The Holocaust in Color

Wagon filled with corpses at Buchenwald crematorium, April 18, 1945

We’ve seen these images before. But Yori Yanover is right. Seeing them in color takes it out of the ‘fog’ of all those black and white images we’ve seen (probably hundreds of times) and makes it seem more real… more immediate. And seeing the horror on the faces of the townspeople near the death camps of Buchenwald and Dachau truly brings home the horror of what Nazi Germany did to the Jewish people.

Not that those black and white images do not get to me each and every time I see them. This is why film-maker Steven Spielberg filmed Schindler’s List in black and white - the news film medium of that era. For Spielberg, for me, and for countless others who were born after the 1945 the Holocaust was in black and white.

After many years of watching these films the Holocaust starts to take on a historic tone. But the color in this film brings makes these scenes immediate, as though it were happening today. That is how we see news events now - ‘live and  in color’. So that watching this was almost like watching it happen right now. I recoiled when I saw the dead naked bodied piled up in a heap. These were human beings, Jews, just like me and most of the readership here. It didn't matter how religious they were.

There are a lot of horrible tragedies and injustices in the world today. Genocide included. One doesn’t have to look very far to find it.

What is unique about the Holocaust is that it was perpetrated by a people who were among the most civilized and advanced in the world against their own citizens who up to that point were an integral and respected part of German society. Germany was a civilization that produced Beethoven and Bach; Goethe and Schiller. A civilization that was on the cutting edge of science and technology. A civilization that was so enlightened that anti Semitism was practically nonexistent. At least on the surface.

German Jews were fully integrated into society. Academia, the professions, the trades, the military... you name it Jews were a prominent part of it. So successful was Jewish integration into German society that many Jews considered themselves Germans first and Jews second (if at all).

It is beyond human comprehension that a civilized people can be so morally reprehensible. It is beyond human comprehension that the average citizen in Germany knew what was happening to their fellow citizens - people who were their friends and neighbors; their lawyers and doctors - and yet did nothing! Were these people not human?! How can they live with themselves knowing that this was going on? They had to know. Especially in those towns that were near the crematoria. The smell of burning flesh must have filled the air in those towns daily!

It took a United States to shake up any semblance of humanity among those people. After liberating the death camps the American military leadership, starting with General Dwight D. Eisenhower, forced those citizens into the death camps to face the reality of what they already knew. You can see the horror on their faces in living color as they march in and begin to see what was there.

I think this film is an important reminder of man’s inhumanity to man.  This period in history is inexplicable. I can only surmise that mankind no matter how civilized - is capable of this kind of behavior when morality is absent. Without morality - exterminating an entire people is OK - if you perceive them to be an inferior race.

The Holocaust was real. It happened. And let no Holocaust denier ever question it. Thank you to Yori Yanover and the Jewish Press for putting it this on their website. It is available for viewing below. Watch it and weep!

Yet another Call for Divisiveness

Rabbi Avi Weiss

I have to disagree with the Jewish Press editorial board. In their latest editorial, they have castigated the RCA for not openly denouncing the forces of Open Orthodoxy (OO). I am disheartened by this from a newspaper whose inclusive editorial stance I have always admired.

It is ironic that Rabbi Avi Weiss is a regular Torah columnist in this paper, for it is Rabbi Weiss who founded Open Orthodoxy back in the nineties.  Have they decided to drop his column?

I don’t know how many times I’ve said this. But I guess I have to say it again as there are increasing voices calling for yet another ‘split’ in Judaism. As much as I agree with the Jewish Press analysis of Open Orthodoxy, it is wrong in my view to cast it into another movement that is outside the pale of Orthodoxy.

Yes, I agree that OO opens its doors too wide and can therefore too easily slide the same slippery slope that the Conservative movement did - when it too decided it needed to make itself more relevant to the melting pot spirit of their times. That OO is doing the same thing with the feminist spirit of our times is indeed a matter for concern. However they have not gone off the reservation yet. And hopefully they never will. But even if they do at some point down the road, it is way too premature to throw them out now.

Like I have said many times in the past,I do not believe their feminist innovations will ever catch on with the mainstream. Even those who support OO often tell me that it is not their cup of tea.

What about YCT? My hope is that they have gone about as far left as they ever will and they will hopefully even pullback somewhat. In any case, I do not see YCT as JTS in any way shape or form.

Yes, they have problems which I have criticized. But they do believe in the events at Sinai and in following the letter of Jewish law. This is something that JTS made a radcial departure from many years ago with their acceptance of biblical criticism and their ‘Psak’ that one could drive to Shul on Shabbos.

I do not foresee OO or YCT ever doing this. If or when they do, then I will agree that they should be expelled. Until then, let us not be any more divisive then we have to be.

Much Ado about Nothing

Yair Netnayahu

How many people know that Chabad founder, the Baal Hatanya’s youngest son, Moshe, converted to Christianity? (Chabad denies this. Documents have been found and archived that confirm it – but Chabad claims they have been faked.) Or that Agudah pioneer, Rabbi Moshe Sherer had a brother, Harry Sherer, that was a Reform rabbi? Or that Rav Elazar Menachem Man Shach’s son, Dr. Ephraim Shach, rejected his father’s Hashkafa to become a religious Zionist, join the IDF; and eventually earn a Ph.D. from Yeshiva University? The same school that was the home of Rav Yoshe Ber Soloveitchik whose philosophy was deemed heresy by Dr. Shach’s father!

Probably a lot more people than are willing to admit it. And how many people know that there are some prominent Mechanchim and Rosehi Yeshva that have children who have gone OTD (stopped being observant)?  The fact is that there is a virtual explosion of young people from observant families of all stripes (including Charedi families) who are going – and have gone OTD. The problem is so huge that some studies have shown that there are more people leaving observance than there are people becoming observant. While that may be debatable based on how one defines observance, that does not make the actual attrition rate any less palatable.

Which brings me to the latest criticism of Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu. It has been alleged that his son, Yair, is dating Sandra Leikanger, a non Jewish Norwegian woman.  This – one might say - does not look good for the leader of a Jewish State. But does it really have any relevance to his job or his position as the leader of the Jewish State? 

I think not.

