient dead via the cessation of brain stem activlty – then it would be criminal to let a patient die at that point and not give it to him even if he would himself never be able to donate his heart if the tables were turned.
The question arises about the morality of taking without giving. Rabbi Avi Shafran has made a moral argument for that. But my friend Shael takes him to task for it. The following is a slightly edited excerpt from his blog:
The… issue I have is with the few who risked wading into the area of medical ethics and the ethical decision-making process. Frankly I was shocked at the apparent lack of sensitivity of two of the scholars who exploited the proverbial halachic loopholes in order to benefit from the transplants while at the same time ruling that BSD (brain stem death) can be ruled on not only as murder but double murder.
Rabbi Avi Shafran, Director of Public Affairs for Agudath Israel of America reasoned the following: “Can a potential recipients religious beliefs…constitute valid grounds for penalizing him…? Legally speaking, denying someone a transplant simply because joining an organ donation system would force him to dishonor his religious beliefs would…amount to curtailing his constitutional rights….”
Rabbi Shafran’s views seems to leave something to be desired. In a society where organs are in short supply and limited, and people are asked to participate on a “give-get” basis, it would stand to reason that those who do participate ought to benefit before those who refuse to participate.
No one is being coerced, and no one’s religious freedoms are being trampled upon. However, the decisions we make do have consequences. Choosing to live apart, for whatever the reason, whether it is personal convictions or religious belief doesn’t entitle one to reap the same benefits as those who choose to participate and contribute.
If one decides not to participate in “give-get” he ought to be prepared to forego a possible transplant. Isn’t that what standing on principles really mean: to talk the talk and walk the walk? The ethics of “give-get” become even more convincing when we also consider the normative halachic practice in Israel where BSD is an accepted clinical criterion of declaring someone dead. In spite of the responsible and sagacious advise of the Chief Rabbinate, if one decides to choose to listen to his local rabbi and opt for the heartbeat criteria instead of BSD, the consequence ought to be clear.
I hear you, Shael. And I find it hard to argue with you.
Congratulations Mayor-Elect Rahm Emanuel
The next mayor of Chicago will have a Menorah in his window on Chanukah. Last night the people of Chicago elected the first Jewish mayor in its long and glorious history. He won against 5 other opponents with a commanding 55% of the vote.Much has been said about Rahm Emanuel both pro and con. But no one can doubt the abilities that got him here. I think it is fair to say whether or not one likes his abrasive behind the scenes style - the force of his powerful personality and his intense determination will serve him well in the challenges he faces - which are considerable.
To Chicago’s credit, his Jewish religion was not an issue. He was elected by significant portions of Chicago’s racial, religious, and ethnic vote of which there is a wide array. They looked past candidates of their own ethnicity, religion, and race to vote for the man they believed will best serve the interests of the city.
I just want to take a moment to focus on the mayor elect’s Jewishness. Rahm Emanuel is not an Orthodox Jew. But he is a proud Jew who does not hide his Yiddishkeit. He is religious enough to belong to an Orthodox Shul - Rabbi Asher Lopatin’s Anshei Shalom. (Rabbi Lopatin is a Talmid of Rav Ahron Soloveichik.) He loves Israel enough to have run to Israel during the first Gulf War and volunteer for the IDF as Iraqi scud missiles were being fired into it. His Judaism is meaningful enough to have had his son’s Bar Mitzvah at the Kotel.
That some Jews despise him because of his association with the Obama administration is wrong-headed, irrational, and counterproductive no matter how one feels about the President’s policies on Israel.
I think the Jewish citizens of Chicago can take pride in the fact that one of our own has made it to the top and will continue the greatness that is Chicago… following in the very large footsteps of Mayor Richard M. Daley.
Congratulations to Rahm Emanuel, his wife Amy, and his children, Zachariah, Ilana and Leah. I join Gery Chico who in a most gracious concession speech wishes him great success as Chicago’s next mayor.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
The Balkany Verdict
Rabbi Milton Balkany was sentenced to four years in prison for attempting to extort 4 million dollars from a hedgefund - money that he was in part supposedly going to use to fund his school - a Beis Yaakov elementary school in the Boro Park section of Brooklyn.
I am not going to second guess the judge on this. I in fact believe this is a just verdict. He could have gotten 20 years. But because of 87 letters attesting to a lifetime of good works - the judge in this case tempered justice with mercy (as opposed to the case of his brother in law Shalom Rubashkin who received no mercy from his judge and was sentenced to 27 years in prison).
What a sad story this is about my childhood friend. Even though as noted above, Milton deserves what he got, I can’t help feeling sorry for him. I guess that personal relationships tend to influence one’s emotions.
The truth is that although he is guilty of creating a huge Chilul HaShem - Milton is not a monster. He is a mixed bag. He could have been an inspiring religious figure. He was a very talented individual. He was a fund raiser par excellence and when doing so for political candidates it gave him political clout – which I’m sure he used for advocating Orthodox Jewish causes. He was personally a very kind man who apparently did a lot of Chesed – acts of kindness. Many of them privately for a great many people.
But he was also apparently a ruthless boss who as a principal exploited his teachers. In the end he failed as a Jewish leader. His ethics left a lot to be desired. That – and his apparent taste for the finer things in life ultimately did him in.
4 years is a long time from the perspective of a 64 year old. But upon his eventual release at age 68, he should still have plenty of good years left to enjoy with his family. I hope he will have by then learned his lesson and be contrite about his criminal activity and the Chilul HaShem it caused.
To the best of my knowledge he has as of yet been unapologetic for what he did – bringing additional shame and embarrassment to the Jewish community. I hope after 4 years of thinking about it in prison that his attitude will change. In the meantime my heart goes out to his family.
I am not going to second guess the judge on this. I in fact believe this is a just verdict. He could have gotten 20 years. But because of 87 letters attesting to a lifetime of good works - the judge in this case tempered justice with mercy (as opposed to the case of his brother in law Shalom Rubashkin who received no mercy from his judge and was sentenced to 27 years in prison).
What a sad story this is about my childhood friend. Even though as noted above, Milton deserves what he got, I can’t help feeling sorry for him. I guess that personal relationships tend to influence one’s emotions.
The truth is that although he is guilty of creating a huge Chilul HaShem - Milton is not a monster. He is a mixed bag. He could have been an inspiring religious figure. He was a very talented individual. He was a fund raiser par excellence and when doing so for political candidates it gave him political clout – which I’m sure he used for advocating Orthodox Jewish causes. He was personally a very kind man who apparently did a lot of Chesed – acts of kindness. Many of them privately for a great many people.
But he was also apparently a ruthless boss who as a principal exploited his teachers. In the end he failed as a Jewish leader. His ethics left a lot to be desired. That – and his apparent taste for the finer things in life ultimately did him in.
4 years is a long time from the perspective of a 64 year old. But upon his eventual release at age 68, he should still have plenty of good years left to enjoy with his family. I hope he will have by then learned his lesson and be contrite about his criminal activity and the Chilul HaShem it caused.
To the best of my knowledge he has as of yet been unapologetic for what he did – bringing additional shame and embarrassment to the Jewish community. I hope after 4 years of thinking about it in prison that his attitude will change. In the meantime my heart goes out to his family.
Standing in the Shadow of a Martyr
Imagine that you have a close knit and loving family. You are close with parents grandparents and all of your siblings. Your brother just got engaged and asked you – his best friend – to be the ‘Best Man’ at his wedding. Imagine telling your brother that you refuse to do it. Imagine the reaction of not only your brother but the entire family. Imagine telling them that you will not even attend the wedding – for no reason other than your newly attained religious sensibilities.
This is exactly what happened to one Baal Teshuva by the name of Ross Kryger. He tells his story on Beyond BT. His brother was intermarrying and the ceremony was going to be in a church. He asked a Shaila to his Rav whether he would even be permitted to attend (let alone participate in any public way like being the best man). He was told no - in no uncertain terms. His family pleaded with him. He had after all attended a cousin’s wedding in a church in the past. He had also attended his father’s intermarriage and even danced with him. All before he became observant.
The following is his description of what happened:
I told my brother I wasn’t going. He thought I was joking…I wouldn’t be best man at his wedding?? I’ll skip the blood and gore…it was awful. Devastation doesn’t even come close. My father’s blood pressure became a steady 400/200. It was actually a relief when he stopped talking to me (although perhaps five years was overdoing it a bit.) My mother did understand to some extent, but cried anyway. And now, in 20AD After Discovery of Yiddishkeit) , my brother still hasn’t said a word to me, despite numerous attempts to reach out. My extended family was horrified.
I wonder how many of us who are born into religious families could withstand being cut off from them... from the mother and father who lovingly raised you and gave you every advantage …from your siblings and extended families... Even if it was in service of your principles, could you do it? That is what this man did after discovering Emes.
He asks whether this might in any way be a Chilul HaShem – even though he realizes that it was the right thing to do. If there was ever a chance of Orthodox Jews reaching out to them, this certainly killed any possibility of it.
I would answer that following Halacha in the face of such adversity is in fact a Kiddush HaShem.
He says that perhaps he could have handled things differently. I suppose there might have been a better way to handle it that may have minimized the personal and emotional damage. I really don’t know. But one thing is very clear to me. This man is a hero. And this is precisely why I say that very few people who have been born into religious families and raised that way can even stand in the shadows of a Baal Teshuva.
This is exactly what happened to one Baal Teshuva by the name of Ross Kryger. He tells his story on Beyond BT. His brother was intermarrying and the ceremony was going to be in a church. He asked a Shaila to his Rav whether he would even be permitted to attend (let alone participate in any public way like being the best man). He was told no - in no uncertain terms. His family pleaded with him. He had after all attended a cousin’s wedding in a church in the past. He had also attended his father’s intermarriage and even danced with him. All before he became observant.
The following is his description of what happened:
I told my brother I wasn’t going. He thought I was joking…I wouldn’t be best man at his wedding?? I’ll skip the blood and gore…it was awful. Devastation doesn’t even come close. My father’s blood pressure became a steady 400/200. It was actually a relief when he stopped talking to me (although perhaps five years was overdoing it a bit.) My mother did understand to some extent, but cried anyway. And now, in 20AD After Discovery of Yiddishkeit) , my brother still hasn’t said a word to me, despite numerous attempts to reach out. My extended family was horrified.
