Charedim Factories

One of the most frustrating situations for Orthodox parents is what happens when their children go off to study in Israel for a year or two (or more) after high school. What parents send in does not come back the same way. Many call this ‘flipping out’. A parent will send to Israel a son or daughter who has absorbed by osmosis values instilled in the home and when they return find to their dismay that many of those values are gone – obliterated by the Yeshiva or seminary their child attended.

‘Flipping out’ was addressed a few years ago by authors of a book that studied the phenomenon and found that in most cases these young people did not in fact flip out, but just became more committed to Halacha. They observed that this was a good thing. If the story ended there, I would agree. Unfortunately it does not end there. This was highlighted again last week in a Jewish Press article by Cheryl Kupfer.

What seems to be happening is that the Rebbeim and teachers at these institutions fill these young minds full of mush with heavy doses of Charedi Hashkafa.

The truth of the matter is that many of these Yeshivos and seminaries that are geared for American students are in fact really geared for those from modern Orthodox backgrounds. They are the ones who mostly go to Israel to study post high school. The more Charedi Yeshivos have their own post high school programs and do not encourage their students to leave for Yeshivos in Israel. If and when they do go, it is probably after spending some time post high school in an American Yeshiva. The Yeshivos they then find in Israel like Brisk and Mir are not in the business of changing hearts and minds. They don’t need mind-changing. The students who go there are already Charedi. Those Yeshivos expect them be on their page Hashkaficly.

But students from even right wing modern Orthodox homes rarely go to a Mir or Brisk – at least at first. Many end up in places like Beis Yisroel or Merkaz HaTorah where there is a constant heavy dose of Charedization. The same is true for seminaries for young women from modern Orthodox backgrounds.

There are of course exceptions. Some Yeshivos and seminaries do not espouse Charedi values. But in many cases a parent doing research about which Yeshiva or seminary to send their child can be fooled into thinking the institution is something that it is not. Only to find out too late when their children return, wearing black hats or seeking to marry someone who wears one. A black hat is more than just a hat. It is a symbol of a Hashkafa that espouses the Charedi doctrine for men of learning Torah or bust… and for women - marrying someone like that.

Working is disparaged. Attending college is disparaged. Young men and women end up all but abandoning these values and goals and in their stead picking up the disparaging attitudes. They are exchanged for values that see only one option as having any real value. That for a man God is best served by learning in a Kollel full time for as long as possible after they get married. And for a wife to financially support him. And that they should have large families. A perfect formula for poverty with potential for family dysfunction and children going OTD.

This is not to say that any child that spends a year in Israel in a Yeshiva or seminary like that will never go to college. Some retain their original Hashkafos albeit in a somewhat modified manner. Some who do ‘buy the farm’ while they are there ultimately get off cloud nine and realize they need to go to college or in other way prepare for making a living. But in far too many cases there is a total break form the past. I don’t know what the numbers are but it seems as though it is at least enough of a problem to cause heartache and grief for parents and children seeking to get married.

In her Jewish Press article Mrs. Kupfer expresses the problem as it pertains to dating. It lies mostly in the inability for young men who choose a career outside of a Kollel to find a like-minded woman. On the other hand there seems to be an abundance of women who seek Shiduchim from a much smaller male population of men who learn Torah, chose it as a lifestyle, and do it well.

I personally think the reason for this is fairly obvious. Charedi seminaries teach their young women to seek young men who will sit and learn in Kollel. But it is a lot easier to seek that in a man than it is for a man to actually do it. Thus if a young man is smart enough to know that his talents lie elsewhere, the ‘good girls’ will not be interested in them.

The problem then becomes twofold. Young working men who want ‘good girls’ won’t be able to find too many who want them. On the other hand young women who want ‘good Bachurim’ won’t be able to find too many of them either. The population of ‘good girls’ is by its very nature far greater than the population of ‘good Bachurim’. And that is a major part of the Shiddach problem in my opinion.

Looking further down the road at Kollel... the expectations of couples who chose the Kollel lifestyle and who came from comfortable middle class backgrounds - are often not fulfilled. There is insufficient understanding of the financial hardships and sacrifices that will need to be made. Even in cases where Kollel families find out that their choice was not a wise one based they find themselves in a predicament where they have no training or job skills in a highly competitive job market. The potential for ruined marriages and children becoming OTD is perforce increased.

I guess the message to parents here is Caveat Emptor. When sending a child to Israel after high school – choose wisely.

Don’t be fooled by recruiter’s platitudes about ‘growing in Torah’. They do not mean only becoming more mature in their Torah learning or Mitzvah observance. They mean becoming Charedi. ‘Growth’ in this environment is ‘code’ for becoming Charedi and rejecting non Charedi values.

Don’t be fooled by fancy brochures with pictures of young men or young women who don’t look Charedi sitting in a Beis HaMedrash or classroom learning Torah. Torah is not the only thing they learn there. They learn Hashkafa in heavier doses than ever before – a year or two of it in heavily concentrated Charedi form.

If one wants to know what a Yeshiva or seminary in Israel is all about, look at the products. What are most of their ‘graduates’ doing? What kind of lives do they lead? Do they come back wanting to continue their secular educations or do they choose to continue learning. Who are the young women that attend these seminaries marrying? Is it mostly Kollel men? Or is it a mix of working and learning men? The product is the key. Not the hype.

I would just add that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with becoming Charedi. If a child is raised that way - he is more prepared and knows better what to expect. And even if a child from a modern Orthodox background changes his Hashkafos via his own search for Emes in an open environment – that is OK too.

The problems of the Charedi world are a separate issue. All Orthodox communities have problems inherent to their Hashkafos. Every Hashkafa has its pluses and minuses. It is with the Charedi Yeshivos and seminaries that hide their true agendas that I have a problem. Let the buyer beware.

Memorial Day

My gratitude to the American soldier knows no bounds.

Should anyone ever question why we – the entire Jewish community should observe Memorial Day, the day America honors its war dead, let them watch this video.

Buchenwald was liberated on April 11, 1945 here is a brief description of what followed:

On April 15, 1945, the German civilians from the nearby town of Weimar were brought to see the evidence of Nazi atrocities.

General George S. Patton wrote in his autobiography that the number of Weimar citizens brought to the camp was 1,500, although other accounts say it was 2,000. The German civilians had to march five miles up a steep hill, escorted by armed American soldiers. It took two days for the Weimar residents to file through the camp. No precautions were taken to protect them from the typhus epidemic in the camp.

On April 15, 1945, the day that he visited Buchenwald, General George S. Patton wrote the following in a letter to General Dwight D. Eisenhower:

We have found at a place four miles north of WEIMAR a similar camp, only much worse. The normal population was 25,000, and they died at the rate of about a hundred a day. The burning arrangements, according to General Gay and Colonel Codman who visited it yesterday, were far superior to those they had at OHRDRUF.

I told the press to go up there and see it, and then write as much about it as they could. I also called General Bradley last night and suggested that you send selected individuals from the upper strata of the press to look at it, so that you can build another page of the necessary evidence as to the brutality of the Germans.

The liberation did not come cheap. Under the command of General Dwight D. Eisenhower the Allied forces entered the European war zone on D- Day, June 6, 1944 in Normandy France. The Germans were ready for them. As wave after wave of amphibious vehicles descended on the beaches of Normandy soldiers were virtual cannon fodder for the Germans.

Estimates of anywhere from 2500 to over 6000 US forces were killed on that day storming the beaches of Normandy against heavy fire from fortified Nazi positions. Knowing that there was a high probability that they would be maimed or killed they kept moving forward until the invasion was a success. An excellent depiction of this is in the first 10 minutes of the movie Saving Private Ryan.

The total number of American soldiers who died fighting Hitler during World War II according to the Department of Defense is 291,557 – all killed in action. There were many more military deaths beyond that – and a great many more permanently injured.

If the Allies had not entered the war, who knows where I would be. I am a product of two parents who were liberated by allied forces and met immediately after the war. And who knows how many survivors there would have been if any - Rachmana Litzlan.

Unlike some of the subsequent military actions by America post WWII there was broad sentiment across America in support of our participation in the effort to defeat Hitler. Instead of protests - young men lined up to join the army then. World War II has been dubbed ‘The Good War’ and the generation that fought it has been called ‘The Greatest Generation’.

What took place at Buchenwald after the liberation could only have been done by America.

The liberation of the Nazi concentration camps would not - could not - have happened without the sacrifice of the American soldier. We owe an unprecedented debt of gratitude to him and all veterans of World War II. Indeed we owe every American soldier who fights – or ever fought to protect its citizens an immense debt of gratitude.