This is a personal matter between the prime minister and his son. The prime minister is not observant. But I am sure that it would still pain him if his son intermarried. The point is that it is none of anyone’s business what goes on in the private lives of our leaders. It really doesn’t matter what someone’s son does with respect to an individual’s stature or his position of leadership.

Rav  Shach was still considered the Gadol HaDor by Israeli Charedim despite the fact that his son rejected his father’s Hashkafos. The fact that his son became a religious Zionist did not affect Rav Shach one bit. So irrelavent to his leadership was it that it was hardly on anyone’s radar screen what his son was doing. His son became a religious Zionist in spite of is father’s antipathy for Zionism in any form – religious or not! So opposed was Rav Shach to the Jewish State that the following story is told.

Every Yom Ha’atzmaut Rav Shach would say Tachanun in Ponevezh, the Yeshiva where he taught... even though Poenvezh founder and its then Rosh HaYeshiva Rav Yosef Kahaneman and the rest of the Yeshiva did not. And yet Rav Shach’s son saluted the Israeli flag and joined the army.

That anyone is making an issue out of who Yair Netnayahu is dating, as is Shas politcal leader,Aryeh Deri. From JTA:

Deri publicly criticized the prime minister for his son’s choice of romantic involvement, saying on Monday in an interview with the haredi radio station Kol Barama, “Woe is us if it is true.” “I try not to raise personal criticism, but if, heaven forbid, this is true it is no longer a personal matter — it is a symbol of the Jewish people,” he said.

While Deri is right to be concerned about the impact this might have on assimilation,there is absolutely no justification in criticizing Netanyahu for this ultimate form of going OTD by his son (allegedly). Those who are - ought to first look in their own backyard and ask why so many people from observant families are going OTD. And yes, even intermarrying in some cases.

This is a private matter – which if true – is probably very painful for the prime minister despite the fact that he is not observant. Instead of criticizing Netanyahu for something that is not his fault, we ought to be having sympathy for him.

But the Prime Minister denies it, anyway. From JTA: 

Israel’s Channel 10 reported Wednesday that the official told Aryeh Deri in a meeting that Yair Netanyahu, 23, and Sandra Leikanger, 25, who both study at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, only study together and are not dating.

So in the end - this is much ado about nothing.

Jonathan Pollard and the ‘Anti Semitism’ Card

Jonathan Pollard

Former Governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson

Former Secretary of State George Shultz

Former FBI and CIA head, William Webster

Former Senator David Durenberger

Former Congressman Lee Hamilton

Former Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb

Former National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane

Former CIA Director James Woolsey

Former Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Senator Dennis DeConcini

Former White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum

Former Deputy Attorney General and Harvard Law Professor Philip Heymann

Republican Senator John McCain

Democratic Senator Charles Schumer,

Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger

Former Vice President Dan Quayle

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey

This is just a partial list of distinguished Americans that have supported releasing Jonathan Pollard after serving almost 30 years in prison for passing classified information to Israel.  Among the above were people who are privy to the details of his crime which have been kept secret allegedly for security reasons. People that were on intelligence committees in both the House and the Senate at the time of Pollard’s arrest!

My position on Pollard in the last few years is that he served enough time for his crime. But I had always reserved judgment on his imprisonment based on the fact that I did not know the details - and the fact that every single President since (and including) Ronald Reagan believed that his sentence was just and refused to grant him any form of clemency. The reasons had always boiled down to the fact that the massive amount of secret intelligence he passed to even an ally like Israel was compromised and put lives at risk.

Although there are many people who question it – saying that the lives in question were in danger because of other far more serious spies who were operative at the time of Pollard’s conviction, I nevertheless felt that since I do not have access to the actual data, that I had to take the government’s word for it that Pollard got what he deserved – in spite of the fact that he was promised a reduced sentence for his cooperation in a plea deal with the government. Which Pollard honored.

I never quite understood that part of it, though. If the officials who made the deal thought his crime was worthy of a reduced sentence, that should have been what Pollard got.  But Reagan's Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger said that despite that promise, his crime was so devastating to the United States, that he should spend the rest of his life in prison. And the judge bought it!

And, because every President since that time – all of whom were very pro-Israel – felt he got what he deserved and refused to grant him clemency, I felt that there is just something we don’t know.

Aldrich Ames

But, after nearly thirty years in prison and with the support of his release by so many distinguished Americans many of whom did know every detail of his crime, I truly believe that justice would be more fully served if he was finally released. Any more time served, has no purpose beyond just being cruel. There is no reason that Pollard should be treated like Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen. Those two spies made what Pollard did look almost patriotic by comparison.

This does not condone in the slightest the crimes committed by Pollard. But I think there is major difference between Pollard’s crimes and those of Ames and Hanssen. And yet they are all being treated the same way. I understand that a message needs to be sent that espionage – even for a friendly country is a serious crime that can endanger American lives and American interests. But how about a sense of proportion?

Robert Hannsen

The one thing that does bother me about some of the more recent comments on this is that some prominent Jews are playing the ‘anti Semitism card’. Truth be told, I have no clue whether there has been any anti Semitism with respect to the way Pollard has been treated. But I especially protest bringing it up by anyone from our own community, as ADL head Abe Foxman and others recently did. There is absolutely no evidence of it, no matter how strongly one might suspect it.

Bringing it up now is a red herring and once again makes us look paranoid and foolish. While any citizen can speak his mind on any issue and express their desire for the government to act, there is no benefit in a Jew crying anti Semitism. Especially when there are so many distinguished non Jews who are clamoring for Pollard’s release.

If there truly is anti Semitism, I think it requires proof before it is brought up at all. Without which we ought to just shut up. And even if there is proof, it would be far better if non Jews brought it up. We don’t need to raise the ‘anti Semitism card’ in order to argue for Pollard’s release at this point in time. There is ample and justifiable argument for that without such accusations by prominent Jews. What is gained by it? Doing so in my view is not only counterproductive; it is an insult to the most philo Semitic country in the history of the world!  To quote a line I’ve seen written more than a few times by Joe Aaron, publisher of the Chicago Jewish News, ‘Jews have never had it so good!’ And we scream ‘anti Semitism’?! What is the matter with these people?!

What Is It Really Like for a Baal Teshuva?

So… how’s it working out for you now that you have become observant?  This is a question to Baalei Teshuva (BTs) that I think may very well be ignored – or at least not as deeply explored as it should be.