I wonder how many of us who are born into religious families could withstand being cut off from them... from the mother and father who lovingly raised you and gave you every advantage …from your siblings and extended families... Even if it was in service of your principles, could you do it? That is what this man did after discovering Emes.
He asks whether this might in any way be a Chilul HaShem – even though he realizes that it was the right thing to do. If there was ever a chance of Orthodox Jews reaching out to them, this certainly killed any possibility of it.
I would answer that following Halacha in the face of such adversity is in fact a Kiddush HaShem.
He says that perhaps he could have handled things differently. I suppose there might have been a better way to handle it that may have minimized the personal and emotional damage. I really don’t know. But one thing is very clear to me. This man is a hero. And this is precisely why I say that very few people who have been born into religious families and raised that way can even stand in the shadows of a Baal Teshuva.
Yerusha
I have a very strict policy of not accepting any unpaid announcements on my blog. I have been asked many times to post such announcements about worthy causes and institutions that would make more people aware of what they do and for those who can afford it and are so inclined to help support them financially.
Although many of these causes are indeed worthy and deserve community support, I don’t want my blog to become a community bulletin board. That is not its purpose. Its purpose is implied by the title: To seek and promote Emes and Emunah.
But I am making an exception in this case because of the unique nature of this website. I do not believe there is anything else like it. My hat is off to its creator, Anna Olswanger. I don’t know her and never met her. But she has been described by her Rav as a brilliant and dedicated person who is both creative and gifted.
Mrs. Olswanger sent me a personal note asking if I would mention her website. After giving it some thought I decided to make an exception. The following are her words:
I've created a new website called Yerusha.com for Jewish women and men past normal child-bearing age, who believe they may never have children, either biologically or by adoption. I started the site as a way to bring these Jews together, both online and in the real world, to explore the meaning and experience of being childless Jewish adults.
As a childless Jew myself, I know that some childless Jews feel ashamed because they haven't "stepped up to the plate." I want Yerusha to be a resource for these Jews, a place where they can go beyond dwelling on their childlessness and discover the inheritance ("yerusha" in Hebrew) they could leave to the Jewish people.
The website features a section on relevant Jewish teachings, a list of role models who left something to the Jewish people despite their childlessness, possible steps to take in exploring what it means to be childless, and a forum where people can share their own stories.
I hope that visitors to the site will be encouraged to start local groups, or that an umbrella group may want to take on Yerusha as its project.
Anna Olswanger
Although many of these causes are indeed worthy and deserve community support, I don’t want my blog to become a community bulletin board. That is not its purpose. Its purpose is implied by the title: To seek and promote Emes and Emunah.
But I am making an exception in this case because of the unique nature of this website. I do not believe there is anything else like it. My hat is off to its creator, Anna Olswanger. I don’t know her and never met her. But she has been described by her Rav as a brilliant and dedicated person who is both creative and gifted.
Mrs. Olswanger sent me a personal note asking if I would mention her website. After giving it some thought I decided to make an exception. The following are her words:
I've created a new website called Yerusha.com for Jewish women and men past normal child-bearing age, who believe they may never have children, either biologically or by adoption. I started the site as a way to bring these Jews together, both online and in the real world, to explore the meaning and experience of being childless Jewish adults.
As a childless Jew myself, I know that some childless Jews feel ashamed because they haven't "stepped up to the plate." I want Yerusha to be a resource for these Jews, a place where they can go beyond dwelling on their childlessness and discover the inheritance ("yerusha" in Hebrew) they could leave to the Jewish people.
The website features a section on relevant Jewish teachings, a list of role models who left something to the Jewish people despite their childlessness, possible steps to take in exploring what it means to be childless, and a forum where people can share their own stories.
I hope that visitors to the site will be encouraged to start local groups, or that an umbrella group may want to take on Yerusha as its project.
Anna Olswanger
Monday, February 21, 2011
A Reform Rabbi’s Moment of Truth
Emes crosses all denominations. Emes will always rise to the top and make its own irrefutable argument. This is no less true as it applies to various Jewish denominations with respect to their own future viability.
I recently mentioned the shrinking numbers of Conservative Jews in contradistinction to what I believe to be indisputably growing numbers of Orthodox Jews – defined by commitment to Mitzvah observance rather than by synagogue affiliation. I had also mentioned that even though the number of Jews in the Reform movement has surpassed the once dominant Conservative movement – their theology which among other things redefines who is a Jew has made those numbers suspect and their future as a movement questionable.
I was pleased to see a reform rabbi make a similar statement about his own denomination. In an article in the Forward Rabbi Dana Evan Kaplan notes that Reform Judaism is in turmoil. There is a widespread belief that their numbers have peaked and they are currently in decline. The following are his observations and they are strikingly similar to what many in Orthodoxy have been saying about their movement from the very beginning. And as currently constructed the same argument can be made about Conservative Judaism:
The pluralistic theologies of Reform Judaism make it difficult to reach consensus on what we Reform Jews believe on any given issue. The liberal approach to observance makes it impossible to set and maintain high expectations in terms of communal participation. Without an omnipotent God who can compel believers to practice a prescribed pattern of behavior, religious consumerism becomes the movement’s dominant ethos. As members focus on what they want rather than what they can contribute, it becomes increasingly difficult to build committed religious communities.
As an example of what this has wrought he cites the following:
By 1975, there was so much theological disagreement that the committee responsible for putting together the movement’s official prayer book, “Gates of Prayer,” had to create 10 different Friday night services, eight of which reflected alternative and sometimes contradictory theological perspectives. For example, while Service 1 spoke of the all-powerful God who reigns in the heavens above, Service 2 described the Divine presence as the still, small voice of conscience within each human being.
He later adds:
Since a liberal theology leads to an emphasis on the autonomy of the individual, personal choice is inevitably promoted at the expense of the authority of God. In the absence of a strong theological basis for making religious demands, the members lose interest and wander off. This is what has happened in American Reform Judaism and in other non-Orthodox movements as well.
If I hadn’t read it with my own eyes, I wouldn’t believe it. But Rabbi Kaplan is obviously a seeker of truth. And he is intellectually honest in telling it like it is when he discovers it.
It’s too early to predict the demise of heterodoxy in any of its incarnations. Nor am I even sure that it is such a good thing – if one considers the consequences of a mass secular Jewish population with no realistic Jewish denomination to identify with. Especially with the current trend in Reform to embrace traditional Jewish practices. Even though Mitzvah observance at any level is still considered voluntary - it may just be the bulwark against complete assimilation to the point of shedding any last vestige of Jewish identity. That will ‘kill’ more Jews than Holocaust.
But I can’t help but feel that the harm caused by the advent of Reform and its original platform of ethical monotheism’ devoid of any Jewish practices has done more harm over the generations than it can do good now by trying re-invent themselves - as it struggles for existence.
A religion devoid of any ritual will almost certainly self destruct. I think that is in part was has happened and why they have back peddled rather fiercely in matters of Mitzvah observance. But voluntary Mitzvah observance is not enough. People crave structure in their lives – religious and otherwise. But Rabbi Kaplan says it much better than I just did:
One might think that most people would prefer a congregation that allows each member to find his or her own comfort level rather than one that requires all sorts of obligations, theological as well as ritualistic. That is not necessarily true… We are now seeing the consequences of the benign neglect that has been plaguing Reform Judaism for many years.
This is certainly not the time for triumphalism. Nor should this make us complacent about our future. We have our own very serious existential issues to deal with. But I do think I can say with a certain degree of confidence that Orthodoxy has the very elements of survival that – as pointed out by Rabbi Kaplan - is so sorely lacking in other movements: We see immutable eternal truths - Emes. We see Judaism defined by its obligations and not its rights or individual preferences. Judaism is not about serving God the way we choose to serve Him but by the way He wants us to serve Him. That is what sets us apart. And that is what insures our survival.
I recently mentioned the shrinking numbers of Conservative Jews in contradistinction to what I believe to be indisputably growing numbers of Orthodox Jews – defined by commitment to Mitzvah observance rather than by synagogue affiliation. I had also mentioned that even though the number of Jews in the Reform movement has surpassed the once dominant Conservative movement – their theology which among other things redefines who is a Jew has made those numbers suspect and their future as a movement questionable.
I was pleased to see a reform rabbi make a similar statement about his own denomination. In an article in the Forward Rabbi Dana Evan Kaplan notes that Reform Judaism is in turmoil. There is a widespread belief that their numbers have peaked and they are currently in decline. The following are his observations and they are strikingly similar to what many in Orthodoxy have been saying about their movement from the very beginning. And as currently constructed the same argument can be made about Conservative Judaism:
The pluralistic theologies of Reform Judaism make it difficult to reach consensus on what we Reform Jews believe on any given issue. The liberal approach to observance makes it impossible to set and maintain high expectations in terms of communal participation. Without an omnipotent God who can compel believers to practice a prescribed pattern of behavior, religious consumerism becomes the movement’s dominant ethos. As members focus on what they want rather than what they can contribute, it becomes increasingly difficult to build committed religious communities.
As an example of what this has wrought he cites the following:
By 1975, there was so much theological disagreement that the committee responsible for putting together the movement’s official prayer book, “Gates of Prayer,” had to create 10 different Friday night services, eight of which reflected alternative and sometimes contradictory theological perspectives. For example, while Service 1 spoke of the all-powerful God who reigns in the heavens above, Service 2 described the Divine presence as the still, small voice of conscience within each human being.
He later adds:
Since a liberal theology leads to an emphasis on the autonomy of the individual, personal choice is inevitably promoted at the expense of the authority of God. In the absence of a strong theological basis for making religious demands, the members lose interest and wander off. This is what has happened in American Reform Judaism and in other non-Orthodox movements as well.
If I hadn’t read it with my own eyes, I wouldn’t believe it. But Rabbi Kaplan is obviously a seeker of truth. And he is intellectually honest in telling it like it is when he discovers it.