But if there was ever a moment where America earned its reputation as the Medinah Shel Chesed it was on June 6th 1944 - and on April 15, 1945 when Buchenwald was liberated and the nearby German citizens were forced to see what their government had done. God bless the United States of America.

Burn Baby… Burn!

I am beginning to wonder what the real motto of a certain type of Chasidus is. Once again we have a strong condemnation of any electronic media capable of accesing the outside world. This time it is The leader of the Dushinsky Chasidic dynasty. From Ynet:

The Rebbe not only called for a boycott of electronic devices which do not meet strict Orthodox rules, but also demanded that they be burned…

During a sermon delivered recently, Rabbi Yosef Tzvi Dushinsky launched an unprecedented attack on the modern devices. "Internet and computers, no need for talking anymore. Anyone caught with a non-kosher device will be thrown out of the yeshiva immediately," he said.

The rabbi added that students whose parents own a computer with Internet connection would be expelled from the Hasidic dynasty's institutions.

"I warn you that anyone who owns any of these devices must burn them tonight.

There’s your answer to the problems with the internet. Burn your IPhones. Don’t just throw them out – burn them!

Chasidim must have some sort of fascination with fire. Lag Bomer many of them swarm to Meron to see the Boyaner Rebbe light their fire. And it is a big one. The health hazards of something like this don’t seem to phase them. The fact that the fascination generated by this event spawns hundreds of smaller but just as air polluting bonfires by all strata of Israeli Jewry apparently means nothing to them. They probably consider it flattering that there are so many bonfires across the country on Lag Bomer. And if spewing pollutants into the air is not enough, there is the following from the Jerusalem Post:

Jerusalem fire and rescue services responded to 180 incidents of out-of-control bonfires over the course of the night. There were double the normal amount of firefighters on duty for the holiday.

Big deal! Out of control bonfires? It’s Lag Bomer!

Of course the most recent ‘fire’ event was the arson by an 18 year old Chasid of the Skverer Rebbe. He is reportred close enough to the Rebbe to have spent much time in his home providing personal services to him. That fire resulted in severe burns agains the target of that arson, Aron Rotenberg, for his gall in Davening at the wrong Shul.

The Skverer Rebbe finally came out with a statement about it almost a week after the event. Why? Bad publicity. From VIN:

The Skver community is reeling following Sunday morning’s attack and Aron Rotenberg is hospitalized with third degree burns covering half of his body.

In my view this statement falls far short of what he should have said. He did not even offer an apology. He simply said to Daven for the victim and that ‘violence has never been our way’. He should haved made a serious public apology immediately and called for mass Tehhilim. There he should have spoken to his Chasdim and advised introspection about the kind of kanaus that generates incidents like this. And finally he should demand justice for the victim and his family.

That violence is not ‘their way’ needs to proven at this point in my view. It’s hard to take the Rebbe’s statements seriously.

Events of recent years seems to say the opposite. Violence is their way. Is Skvere really any different than those streams of Chasidus that have displayed violence when it suited them? Like Satmar, and Toldos Aharon (in Meah Shearim and Ramat Bet Shemesh) in recent years.

And now this incident in Skvere.

I have to wonder about the circumstances of this Ben Bayis - a young arsonist who spent many hours in the home of his Chasidic Rebbe. Did this young man have no clue that violence ‘has never been their way’? Was he just a psychopath and the Rebbe just never noticed it?

If it is true that this young man spent time in the Rebbe’s house - I am beginning to think that he is not a psychopath at all, but a true Chasid of the Rebbe whose Hashkafos led him to protect the honor of his Rebbe with a ‘fire in his belly’.

If he were a psychopath and the Rebbe didn’t notice it, what does this say about a Chasidic Rebbe’s vaunted keen perceptions about people in general and his Chasidim in particular? Was he not able to detect such a major flaw in the character of his young constant house guest? I think the Rebbe does have that ability.

His young protégé probably does not fit the definition of psychopath. He is just a devoted zealot whose aim was to protect his Rebbe’s honor. The Rebbe probably sees such zealotry as a positive thing. What the Rebbe probably didn’t realize is that this young man would go that far.

This young man learned to react this way somewhere in his cloistered environment. He surely didn’t get it off the internet. I suspect that violence is their way – when they see the need.

This young man saw the need – and acted. And his attraction to fire as the medium of rebuke toward a ‘wayward’ Chasid should not come as a surprise either.

Rabbis or Police – Who Should Decide?

Scenario One:

You sent your precocious 13 year old son to a prestigious Yeshiva high school out of town. There he meets and is befriended by a well respected and world renowned Mashgiach. Not having his father around he saw the Mashgaich as a father figure and they become very close. The Mashgiach is known to have many close relationships with the younger Bachurim.

One day in the middle of Winter Z’man his parents receive phone call from their highly anxious son who reveals to them that he has been sexually abused by the Mashgiach. He tells them that he has had several sexual encounters and was told by the Mashgiach that he was simply preparing him for life as an adult. He goes on to tell his parents in an embarrassed fashion all the horrifying details of the abuse. The young man has never been known to lie. He was always a happy child - a good boy raised in a loving atmosphere. There were never any signs of rebellion. And now suddenly – this!

The child tells his parents he doesn’t know what to do. The Mashgaich had invited him once again for a ‘driving lesson’ where the abuse usually took place. After getting over their shock they called the Yeshiva and said they were going to call the police and report the abuse to them.

Meanwhile the child’s life is potentially ruined. He will never be the same. He will be haunted by this experience for the rest of his life. It will affect all future intimate relationships. And thoughts of suicide are not unknown in victims of sex abuse.

Scenario Two:

A well respected Mashgiach of a Yeshiva who has achieved international acclaim comes home to his loving family – his face ashen. He excuses his children from the room and asks his wife to sit down. He then tells her that the unthinkable has just happened. A young student has for some reason falsely accused him of sex abuse. He was confronted in his office by the high school principal who told him about the accusation. He was needless to say stunned!

He could not believe what he was hearing. He denied the charge vehemently and pointed to a lifelong career without the slightest hint of abuse of any kind. He was in fact a beloved figure to all who knew him, especially those Bachurim he had befriended and treated like his own children – even giving them driving lessons!

His wife had an equally stunned reaction and seemed to be in a state of near shock! She knows her husband to be a good man and a loving father. They have had a normal sex life for over 20 years of marriage and nothing he ever said or did would indicate any kind of sexual abnormality.

He wonders out loud to his wife, ‘What could have possibly happened to this young man for him to have turned on him so much?’ He wracked his brain trying to see if there was anything he had ever done or said to this young 13 year old for him to make such a vicious accusation against him. The parents had called the yeshiva and said they were going to bring charges against him.

Somehow word got out and the Mashgiach’s life was ruined. His family held their head in shame even though they believed in his innocence. Even if he could prove his innocence, there would always be a cloud hanging over him. His life has changed forever.

This is the same story from two perspectives.

Statistics tell us to believe the child. When children report abuse it is rarely a false accusation. And yet we know false accusations do happen as was demonstrated in a recent post of mine.

This is the dilemma that faced Agudah in their recent proclamation made at a conference on this issue. Both Agudah and Torah U’Mesorah came out with a directive that one must never report sex abuse to the police without first consulting a Rav or better yet a Beis Din. They see it as an issue of Mesirah.

This tells me that they value the second scenario over the first. They see a prominent religious figure with a lifetime career dedicated to Torah and Mitzvos and they simply cannot believe the accusation. A good man’s life will be ruined by a hasty and reflexive call to the police by a distraught parent. They know all to well how a man’s reputation can be ruined for the rest of his life. So they are Dan L’Kaf Zechus – innocent until proven guilty.

I’m sure this is not their intention but I see it as a serious issue of Mesirah versus an even more serious issue of Pikuach Nefesh. A child’s life could ultimately be at stake. Suicides are not unknown in cases of abuse!

I’m not sure how they would answer this. Perhaps they do not see it as Pikuach Nefesh when a child is sexually abused. Maybe they see suicides as a Milsa D’lo Schechicha – a rare occurrence that should not impact on the Mesirah issue. I don’t know.

What about the child? How is his (or her) welfare protected? They might take his charge seriously, but are unwilling to take the necessary steps to prevent an abuse that they think might not even be happening. Their solution? They will determine the veracity of the accusations by themselves. Only after their own due diligence will they consider reporting it to the police. The welfare of the accused and his family requires them to hold back.