There is probably a lot going on in the mind of a Baal Teshuva that is left unsaid - but ought to be. We are our brothers’ keepers. All Jews are responsible for one another.  And we need to evaluate the outreach that has been achieved.  How successful is it really?

Are Baalei Teshuva truly happy with their changes? Are their new lifestyles what they expected them to be? Are they as accepted as they thought they would be? Are there any regrets? Have their lives improved? And is there a negative side to their experience? What kind of guidance do they continue to get – if any?

What about their children? If they were old enough to realize the changes, were they accepting? Were they rebellious? What about the non religious parents or extended family of Baalei Teshuva? To what extent does their change impact that relationship? And to what extent does that cause any regrets – if any? Is there any evidence that there is a greater chance for dysfunction among Baalei Teshuva because of their radical change in lifestyle? 

There were 2 very important articles on this subject by two of my favorite people, Jonathan Rosenblum and Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein.  Although these articles did not directly deal with these issues, I received the following response to them by a Baal Teshuva who is intimately familiar with them via his profession. His thoughts follow.

I am a BT – a function of both a very traditional South African upbringing and Ohr Somayach and Aish in Israel – where I studied.

While I am forever grateful to the these institutions for discovering a world of depth and meaning through Torah living – my experience since and having lived in many frum communities throughout the world – and my experience in working with the ills and challenges of our community leads me to say that just as the general Chareidi world is going through profound change so too must the the kiruv world.

In a nutshell – the rigid compartmentalization and almost robotic cloning of graduates in one “Torah-True” way of thinking and living – where all other derechachim (Hashkafic paths) are rejected at best, has to end.

Otherwise the post Baal Teshuva road which is littered with many tragic and dysfunctional tails of individual and family - will only get more acute.

Suffice to say that this is a very serious but complex issue.  I have always said that to some extent I can understand the approaches of Aish, Ohr Somayach etc.

They see themselves like intensive care units (ICU) and they don’t know how much time they have with each ‘patient.’ Hence a very strict and regimental prescription. But there are terrible costs to this as well. Yes, in the short-term it may yield more ‘patients’ that look to have been miraculously transformed to profound mental and spiritual health, but in reality – for many the tools/thinking/one-dimensional prism of life that is fostered - are the very seeds that sprout disaster down the line.

From a learning reality devoid of the richness of Torah life diversity (and true individual expression), the challenges of the frum world, to over-night frum packages that include pushed through/suggested marriages with equally naive, just-newly-frum so-called soul mates. To the ludicrous reality – very common – where a Baal Teshuva  woman will rather look for a black-hat Baal Teshuva who only seeks to learn than say a Yeshiva University graduate who is deeply religious and also deeply engaged in the world- in a kosher way and bringing kedusha to the world.

I take major issue in Jonathan’s and the Chareidi world in relation to kiruv whereas Rabbi Alderstein quotes “what potential students look for is authenticity and passion, and these have been lacking in the DL community. Too often, secular Jews see Dati Leumi (DL) Jews as very much like themselves, other than the wearing of a kipah serugah.”

Again while I see great merit in the passion of Chareidi world, there is also a great deal of passion that is solely misguided and solely not Torah. As for authenticity – yes I even always prefer a Rabbi with a beard, but there is so much in Chareidi world that they present as only authentic – which just is not.

It is far easier in life being narrow-minded and narrow focused and driving passion and authenticity. But this also very often yields zealots and extremists. It is far more difficult and yes, maybe less superficially passionate and authentic - when one fuses faith and the modern world – where every day is not just a beating of the Gemera but learning – and by example, effectively managing one’s anger in the workplace.

This is not to say that DL or Modern Orthodox (MO) world has got it right in Kiruv. It hasn’t.  It also needs to do some very clever and creative soul searching in realizing an outreach approach that attracts and inspires the less affiliated. But not by propagating through the tools of the Chareidi camp where is all “black” or white” and is “us or them.”

Here are some more points to ponder:

.                Being any less so-called passionate, does not denote being any less authentic. Most importantly the question is the authenticity of that passion!

.                I do not have numbers, but anecdotally I know so many BT’s who got divorced and are now in their 2nd and even 3rd marriages

·         How many stories do I/we hear of BT’s who driven to do what they see as “only emes” have 5, 6 7 children and just cannot cope and families and marriages implode

·         Many of these BT cannot face to question ANY aspect of guidance they may have blindly taken as truth/only path for if they do, it opens a pandora’s box - that the Rabbi could have been wrong! He is not infallible…

·         Many male BT’s with such large and dysfunctional families, cannot handle the financial realities (money was meant to fall from the sky) simply loose it, get divorced and very often completely go off the derech

I do believe this subject warrants a whole book. But let me just end with this. I think it is a very difficult issue as it touches a third rail for many BT’s – even myself. That is – how can one be critical of such institutions when they gave you so much?! What chutzpah! This is not to detract from the incredible work they have done and continue to do.

What I am merely saying is that just as the frum-from-birth Chareidi world is finally reevaluating issues of the value of work, parnassah, contribution to Israeli society, so too the Chareidi kiruv institutions that ‘produce’ BT’s have to realign and reassess how they nurture the frum population of tomorrow. And so too how DL and MO world needs to candidly evaluate what more they can do to play a more prominent and effective role in outreach. Outreach that sans black hat is no less passionate, more authentic, and ever more relevant for tomorrow.

A Bad Attitude

A Mehudar Esrog

One of the biggest flaws in the thinking of the Charedi world was demonstrated in letter published in Hamodia. It was noted by Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein in a post on Cross Currents  where he ‘agreed’ with that letter while his tongue was firmly implanted in his cheek.

I have noticed this myself many times.  The focus of this segment of the Torah world is almost exclusively on Mitzvos Bein Adam L’Makom… otherwise known as ritual. What that letter writer did was write a critical letter to Hamodia about their addition of ZL at the end of Ariel Sharon’s name.  ZL is a Hebrew acronym for Zichrono L’Vracha roughly meaning ‘of blessed memory’. This honorific is usually added to someone’s name when mentioned posthumously.

The letter writer took umbrage at that. How dare a religious newspaper bless the memory of an irreligious Jew. Sharon was not ‘observant’ and therefore – even as a proud Jew did not practice what he was proud of.