It’s too early to predict the demise of heterodoxy in any of its incarnations. Nor am I even sure that it is such a good thing – if one considers the consequences of a mass secular Jewish population with no realistic Jewish denomination to identify with. Especially with the current trend in Reform to embrace traditional Jewish practices. Even though Mitzvah observance at any level is still considered voluntary - it may just be the bulwark against complete assimilation to the point of shedding any last vestige of Jewish identity. That will ‘kill’ more Jews than Holocaust.
But I can’t help but feel that the harm caused by the advent of Reform and its original platform of ethical monotheism’ devoid of any Jewish practices has done more harm over the generations than it can do good now by trying re-invent themselves - as it struggles for existence.
A religion devoid of any ritual will almost certainly self destruct. I think that is in part was has happened and why they have back peddled rather fiercely in matters of Mitzvah observance. But voluntary Mitzvah observance is not enough. People crave structure in their lives – religious and otherwise. But Rabbi Kaplan says it much better than I just did:
One might think that most people would prefer a congregation that allows each member to find his or her own comfort level rather than one that requires all sorts of obligations, theological as well as ritualistic. That is not necessarily true… We are now seeing the consequences of the benign neglect that has been plaguing Reform Judaism for many years.
This is certainly not the time for triumphalism. Nor should this make us complacent about our future. We have our own very serious existential issues to deal with. But I do think I can say with a certain degree of confidence that Orthodoxy has the very elements of survival that – as pointed out by Rabbi Kaplan - is so sorely lacking in other movements: We see immutable eternal truths - Emes. We see Judaism defined by its obligations and not its rights or individual preferences. Judaism is not about serving God the way we choose to serve Him but by the way He wants us to serve Him. That is what sets us apart. And that is what insures our survival.
Yitznewton’s List
I have been married for over 40 years. 40 years ago the Shidduch scene was as different from what goes on today as night is from day.
There were many ways to go about finding a mate back then. Frum young people would meet wherever they would find each other like colleges, or community events including weddings Bar Mitzvos or even a regular Shabbos Kiddush. Mixed social organizations like Bnei Akiva in high school and Yavneh for college students were a common way to meet. There were introductions by mutual friends or family. There was growing up with family friends who had sons and daughters of the same age. There was even cold calling someone you met.
And of course there were also Shadchanim - professional and otherwise. For right wing Yeshiva Bachurim, Shadchanim were the almost exclusive method of finding a Shidduch – although there were - and still are plenty of exceptions. The rest of us availed ourselves of all methods.
Today we live in an entirely different universe. The move to the right over the last 40 years has made the Shadchan a far greater force in finding a Shidduch. I’m not going to go into go into all the attendant problems that 40 years of ‘moving to the right’ has done to the Shidduch scene. It would take more than a single post to do that – although I have in the past touched on just about all of those issues.
One of the things that the increasing reliance on Shadchanim has done is that it has increased the idea of researching a potential mate even before meeting them. It is no longer enough to know that a potential couple comes from similar backgrounds. Long lists have been developed that have the most ridiculous questions on them. Like the infamous ‘tablecloth’ question – ‘what color is the tablecloth used in your home on Shabbos?’
One can understand the logic behind lists. The more you know about someone the better. The more things a couple have in common the greater the chance of success. In my view such are valuable up to a point. If for example the young man wants to live a modern Orthodox lifestyle with a TV in the home and the other wants to live a Yeshivishe Kollel lifestyle where TV is as seen as bringing virtual Avodah Zara into the home - that Shidduch should probably never happen. But at some point these lists become counterproductive and ridiculous. Is it really important to know what kind of tablecloth is used by a parent of a potential Shidduch? Where do you draw the line? Which questions should never be asked and which ones should always be asked?
The internet has added another dimension to finding a mate. We now have the virtual Shadchan better known as Frum internet dating sites. They too have lists.
Bearing all this in mind I present Yitznewton’s List. He is an occasional commenter here and has devised a list that is a replacement for those commonly used on current Frum dating websites. Good idea... or bad? Should there be more questions or less? Or none at all? If more - how many more and what should they be? I present it now with his own short introduction.
B"H I've been married for several years, but before that, I was active on one of the main online dating sites. I remember one of the weakest things about the site was the lack of matching criteria. They had a choice of:
MO-liberal
MO-machmir
Yeshivish
Chassidish
They added Yeshivish Modern to that, and since I got married I see they've added a couple more. Obviously these categories are subjective and overlapping, and so largely useless for someone in the middle of the spectrum.
It occurred to me today to implement a system I saw in some non-Jewish dating sites: ask a bunch of simple, specific, non-ambiguous questions (in addition to the essays), and rank potential matches for similarity of responses. This would eliminate the irritating labeling problem altogether. Questions that, together, would form a reasonable social-religious compatibility profile of a person, such as the following, with options of "definitely yes," "definitely no," "maybe":
TV at home?
Movies regularly at home?
Movies regularly in theaters?
Sporting events?
Hair covering for her?
Live in Israel?
Eschew chalav stam?
Full-time learning forever? for a few years? not at all?
Stay-at-home mom?
Learning for him...
Internet at home?
Mobile internet?
Facebook?
Male-female friendships?
Holding hands before marriage?
Secular pop music concerts?
Secular pop music recordings?
Jewish pop music concerts (e.g. Lipa, Schwekey)?
Jewish pop music recordings?
Sesame Street?(some more about kids' culture; I'm out of date)
Blue shirts for him?
Polo shirts for him?
Shorts for him?
Pants for her?
Black hat on Shabbos?
Suit on Shabbos?
Mixed singing at the Shabbos table?
Land for peace?
Zionism evil?
Torah Umadda?
Academic Jewish Studies?
Documentary Hypothesis?
Evolution?
Women Rabbis?
Gedolim know what's right for me?
Cheating on a college test?
Co-ed schools for your children?
Would you feel comfortable with your children going to:
- Touro?
- YU?
- Queens/Brooklyn College?
- Brandeis?
- Yale?
- FSU?
When Rabbi Slifkin's books were banned, I:
- approved
- was appalled
- didn't know what to think
- Rabbi who?
Update: (11:26 AM CST) Yitznewton has added additional points which I have now combined with the original list.
There were many ways to go about finding a mate back then. Frum young people would meet wherever they would find each other like colleges, or community events including weddings Bar Mitzvos or even a regular Shabbos Kiddush. Mixed social organizations like Bnei Akiva in high school and Yavneh for college students were a common way to meet. There were introductions by mutual friends or family. There was growing up with family friends who had sons and daughters of the same age. There was even cold calling someone you met.
And of course there were also Shadchanim - professional and otherwise. For right wing Yeshiva Bachurim, Shadchanim were the almost exclusive method of finding a Shidduch – although there were - and still are plenty of exceptions. The rest of us availed ourselves of all methods.
Today we live in an entirely different universe. The move to the right over the last 40 years has made the Shadchan a far greater force in finding a Shidduch. I’m not going to go into go into all the attendant problems that 40 years of ‘moving to the right’ has done to the Shidduch scene. It would take more than a single post to do that – although I have in the past touched on just about all of those issues.
One of the things that the increasing reliance on Shadchanim has done is that it has increased the idea of researching a potential mate even before meeting them. It is no longer enough to know that a potential couple comes from similar backgrounds. Long lists have been developed that have the most ridiculous questions on them. Like the infamous ‘tablecloth’ question – ‘what color is the tablecloth used in your home on Shabbos?’
One can understand the logic behind lists. The more you know about someone the better. The more things a couple have in common the greater the chance of success. In my view such are valuable up to a point. If for example the young man wants to live a modern Orthodox lifestyle with a TV in the home and the other wants to live a Yeshivishe Kollel lifestyle where TV is as seen as bringing virtual Avodah Zara into the home - that Shidduch should probably never happen. But at some point these lists become counterproductive and ridiculous. Is it really important to know what kind of tablecloth is used by a parent of a potential Shidduch? Where do you draw the line? Which questions should never be asked and which ones should always be asked?
The internet has added another dimension to finding a mate. We now have the virtual Shadchan better known as Frum internet dating sites. They too have lists.
Bearing all this in mind I present Yitznewton’s List. He is an occasional commenter here and has devised a list that is a replacement for those commonly used on current Frum dating websites. Good idea... or bad? Should there be more questions or less? Or none at all? If more - how many more and what should they be? I present it now with his own short introduction.
B"H I've been married for several years, but before that, I was active on one of the main online dating sites. I remember one of the weakest things about the site was the lack of matching criteria. They had a choice of:
MO-liberal
MO-machmir
Yeshivish
Chassidish
They added Yeshivish Modern to that, and since I got married I see they've added a couple more. Obviously these categories are subjective and overlapping, and so largely useless for someone in the middle of the spectrum.
It occurred to me today to implement a system I saw in some non-Jewish dating sites: ask a bunch of simple, specific, non-ambiguous questions (in addition to the essays), and rank potential matches for similarity of responses. This would eliminate the irritating labeling problem altogether. Questions that, together, would form a reasonable social-religious compatibility profile of a person, such as the following, with options of "definitely yes," "definitely no," "maybe":
TV at home?
Movies regularly at home?
Movies regularly in theaters?
Sporting events?
Hair covering for her?
Live in Israel?
Eschew chalav stam?
Full-time learning forever? for a few years? not at all?
Stay-at-home mom?
Learning for him...
Internet at home?
Mobile internet?
Facebook?
Male-female friendships?
Holding hands before marriage?
Secular pop music concerts?
Secular pop music recordings?
Jewish pop music concerts (e.g. Lipa, Schwekey)?
Jewish pop music recordings?
Sesame Street?(some more about kids' culture; I'm out of date)
Blue shirts for him?
Polo shirts for him?
Shorts for him?
Pants for her?
Black hat on Shabbos?
Suit on Shabbos?
Mixed singing at the Shabbos table?
Land for peace?
Zionism evil?
Torah Umadda?
Academic Jewish Studies?
Documentary Hypothesis?
Evolution?
Women Rabbis?
Gedolim know what's right for me?
Cheating on a college test?
Co-ed schools for your children?
Would you feel comfortable with your children going to:
- Touro?
- YU?
- Queens/Brooklyn College?
- Brandeis?