The problem with this approach as many experts have pointed out - is that they have no training to determine whether an accusation is true or not. That should be left to the professionals who do have such training. What makes matters worse in my opinion is the built in bias in favor of an accused who - until the accusation - was considered irreproachable. Even though I’m sure that the Rabbanim Chashuvim chosen for that Beis Din would in fact be honorable and sincere; never purposely favoring of one litigant over another, it is only natural to inclined to believe someone whose reputation is impeccable over that of a 13 year old boy away from home for the first time.

As much as I sympathize with scenario two, I cannot agree with Agudah’s decision. They are protecting the wrong victim with a decision like this. By taking this approach a child with a credible report of abuse may never get his day in court. What’s worse the sex abuser will continue his clandestine behavior – and perhaps get better at hiding it.

As I said experience has taught us that most accusations of sex abuse by children are generally true. In one wants to be on the side of justice it behooves them to have more concern with the greater potential for abuse than they are with the lesser potential for false accusations.

It should never be the job of rabbinic committees to determine the credibility of such accusations. They simply do not have the training for it. And there are also the built in biases to worry about that can prevent justice and perhaps even perpetuate injustice for both past and future victims – leading to disastrous consequences.

A child advocate told me via e-mail about how angry and upset he is byAgudah’s decision. He related the following story. After telling a supporter about the Moetzes decision and condemning it, the retort was, ‘You must have pretty broad shoulders’ if you can criticize the Gedolim. He said you don’t need broad shoulders. All you need is to have been sexually abused once!

I wonder how the members of the Moetzes would react if God forbid one of their own children or grandchildren told them they were being abused by a prominent Rebbe or other religious authority figure in Yeshiva? Would they tell their son or grandson – we must convene a Beis Din to determine if your accusations are credible? Or would they do as Rav Elyashiv has suggested, call the police immediately?

I do not have broad shoulders. And I do not God forbid attribute anything but the best of motives to the members of the Moetzes who determine Agudah policy and some of whom also guide Torah U’Mesorah. But I strongly disagree with their decision. I will end with the words of Rabbi Yosef Blau, Mashgiach of Yeshivas Rabbenu Yitzchak Elchanan (YU). From the Forward:

Rabbi Yosef Blau of Yeshiva University, a prominent advocate on behalf of survivors of abuse, said he was not surprised by Agudath Israel’s position. “The community is committed to rabbinic authority,” Blau said. “They have difficulty with anything that says, ‘You don’t check with the rabbi first.’”

But Blau, whose school is affiliated with the Modern Orthodox stream of Judaism, said rabbis are ill-prepared to decide whether suspicion of abuse is strong enough to be passed to the authorities. “There is no decent justification why anybody in their right mind should think rabbis are qualified to make that judgment,” he said.

Amen.

The Jewish Hammer

There is a very funny scene in a very funny movie called ‘Airplane’ where a flight attendant is passing out reading material to the passengers and had run out of the more popular ones. She then says to an passenger seeking something to read, ‘How about this leaflet, Famous Jewish Sports Legends’?

The reason that scene is so funny is that the Jewish people are not usually known for their athletic prowess. The names of famous Jewish athletes in the history of all American sports can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand. Well, maybe two hands at most.

Most people know about Hank Greenberg and Sandy Kofax. Some may remember Ken Holtzman and Steve Stone (Funny, three out of four were pitchers… I wonder why). In football there was one player, Sid Luckman who is a legend. He was the Hall of Fame quarterback for the Chicago Bears who in the forties lead them to 4 NFL championships and was named MVP in 1943.

Since then - with a few exceptions some of whom I already mentioned - there has been not been that much to write home about in Jewish athletics. Until today.

The Chicago Tribune has just published a story about Chicago Bears first draft pick - Ofensive Tackle Gabe Carimi. The focus was not so much his athletic prowess – which is considerable - but his commitment to Judaism. He is known as the ‘Jewish Hammer’ whose nickname he adopted from a Jewish character in the movie ‘Inglorious Basterds’.

Gabe is being touted by many as the key to a successful season this coming fall. As a Bear fan I certainly hope so. It’s been a long dry spell since the Bears won the Super Bowl in 85.

What makes this worthy of note for me is the fact that he is not only Jewish – but proudly Jewish. He wears his Judaism on his sleeve. Although he was raised as a Refrom Jew and not observant by Orthodox standards he is serious about his Judiasm. He would never for example ever play on Yom Kippur.

And where was he last Sunday? At a Lag Bomer event sponsored by Chabad Lubavitch of Illinois (see photo above). Lubavitch is great at snaring celebrities for their events. They do it all the time. This is another one of those times.

Why is this important? Because it gives many Jews who are not observant a sense of pride. They they can identify as a Jew with someone else who is Jewish - taking ethnic pride in their achievements in the secular world. Seeking a Jewish heritage often begins by finding positive value in the most unlikely of places. That can lead them to try and find out more about what it means to be a Jew. Especially when a cultural folk hero does the same. Who knows. Maybe some young Jewish football fans who never heard of Yom Kippur may now start fasting on it the way their new football hero does.

And if Lubavitch or some other outreach organizations get a hold of him, who knows? Gabe may someday take his pride in Judaism to an even greater level of commitment. Unlikely? Well it’s happened before.

There was another pro football player that was Jewish. His name is Alan Veingrad. Like Gabe Carimi he too was an Offensive Tackle. First for the Green Bay Packers and later for the Dallas Cowboys where he helped them win Super Bowl 27 in 1993. He is now the proud owner of a Super Bowl ring. He too was proud of his Judaism and started seeking out more of it.

Lubavitch got a hold of him and now he is a completely observant Jew sporting a long beard. Will it happen to Gabe? Will he follow in Alan Veingrad’s path? Will he someday wear a Super Bowl Ring as a Chicago Bear? I sure hope so. It’s time to end the drought.

And perhaps as did Alan Veingrad he too will take his enthusiasm for Judaism to the next level. You never know. In the meantime we can all take pride in this young man for his excellence in sports and his love of Judaism.

If You Close Your Eyes - It’s Not There

A few days ago I was directed to a new Agudah website that was being operated by Ms. Leah Zagelbaum, Agudah’s new Director of Communications. Its stated purpose was to provide a convenient internet forum to announce various functions and achievements and other news of interest to the public.

I thought at the time that Agudah has finally joined at least the 20th if not the 21st century. I thought that they finally made a decision to use the technology available to them to more efficiently get their message out.

Up until that point they had been refused to use the internet at all since they so disparaged it and discouraged their own constituents from using it. I’m not going to go into all the discussion about the good and bad of the internet and how to deal with it here. I’ve already done that many times. I will just say that I disagreed with their all or nothing approach.

Even though it was banned in Israel because of those evils, Agudah never banned it outright here. They still continue to speak out in the harshest terms about its evils. Agudah also decided that even though they didn’t ban it, they would ‘lead by example’ and not use it at all for themselves.

But the fact is that they realize that most people use it anyway. As is often the case, bans – especially unofficial ones like this are virtually ignored by the masses. Most people including the very people that Agudah preaches its anti internet message to - use it responsibly. I thought they finally realized that there is such a thing as responsible use and that they were going to lead by example in a different way – by having a responsible blog for informational purposes.

But alas, it was not so. Their Director of Communications who I’m sure thought she was just doing her job by creating this blog was told to shut it down. Here is the new message published right on that blog in its entirety (Is there more than a little irony here?):

Agudath Israel of America has received inquiries about a site on the internet featuring information about the organization and its activities.

The site, started a few days ago without authorization by Agudath Israel’s recently appointed director of communications, was established with good intentions, for informational purposes only, and with no interactive capacity. However, in accordance with a decision made years ago by the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah, Agudath Israel has purposely not established a dedicated web presence. At best, it was premature for the new site to have been established, and it has now been removed pending further direction from the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah.

I had a feeling that this was too good to be true.

We live in a time where others are getting their messages out with lightening speed – much of it anathematic to the Torah world. One would think that they would like to even the playing field as much as possible. Having a website like this would certainly help.

Agudah realizes that their own constituency uses the internet. They’ve realized it for some time now. When their Jewish Observer was still being published Agudah gave permission to a private party to publish all their articles on the internet in PDF. I guess that gave them built in deniability. They could say it wasn’t them but someone else. They did not see giving permission to others to publish their magazine in full as a contradiction. They had a presence – and they didn’t. That’s called eating your cake- and having it too.

To say that they do not wish to have a web presence is therefore a bit of a spin even if it is technically accurate.