Rabbi Adlerstein correctly points out that he did in fact practice his Judaism even though he was not observant in the traditional sense of the word.  And that Sharon deserved that honorific for all the great things he had done for his people. They were in fact Mitzvos called Mitzvos Bein Adam L’Chavero.  And many of them were done at great personal sacrifice.

I would posit that anyone who served in the Israeli military in any of kind of conflict is on a very high level of Mitzvah observance. That is what putting one’s life on the line for their people gets you. I wonder if that letter writer had ever put his line on the life that way. I tend to doubt it. And yet he had the nerve to reject the notion that Sharon deserved to have his memory honored in this way.

I do not see this as an isolated case of one letter writer. Hamodia ended up apologizing for their ‘error’. Never again will they deign to say that the memory of a non Shomer Shabbos Jew’s name should be blessed.

This is the mindset of the Charedi world, unfortunately. I know they will protest and claim to be as observant of the Mitzvos Bein Adam L’Chaveiro (BALC) as they are of Miztvos Bein Adam L’Makom (BALM). That may be true. But I am equally sure that they do not value them the same way. That is obvious by the letter and Hamodia’s apology.

For the Charedi world, piety is seen in ritual terms. The more Mehudar (being careful in performing the ritual in the best way possible) one is - the more pious they are.  So that when it comes to buying an Esrog, they go to great lengths and expense to find the ‘perfect’ Esrog.  Or they may spend copious amounts of time in prayer. Or obsess about matters of Tznius in male female relationships or interaction of any sort.

But when it comes to things like saving a Jewish life or putting your life on the line for your people, this, it seems is not a religious matter to them… and undeserving of a posthumous honor like blessing his memory.

Now I am of course not saying that we should not be Mehudar in doing Mitzvos Bein Adam L’Makom.  There is nothing wrong and everything right about being as meticulous as one can about ritual observance. I know many Modern Orthodox Jews who are as careful about these Miztvos as any Charedi. But God does not want only those Mitzvos to be observed with fervor. He wants the Mitzvos Bein Adam L’Chaveiro to be just as valued, if not more so. In fact it is harder to do Teshuva for violations of  BALC than it is to do Teshuva for violations of BALM. God will accept sincere Tesuva in ritual matters. But in matters between man and his fellow sincerity to God is not enough. He will not accept Teshuva until the issue is first resolved with one’s fellow.

The Bikur Cholim Society of a Satmar is seen as a wonderful fulfillment of BALC. I agree that it is. But an irreligious solider that dedicates his life to serving his people and that saved countless lives via his military service gets no credit at all for that as Mitzvah fulfillment. When it comes to extolling piety, it is the man who is most attentive to ritual that is described that way. A man who is most attentive to the well being of his fellow is not really seen as pious unless he is pious in his ritual behavior. If he does not observe ritual at all, then he is undeserving of any praise religiously. This is wrong.

A non observant Jew is able to be Koneh Olam HaBah B’Shah Achas - achieve their eternal reward – in a single moment.  A reward that is equal to those of us who have been ritually observant all of our lives.   And that moment usually involves sacrifice in the area of BALC. I’ve heard countless stories like this that happened during the Holocaust.

Judaism would be far better served if the Charedi world would recognize that being meticulous in ritual alone is not what makes a Jew pious. As the Kotzker Rebbe points out in last week’s Torah portion on the words, Anshei Kodesh Tehiyun Li - And you should be Men of Holiness to Me  (Shemos 22:30). God wants His people to be ‘men’ first. Because only when you are first men, can you then be holy.

Understanding Their Pain

Rabbi Dr. Jerry Lob

There were new revelations recently about  the scourge of sex abuse in the Catholic Church in Chicago. From a segment of the PBS Newshour broadcast on January 21st. 

The Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago, the country's third largest, shielded and protected priests who were accused of sexual abuse for decades. Newly released papers document the actions of 30 priests, nearly half of them deceased, the rest now out of ministry. Victims who had long pressed for more information talked about it at a press conference in Chicago today.

I could not help noticing that the reaction of the Church hierarchy in the person of Cardinal George was almost identical to the response of Orthodox Jewish institutional leaders. It goes something like this: These events happened at a time when things like this were handled differently. We understand the problems better now and will handle them differently.

What virtually all of the leaders of these institutions are guilty of is not of the abuse itself. But of how badly they reacted to it. The primary concern has always been - and still is to some extent - to protect their institutions. In the past that often meant keeping things quiet (sweeping them under the rug) and discouraging victims from reporting the abuse to the authorities; to quietly dismiss those abusers from their positions and allowing them to find jobs at other locations that involved being around potential victims. 

In the past these leaders often did this without informing potential employers elsewhere about the abuse. This allowed the abusers to continue abusing children in new places The thinking seems to have been, that the problem was solved here. What about other locations? Caveat Emptor. Why did they not report these abusers to the police? Because that would have stigmatized those institutions. Better, they thought, to do things quietly and cover it up.  What about the victims? They'll get over it.

The problem is that they don’t. Survivors of decades old abuse are treated dismissively. As though their errors could be excused because the times were different then, and a lot of time has passed. After all, they reason, they are mostly all functioning members of society now, why are they bringing up these charges now, after so many years? Why sue us now?

I have had conversations with survivors and every single one of them tells me that they suffer to this day the after effects of that abuse. This is why lawsuits are being brought in record numbers now. Survivors are still hurting and struggling with their pain.  They live with it constantly and it doesn’t take much to bring them back to the kind of anxiety and pain they felt from the very beginning of their ordeals.

There has been a lot of speculation about whether these lawsuits ought to go forward after so many years. The truth is that I honestly don't know. But one thing I do know is that one cannot question the sincerity of the survivors. I believe them. They still continue to suffer. 

So when any religious leader makes dismissive statements like We didn’t know how to handle it then and things are better now - with little if any reference to the pain survivors still have - they display an almost callous disregard for the victim. Their focus is on the institution.  

I can’t really blame them for wanting to protect their institutions. Many of them are quite worthy and ought to be saved. But whether intentional or not, their callousness is inexcusable. So I can't really blame survivors for seeking a form of solace via financial compensation.