- Yale?
- FSU?
When Rabbi Slifkin's books were banned, I:
- approved
- was appalled
- didn't know what to think
- Rabbi who?
Update: (11:26 AM CST) Yitznewton has added additional points which I have now combined with the original list.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Rahm Emanuel for Mayor of Chicago
One of the most successful big cities in America is Chicago, Illinois. One need only drive down Chicago’s Lake Shore Drive and see the skyline. It has one of the most beautiful skylines in the world. And it keeps changing because developers keep adding beautiful skyscrapers to it.There are many other things about this city that make it an attractive place to live for people of any ethnicity including – and perhaps especially - Orthodox Jews despite its legendary bad winter weather.
Chicago has maintained its vibrancy where other big cities have failed. There is a reason for that. It did not happen by itself. Chicago has had leadership that truly cared about the city more than they cared about their own personal enrichment or aggrandizement. When I moved to Chicago as a teenager in 1962 there was a Daley at the helm. His lengthy tenure and success at keeping Chicago a world class city did not go unnoticed. At a time where other cities were becoming decayed Chicago was being built. Mayor Richard J. Daley (the current mayor’s father) made sure of that. He loved this city and it showed. It earned him accolades all over the world. Despite his many political enemies and the corruption that surrounded him, he remained honest and untouched by scandal. Time Magazine dubbed Chicago ‘The city that works!’ under his tenure rightly attributing its success to him.
The current mayor, Richard M. Daley has the same love for the city his father did. He just surpassed his father’s tenure and is Chicago’s longest serving mayor. He has added quite beautifully to his father’s legacy by developing it even more. And by giving incentives for movie and TV producers to choose Chicago as a backdrop for many of its productions – he has succeeded in showcasing it to the world.
Of course any long term mayor will make some mistakes along the way. Mayor Daley had his share. But on the whole he has truly been a great mayor. His friendship to the Chicago Jewish community is real. It has been demonstrated time and again - as recently last week. More about that later. I will miss him. He as has my sincere gratitude.
During these difficult economic times Chicago needs a mayor that will be able to carry on this success. There are currently four candidates running for his office. With the exception of Carol Mosley Brown, they are all very capable.
There are two that stand out in my view. Either of them would make a great mayor. Based on my personal perceptions during the campaign Gery Chico is clearly a man who could do the job. He is quite brilliant and has served with distinction in every office he held, including as Mayor Daley’s chief of staff. He had input on many of Mayor Daley’s successful decisions. He earned national accolades for turning Chicago’s public schools around from the worst in the country to one of the best during his leadership tenure there. I would vote for him in a heartbeat under any other circumstances.
It should be noted that Gery Chico though not himself Jewish has three Jewish daughters by his Jewish ex wife. They were lovingly raised as Jews. This information came out when one of Chico’s union supporters recently called Emanuel a Judas – betraying American workers by supporting NAFTA under Bill Clinton.
Many saw this as a veiled ethnic slur. Chico did not see it that way when asked to repudiate that reference. Mayor Daley to his everlasting credit blew up when he was asked by reporters whether he thought Chico should repudiate it. The mayor angrily responded by saying, ‘Of course he should repudiate it!’. It was anti-Semitic in tone. He explained that no other supporter of NAFTA had ever been accused by any union leader of being a Judas accept Emanuel by this one union leader. Chico then responded by saying that the mayor knows that he is not anti Semitic because he was invited to attend his own daughter’s Bat Mitzvah.
Chico’s friendship to the Jewish community was demonstrated early in his career when he was president of the Chicago Board of Education. He helped Hanna Sacks Beis Yaakov buy the building it had been leasing for many years from the Chicago Public Schools – an almost impossible task at the time since a local public school needed that building because of over-crowding. With the support of Mayor Daley, Chico solved the problem by getting approval from the building commission to construct a state of the art addition to the school that needed it. That freed up the building Hanna Sacks had for years been leasing to be sold to them. We owe him our eternal gratitude for that. He is definitely a man who can get things done.
But even though supporting Gery Chico might ordinarily be a no-brainer that is not the case now. He has a formidable opponent that in my view will be an even more effective mayor. That man is Rahm Emanuel.
Judging by their performance during the campaign, Chico seems like the better candidate. But knowing Emanuel’s behind the scenes capabilities has made me lean in favor of him.
There is a reason Emanuel was chosen to serve his country by two Presidents. His reputation of effectiveness has world renown. He is a pit-bull behind the scenes and knows how to get things done. His connections to Washington will not hurt Chicago either. How many mayors can say they have had the kind of working relationship with the President of the United States that he has? If a city needs clout with Washington to get what it needs, he is someone who has it. Emanuel has been endorsed by both Chicago newspapers and many other Chicago institutions.
All the polls have Emanuel leading his opponents by a huge margin. In a field of four candidates many believe that he will even get the 50% plus needed to win. Less than that will force a run off by the two biggest vote getters.
He has the support of many of Chicago’s black citizens as well, despite the fact that a former US senator who is black is one of his opponents. He also has the majority of the Jewish vote. What he does not have is the Orthodox Jewish vote.
Unfortunately his association with the Obama administration’s hard-line approach to Israel has tainted him in their eyes. In some cases the mere mention of Emanuel’s name begets angry – sometimes even hostile responses from many of my friends.
I do not see Emanuel the way they do. He served at the pleasure of the President. When he spoke on any issue he reflected the President’s view. To blame Emanuel for the President’s approach is unfair. But even if he agrees with it, that does not mean he is anti Israel anymore than it makes me anti Israel because in theory (if not in practice) I support land for peace.
He is a man who loves Israel and served with the IDF as a volunteer during the first Gulf War. He attended a Conservative religious day school and although not personally Orthodox, is currently a member of an Orthodox Shul. That he had his son’s Bar Mitzvah at the Kotel even while he was part of the Obama administration is a clear indication of where his sympathies really lie. This is not the profile of someone who is anti Israel.
To many Chicago voters this may all be irrelevant. But it is important to me because even though he is running for mayor of Chicago and not Tel Aviv I do not want a leader of the city where I live (or any other major American city) to be anti-Semite – Jewish or otherwise!
Factoring all this into the equation, I have decided to support Rahm Emnauel for Mayor of Chicago. The polls will be open this Tuesday.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Gadol Worship
One of the things plaguing the Torah world right now is the phenomenon of worshiping the Gadol. It doesn’t matter which segment of the Torah world. It applies to all of us. If one individual is put too high up on a pedestal disaster happens. One need only look at what is done in the name of one Gadol or another to understand this. Whether it is causing havoc in Jerusalem, banning a book or a concert, bashing those who raise questions about it, or proclaiming a Gadol to be Moshiach even after he died, it can all be traced to worshipping the image of the Gadol as though he transcended his humanity to become God-like.
This is not to take away from the greatness of any Gadol. Judaism requires that we honor our great people. It requires that we treat them with respect and even awe. It requires that we listen to them. But what it does not require – and perhaps forbids - is worshiping them as icons. Nowhere is this more evident that in this week’s Parsha, Ki Sisa.
It is in Parhsas Ki Sisa where we have our first instance of what happens when a great man, Moshe Rabbenu, is worshipped. That kind of worship led to the Maaseh HaEgel – the worshipping of an icon – the golden calf.
Rav Ahron Soloveichik makes this very point in his book, The Warmth and the Light. How is it possible that the people who were just so overwhelmed by the Shechina and declaring ‘Naaseh V’Nishma’ – ‘We will do (the Mitzvos) and we will listen to them’ - could sink to the moral abyss of Avodah Zara - idol worship?
Another question Rav Ahron asks is the following. Immediately after the Bnei Ysiroel commence their devious behavior, God tells Moshe, ‘Go descend – for your nation has become corrupt! I have seen this nation and behold, it is a stiff necked nation!’ (Shemos 32:9).
Stiff necked? If anything they were flexible – going from the heights of spirituality and in a single moment sinking to the depths of depravity! And what about Aharon, a prophet in his own right? How could he have joined forces with the masses in this? And why was God so angry with them if it was just a matter of ignorance?
And finally why did he feel the need to shatter the Luchos? Rashi explains that the first Luchos were broken because of Ayin Hara. How can that be? Is there an Ayain Hara to something of Divine nature? Ayain Hara may have a negative psychological impact on man. But on a Godly item of what consequence is psychology?
Rav Ahron explains that there are two ways in which to take possession and educate – Kibbush and Chazakah. Kibbush is done with brute force. Chazaka is a slow peaceful process of cultivation. With regard to education Kibbush is when a student is overwhelmed with data. He is being taught all at once. Chazakah is a process of giving over information little by little. According to the Rambam (Hilchos Beis HaBechira - 6:16). The Kedusha of the first conquest of Israel was with brute force – Kibbush. That Kedusha lasted until the destruction of the first Temple. The Kedusha of second temple was a process of Chazakah and remains in effect today – 2 millennia after the destruction of the 2nd Temple. Kibbush loses its effect with time and Chazakah actually gets stronger with each passing day.
When the Bnei Yisroel left Egypt, they didn’t have the spiritual strength – the ethical principles necessary to receive the Torah. God therefore had to perform deeds contrary to the laws of nature in order to raise them to a level of ‘a kingdom of priests and a holy nation’ (Shemos 19:6). Rav Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in his Meshech Chochma that the Gemarah in Shabbos (88A) which says that ‘God held the mountain over their heads like a cask’ is not to be taken literally. Coercing the Bnei Yisroel to accept the Torah would have undermined their free will. God was simply revealing Himself to His people. After the resulting awe and ecstacy they felt about God they could not possibly refuse His Torah. They suddenly saw Emes. Their education was sudden and immediate in the form of Kibbush. And as fast as their spiritual rise was – so too was their spiritual decline. ‘They have turned away quickly from the path that I taught them’ (Shemos 32:8).
There are two categories of Avodah Zara: Full heathendom and partial heathendom. In the latter type an idol is worshipped only as an intermediary. The worshipper believes that the intermediary can exert a compelling force on a higher power. This is exactly where the Bnei Yisroel went wrong. A certain hero worship arose around Moshe. While nobody believed he was God, some did think he had some compelling influence upon Him. After he didn’t return when expected, they attempted to replace him with a calf – symbolic of their notion of a Jewish leader who is energetic and powerful.