And yet they refuse to use the technology in harmless ways that will only benefit them. I guess getting their message out is not as important as not having an official web presence. This is called the 'stick your head in the sand' approach to Judaism… or the 'If we close our eyes it's not there' approach.

Question for Agudah: How’s that working for you?

A Miscarriage of Justice

When my father lived in Bnei Brak, he used to Daven at a nearby Shteeble that was run by someone known as the Bilitzer Rebbe. He was quite a Talmid Chacham and at the same time a very friendly fellow who enjoyed my father’s company and they confided in each other with many things. During my father’s 18 years living in Bnei Brak he became aware one time of a Chasid who was charged with being an illegal drug dealer.

My father could not believe that a Chasidishe fellow like this could ever do anything like that. When he mentioned this to the Bilitzer Rebbe, his response to my father was something like: Look, Reb Shimon, You have to understand, this fellow has a large family with many children to feed. You have to be Dan L’Kaf Zechus!

My father came home after that conversation and immediately had a cow. He was livid with anger at the Bilitzer Rebbe for having this attitude. He told me this story during one of my many visits to Bnei Brak and his anger was clear. How could anyone stick up for someone who sells illegal drugs to young kids – even of they are not Jewish?! What manner of man does that? And what manner of man tries to excuse it in any way?! My father lost all respect for the Bilitzer Rebbe after that.

I believe that that the Bilitzer Rebbe’s attitude causes us more harm than does even that Chasidic drug dealer. Expressing sympathy is almost tantamount to expressing approval. It increases the chances that others will do the same should their economic personal circumstances be pressing enough. If they are desperate to support their families they might turn to crime and should they get caught everyone would be sympathetic and understand their predicament.

Selling drugs to people outside of Bnei Brak becomes a solution even if there is no one who would actually permit it outright. If they get caught – what he did was understandable and easily forgiven. The attitude of the community becomes - as long as our own kids don’t get hurt who cares. He needs the money. Caveat emptor! Poor man… he has 11 children to support.

Unfortunately this problem did not go away. My father passed away almost 20 years ago. And it is still happening. And our way of dealing with it seems to be similar to that of the Bilitzer Rebbe. And by ‘our’ I mean all of us – including secular Israel.

What is the result of this kind of sympathy? Chazal has an expression that can be paraphrased as follows: Being kind to the cruel will result in being cruel to the kind. That’s what happened today in a story reported on Matzav.

31 year old Benzion Miller, the drug lord (pictured) tricked some naive young Chasidic boys into smuggling illegal drugs (Ecstasy) for him into Japan. He was caught and sent to prison for 3 years. But he is being released by an Israeli parole board – for good behavior - after serving 8 only months. But the boys he tricked boys are paying a far heavier price for their naiveté.

I am not going to go into their level of guilt or innocence. Whatever crime they are or are not guilty of, I am fairly convinced they did not know they were smuggling drugs. But they were all nonetheless found guilty of it and given prison sentences. The latest two were given a six year prison term with credit for time served (about 2 years).

What a miscarriage of Justice! How a lying drug dealer who cares so little about his own people can be shown any leniency while his victims pay such a heavy price is beyond me. Good behavior? With punishments like this he’ll be out in the street in no time doing the same thing – tricking naïve Chasidic children into smuggling drugs for him. Only this time he will make sure not to get caught.

I guess the Israeli parole board and the Bilitzer Rebbe have the same philosophy here. Miller must have a big family to feed.

God Bless America

When the President made his momentous comments few days ago about Israel needing to return to the pre 67 lines - it raised a firestorm of protest among Israel’s supporters. Nonetheless I said at the time that I did not think that what he said was such a big deal and that there were actually some positive things in his speech. I still feel that way.

That said I am very gratified for the strong reaction against it by many of his mainstream political opponents. For example the one in this link. A typical comment I heard was that the President just threw Israel under the bus.

Even members of his own party - while defending him - seemed to be doing so in a rather lukewarm way – questioning why he would bring it up now at a time where there is virtually no chance of forging a peace deal with Palestinians- given their reconciliation with a terrorist Hamas determined to destroy the Jewish State.

Another plus was the media reaction. They are usually fawning with praise over whatever the President says about Israel. They have the typical liberal attitude that it’s all Israel’s fault that there is no progress on peace. But here they seem to have taken a much more restrained if not critical view of the President’s statements.

This is not to say that there was no criticism at all surrounding this event. There was some partisan criticism of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s reaction to it by lecturing the President during a photo op. Some Democrats felt he demeaned the President by giving him a history lesson in public like that. I believe even members of the the Prime Minister’s own Israeli delegation felt that way.

But I never expected what followed.

Yesterday, Mr. Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress. It was packed. He received over 24 standing ovations (see photo). After the address there was a news conference where he was joined by leaders of both parties. They were virtually tripping all over themselves with praise for the speech. To the best of my knowledge there was not one negative comment made by a single member of congress. It was almost as though congress wanted to purposely repudiate the President by their reaction to the Prime Minister.

I would therefore like to thank the President of the United States for that. Had he not made his earlier comments, I wonder if Prime Minister Netanyahu would have gotten the reception he did. I’m sure he would have been well received. Congress as a whole is very pro Israel. But... over 24 standing ovations? …and the post address news conference where members of congress (both parties) were all over him with lavish praise? Not likely.

Nor is it likely that their motives were political. The less than 2% of the vote that is Jewish is hardly worth bothering about. And even if it there are disproportional amounts of money donated by the Jewish people to political campaigns - it is still a relatively small percentage of the whole. Besides most Jews are liberal Democrats and their money goes to Democrats anyway.

I believe that the vast majority of congressional support for Israel is genuine and that it comes from both sides of the aisle.

As for the President – he has shown that he is truly a friend in ways he could not possibly have imagined. And he probably didn't imagine them when he made those comments in his speech last week.

I am the last one to claim to know the mind of God. But the United States of America is the most powerful nation in the world. I have to believe that there are theological reasons for that as much as there are natural ones. America is blessed. The Torah tells us multiple times that God blesses those who bless the Jewish people. Ken Yirbu.

Nations of the world (I include Muslim nations too): If you want to know how to treat the Jewish people, come to America. See how it’s done here. See how the American people’s elected representatives treat the Prime Minister of Israel. Know that your anti Israel attitudes are based on a long history of hatred of Jews that has been transmitted generationally.

If you too want to be blessed – end your anti Israel biases. Stop blaming every ill in the world on them. You never know. Some day God may bless you too.

Banning a Bris

I have held back from commenting on an anti circumcision ballot being put before voters in San Francisco. I did so because I saw it as really off the wall and in any case never passing constitutional muster. But according to an article in the Los Angeles Times an ACLU spokesman says that this is not necessarily so.

The measure might pass a 1st Amendment challenge. "If there is some support [among medical doctors or psychologists] for the idea that circumcision hurts children, the government could do this," he said.

Frankly I still do not think this measure has the slightest chance of passing. But that hasn’t stopped MGM leader Mathew Hess from trying. MGM is the name of the group dedicated to eradicating male circumcision in America until age 18. He has successfully gotten this measure on a San Fransisco ballot.

I don’t think there is any other term for this fellow other than Rasha. I can understand discouraging it. I can even understand that he might want to ban it but allow for religious exceptions. But to not even allow a religious exception for entire groups of people - Jews and Muslims whose religions demands it of them - is pure evil.

One could argue that his motives are genuine and sincere. He simply wants to give people freedom of choice. A choice that they cannot possibly make as an 8 day old infant (or 13 year old boy in the case of Muslims). What’s the benefit of being uncircumcised? Extra nerve endings that can increase the pleasure of sex. That there are medical benefits doesn’t matter to him. That’s because the health benefits can be taken care of with education and better hygiene. As long as there is better sex that’s enough to make it illegal.

Religious requirements? He has absolutely no use for that. No respect whatsoever for millennia of religious practices that were performed on virtually all male Jewish children no matter how far removed from observance a family was.

We are all Bnai Brith. Which is why that organization took that name for itself. The only requirement to be a member is to have had a Bris. Not that they checked. But that was a foregone conclusion for every male member that called himself Jewish.

Now Mr. Hess and his group are attempting to put it on Santa Monica's November 2012 ballot as well. Who knows where else he’s going with this?!

As unlikely as this may seem, there are actually Reform rabbis who are opposed to circumcision too. I met one once. He called it an unnecessary primitive and barbaric procedure. He had a look of disgust on his face as he said it! Unfortunately the influence of rabbis like this are not nil. Some Jews are opting out of it for their children. I’m not sure who is a bigger Rasha - this rabbi or Mr. Hess. But I have no love lost for either of them.