No one has driven home the fact of durable pain survivors of sex abuse have better than former Lakewood Kollel (Chicago Community Kollel) Avreich, psychologist Rabbi Dr. Jerry Lob, PhD - who writes a regular column in Mishpacha Magazine.  He too is one of my heroes. I believe if everyone experienced what he recently did, the culture about sex abuse might change. Here in full is what he said: 

Several years ago, when visiting a Jewish community in a different city, I was approached by a young woman in her 30s. I had given a talk earlier in the day on the topic of the abuse of children, and she wanted to talk with me regarding my presentation. Before she could begin explaining, she started to cry, which quickly turned into a deep sobbing that shook her whole body. It was very painful to witness. Eventually, she began to speak softly about her preteen years and the abuse she experienced. 

Suffice it to say that her story was horrific. The man who abused her, single, in his 40s, was a frequent guest at her family’s Shabbos table, and a trusted friend of her father’s. She was just 10 years old when it started and it continued for three years, leaving devastation in its wake.

I use the word devastation intentionally because no other word quite captures the breadth and depth of her visible pain. Feelings of shame, self-doubt, guilt, confusion, grief, and intense sadness are some of the emotions she was struggling with. She was quiet for a while and the thought occurred to me that this terrifying period in her life had ended close to 20 years before, and yet the look on her face and the tone of her voice spoke volumes of the horror of that experience.

I waited patiently to see if she would ask me a question, and began to realize that there was more she wanted to say, more she needed to say, and was struggling to be able to express it. I said something like, “It looks like you have something else to add, it’s okay, take your time,” which led to more sobbing that seemed somehow more intense, more filled with sadness and loss than the first set of tears.

Between sobs and trying to catch her breath she continued her story: “Those three years were traumatic and they still fill me with terror and disgust, but what came later was, in many ways, worse.” More silence for a few minutes. It looked like she was trying to build up the courage to say what she needed to say. She finally blurted out, almost shouting the words, “I told them and they didn’t believe me. They didn’t believe me. My parents, they made light of it and told me to stop being so dramatic, he was probably just being friendly.” And forcing out another sentence: “He abused me for years, he was a monster … but my parents betrayed me. I wanted to die, in fact I did kind of die that day, shutting down, feeling alone in the world, afraid to open up to anyone. If my own parents didn’t believe me, who would?”

When a child is exploited by an adult, he is betrayed. If the abuser is a family member, or rabbi, or camp counselor, or teacher, it’s a bigger betrayal. The closer the person, the more trusted he is, thus making the victim more vulnerable, the deeper the betrayal.

If your child comes to you, and discloses his confusion about someone touching him, your first job is to listen, not judge. And unless you’re 100 percent sure that he’s lying (and it is pretty much impossible to be 100 percent sure), you must believe him. Your job is not to panic, and to fight your own dread, your own fear. Your role is to provide safety while remaining calm, communicating the message that you believe him and that he did nothing wrong, that you love him and will do everything in your power to get him the help he needs to begin the process of healing.

This means no questions like, “Why would he start up with you?” or, “What did you do to attract his attention?” which imply blame. And if you don’t take it seriously, you compound the injury, and the trauma. If a teen comes to a rabbi and he doesn’t believe her, saying something like, “I know that man, he is a good person, you must stop exaggerating” or worse, such as teaching her the laws of lashon hara, it does immeasurable damage, and can destroy her faith in rabbis.

Communities, too, must believe the child and support her and her family during this traumatic period, when she is especially vulnerable and fragile. Any complaint from a child should be thoroughly checked. How can we turn our backs on our most vulnerable members?

All of us know that it is our responsibility to protect our children. We need to protect the betrayed, not betray them.

The Freedom in the Middle

Guest Post by Celeste Marcus

The Lonely Man of Faith

Celeste Marcus  is a senior at Kohelet Yeshiva High School in Lower Merion, PA – the same school that Michael Weiner attends. The following is a response to his post here from a few days ago To say I was impressed with this response is an understatement.  How fortunate are their parents, their school and Klal Yisroel to have such bright and thoughtful young people as Celeste and Michael. Her words follow.

 I mix patterns. Since I was little, I’ve always mismatched colors and prints. That’s how I see things: the categories are not discrete, my life comes in different flavors. People call it artsy. I think that’s just a euphemism for “I-don’t-know-which-box-to-put-you-in”.

I’ve never been boxable. In second grade I would come home from my Jewish Conservative elementary school and learn Tanakh with a Modern Orthodox graduate student. For me, there was no distinction between the person teaching me, and the sustenance she provided. She was Torah as much as were the two heavy volumes of Breishit she carried.

I questioned incessantly:  “Why do you always wear a hat?  Why do you wear skirts? Why was Avraham asked to kill his son? Why am I the only student in my school who seems to care that Avraham was asked to kill his son?” I don’t remember the answers she gave, I remember the love with which she gave them. It was that love, that obvious and deep passion for the text and for the pupil she was teaching, that drew me to the Modern Orthodox universe.

My classmates are all Modern Orthodox now, and my female teachers all wear skirts. I do too. But I am still unboxable.

I struggle differently than do my peers.  Coming to Modern Orthodoxy by choosing it for myself, I asked why all the time.  Many of my classmates didn’t get to choose this brand of Judaism the way I did. And they didn’t learn to ask “why?”

For people who are alienated by all of the very things that brought me into this world, I believe encouraging them to ask “why” is the kindest and most valuable thing a teacher or a school can do.

And why is that?  Think about what happens when you don’t encourage them to ask why:  it amounts to presenting the system as if it were perfect.  But guess what happens when you put a perfect system into the hands of imperfect beings? When students who don’t know how to articulate questions are met with religious role models who aren’t perfect, and they never are, spiritually debilitating frustration brews.

Remember: for students, teachers are as much Torah as the books they carry. And since my peers weren’t taught how to ask “why?”, for many of them the questions and the anger remain unspoken and misdirected.

On one end of the spectrum our peers are smoldering: “How dare you, imperfect fellow human, lecture me about the proper way to exist, and then go ahead and make mistakes! How dare you tell me what page to be on during davening and not show any interest in the fact that I have no idea whether or not God is answering; whether or not God is even listening; whether or not God exists.”

“Sure,” many kids in our school mutter under their breath, “tell me all about how beautiful, rich and inspirational my religious tradition is, but how about how irrational it so often seems? How about how hard it is to believe that there’s some sort of being that breathed life into us and that loves us, but who breathed so much pain into this world - into my world! Where is He then? And now you’re disappointed that we don’t stay after school to learn? You don’t really care about me, you just want the seats in the Beit Midrash to be filled.”  