Rav Ahron believes that this is the meaning of ‘stiff necked’. They were narrow minded. They had a limited sense of vision. Someone who has a stiff neck and cannot turn his head to the left or right. And therefore not have a peripheral perspective. The Bnei Yisroel could not see beyond Moshe Rabbenu. When he didn’t return they panicked. Had they been able to turn around and see the splender of Matan Torah right behind them they would have understood that Moshe was merely delayed. But they only saw one possibility - Moshe’s death. Their limited vision was because of the way they acquired their education via Kibbush. An education that does not last even if performed by God. The Ayin Hara that Rashi uses in his explanation of why the Luchos were broken refers to their poor one dimensional vision’ that was the result of the way they were educated via Kibbush.
The Midrash (Bereishis Rabbah 8:5) relates that when God created man all the angels fought pro and con about it. Among those who were con was Emes – which said that man was full of lies. God then took Emes and cast it to the earth from where it would grow (See Tehillim 85:12). This Medrash is a metaphor illustrating that just as a growing tree is a necessarily slow process so too is the cultivation of Emes in man.
If, then, the Bnei Yisroel’s error was rooted in their faulty education and ignorance, why were God and Moshe so angry with them? Because by their dancing and merriment they showed that their actions were not predicated solely by ignorance. Had they acted only on an intellectual level they could have been shown the flaw in their reasoning. But by their actions they showed they were as led astray by their whims and desires to gratify their base appetites. Because of that they developed their ‘inescapable intellectual coercion’ that Moshe had died and had to be replaced. When Moshe saw what they were doing, he broke the Luchos.
Aharon too realized this and therefore knew they were going to satisfy their desires at any cost. So he acted in the only way he could to help them. After seeing Chur slaughtered before him he realized that if he didn’t help them, they would kill a priest in the sanctuary of God and never be able to repent. (Sanhedrin 7A). Tospehos asserts that Aharon’s intention was meritorious. The Meiri (Sanhedrin) deduces from the story of Esther that one is not required to give up his life if he is indispensible to saving Klal Yisroel. So he submitted reluctantly to the Jews who were swept away by their base desires unaffected by their education through Kibbush.
So ends Rav Aharon’s Dvar Torah. One can thus see from this week’s Parsha the dangers of seeing leaders as Icons. And why people see them that way. It is because of a faulty education coerced upon them via Kibbush. Force feeding them via indoctrination without allowing any peripheral vision. This creates the ‘perfect storm’ for doing things ostensibly L’Shem Shamyim and ending up with Avodah Zara.
This is not to take away from the greatness of any Gadol. Judaism requires that we honor our great people. It requires that we treat them with respect and even awe. It requires that we listen to them. But what it does not require – and perhaps forbids - is worshiping them as icons. Nowhere is this more evident that in this week’s Parsha, Ki Sisa.
It is in Parhsas Ki Sisa where we have our first instance of what happens when a great man, Moshe Rabbenu, is worshipped. That kind of worship led to the Maaseh HaEgel – the worshipping of an icon – the golden calf.
Rav Ahron Soloveichik makes this very point in his book, The Warmth and the Light. How is it possible that the people who were just so overwhelmed by the Shechina and declaring ‘Naaseh V’Nishma’ – ‘We will do (the Mitzvos) and we will listen to them’ - could sink to the moral abyss of Avodah Zara - idol worship?
Another question Rav Ahron asks is the following. Immediately after the Bnei Ysiroel commence their devious behavior, God tells Moshe, ‘Go descend – for your nation has become corrupt! I have seen this nation and behold, it is a stiff necked nation!’ (Shemos 32:9).
Stiff necked? If anything they were flexible – going from the heights of spirituality and in a single moment sinking to the depths of depravity! And what about Aharon, a prophet in his own right? How could he have joined forces with the masses in this? And why was God so angry with them if it was just a matter of ignorance?
And finally why did he feel the need to shatter the Luchos? Rashi explains that the first Luchos were broken because of Ayin Hara. How can that be? Is there an Ayain Hara to something of Divine nature? Ayain Hara may have a negative psychological impact on man. But on a Godly item of what consequence is psychology?
Rav Ahron explains that there are two ways in which to take possession and educate – Kibbush and Chazakah. Kibbush is done with brute force. Chazaka is a slow peaceful process of cultivation. With regard to education Kibbush is when a student is overwhelmed with data. He is being taught all at once. Chazakah is a process of giving over information little by little. According to the Rambam (Hilchos Beis HaBechira - 6:16). The Kedusha of the first conquest of Israel was with brute force – Kibbush. That Kedusha lasted until the destruction of the first Temple. The Kedusha of second temple was a process of Chazakah and remains in effect today – 2 millennia after the destruction of the 2nd Temple. Kibbush loses its effect with time and Chazakah actually gets stronger with each passing day.
When the Bnei Yisroel left Egypt, they didn’t have the spiritual strength – the ethical principles necessary to receive the Torah. God therefore had to perform deeds contrary to the laws of nature in order to raise them to a level of ‘a kingdom of priests and a holy nation’ (Shemos 19:6). Rav Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in his Meshech Chochma that the Gemarah in Shabbos (88A) which says that ‘God held the mountain over their heads like a cask’ is not to be taken literally. Coercing the Bnei Yisroel to accept the Torah would have undermined their free will. God was simply revealing Himself to His people. After the resulting awe and ecstacy they felt about God they could not possibly refuse His Torah. They suddenly saw Emes. Their education was sudden and immediate in the form of Kibbush. And as fast as their spiritual rise was – so too was their spiritual decline. ‘They have turned away quickly from the path that I taught them’ (Shemos 32:8).
There are two categories of Avodah Zara: Full heathendom and partial heathendom. In the latter type an idol is worshipped only as an intermediary. The worshipper believes that the intermediary can exert a compelling force on a higher power. This is exactly where the Bnei Yisroel went wrong. A certain hero worship arose around Moshe. While nobody believed he was God, some did think he had some compelling influence upon Him. After he didn’t return when expected, they attempted to replace him with a calf – symbolic of their notion of a Jewish leader who is energetic and powerful.
Rav Ahron believes that this is the meaning of ‘stiff necked’. They were narrow minded. They had a limited sense of vision. Someone who has a stiff neck and cannot turn his head to the left or right. And therefore not have a peripheral perspective. The Bnei Yisroel could not see beyond Moshe Rabbenu. When he didn’t return they panicked. Had they been able to turn around and see the splender of Matan Torah right behind them they would have understood that Moshe was merely delayed. But they only saw one possibility - Moshe’s death. Their limited vision was because of the way they acquired their education via Kibbush. An education that does not last even if performed by God. The Ayin Hara that Rashi uses in his explanation of why the Luchos were broken refers to their poor one dimensional vision’ that was the result of the way they were educated via Kibbush.
The Midrash (Bereishis Rabbah 8:5) relates that when God created man all the angels fought pro and con about it. Among those who were con was Emes – which said that man was full of lies. God then took Emes and cast it to the earth from where it would grow (See Tehillim 85:12). This Medrash is a metaphor illustrating that just as a growing tree is a necessarily slow process so too is the cultivation of Emes in man.
If, then, the Bnei Yisroel’s error was rooted in their faulty education and ignorance, why were God and Moshe so angry with them? Because by their dancing and merriment they showed that their actions were not predicated solely by ignorance. Had they acted only on an intellectual level they could have been shown the flaw in their reasoning. But by their actions they showed they were as led astray by their whims and desires to gratify their base appetites. Because of that they developed their ‘inescapable intellectual coercion’ that Moshe had died and had to be replaced. When Moshe saw what they were doing, he broke the Luchos.
Aharon too realized this and therefore knew they were going to satisfy their desires at any cost. So he acted in the only way he could to help them. After seeing Chur slaughtered before him he realized that if he didn’t help them, they would kill a priest in the sanctuary of God and never be able to repent. (Sanhedrin 7A). Tospehos asserts that Aharon’s intention was meritorious. The Meiri (Sanhedrin) deduces from the story of Esther that one is not required to give up his life if he is indispensible to saving Klal Yisroel. So he submitted reluctantly to the Jews who were swept away by their base desires unaffected by their education through Kibbush.
So ends Rav Aharon’s Dvar Torah. One can thus see from this week’s Parsha the dangers of seeing leaders as Icons. And why people see them that way. It is because of a faulty education coerced upon them via Kibbush. Force feeding them via indoctrination without allowing any peripheral vision. This creates the ‘perfect storm’ for doing things ostensibly L’Shem Shamyim and ending up with Avodah Zara.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
The Satmar Mind
The Satmar Rebbe, Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum, was amongst the biggest Gedolim of the previous generation. He was a genius; a Talmid Chacham and Posek with very few peers. He was certainly on par with other Gedolim of his generation in America – including Rav Aharon Kotler, Rav Moshe Feinstein, Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik, and the Lubavitcher Rebbe. All were geniuses and Gedolim to a wide cross sections of Orthodox Jewry. And each was considered THE Gadol HaDor to his own following – no less the Satmar Rebbe to his Chasidim.There is a fascinating review by Professor Allan Nadler of a ‘massive’ new and fawning biography (or some might say hagiography) called The Rebbe. The biographer - Rav Dovid Meisels is a grandson of the Veitzner Rebbe, Rav Tzvi Hirsh Meisels who was a major Posek in Chicago - having settled here post Holocaust. He is famous for Paskening life and death Shailos for fellow prisoners in Auschwitz.
The review can be read in Jewish Ideas Daily. It provides a glimpse into this complex individual that sheds much light on to the behavior of not only his Chasidim but on more importantly people who act on his views that are not Satmar Chasdidm. These include Neturei Karta, the Edah HaCharedis and Chasidic sects like Toldos Aharon in Meah Shearim who at the drop of a hat organize massive anti government protests. Those protests inevitably result in violence, destruction of property, injuries to innocent people, and a massive Chilul HaShem.