Let me repeat. I don’t think it will pass. And even in the highly unlikely circumstance that it does, I still don’t think it can pass constitutional muster despite what the ACLU says. Even though the medical community no longer sees it as a must and recommending it to all children, they still recognize the medical benefits when it is performed. To deny this medical benefit to be performed at an age when any pain (if there is any at age of 8 days) will not be recalled so that the pleasure of sex will be enhanced is at best a debatable goal.

My guess is that Mr. Hess is nothing more than a run of the mill anti Semite. Be that as it may - to deny this harmless and even medically beneficial procedure even to those whose religion requires it is to be purely evil.

How many Jews have ever complained that they had a Bris? If this measure were to ever be made law - imagine a young man of 18 wanting to have the procedure done for health reasons or a young Jew at age 18 who now wants to have it done for religious reasons – thinking that they could have had it as an infant. They will now experience pain and they will remember it.

I think the American people will recognize it wherever they may live. Including San Francisco and Santa Monica. And thoroughly reject this ballot proposal in massive numbers.

Adopting the Chumros of Chasidim

By now - the move to the right is a rather well known phenomenon. It has been addressed many times by many people including me. One of the more prominent Jewish thinkers, Dr. Chaim Soloveitchik wrote a landmark essay on this subject a few years ago.

His thesis is that there is a loss of mimetic tradition in our day. We have abdicated our own Mesorah in favor of the book. The current system of Chinuch attaches far more importance to what is written a Sefer than the Mesorah transmitted in the home.

In defense of this new emphasis of the book over one’s own family Mesorah - it is seen as a way to prevent those family customs that are not rooted in Halacha. Seen in this light one can understand this shift in emphasis. After all not everyone has the Mesorah of a Chaim Soloveitchik.

How is one to tell the difference between legitimate and illegitimate Mesorah if a parent does not have the background to know what is real and what isn’t? To avoid that problem they teach their students to look in a Halacha Sefer if they want to know what to do.

Of course the problem with that is that some of us do have legitimate family Mesorah. But in order to equalize the playing field they have taken a ‘Lo Plug’approach. This creates a society of like mindedness that can easily lead to an entire community adopting Chumros never envisioned by their ancestors.
-
While I agree that his thesis is very contributory to the problem of ‘moving to the right’ I do not see it as the sole reason for why things are so radically changed. I see it more as a reactionary response to two phenomena.

On the one hand rabbinic leaders on the right desire to extricate their adherents from a secular environment perceived and promoted as completely antithetical to Torah. All efforts are then made to separate from it. This can entail Chumros specially designed to avoid any contact with the outside. Bans against all forms secular media are as much for that purpose as they are for protecting people from viewing porn.

But there is another front they react to that in my view is the major reason for the move to the right. Chasidim.

Chasidic Chumros now pervade all of Orthodoxy. In pre-Holocaust Europe the Yeshiva world used to have its own values independent of Chasidic influences. That’s probably because they had always been for the most part two separate communities geographically each with their own customs. The strictures of modesty are an example of just how different these two communities were in the past. The Lithuanian Yeshiva world never had a problem with mixed seating at weddings. Chasidim shunned mixed seating weddings.

And when the two worlds occasionally crossed paths – even the greatest Lithuanian Gedolim of that era did not allow themselves to be influenced by the strictures of Chasidus.

There is a famous story about the Chafetz Chaim, a Lithuanian Rosh Yeshiva and R’ Meir Shapiro of Lublin a Chortkover Chasid. If I recall correctly the Chafetz Chaim heard that R’ Meir Shapiro and his wife were going to be in his town one particular Shabbos and invited them to eat their Shabbos meals at his home. Rav Shapiro accepted on condition that the wives would sit at separate tables. The Chafetz Chaim turned him down. He would not bow to the Chumra of a Chasid even at the expense of giving up the Mitzvah of Hachnosas Orchim!

Today, it seems the opposite is true. In post Holocaust America and Israel the influx of Chasdim has overwhelmed the culture. There is no longer two geographic worlds. Ameircan Orthodoxy had a melting pot of its own.

The Lithuanian style Yeshivos were the only game in town immediately post holocaust. Chasidim sent their children to those Yeshivos . They were by far the larger percentage of students there. The balance of Minhagim per student was overwhelmed by Chasidic influences. Their Chumros became the Yeshiva’s Chumros. Mixed seating at weddings is a thing of the past in Yeshiva circles.

But that isn’t all. Chasidic Chumros related to Tznius have taken over in many areas. I believe that this is responsible for some of the off the wall behavior that has resulted from it. Chasidim are obsessed by these issues. Ger for example is known for that. They will never take a walk with their wives in the street on Shabbos. The men will always be several steps ahead of their wives. No matter how old they are. Contrast that with stories told about Rav Gifter (no Mekil on any issue) who was seen walking together arm in arm with his wife in their later years.

But this has not stopped the general trend in the direction of Tznius. The Yeshiva world never sees a Tznius Chumra it doesn’t like. That’s why we have Tznius squads in places like Ramat Bet Shemesh where one will also find bans on women entering a store wearing pants!

Is it any wonder that Burka ladies were invented? And that their numbers are increasing? Yes they are still a relatively insignificant minority - and of course no one approves of that mode of dress. Not even the most extreme Chasidim.

But that they exist at all can be directly traced to the obsession with Tznius generated by Chasidic influences in my view. This is the community that has innovated segregated buses and even segregated sidewalks. This is the community that generated the Tznius squads and Tznius Hechsher organizations. This is the community that refuses to publish pictures of women in any manner in their publications.

They have influenced the rest of the Charedi world along these lines. That’s why for instance there are fewer and fewer brides going over to their husband’s side for a few minutes during the dancing at their own weddings.

And now there is a new Chumra that has come out from these sources. Women are now being told that using a cell phone in the street is a breach of Tznius.

Will we ever get back to normal? Will we ever have a prominent rabbinic leader of Lithuanian heritage stand up and say, enough with these Chumros already?! Will we ever hear them say something like ‘Let the Chasidim do what they want but let us stop trying to beat them at their own game?’

Arson -Is Chasidus in Any Way at Fault?

I cannot remember a more gruesome crime ever committed by someone who is in any way connected with Orthodox Judaism. From Lohud.com:

Aron Rottenberg, 43, suffered third-degree burns to 50 percent of his body after physically confronting an attacker carrying a rag soaked with flammable liquid behind his Truman Avenue home at 4:12 a.m.

Police later arrested 18-year-old Shaul Spitzer, of nearby Adams Lane, on felony counts of first-degree attempted arson and first-degree assault.

Police said Spitzer had serious burns to his hands and arms. He was hospitalized in Nyack before being taken to Cornell Medical Center.

Rottenberg was taken to Westchester Medical Center in Valhalla, police said.

Police said the Rottenberg family has previously been the target of violence and protests. The feud stems from the fact that Rottenberg worships at the Friedwald Center, not the community's main synagogue used by David Twersky, the Skver Hasidic grand rabbi and the worldwide community's dynastic leader.

Let me be absolutely clear about this. There is no way in heaven or hell that even the most extreme Chasidus would ever approve of anything like this. This is probably as shocking to the entire body of all Chasidim and their leaders as it is to me and any normal human being. There is no Chasidic Rebbe that does not have the same reaction of shock and horror to this that I have.

The young man who committed this atrocity is obviously a very sick person. I’m not sure how to deal with him. My first inclination is to throw him into a maximum security prison for the rest of his life and let the hard core criminals there have their way with him. But I am unable to judge him fairly. Mental illness or no - all I can think of is the unbearable pain his victim must be suffering and that unavoidably clouds my judgment. I will let the criminal justice system deal with him.

I have to wonder though whether the kinds of enmity that exists between Chasidic factions of even the same Chasidus contributes to the behavior of a psychopath such as this. Violence is not unknown in their circles if they believe a particular cause is important enough.

Need I mention the violent protests orchestrated by the Toldos Aharon Chasidim of Meah Shearim – or the many other acts of violence perpetrated by these types of Chasidim in places like Ramat Bet Shemesh?

Lest anyone forget - issues deemed important to Chasidim in America also breed violence. As was the case when factions in Satmar loyal to one or the other of the two sons of the late Satmar Rebbe came to blows many times over who would succeed their father as the new Satmar Rebbe.

I have asked this question before. Why is this particular segment of Orthodoxy so prone to violence? Chasidim are known for their great Chesed , both organizationally and individually. Why is Chasidus the cauldron for the kind of potential violence that may cause a rogue psychopath to think that arson is the answer to a dispute?