 And then there are the peers from the opposite end of the spectrum who haughtily exclaim: “How dare this mechitza not be higher! How dare we learn in any classes with members of the opposite gender! How dare you lecture me about halakhah and then allow students in this room who don’t follow the rules!” - they mean who don’t follow the rules as “well” as they do.

 And there are also many in between. Most have their own questions, I concede that a few are merely looking out the window, but I believe they are in the minority.

 Sometimes being left alone anywhere on the spectrum is isolating. Sometimes it’s incredibly painful. Lo tov ha-odom hiyos levado. We are all alone. Some of us feel it when we connect in strange and deeply intimate ways to a text written hundreds of years ago. But some of us feel it because we’re frustrated. Good.  You cannot have a passionate reaction to something of which you have no expectations. You cannot be frustrated with a system in which you have no investment. The problem is that some of our peers don’t know and are not being shown how to channel that frustration or how to make it go away – they’re not being encouraged to ask “why.

There’s a particular kind of pain that comes from experiencing something beautiful or terrible and not being able to share it; not being able to harness the passion to mere words. I feel it when I read “Lonely Man of Faith.”  Many of my peers feel it during davening when they cannot articulate the questions and paradoxes raging within them. It’s too personal and too complicated to be communicated. The mistake isn’t believing that you are alone; you are. The mistake is believing that you are alone in your loneliness.

It is a mistake to believe that the boy who complains about the long hours of Gemara, and who longs for proms and lax dress codes isn’t familiar with existential loneliness. He may not call it that, but it’s a mistake to be sure he hasn’t felt it. It’s a mistake to think that because you are the one with the book in your hands, you are a better Jew than he is.  Just because you’ve spent longer between the pages cannot mean you are the only one doing it right. Even if his frustration isn’t driving him deeper into his davening or into the Tosfot - that doesn’t make him a lesser Jew or a lesser human being.

For some it takes longer to feel passionate about the space between the pages. Sometimes it take years of being frustrated and confused and of not being able to articulate that confused frustration. For some people, (myself and Michael are fortunate to not be among them) it can take a long time before they feel ready to communicate that struggle and to seek guidance.

Michael and I are not the paradigmatic Modern Orthodox students. We are one of many different kinds of people who go about finding truth in different ways. Does this mean Michael is more scholarly than others? Yes. Does this mean he necessarily cares more about things that really matter?

No way. I know and have learned from many kids who don’t spend their spare time with their noses pressed to a Gemara. Some of these kids may be outwardly contemptuous of the debates between Rava and Abeye, but many of them are also good and wise and multifaceted. It is a tremendous chillul Hashem to declare that such kids aren’t as good Jews as the ones with their faces in books.  Virtually every one of these non-book kids also has struggles and goals. Every one of them yearns for meaning and for friendship and for knowledge.

Those desires deserve to be nurtured with every source of sustenance that Judaism has: Chassidut, mysticism, Zionism - religious and political, Aggadata, the moral power of the Neviim, the astringent rationality of the Rambam and the Radak, and every other tool at my teachers’ disposal.  All equally valuable, necessary, and praiseworthy. There’s a reason our school weaves chumash, and navi, and Talmud, and machshava into the fabric of our curriculum, rather than just having us learn the yeshivish masechtes for four hours every day.

We mix. That’s what the middle is about.

These people are my friends, my teachers, and my peers. They are also Michael’s friends, and he can learn from them just as they can learn from him. They cannot be dismissed because they don’t spend their spare time in the Beit Midrash.

Are Michael and I in the middle? Absolutely. Thank God. We are unboxable. But guess what? All of our friends are unboxable too.

The flip-side of freedom is responsibility. To be in the middle is a gift as well as a tremendous challenge. We are all charged with the task of crafting our own belief system. Each one of us must mix his own patterns and find his own truth eclectically. Indeed, each of us must be mekabel es ha-emes m’mi sheomro

To my teachers, and role models: Please show us how to ask “why?”. Encourage the questions. We do not expect you to know all the answers. Remember that the answers will not be remembered as much as the love with which they are given. It is this love and deep passion that will dissipate the frustration.

Disagreement Does Not Mean Rejection

Rabbi Dov Linzer, Rosh HaYeshiva of YCT

I have written many times about my problems with the Hashkafos of Rabbi Avi Weiss,his Yeshiva Yeshivat Choevei Torah (YCT) and its philosophy of Open Orthodoxy. Just to mention a few of the problems:

1. Rabbi Weiss has created and supports Yeshivat Maharat that ordains women for the rabbinate. He has stopped short of calling them rabbi (or rabba as he did with his first odainee) at the request of the RCA who threatened to expel him if he continued. But calling them Maharat does not change the fact that he considers them rabbis. 

The material these women study is the same as men who study for the rabbinate and they are tested on it the same way. Calling them by another name changes nothing. Outside of Rabbi Weiss and his schools, Orthodox opposition to female rabbis is universal. I have discussed why this is the case in the past. But it is beyond the scope of this post.

2. Open Orthodoxy goes way beyond loving the sinner and hating the sin when it comes to homosexuality. I have no problem with same sex attraction and neither does the Torah. But I do have a problem with acting on it in ways which the Torah tells us is a capital offense. This does not mean I can’t have sympathy for those who sinfully succumb to their desires. But Open Orthodox rabbis practically permit it. Or at least claim that Torah would consider such acts involuntary and therefore not subject to the prohibition (Oness Rachmana Patrei).  This kind of thinking turns the Torah on its head and virtually permits a clearly stated forbidden act.

3. YCT is too easy on those within their own movement that question whether the events at Sinai ever happened. Even though YCT does not question it, they tolerate those who do. That takes being Dan L’Kaf Zechus to an absurd degree, in my view.

4. And then there is their public engagement with non Orthodox rabbis in theological matters. There too they have gone astray. By publicly embracing them in religious contexts they are in effect being seen as legitimizing theologies that are illegitimate. This is something that Rabbi Weiss’s mentor Rav Soloveitchik prohibited. I agree with him.