I believe that one can best understand this attitude if one understands the Satmar Rebbe’s view of the State of Israel. It is a view that he constantly expressed by cursing it and its founders - a view that is a spiritual guide for much of their anti Israel activity:
He regarded (the State of Israel) as the illegitimate product of a heretical, indeed a satanic, ideology—an ideology responsible for the greatest catastrophes in modern Jewish history, including the Holocaust itself… (He) prayed daily for its demise, and instructed his adoring followers to do likewise.
So extreme was his condemnation of Zionism – religious or otherwise that he forbade praying at - or even visiting the Kotel:
Curses, not blessings, were all that could be incurred by treading on ground contaminated by the evil Zionist army.
This absolute hatred of any form of Zionism was rooted in his firm belief that it was ordained by God (as explained in the Talmud) that the Jewish people are forbidden from governing the land that God has given them until the arrival of the Messiah. Attempting to do so will only bring tragedy.
All of this is kind of ironic since it was a Zionist official of pre-State Palestine that enabled the Satmar Rebbe’s escape from the Holocaust.
This is the type of thinking that goes on in the minds of the Israel hating Satmar Chasid and their kindred spirits in Meah Shearim.
Professor Nadler mentions another part of this biography that deals with the Rebbe’s childhood behavior. Although it is obviously written as praise of his piety even as a youth, professor Nadler notes that such behavior might easily qualify as Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Let me be quick to assert that I do not in any way ascribe any kind of mental disorder including OCD to the Rebbe no matter what it may seem like to the casual observer. But such behavior in anyone less would certainly make one highly suspicious of its origin:
Early on in The Rebbe, Meisels relates tales of Teitelbaum's early childhood—standard procedure in the literature about hasidic tsadikim, or saintly persons destined to become rebbes. Here, however, one finds bizarre accounts of three-year-old Joel Teitelbaum repeatedly engaged for long periods of time in rinsing his mouth, washing his hands, and sitting on the toilet, often interrupting his own prayers to return to the outhouse. The explanation offered for this behavior, which was a source of great concern to his mother, is that the saintly child could not appear before his Creator in prayer without having completely purified his holy body of all forms of uncleanness.
This might help explain the Rebbe’s participation in the minutia of female stocking design.
The Rebbe’s views on Tznius in dress is manifested in the way the pious women of Satmar dress. Obvioulsy they dress the way all religious women do in covering up all parts of the body that are considered Erva (nakedness). Including the hair of married women. But they have incorporated additional strictures that many of even the most religious among us would consider extreme.
They will for instance cover their Shaitels with an additonal hat, cap, or scarf. Their skirt lengths are always far longer than Halacha requires. One of the most interesting strictures they have incorporated into their dress code is that even the lower leg must be fully covered with absolutley no skin showing. Even the mere perception that it isn’t covered is frowned upon. So that only stockings with noticeable seams are permitted. The rest of the stocking must be opaque. Professor Nadler’s words:
In Meisels's words, "The rebbe taught that even 70-denier stockings should not be worn. The numerical value of sod (secret) is 70, so the secret is out that this [stocking] is also transparent." There then follows a lengthy account of Teitelbaum's creation, with the help of a Brooklyn businessman named Lipa Brach, of an exclusive line of fully opaque women's hosiery:
Money in hand, Reb Lipa Brach began to work on the project. He went to several hosiery manufacturers, collected samples, and brought all of them to the rebbe to inspect. The rebbe was very pleased with the progress, and he tested each sample by pulling it over his own arm. If his hair showed, it was no good.... The new stockings were given the brand name, "Palm," the English translation of the Rebbe's surname.... To this day every Satmar woman and girl wears Palm stockings.
In many years of reading hasidic literature, from theoretical mystical tracts to tales and hagiographies, I have never encountered anything remotely like this image of a rebbe testing the thickness of stockings on his own arm, let alone naming a line of women's undergarments after himself.
There is one thing about Satmar that I wish were true about all Charedim – Especially in Israel:
As a consequence of his extreme position, and in sharp contrast to just about every other haredi leader, he not only issued strict sanctions against accepting a single shekel of Israeli state support but strongly discouraged all but his most intellectually gifted followers from lingering in yeshivas, insisting instead that every male Satmar householder enter the workplace. To this day, unlike most other haredim in both the United States and Israel, Satmar Hasidim show low rates of unemployment.
On the issue of working for a living we are one. On this issue I can proudly say that I too am a Satmar Chasid.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Who is a Jew in Israel?
I cannot ever remember such a mish-mash on so vital a matter to the Jewish people as there is now with respect to conversions. Ironically it is because of the sincere efforts by all involved to do the right thing by God.
Gerus - converting to Judaism should really be a simple matter. There is not all that much written about in the Gemarah or in Halacha. It involves three basic elements to which a Kosher Beis Din of three Orthodox Rabbis must be present and witness.
1. Acceptance of the requirement to follow all the Mitzvos of the Torah.
2. Bris Mila - circumcision for a man
3. Tevila – immersion in a Mikva.
Halacha says that once the convert accepts observance – he is taught a few of the major and minor Mitzvos and then completes the ritual process. The convert is a full-fledged Jew. If he then goes on to violate every single Mitzvah in the Torah he is still a Jew no matter what.
End of story? Not exactly. Rav Moshe Feinstein issued a Psak to counter what was becoming a major epidemic of insincere conversions by some Orthodox rabbis in the United States. Rav Moshe said that an insincere ‘lip service’ declaration means nothing. The way to judge it is by seeing no change in the non Halachic behavior after the conversion. This - he said -bears witness to the lack of sincerity.
As simple as conversions should be in theory - it has become mind bogglingly controversial in our day. So much so that the very controversy itself seems to violate the Torah prohibition of mistreating the Ger.
In the spirit of Rav Moshe’s Teshuva there were condemnations against Rabbi Chaim Druckman, a religious Zionist rabbinic leader accused of illegitimately converting masses of insincere immigrants from Russia for nationalistic rather than Halachic reasons. By de-legitimizing Rabbi Druckman - all of his converts were retroactively de-legitimized as well, no matter how sincere they were.
Rabbi Druckman’s name was dragged through the mud at the time. I can only imagine the pain and suffering Rabbi Druckman, his family, and all of his converts have gone through.
As if that weren’t enough - a new controversy has erupted. But this time it wasn’t between right and left. It was between two legitimate Gedolim. One Ashkenazi and one Sephardi – although I don’t think ethnicity played a role in their decisions. Rav Elyashiv remained consistent in his approach. IDF converts were insincere; they had no intention of keeping the Mitzvos, and therefore were not legitimate converts. Rav Yosef said that the IDF converts are sincere and their conversions valid.
It is a now a battle between two giants. Two Gedolim on opposite sides of the debate on an issue that is vital to the very definition of ‘Who is a Jew’. All the arguments about Halacha trumping national interests that were used against Rabbi Druckman have fallen by the wayside. No one can accuse Rabbi Yosef of selling out to political interests the way a religious Zionist rabbi like Rabbi Druckman might.
Of course it is an outrageous canard and a completely unfair accusation to make against a man like Rabbi Druckman in any case. He is a Rosh Yeshiva with a life-long commitment to Halacha and serving his country and his people. But he is in fact a religious Zionist Rabbi and accusations like that are going to be made by the right. Rav Yosef is not a religious Zionist. No one can possibly accuse him of politicizing his Psak. He is about as outspoken as anyone can get about any and every issue and has taken some very unpopular positions in the past because he believed in them.
Instead of leaving this to the two major Gedolim of our day, Rav Yosef and Rav Elyashiv, the Edah HaCharedis has gotten involved. They have an agenda. It is to undermine the State of Israel whenever they can. They have prevailed upon Rav Elyashiv to call for mass protests on the part of the Charedi public. They have also prevailed upon Rav Kanievsky to join him.
This is not the way to settle Halachic issues. It is however the way to bring out mob violence. It is a way to disturb the peace and bring out the worst in people. The rabble-rousers who burn dumpsters must be salivating at this opportunity to show ‘Kavod HaTorah’. Who will they spit on first? How many cars are going to be pelted with rocks? How many people will suffer smoke inhalation from burning dumpsters? It all remains to be seen. But even if it is as peaceful as can be since when do protests and rallies determine Halacha?
I completely understand the passion here. But I do not understand the agreement with the Edah HaCharedis to call for a protest. Do they really think that Rav Yosef will change his Psak based on a public protest?
Meanwhile the Ger continues to be on the receiving end of all this – wondering whether his own conversion will ever be fully accepted no matter who was on the Beis Din. What if one of the Dayanim on an IDF conversion was on his court? Will his status be questioned at some time in the future because of it? Even if he is a Ger Tzedek? It is certainly possible.
And then there is this story. A sincere Ger has been denied immigration to Israel under the law of return. His conversion now deemed invalid even though he fulfilled all the requirements of conversion in front of a Beis Din of observant Jews. Why? Because the rabbi who performed the conversion was a Musmach of YCT.
Sephardi Chief Rabbi - Rav Shlomo Amar who is in charge of all Orthodox foreign conversions has rejected it. It was done outside of the RCA and is not recognized by them either. The Israeli Rabbinate does not accept any conversions done outside of an RCA approved conversion Beis Din.
Does that mean the convert is not Jewish? That is what the State of Israel says. Ironically the State of Israel does accept foreign Conservative or Reform conversions. Those converts are accepted as Jews by the State.
What a holy mess!
Gerus - converting to Judaism should really be a simple matter. There is not all that much written about in the Gemarah or in Halacha. It involves three basic elements to which a Kosher Beis Din of three Orthodox Rabbis must be present and witness.
1. Acceptance of the requirement to follow all the Mitzvos of the Torah.
2. Bris Mila - circumcision for a man
3. Tevila – immersion in a Mikva.
Halacha says that once the convert accepts observance – he is taught a few of the major and minor Mitzvos and then completes the ritual process. The convert is a full-fledged Jew. If he then goes on to violate every single Mitzvah in the Torah he is still a Jew no matter what.
End of story? Not exactly. Rav Moshe Feinstein issued a Psak to counter what was becoming a major epidemic of insincere conversions by some Orthodox rabbis in the United States. Rav Moshe said that an insincere ‘lip service’ declaration means nothing. The way to judge it is by seeing no change in the non Halachic behavior after the conversion. This - he said -bears witness to the lack of sincerity.