I think the answer might be the same as it is to many of their problems. An attitude of complete severance from the rest of the world. They live such insulated and isolated lives that they have no frame of reference as to what appropriate behavior is in general society. They know only the way of Chasidus as practiced today.

I have to question the kinds of Chasidic practices that lead one to have unnatural loyalties of the type that would cause someone to commit arson in that cause. And yet that kind of loyalty is the very nature of Chasidus as practiced today.

The more prominent Rebbes today are treated like royalty. And it is the Rebbes themselves perpetuate that image.

Let us take the example of a wedding of a Chasidic Rebbe’s son or daughter. They don’t just invite their friends and family. They invite everyone they can think of that they ever had any connection at all to them. This of course includes all of their Chasidim.

The supposed intent is that the Rebbe wants to give an opportunity to all his Chasidim to participate in their Rebbe's Simcha. But the effect is making the Rebbe larger than life and aggrandizing a human being into an object of glorification and near worship. Over 20,000 people attend weddings like this and it make news. This all adds to the aura of the Rebbe and gives him an air of leadership akin to kings and princes and presidents.

I personally find such weddings to be obscene! In fact I think the whole idea of Rebbe worship is counter to the Torah. You would think that the Chasidic Rebbes that have such weddings are greater than Moshe Rabbenu! Who has such wedding other than princes and kings?

There are other aspects to their lives that add to their aura of royalty. For example many of them they walk around with an entourage much like kings and presidents do. All of this pomp and circumstance is not unlike that of a ‘Rock star’ whose fans in some cases go completely off the wall with adulation. Mass worship of an individual for any reason makes him seem larger than life and more important than they really are.

Then there are the stories of Rebbes as Baalei Mofsim – miracle workers. Much like stories one hears about Christian Evangelical faith healers who ‘cure’ people of debilitating illnesses, so too are heard stories about Chasidic Rebbes who have done the same.

Is there any wonder that this kind of environment breeds the kind of loyalty that sometimes ends in violence? After all Rebbes who have such mystical powers and so large a following deserve tremendous honor and anyone who dishonors them in any way - like attending the wrong Shul will pay a heavy price.

I guess it’s then possible that a psychopath like this to in his own mind justify arson as a legitimate expression of his devotion to his Rebbe.

Dialogue

I am happy to see that the Charedi world has restored a degree of intellectualism into the public domain. That used to be almost the sole province of the now defunct Jewish Observer. When that magazine folded there was no real journal that was devoted to the intellectual discussion of the hard issues of the day.

To be sure (I hate that phrase - it is so cliché already!) new magazines abound in the Charedi world. Some better than others – Mishpacha and Ami are among the better ones. But as good as they are - they are family oriented reading material. Although they do tackle some very serious issues, they are not devoted to the kind of intellectual discussion that had become the hallmark of the Jewish Observer.

This is not to say that I agreed or disagreed with their perspective. As is the case with most things, I evaluated each article on its own merit. Nor am I saying that The Jewish Observer was on par with academic journals and adhered to their academic standards of writing the way Tradition Magazine for example does. But it was definitely the best they had and did a pretty good job of presenting their case.

But the success of the new glossy magazines killed the more intellectualized Jewish Observer. I lamented their demise at the time. Agree or disagree, I felt they ended up bereft of any intellectual component that could articulate the Charedi perspective.

This is no longer the case. A new and in my view better journal of Jewish thought has just been launched by the name of Dialogue. It is Charedi and presents its views unapologetically. Its rabbinic board consist of 3 people: Rav Shlomo Miller of Toronto, a major Talmid Chacham and Posek who heads the Lakewood Kollel there; Rav Moshe Meiselman, a nephew of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik (the Rav) and Rosh HaYeshiva of Toras Moshe in Israel; and Rav Aharon Feldman, Rosh HaYeshiva of Ner Israel.

One thing that makes this a bit different is that it does not belong to any organization that might have an agenda of its own. Their agenda is strictly to speak about issues from a Charedi perspective. I do not believe – for example – that they will ever disparage the Rav as did the Jewish Observer.

I received the inaugural issue last Friday and had a chance to read some of the contributions – 3 of them to be exact. The subjects were contradictions between Science and Halacha, Orthodox feminism, and a refutation or Rabbi Broyde’s attempt to find a Halachic justification for those married religious women who do not cover their hair.

Rav Meiselman tackled the science-Torah issue. He is apparently coming out with a book that will deal with those issues in depth and based his article here on that. Frankly I found that he fell quite short of making his case. He focused on time-lines and how they effect scientific versus biblical accounts of the origins of the universe and the Mabul – the great flood of Noah’s time.

He basically asserted that we cannot judge events like that using scientific methods dating. Those events were beyond space-time continuum. He claims that it is very likely that nature as we see it today may not have been the way it was before the great flood. And that the two events in question were miraculous and outside of the nature and outside of time as we currently measure it. Dating methods are therefore impossible to determine scientifically. Scientists make the mistake of assuming the constancy of nature never having been altered by the miraculous. Rav Meiselman says that this is not the case and that the miraculous nature of creation and the Mabul did alter things both at the time and perhaps afterward in the case of the Mabul.

This is an old argument. It has been used by people like Rabbi Avigdor Miller to explain why there is no geological fossil record of any kind of global flood. I do not find this argument any more compelling than simply saying that God erased the evidence of the flood. He is God after all and can do what he wants. This is an answer for a pre-determined outcome.

This is not God forbid any attempt on my part to refute the biblical narrative of the Mabul and conclude it is allegorical. I simply remain with a question and have some alternative theories that make more sense to me.

As it applies to creation, Rav Meiselman does not come right out and say so but he seems to be saying that he does not believe in an ancient universe. He uses the same timeline argument to negate ideas put forward by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan who believed in an ancient universe. Rav Meiselman says that measuring time prior to the completion of the six days of creation is meaningless - as it cannot be measured in natural terms.

In the Yeshiva we used to call this a Dochak Terutz – forced conclusions. The problem I have with that is that we know how to measure time via a constant known as the speed of light. When we see a star exploding today that is a million light years away, this means that it took six million years for the light of that explosion to get here and actually exploded a million years ago. To say that somehow the speed of light constant was changed and is now immeasurable seems to again be fitting a scenario into a pre-deterimed conclusion. It is Dochak.

Eytan Kobre’s highly critical article of Orthodoxy’s premiere feminist organization the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance (JOFA) was a far better piece. He went to great length to show just how unorthodox the agenda of this organization is. In fact I agree with just about everything he said.

What made his arguments interesting is that he used some very prominent modern Orthodox Jewish thinkers to make his case for him. Not the least of which was the Rav. But it also included Rabbi Dov Linzer, Rosh HaYeshiva of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah. But I do not let Rabbi Kobre entirely off the hook here. What he did is what I believe to be an inherent flaw in this magazine. He felt the need to criticize Rabbi Dov Linzer for empathizing with those women who wanted to be more participatory in roles that he shows are illegitimate for them.

How can Rabbi Kobre critize that? He claimed that such empathy encourages them to seek these unpermitted avenues for themselves. I really don’t see how it does that when Rabbi Linzer clearly rejects it in unambiguous terms. It was an unnecessary slam against a man who is a dedicated servant of God and L’Shma… and one that he just used to make his case! He should not have done that. I can’t help feeling that Rabbi Kobre felt the need to somehow show his disdain for YCT and its leaders. He has a right to do that of course. But not in this somewhat insulting and back-handed way.

What is perhaps even more egregious is how Rabbi Kobre introduced his article. He began with citing modern Orthodoxy’s legitimate criticism of Charedi hagiographies - those revisionist biographies absent any truth that is even remotely seen as negative about their subjects. He then had the nerve to imply that all of modern Orthodoxy is on the side of JOFA and then suggested we have our own revisionism to deal with as it pertains to Orthodox feminism.

How he can make that comparison in the opening paragraphs and then use almost exclusively modern Orthodox religious figures that reject the kind of feminism he talks about just as much as he does? It is at best a gross oversight and at worst an intellectually dishonest way to paint all of modern Orthodoxy in a negative light.

In the final article two rabbis - Yosef Weiner and Yosef Ifrah - deal with Rabbi Broyde’s article with an undertone of derision. I understand that they are unhappy with Rabbi Broyde. I even agree that they have a right to try and refute him in the way they do.

I am not going to go into the details of the debate. Although they made some pretty good arguments against him, I do not buy that Rabbi Broyde was irreversibly refuted at all.