I will however say that on this last issue I am sympathetic even as I disagree. I understand that they see this as a form of reaching out to secular and non Orthodox Jews in order to try and stop the hemorrhaging of Jews out of Judaism via apathy and intermarriage – a fact documented by various surveys to one degree or another.

Because of this I do think we ought to re-think whether we should interact with non Orthodox rabbis and movements. But I believe we need more input from a broader base in Orthodoxy than just the left in how to go about it. But I digress

These are just a few of my problems with Open Orthodoxy, YCT, and Rabbi Weiss.  And yet, I am opposed to the suggestion by some that advocate throwing  him and his Yeshiva out of Orthodoxy. As I’ve said many times, even with all of the serious issues I have with him, Rabbi Weiss has never advocated violating Halacha. His ‘sins’ are all Hashkafic or deal with matters of public policy.

I believe in Achdus, with both the right and the left. As I recently said, we have more that unites us than divides us.

Apparently I am not the only one who thinks this way. There are prominent people on the right who do as well. The Spinka Rebbe (not the one who was imprisoned for money laundering and fraud – there is more than one Spinka Rebbe) is one of them. Or at least his Gabbai is. I’m sure he has the same problems if not more with the Hashkafos of OO, YCT, and Rabbi Weiss. And yet he embraces them in the spirit of Achdus. The following is from Rabbi Dov Linzer, Rosh Yeshiva of YCT: 

Last night, we ended our week with a kumsitz and had the special zchut of experiencing a truly uplifting moment. Just as the students were about to leave for the night, Rav Avi entered in to the yeshiva arm and arm with a chossid. Rav Avi had made a shiva call in Williamsburg to the family of Menachem Stark, a Satmar chossid who was brutally murdered, leaving behind 7 children. 

As he was leaving the shiva house, the gabbai of the Spinka Rebbe asked him if he needed a ride. Rav Avi asked to be taken to the train, but the gabbai wouldn't even consider just driving Rav Avi to the train. Instead, he drove Rav Avi all the way back to Riverdale (and would then have to drive back to Brooklyn for a dinner he was chairing to support the poor). 

The two of them joined the Winter Learning students in song and dance. The gabbai of the Spinka Rebbe gave the students an inspirational bracha and then was on his way. It was amazing to experience this unifying moment, and it was a great way to cap off an invigorating week. 

Women, Tefillin, and Burkas

Apparently there are now some Modern Orthodox schools that are permitting  their female students to lay (put on) Tefilin during Shacharis. First it was the Salanter Akiba Riverdale (SAR) and now Ramaz.

The fact is that there is no Halacha forbidding women from this religious ritual that I am aware of. But there is a religious principle that women are exempt from observing certain Mitzvos (positive commandments like Tefillin  that are time bound).  Even though women are exempt from such Mitzvos, they may if they so choose - observe them. There are many examples of this like Sukkah and Lulav. These are Mitzvos that are time bound from which women are exempt and yet the vast majority of observant women carefully observe them. But with rare exception (Rashi’s daughters?) the Mitzvah of Tefillin has never been one of them.

In our day, it is still a rare occurrence, but we are beginning to see a lot more of it – as the above shows.

I am not a fan.  I can’t help but to believe that the source of such behavior is at the core based on the feminist notion of equality with men. Bolstering this view is the fact that Jewish feminist groups like JOFA have applauded this move which of course means that it advances their cause. From the Forward: 

An Orthodox feminist leader strongly backs the decision by SAR to allow girls to pray with tefillin. “I’m pleased whenever there’s an expansion of anyone’s ability to connect with God in a way that is halachically permissible,” said Judy Heicklen, the president of the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance and a parent at SAR. “I’m proud of SAR for going out on a limb to help support these girls. 

I believe that there is an element of sincere desire to serve God in this way by these young women. But I have to ask why generally it is only those from homes that tend to support feminism that have any desire at all to do this? Is there for example a single girl at any Beis Yaakov in the world that has ever expressed a desire to lay Tefillin? Are they lacking in their Avodas HaShem?

I have no choice but to question their ultimate motivation. Yes they are sincere. But why choose a particularly male modality and not for example extending their prayers to include additional Psalms? They have been raised  in an environment that sees the equality of the sexes as an objectively positive value and goal to achieve. In fact I actually agree with that – as I have said many times. When it comes to non religious matters – such as equal pay for equal work, I am as supportive as any feminist organization of that. And when it comes to treating the sexes with equal respect and dignity, there too, I am with them 100%.

But when it comes to religious ritual, my feminism ends.  Because for me and for any Jew who is interested in doing the will of God, the purpose is to follow His will and do the Mitzvos that we are commanded by Him to do. While God allows us to do non obligatory Mitzvos and values them, His obvious preference is for us to do those we are obligated to do. This is a principle in Halacha called, Gadol HaMetzuveh V’Oseh,  M’mi SheAino Metzuveh V’Oseh.

When a person does a Mitzvah from which they are exempt, then one has to look at the motivation. If the motivation is based solely on the sincere attempt to do something that is pleasing in the eyes of God, it is laudatory. But if there are additional motivations outside of that parameter, one has to wonder about how much value that really has to God. If a woman seeks equality via practicing a ritual that is the province of men, then is she really serving God? Or is she serving the goals of equalizing the sexes. If the latter, then she is not serving God at all. Because Judaism is not about equalizing the sexes.

There are those who will and say, ‘What does it hurt us if a woman decides to do a religious act that she is not required by Halacha to do?’ ‘Who are we to judge someone else’s motives?’ This is true.  Is it a little weird? Sure. But it’s really none of our business how people choose to serve God, as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. But using that argument, I would posit that women who choose to wear Burkas should be  left alone too. Or perhaps even praised for their heightened sensitivity to modesty in dress! 

Is their sincerity any less than a woman who lays Tefillin? I think we have to grant the Burka ladies the same benefit of the doubt. And yet I would be willing to bet that most people, feminists included would seriously frown on this extreme practice, even though it hurts no one. Would Ms. Heicklen say here too  that she was pleased whenever there’s an expansion of anyone’s ability to connect with God in a way that is halachically permissible? I wonder.

Tradition (Mesorah) is important. Doing things that are outside of traditional practices is one of the big failings of our time in my view. It casts aspersions on what our own parents considered valid when we go outside of their tradition. I am reminded of the famous story (urban legend?) about the descendants of the Chafetz Chaim who refused to use his Kiddush cup because it did not measure up the the Chazon Ish’s minimum Shiur for Kiddush.