As simple as conversions should be in theory - it has become mind bogglingly controversial in our day. So much so that the very controversy itself seems to violate the Torah prohibition of mistreating the Ger.
In the spirit of Rav Moshe’s Teshuva there were condemnations against Rabbi Chaim Druckman, a religious Zionist rabbinic leader accused of illegitimately converting masses of insincere immigrants from Russia for nationalistic rather than Halachic reasons. By de-legitimizing Rabbi Druckman - all of his converts were retroactively de-legitimized as well, no matter how sincere they were.
Rabbi Druckman’s name was dragged through the mud at the time. I can only imagine the pain and suffering Rabbi Druckman, his family, and all of his converts have gone through.
As if that weren’t enough - a new controversy has erupted. But this time it wasn’t between right and left. It was between two legitimate Gedolim. One Ashkenazi and one Sephardi – although I don’t think ethnicity played a role in their decisions. Rav Elyashiv remained consistent in his approach. IDF converts were insincere; they had no intention of keeping the Mitzvos, and therefore were not legitimate converts. Rav Yosef said that the IDF converts are sincere and their conversions valid.
It is a now a battle between two giants. Two Gedolim on opposite sides of the debate on an issue that is vital to the very definition of ‘Who is a Jew’. All the arguments about Halacha trumping national interests that were used against Rabbi Druckman have fallen by the wayside. No one can accuse Rabbi Yosef of selling out to political interests the way a religious Zionist rabbi like Rabbi Druckman might.
Of course it is an outrageous canard and a completely unfair accusation to make against a man like Rabbi Druckman in any case. He is a Rosh Yeshiva with a life-long commitment to Halacha and serving his country and his people. But he is in fact a religious Zionist Rabbi and accusations like that are going to be made by the right. Rav Yosef is not a religious Zionist. No one can possibly accuse him of politicizing his Psak. He is about as outspoken as anyone can get about any and every issue and has taken some very unpopular positions in the past because he believed in them.
Instead of leaving this to the two major Gedolim of our day, Rav Yosef and Rav Elyashiv, the Edah HaCharedis has gotten involved. They have an agenda. It is to undermine the State of Israel whenever they can. They have prevailed upon Rav Elyashiv to call for mass protests on the part of the Charedi public. They have also prevailed upon Rav Kanievsky to join him.
This is not the way to settle Halachic issues. It is however the way to bring out mob violence. It is a way to disturb the peace and bring out the worst in people. The rabble-rousers who burn dumpsters must be salivating at this opportunity to show ‘Kavod HaTorah’. Who will they spit on first? How many cars are going to be pelted with rocks? How many people will suffer smoke inhalation from burning dumpsters? It all remains to be seen. But even if it is as peaceful as can be since when do protests and rallies determine Halacha?
I completely understand the passion here. But I do not understand the agreement with the Edah HaCharedis to call for a protest. Do they really think that Rav Yosef will change his Psak based on a public protest?
Meanwhile the Ger continues to be on the receiving end of all this – wondering whether his own conversion will ever be fully accepted no matter who was on the Beis Din. What if one of the Dayanim on an IDF conversion was on his court? Will his status be questioned at some time in the future because of it? Even if he is a Ger Tzedek? It is certainly possible.
And then there is this story. A sincere Ger has been denied immigration to Israel under the law of return. His conversion now deemed invalid even though he fulfilled all the requirements of conversion in front of a Beis Din of observant Jews. Why? Because the rabbi who performed the conversion was a Musmach of YCT.
Sephardi Chief Rabbi - Rav Shlomo Amar who is in charge of all Orthodox foreign conversions has rejected it. It was done outside of the RCA and is not recognized by them either. The Israeli Rabbinate does not accept any conversions done outside of an RCA approved conversion Beis Din.
Does that mean the convert is not Jewish? That is what the State of Israel says. Ironically the State of Israel does accept foreign Conservative or Reform conversions. Those converts are accepted as Jews by the State.
What a holy mess!
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Against Ban Harassment & Threats
A little over a month ago, a number of rabbis signed onto a ban that forbade advertising on or otherwise working with the website VosIzNeias. This ban singled out one website without addressing other websites or public forums like newspapers or magazines. The singling out of a solitary website raises many questions, particularly when newspapers in the same community regularly publish arguably libelous stories and online discussion forums for the community are essentially unbounded by civility. Additionally, VosIzNeias has publicly stated that it has already raised its standards and is willing to do even more with rabbinic guidance, provided the same guidelines are applied to its competitors.
Bans of this nature are generally brought into fruition by activists and this one is attributed to a specific activist who seems to have business and political interests in this ban. He ignored VosIzNeias’ request to meet with the rabbis in order to explore ways to satisfy their concerns. With this ban, the activist is threatening the commercial viability of the VosIzNeias business.
We have now received reports of continued harassment by this activist, who is threatening to publicly denounce people, companies and charitable organizations who continue to cooperate with the website. He has also reportedly threatened to remove the kosher certification of companies that fail to adhere to the ban. However, on being contacted, the activist behind the ban denied all knowledge of this harassment and attributed it to someone acting without authorization. We are, therefore, making no formal accusation as to who is conducting this campaign of harassment.
To the best of our understanding, this activity is illegal. One individual told us he reported that harassment to the police.
Harassing good people with threats is illegal and inexcusable. We call on rabbis and people of good faith to denounce this behavior, and we encourage victims to respond to this activist as follows:
If he calls or e-mails you or your organization, thank him for bringing the ban to your attention and say that you will decide how to proceed after consulting with your rabbi or other advisor. And because of rumors that there is harassment involved in this matter, you regret having to tell him that if he contacts you or anyone else in your organization again, you will have to report him to the police.
We have a copy of an e-mail forwarded to us by people involved, which includes a pseudonym and phone number, and we have been told of intimidating phone calls. Note that at this time we are withholding this activist's identity. If he continues harassing people, we will have to be less discrete.
Signed,
Harry Maryles
(Simultaneously posted to other Jewish blogs)
Update and Clarification:
I note from some of the comments to this post that some people think I wrote the post. That is not accurate. The post was written by Rabbi Gil Student with the input and consensus of a number of Jewish bloggers and website owners. The sentiments expressed in the post were vetted by a Posek of world renown and other prominent Rabbanim. After much discussion and debate we agreed on a final version of the text and agreed to post it simultaneously yesterday at 7PM CST.
Bans of this nature are generally brought into fruition by activists and this one is attributed to a specific activist who seems to have business and political interests in this ban. He ignored VosIzNeias’ request to meet with the rabbis in order to explore ways to satisfy their concerns. With this ban, the activist is threatening the commercial viability of the VosIzNeias business.
We have now received reports of continued harassment by this activist, who is threatening to publicly denounce people, companies and charitable organizations who continue to cooperate with the website. He has also reportedly threatened to remove the kosher certification of companies that fail to adhere to the ban. However, on being contacted, the activist behind the ban denied all knowledge of this harassment and attributed it to someone acting without authorization. We are, therefore, making no formal accusation as to who is conducting this campaign of harassment.
To the best of our understanding, this activity is illegal. One individual told us he reported that harassment to the police.
Harassing good people with threats is illegal and inexcusable. We call on rabbis and people of good faith to denounce this behavior, and we encourage victims to respond to this activist as follows:
If he calls or e-mails you or your organization, thank him for bringing the ban to your attention and say that you will decide how to proceed after consulting with your rabbi or other advisor. And because of rumors that there is harassment involved in this matter, you regret having to tell him that if he contacts you or anyone else in your organization again, you will have to report him to the police.
We have a copy of an e-mail forwarded to us by people involved, which includes a pseudonym and phone number, and we have been told of intimidating phone calls. Note that at this time we are withholding this activist's identity. If he continues harassing people, we will have to be less discrete.
Signed,
Harry Maryles
(Simultaneously posted to other Jewish blogs)
Update and Clarification:
I note from some of the comments to this post that some people think I wrote the post. That is not accurate. The post was written by Rabbi Gil Student with the input and consensus of a number of Jewish bloggers and website owners. The sentiments expressed in the post were vetted by a Posek of world renown and other prominent Rabbanim. After much discussion and debate we agreed on a final version of the text and agreed to post it simultaneously yesterday at 7PM CST.
The Future of Denominational Judaism
Ezzie Goldish has a very insightful post on the future of Orthodox Judaism. He discusses many of the factors impacting its future growth and/or attrition. His post is actually a response to an earlier post written by Rabbi Gil Student on his blog Hirhurim. The question is whether Orthodoxy is growing or shrinking.
Demographic studies apparently show that Orthodoxy is shrinking over-all. This means that more people are leaving it than are coming into it whether by birth or by choice. This came as a bit of a surprise to me considering the success rate of Orthodox outreach over the last 40 years and the high birth rate of Orthodox Jews relative to other denominations.
I thought about it for a moment and realized that this should not be all that surprising. The attrition rate is probably higher now than at any time in history. The OTD factor is probably at an all time high. Sex abuse in Orthodoxy is a far bigger problem than anyone ever realized and easily contributes to it.
The internet has provided the means for many Orthodox Jews who privately question their own beliefs to find answers that have led them away from those beliefs. This is true across the board from the most Charedi to the most modern Orthodox.
As the financial health of many of its more right wing segments continues to deteriorate - that can easily contribute to the numbers of their children who go OTD.
Jewish educational costs across the board are putting more pressure on parents than ever and thoughts of public education supplemented by private religious education in some modern Orthodox circles are once again on the table as an option. A disastrous one in my view. With some notable exceptions I believe most young Orthodox children who go to public school in a society where the vast majority of their peers are in a parochial school end up becoming non observant as adults. That will be a contributing factor if it gains any steam.
At the same time, there has never been a larger population of Torah educated Jews than there is now. As noted - Orthodox Jewish family size is typically much bigger than other segments of Jewry. That will very likely grow exponentially over the next few generations – despite all of its problems. And the explosion of Kiruv over the last few decades is unprecedented. It continues with great success. So how is it possible that Orthodoxy is losing so many people overall? Can it really be that the numbers leaving Orthodoxy is that much greater than those coming into at? Especially over time as Orthodox families grow exponentially?