But to treat Rabbi Broyde with a derisive undertone actually undermines their position. They comes off as arrogant in the extreme. But at least they did not treat Rabbi Broyde as did Rav Shlomo Miller who as mentioned earlier is on the rabbinic board of this journal. He declared Rabbi Broyde to be a reformer on par with Aharon Choriner who wrote Teshuvos for the founders of the Reform movement. I guess that’s progress of a sort.

The bottom line here though is that I welcome this new publication and wish it much success. My hope is that they take criticisms such as those I offer here in the spirit in which I give them. To improve the way they write and also write in more respectful terms no matter how much they disagree with a disputant. Then indeed we can have the dialogue between us implied in the magazine’s title.

Update: One of the authors on the hair covering issue -Rabbi Yoseph Weiner has graciously sent me an e-mail to alert me to the fact that Rabbi Broyde was indeed given the proper honorific 'Rabbi' in the first paragraph of the actual text. I somehow missed that. I was looking at the opening synopsis that preceded it where his name was first mentioned and in a subsequent skim of the entire article I did not spot that. I apologize to the authors for this error and have corrected the post accordingly. The synopsis opened up the article. It began with 'R. Broyde'. That is what threw me off. I would advise that in the future they should use the proper honorific the very first time a name is seen in an article in order to avoid the kind of error I made.

Glass Half Empty or Glass Half Full?

If I ruled the world I would choose to annex all of the West Bank to Israel and tell Arab residents to ‘love us or leave us’. Israel is God’s gift to the Jews. You don’t like that? Tough!

What many people don’t know is that there were no Arab Palestinians prior to the establishment of the State. After Israeli Statehood was declared Arabs who lived in Israel were Israeli Arabs. Those who left Israel during its war of independence lived in the West Bank under Jordanian rule. The Jordanians kept them in refugee camps for the 19 years they had it. It was about the time of the 6 day war when Israel recaptured that territory that those refugees started to call themselves Palestinians.

If Glen Beck were President of the United States we might see some American support for that idea expressed above. But the reality is that he is not. The leader of the free world is not Glen Beck. It is Barack Obama.

Yesterday in a major foreign policy speech the President addressed the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

Yes, there are Palestinians. There is no point in denying it or pointing to yesteryear. There is no point in saying that the identity was made up just so they can lay claim to land once called Palestine. It may be true that this is why they did it. But what difference does that make now? This is how they identify themselves and this is how the rest of the entire world sees them. Including the United States.

In his speech yesterday, the President said what many of us see as the unthinkable. Israel must make ‘bold moves’ for peace and return to its pre 67 borders. He added that there would be land swaps to accommodate large settlement areas on those borders.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netnayahu (who is currently in the United States to discuss these issues with the President) rejected pulling back to those borders which he says are indefensible. If one looks at a map of pre 1967 Israel one will see what he means. I believe at its narrowest point Israel would be no more than 9 miles wide!

The reaction by many Jews, especially religious Zionists was contempt and outrage. The same is true for politically conservative non Jews. Mass protests have already been called by religious Zionist organizations and others. I have already gotten my share of ‘Hate Obama e-mail’ declaring him anti Israel in the strongest terms.

I do not see it that way. I realize that by saying that it makes a lot of my usual supporters very angry. But I value the truth as I understand it over being popular.

Yes, this is the first time an American President said anything about returning to the pre 67 borders. But it is not the first time the idea has been forwarded in peace negotiations. The first time was in the early 90s at Oslo during the Clinton administration. President Obama merely advocates exactly the same thing that current Defense Minister and former Prime Minister Ehud Barak did later at Camp David based on the Oslo accords: to move back to the pre 67 borders with some minor adjustments to accommodate settlements like Maale Adumim.

So I’m not exactly sure where all this outrage is coming from. What else is new? What’s the big Chiddush?

Israel has already laid its cards on the table. Do we expect the Palestinians to accept any less than what was already offered – by Israel itself? It is all well and good to say that offer was withdrawn; that there is a new Sheriff in town and his name is Benjamin Netanyahu.

However the world already knows the extent of what Israelis are willing to exchange for peace. If I recall correctly the majority of Israelis were in favor of that peace deal then – even though it gave up sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem (Jews would have been allowed access to the Kotel and other holy places). If I recall correctly even a major Gadol (I think it was Rav Schach who was alive at the time) said that for a real peace, he would accept the deal. As much as it pains me to give up any part of Jerusalem, I would do it in a heartbeat to enable my brothers and sisters in Israel to live in peace without fear of ever being attacked again. I oppose bloodshed more than I desire keeping parts of Jerusalem in Jewish hands. At least until Moshiach comes.

Of course few if anyone in Israel would be in favor of anything like that today – including me. That’s because the Palestinians keep trying to kill us – mainly in the incarnation of Islamist Jihadist terrorist groups like Hamas who rule in Gaza aided by their benefactors in Iran. They have been relentless in sending deadly rockets indiscriminately into civilian populated areas of Israel. There is no guarantee that they would stop if we gave up any land at all. They refuse to recognize Israel and say they will never stop calling for its destruction!

And if I understand correctly it isn’t only Hamas. The Palestinian Charter still calls for the destruction of Israel. All indications are that the danger to Israeli lives would increase. Giving up the West Bank now would be suicidal. There is no way to assure that the West Bank would not turn into Gaza. Especially now that there has been reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas. Does Israel need another Gaza on the West Bank? No thank you.

The President knows this and he respects it. Those who are so vehemently outraged by that part of his speech do not bother to focus on the fact that he also acknowledged that Hamas must renounce violence and recognize Israel’s right to exist; that talk of its destruction will not be tolerated; that the United States will veto any attempt by the United Nations to single out Israel for criticism. Perhaps most importantly he did not endorse the idea of Palestinian ‘refugees’ returning to Israel. This is a key point that should not go unnoted.

And he once again reiterated the United States position that the relationship between Israel and the United States is unshakable.

Is the glass half full or half empty?

In essence the President must know that nothing will come from this. He knows that Hamas, who has now reconciled with Fatah will never accept Israel’s right to exist – a condition the President insists must happen in any peace deal.

So why did he say it?

He wants his foreign policy to be seen as more sympathetic to Arab concerns and not simply as unapologetically supportive of Israel. I do not see that as being anti Israel. I see that as being pragmatic. He has no intention of selling us out. Agree or disagree – the President is an honorable man and I truly believes that he is doing it because he thinks it’s the right thing to do.

Besides let us face reality. In the unlikely event that it ever happens - any ultimate peace deal will look something like Oslo - should there be assurances, guarantees, and systems in place that would eliminate terrorism and rocket attacks. All the anger and outrage about such a peace deal will not change that fact.

But I don’t think we have to worry about it. The chances of making peace with the Palestinians are about as good as my becoming the President of the United States. The Jihadist mindset – reinforced by the innate hatred of the Jews by most even moderate Arab Muslims - will never tolerate it.

Straus-Kahn and his Orthodox Attorney

Unfortunately another Jew has been splattered all over the media – accused of sexually molesting a woman. His name is Dominique Straus-Khan.

Up until this point, he was actually seen by many as a likely contender for the Presidency of France. That is quite a statement considering that he is Jewish. His job until his abrupt resignation yesterday was as head of the International Monetary Fund. He was well respected in financial circles and so well known that people referred to him by his initials, DSK.

That he was Jewish and a strong supporter of Israel made for a very positive potential for France to go from almost anti Israel under Chirac, to moderately pro Israel under Sarkozy, to actually joing the United States, Canada, and Australia among the nation’s most supportive of Israel.

But that bubble has burst in a hurry. He is now in jail accused of some pretty vile things. And with this new accusation comes additional allegations from a French journalist in his past. She refused to press charges against him then for a similar attack and now regrets it. She is considering doing so now.

This is a fallen man and his sexual predation is reprehensible if true.

Is this a Chilul HaShem? Absolutely. But I do not believe that Strauss-Kahn is an observant Jew. While the behavior he has been accused of is abhorrent the Chilul HaShem is not on the same level as if it would have been had an Orthodox Jew done this.

Like when the former President of Israel did it.

That was a major Chilul HaShem because he was an identifiably observant Jew. And a very prominent one. He was found guilty of rape! There is no other way to describe the rape of a woman by a prominent and observant Jew other than to call it a Chilul HaShem.

But when someone like Strauss-Kahn who is not observant does something like this, then the Chilul HaShem is not as great. The world cannot blame Judaism of inducing this kind of behavior in its adherents. Nonetheless, that he is Jewish does taint us a little since not everyone understands this distinction. Guilt by association is a reality, unfortunately. It is therefore a Chilul HaShem at that level.

Strauss-Kahn is a sick man. He needs help. But if convicted he is also a criminal that deserves to get a punishment that fits the crime. Thank God we live in a country where most people recognize that behavior such as this is the responsibility of the individual and not the group from which he comes. In all the stories about him in the media that I have seen or read, his religion was not even mentioned.

But his attorney is Benjamin Brafman. He is an Orthodox Jew and one of the most successful criminal attorneys of our time. His clients include some pretty big names in entertainment and even some who are in organized crime. And so too are some pretty despicable other Jews who are observant and have nonetheless made their own Chilul HaShem.

One might be tempted to find fault with him for taking such clients. But I would take issue with that. Anyone in this great country of ours who is accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty no matter what he is accused of doing. And they are entitled to the best defense they can afford.

Mr. Brafman is certainly entitled to take unpopular clients and fight for them. As long as he retains his integrity and does not lie or mislead, he has every right - and once hired - even an ethical responsibility to do that.

He has an obligation is to fight for his client’s innocence if he truly believes in it. Or to seek the best possible outcome for him if he is guilty.

I therefore do not see taking on this high profile case where the accusations are as disgusting as a Chilul HaShem at all. That he is so highly regarded in his profession and at the same time recognized as an observant Jew may (...and I emphasize may) in fact be a Kiddush HaShem.

Rav Elyashiv’s Psak? No Way!

Rafi Goldmeier has a post on his blog, Life in Israel, today that reaffirms my belief that one should never believe anything one reads in the name of Rav Elyashiv. Rafi picked up a story from a Hebrew website, Kikar HaShabbat. Therein the following story is told:

An avreich went to Rav Elyashiv and described to him a situation that he had recently been involved in. He had been travelling on a mehadrin bus there was a woman who sat herself down in the front section of the bus, against the rules of the mehadrin arrangement.

He says he approached her and politely asked her to move to the back and respect the desires of the other passengers. She refused to move.

Thinking he was fighting the holy fight, he got very rude, started screaming at her in front of the whole bus full of passengers, said very rude and demeaning things.

Now he wants to know, after a few days of reflection, if he behaved properly or if he should apologize to her for his behavior.

The Psak
Rav Elyashiv supposedly answered that he has no reason to apologize, as she was wrong and she should have moved to the back and not disrupted the mehadrin arrangement.

The avreich persisted and suggested that perhaps she was handicapped and was unable to move to the back despite being screamed at, and maybe he does need to apologize?

Rav Elyashiv, again supposedly, responded that he has no need to apologize as he acted properly.

The Proof
Rav Elyashiv proved his words quoting from the story in the gemara of the amora (article says it was Shmuel but I don't think so) who encountered a woman in the street who was dressed immodestly and he ripped it off her. He is praised even though in the end it was discovered the woman was not even Jewish. Rav Elyashiv said from that we learn that one can shame someone who goes against "Dat Yehudit" in the matters of tzniyus.

I simply do not believe that Rav Elyashiv paskin’d that way. First of all, how does a woman sitting in the front of a Mehadrin bus constitute Daas Yehudis? Daas Yehudis is based on the prevaling religious stringencies women place upon themselves in matters of Erva. An example of this is best shown in the Halachic requirement for married women to cover their hair.

Daas Moshe is the mandatory biblical (according to most Poskim) requirement of covering most of the hair. Daas Yehudis is the Chumra women have taken upon themselves to cover all of their hair – which is at most a D’Rabbanan – a rabbinic decree. Both Daas Moshe and Daas Yehudis are mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch. How Mehadrin buses fit into Daas Yehudis is a mystery to me. Only a certain segment of Orthodox women approve of this custom. Many don’t care one way or the other, and some actually hate going to the back of the bus.

But more importantly, it is highly unlikely that Rav Elyashiv would ever condone yelling at a woman in these circumstances. I’m sure he is sensitive to the Chilul HaShem it makes. Acting the way that Avreich did can only chase secular Jews further away from Judaism and make them even bigger enemies of Torah than they already are.

It is far more likely that Rav Elyashiv would have not acted this way. I cannot ever imagine him doing what this Avreich did. He would have more than likely done what Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach did in a similar situation.

Although it was not a Mehadrin bus that Rav Shlomo Zalman was on, a secular woman got on that was not dressed according to Orthodox Tznius standards and sat down next to him. Instead of yelling at her, he stood up as though the next stop was his (it wasn’t) and then got off. He then walked the rest of the way. Why? Because he did not want to embarrass the woman who sat next to him.

I would add that another consideration he might have had was that he did not want to cause a Chilul HaShem. That might have been the result if he had started haranguing this woman about sitting down next to him. Not only did he not harangue her. He did not even mention a word to her about it. He just casually stood up and got off the bus at the next stop.

This is what a Gadol does. Rav Elyashiv is a Gadol. I’m sure he would have done something similar. To now say that he paskin’d that an Avreich did the right thing by harassing this woman can therefore not possibly be the truth.

I don’t know who is lying here, but somebody sure is.

Defining Frum

The word Frum today has taken on negative overtones. But it wasn’t always like that. It used to be a generic term in Yiddish simply meaning religious.

Today however the word Frum has become a very subjective term and is commonly used in many ways. Sometimes it is used in a positive sense and sometimes it is used in a negative sense. Sometimes it is used in neutral ways. I have used it in all these ways myself.

To generically say about another Jew that he’s Frum usually just means that he is Shomer Shabbos, keeps Kosher and basically follows Halalcha.

To say that someone is Frum can also be a compliment when talking about them to other religious people in the context of a society that influences people away from religious observance.

In our day the word has taken on more of a negative overtone. Is it deserved?

I think maybe it is. That is in part because of the famous Mussar about ‘Frumkeit’ given by R Shlomo Wolbe in his Sefer Alei Shor. Frumkeit is something he opposed.

Frumkeit is doing something religious for show. That is - when a person is more concerned with his image than he is with the actual religious purpose of what he is doing. This is akin to Yuhara. Yuhara is best explained by the famous metaphor about a pig.

There are two requirements for an animal to be Kosher. One is that it has to chew its cud. The other is that it must have split hooves. If an animal has only one of these requirements, it is just as unkosher as if it had none. A pig has one of them - split hooves. But it does not chew its cud. However a pig will often stick out his front paws. That is because it wants people to think it is Kosher and shows off that it has one of the requirements for Kashrus. Of course we all know that a pig is not a Kosher animal. But it pretends to be. That is Yuhara.

If I understand correctly Yeshiva University Rosh Yeshiva and head of Ezras Torah, R’ Dovid Lipshutz, ZTL was opposed to wearing one’s Tzitzis out because he felt it was Yuhara - that it was not being done L’Shma but instead to show off one’s Frumkeit. Rav Ahron Soloveichik felt the same way. (In fact I think that all Briskers feel that way and do not wear their Tziitis out. This - despite the fact that the Chafetz Chaim promotes doing so in his Magnum Opus, the Mishna Berura).

Of course until the late 60s or early 70s it was not all that common to do that. Today most Bnei Torah do wear their Tzitzis out so Yuhara probably no longer applies.

Although I never heard him say it personally I have heard it said in Rav Ahron’s name that he would often say in Yiddish, ‘Frum is a Galach (priest), Ehrlich is a Yid’. He felt it was far more important to be sincere in one’s observances than to adopt many extraneous religious practices.

In our world today Frumkeit has been raised to the level of Mitzvah in some circles. Chitzonius – externals - have surpassed even Mitzvah observance. Witness the following.

I’ve seen some Roshei Yeshiva defend or at least tolerate some really bad behavior of their Talmidim (including getting drunk and rowdy at weddings) because they wore the ‘uniform (black hat, black velvet Yarmulke, black pants, white shirt etc.). I have heard people from that community defend the attitude of such Roshei Yeshiva and say that a ‘bad boy’ from their circles is better than a ‘good boy’ from modern Orthodox circles like Yeshiva University.

Why? Because even though they were bad, they had the correct Hashkafos. The proof of that is that by wearing the uniform they identified with that Hashkafa. But even the best students in YU no matter how Ehrilch - had the wrong Hashkafos and were Krum.

I believe that is why the word Frum has taken on negative overtones. And I believe that Rav Wolbe saw right through it and that’s why he opposed Frumkeit. If only the world of the right would get over themselves and - like Rav Wolbe - see that Ehrlichkeit is more important than Frumkeit, we would be living in a far better world. And attitudes like the one above explaining bad behavior would end.