Statistically it seems - the answer is yes. But I think that the there is another reason for that statistic that might help explain it. It depends how Orthodoxy is defined. It’s possible that by using the broadest possible definition of it - it will include people who are only nominally Orthodox but not observant. They or their parents may for example be members of an Orthodox synagogue without really being observant.
When I lived in Toledo back in the 50s there were three Orthodox Shuls. But less then a Minayn of observant Jews in the entire city! This may be true in many small towns all across America. In short there may very well be a great number of Jews who define themselves via a membership to a Shul that are in actuality not observant at all – not to say anything about their children who have little or no Jewish education – many of whom intermarry.
Once you factor all of that into the equation one can see how it is possible to see shrinking numbers.
If one limits the definition of Orthodox Jews to observant Jews we may arrive at a different statistic. That still does not eliminate many of the factors I raised above. We still have an attrition problem. But I have to believe that we are growing rather than shrinking even though our numbers are still small relative to other denominations. But sometimes it’s not about numbers but about the trends.
I have read many articles that cite studies showing that statistically - Orthodoxy is the fastest growing movement in Judaism. It would an oxymoron to say that when the attrition rate is greater than its growth. But when Orthodoxy is properly defined, I believe that statistic is undeniable. Certainly as a percentage of the whole Orthodoxy is gaining on other denominations.
The Conservative movement - once largest Jewish denomination in America is now a shadow of its former self. Their numbers have been plummeting. Their shuls have been either closing or combining with other shuls as memberships in both are shrinking. The Reform movement has surpassed them by leaps and bounds. They are struggling with all of this right now and I do not see any of their proposed solutions as turning the tide.
While the Reform movement is bigger than ever - that is only because they have redefined themselves in several ways that automatically increase their numbers. One way is by accepting patrilineal descent which neither Orthodox nor Conservative Judaism accepts. Another factor is that Reform Judaism does not require a formal conversion. If one lives like a Jew or simply says they are a Jew – they are a Jew. Gentile spouses of intermarriages are welcomed into the fold as Jews too, if I understand correctly.
They may think that redefining Judaism increases their ranks but they are in fact defining themselves out of Jewish existence. Before long Reform Judaism may very well have more Halachicly non Jewish members than they do Jewish ones - if that isn’t already the case. Add to that the fact that they do not require any Mitzvah observance at all and before long they will have little resemblance to anything Jewish at all. They might counter by saying that living culturally as a Jew still makes one a Jew. Well, I’m sorry. Eating Gefilte fish does not make one a Jew.
On the other hand Orthodoxy - as defined by those who are sincere about Mitzvah observance - has unprecedented numbers. Observance is the primary defining characteristic of Orthodoxy.
Some Orthodox leaders have expressed sadness at the decline of the Conservative Movement. They see it as a last bulwark against complete assimilation into Jewish oblivion. I understand their concern and even share it to that extent. That was much of the motive for their founding rabbis – to conserve Judaism.
But have they succeeded? Or have they contributed to the problem by their overly permissive attitude in Mitzvah observance? The answer may be found in the regret many current Conservative leaders have expressed in allowing their members to drive to Shul on Shabbos. They now realize that permitting it may be one of the most significant factors responsible for their own demise.
The Reform Movement too is in crisis despite their numbers. They realize that their own move away Halachic observance has been disastrous for them. Once you remove any overt expression of Judaism and substitute Jewish ethics as your definig characteristic, you have in essence transformed yourself from a Jew to an ethical humanist. Why even bother with the term Jew?
Judaism requires Mitzvah observance as well as ethics.
My understanding is that their rabbinic leaders are divided There are those who feel that a return to observance albeit voluntary is essential to their existence as Jews. On the other side is the old guard who stand by the founding principles of the movement rejecting all Mitzvah observance as archaic and unnecessary. My guess is that nature will take its course and only those who practice the Mitzvos will have any chance of surviving into the future. I think it is far more likely that the more observant of Mitzvos one is - the better chance that they will ultimately become Orthodox and that their offspring will survive into the future as Jews.
My prediction is that a few generations from now the Jewish people will in fact be post denominational. Only those who are observant and transmit that observance to their children via intensive education will perpetuate Judaism into the future. Others will assimilate out and their offspring won’t care or even know if they are Jewish.
Demographic studies apparently show that Orthodoxy is shrinking over-all. This means that more people are leaving it than are coming into it whether by birth or by choice. This came as a bit of a surprise to me considering the success rate of Orthodox outreach over the last 40 years and the high birth rate of Orthodox Jews relative to other denominations.
I thought about it for a moment and realized that this should not be all that surprising. The attrition rate is probably higher now than at any time in history. The OTD factor is probably at an all time high. Sex abuse in Orthodoxy is a far bigger problem than anyone ever realized and easily contributes to it.
The internet has provided the means for many Orthodox Jews who privately question their own beliefs to find answers that have led them away from those beliefs. This is true across the board from the most Charedi to the most modern Orthodox.
As the financial health of many of its more right wing segments continues to deteriorate - that can easily contribute to the numbers of their children who go OTD.
Jewish educational costs across the board are putting more pressure on parents than ever and thoughts of public education supplemented by private religious education in some modern Orthodox circles are once again on the table as an option. A disastrous one in my view. With some notable exceptions I believe most young Orthodox children who go to public school in a society where the vast majority of their peers are in a parochial school end up becoming non observant as adults. That will be a contributing factor if it gains any steam.
At the same time, there has never been a larger population of Torah educated Jews than there is now. As noted - Orthodox Jewish family size is typically much bigger than other segments of Jewry. That will very likely grow exponentially over the next few generations – despite all of its problems. And the explosion of Kiruv over the last few decades is unprecedented. It continues with great success. So how is it possible that Orthodoxy is losing so many people overall? Can it really be that the numbers leaving Orthodoxy is that much greater than those coming into at? Especially over time as Orthodox families grow exponentially?
Statistically it seems - the answer is yes. But I think that the there is another reason for that statistic that might help explain it. It depends how Orthodoxy is defined. It’s possible that by using the broadest possible definition of it - it will include people who are only nominally Orthodox but not observant. They or their parents may for example be members of an Orthodox synagogue without really being observant.
When I lived in Toledo back in the 50s there were three Orthodox Shuls. But less then a Minayn of observant Jews in the entire city! This may be true in many small towns all across America. In short there may very well be a great number of Jews who define themselves via a membership to a Shul that are in actuality not observant at all – not to say anything about their children who have little or no Jewish education – many of whom intermarry.
Once you factor all of that into the equation one can see how it is possible to see shrinking numbers.
If one limits the definition of Orthodox Jews to observant Jews we may arrive at a different statistic. That still does not eliminate many of the factors I raised above. We still have an attrition problem. But I have to believe that we are growing rather than shrinking even though our numbers are still small relative to other denominations. But sometimes it’s not about numbers but about the trends.
I have read many articles that cite studies showing that statistically - Orthodoxy is the fastest growing movement in Judaism. It would an oxymoron to say that when the attrition rate is greater than its growth. But when Orthodoxy is properly defined, I believe that statistic is undeniable. Certainly as a percentage of the whole Orthodoxy is gaining on other denominations.
The Conservative movement - once largest Jewish denomination in America is now a shadow of its former self. Their numbers have been plummeting. Their shuls have been either closing or combining with other shuls as memberships in both are shrinking. The Reform movement has surpassed them by leaps and bounds. They are struggling with all of this right now and I do not see any of their proposed solutions as turning the tide.
While the Reform movement is bigger than ever - that is only because they have redefined themselves in several ways that automatically increase their numbers. One way is by accepting patrilineal descent which neither Orthodox nor Conservative Judaism accepts. Another factor is that Reform Judaism does not require a formal conversion. If one lives like a Jew or simply says they are a Jew – they are a Jew. Gentile spouses of intermarriages are welcomed into the fold as Jews too, if I understand correctly.
They may think that redefining Judaism increases their ranks but they are in fact defining themselves out of Jewish existence. Before long Reform Judaism may very well have more Halachicly non Jewish members than they do Jewish ones - if that isn’t already the case. Add to that the fact that they do not require any Mitzvah observance at all and before long they will have little resemblance to anything Jewish at all. They might counter by saying that living culturally as a Jew still makes one a Jew. Well, I’m sorry. Eating Gefilte fish does not make one a Jew.
On the other hand Orthodoxy - as defined by those who are sincere about Mitzvah observance - has unprecedented numbers. Observance is the primary defining characteristic of Orthodoxy.
Some Orthodox leaders have expressed sadness at the decline of the Conservative Movement. They see it as a last bulwark against complete assimilation into Jewish oblivion. I understand their concern and even share it to that extent. That was much of the motive for their founding rabbis – to conserve Judaism.
But have they succeeded? Or have they contributed to the problem by their overly permissive attitude in Mitzvah observance? The answer may be found in the regret many current Conservative leaders have expressed in allowing their members to drive to Shul on Shabbos. They now realize that permitting it may be one of the most significant factors responsible for their own demise.
The Reform Movement too is in crisis despite their numbers. They realize that their own move away Halachic observance has been disastrous for them. Once you remove any overt expression of Judaism and substitute Jewish ethics as your definig characteristic, you have in essence transformed yourself from a Jew to an ethical humanist. Why even bother with the term Jew?
Judaism requires Mitzvah observance as well as ethics.
My understanding is that their rabbinic leaders are divided There are those who feel that a return to observance albeit voluntary is essential to their existence as Jews. On the other side is the old guard who stand by the founding principles of the movement rejecting all Mitzvah observance as archaic and unnecessary. My guess is that nature will take its course and only those who practice the Mitzvos will have any chance of surviving into the future. I think it is far more likely that the more observant of Mitzvos one is - the better chance that they will ultimately become Orthodox and that their offspring will survive into the future as Jews.
My prediction is that a few generations from now the Jewish people will in fact be post denominational. Only those who are observant and transmit that observance to their children via intensive education will perpetuate Judaism into the future. Others will assimilate out and their offspring won’t care or even know if they are Jewish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)