Yes, tradition can change and it has many times. But there was always a fundamental sociological reason for it based on existential challenges. This is called Hora’as Shah. I do not see any existential challenge to Judaism if women don’t lay Tefillin or wear Burkas.

In my view no matter how sincere they are (and I do not really question the sincerity of most of them), I believe that somewhere in the furthest recesses of their brains, there is a left wing modern Orthodox feminist motive to the former and an obsessive right wing Charedi motive via a preoccupation with Tznius in women’s clothing to the latter.

So, for all these reasons, I am opposed to both. But at the same time, I would not protest it beyond this essay. I would simply let it run its course. Because I do not believe that either practice will remain a permanent part of our religious Jewish culture.

Hashkafic Differences and Jewish Survival

Rabbi Yehoshua Weber - Photo Credit: Jeremy Melnick 

I am impressed by Rabbi Yehoshua Weber.  I never met the man, but I did read a column by him in Mishpacha Magazine (Yes, I know I’ve referenced Mishpacha a lot lately – but each mention was worthy.)

That column was written as a sort of epiphany about the concept of uniting all of observant Jewry – realizing that what unites us all is far greater than what divides us. This is a theme I have written about many times. I call it Achdus.

Now before I get accused of not including non observant Jewry under the tent of Achdus, I want to clearly state that I do indeed include them. We are all Jews and are treated equally in the eyes of God.  The God of mercy judges us all in the context of our circumstances. So that given a similar set of circumstances God may view the behavior of a non observant Jew or even a non Jew more favorably than the behavior of an observant Jew. But I do believe that observant Jews have observance of Halacha as a uniting factor that binds us as a group.

And yet there is an attitude superiority among some of our observant subgroups. It is an attitude of ‘We are more religious than you… and therefore we are better than you’. I see it all the time here on this blog – almost every day in fact – where both right wing and left wing Jews express not only sense of superiority but a sense of triumphalism. A triumphalism that would prefer just cutting off anyone that does not agree with them. They will even vilify observant Jews for not measuring up to the standards of their community. They would rather just draw a sharp dividing line between ‘us and them’ and just let the other side fall off the cliff they are chasing.

Where do they get this attitude? I can only surmise that this is the kind of Chinuch they get. They are indeed told from the earliest ages that their approach to the Torah is the best approach… and that the approach of others is at best B’Dieved and at worst completely illegitimate. Just to cite one tragic example of this, the Hirschean philosophy of Torah Im Derech Eretz (TIDE) that Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch felt was the ideal way to observe Judaism is seen by the right as B’Dieved at best and a philosophy that should not be followed.

No one has a monopoly on the truth. All we can do is try and seek it. The best way to find that truth is to listen to what others have to say… and not close our minds to it. This is why for example I respect both Rav Kook’s views about the legitimacy of Zionism and the Satmar Rebbe’s views about the illegitimacy of it. Both have legitimate sources in the Torah upon which to base their views. And both views should be respected. It’s called Elu V’Elu.

(My issues with the Satmar Rebbe are not based on his views on that subject, but on the way he expresses them and on the vilification of Rav Kook – which is the inspiration for the disgusting anti Israel rhetoric on the part of his philosophical heirs, and the extremism one finds in the streets of Jerusalem - and elsewhere - in opposition to the government. But I digress.)

Getting back to Rabbi Weber... I think he did in fact see the light at a reception he hosted at his home in Toronto for Rabbi Yisroel Meir Lau, former Chief Rabbi of Israel. It included rabbis from all segments of Orthodoxy.  Rabbi Weber marveled at Rabbi Lau’s ability to speak with one voice which resonated with all the assembled. The rabbis there spanned the entire spectrum of Orthodoxy in that city, from Left Wing Modern Orthodox to Charedi.

His epiphany occurred when Rabbi Lau started talking about the 2000 National Jewish Population Survey (NJPS) from the perspective of a Jew who survived the Holocaust.  That study, said Rabbi Weber, had some bright spots. It noted that if 100 Charedim that have 6.72 children per family and a low intermarriage rate, it will produce 3,401 Jewish descendants after 4 generations. 100 Centrists with their average 3.39 children per family and equally low intermarriage rate will produce 434 Jewish descendants in that time.

Sadly, 100 Conservative Jews with their average 1.74 children per family and 32% intermarriage rate will only produce 29 Jewish descendants. Reform Jews with their 1.36 children per family and intermarriage rate of 46% will produce 10 Jewish descendants; and secular Jews with their 1.29 children per family and their 49% intermarriage rate will produce only 7 Jewish descendants.

Now I don’t know how accurate these numbers are. Nor do I necessarily believe in linear projections – since trends can change for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is an increasing dropout rate among observant Jewry. But I do think that in a general way, it is a fair assumption that Judaism will mostly survive in increasing numbers and percentages via those of us who are observant.

I don’t mean to sound triumphalist. I am not and am in fact saddened that so many Jews will be lost after only 4 generations. But I mention this statistic for the same reason Rabbi Weber does. We have a responsibility to unite and to try and change that trend. When it comes to Jewish survival all of our Hashkafic differences are trivial and irrelevant, says Rabbi Weber.  I could not agree more. Furthermore we can all learn from each other. Every community has its strengths and weaknesses. I only wish that message would enter the hearts of the dividers.

Insularity or Engagement?

Typical street scene in Bnei Brak

Many of my critics ask me why I don’t focus on the problems in the Modern Orthodox community. In particular the charge is made about my posts dealing with Off the Derech (OTD) children. (I dislike that term as it automatically casts these young people in a negative light. But I use it for lack of a better term.)

The truth is that there probably are a lot more young people who go OTD in Modern Orthodoxy(MO). I don’t know the percentages, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they were huge. It is an unfortunate fact that far too many people in this community focus far too much on the ‘modern’ and not enough on the ‘Orthodox’.

By contrast it would seem that Charedim fare far better in this department. They focus entirely on the ‘Orthodox’ and have complete disdain for the ‘modern’.  Again, I don’t know the numbers but my guess is that compared to MO, their rate of OTD is comparatively low. On the surface it should not be too surprising. If one is raised in an environment that goes to great lengths to insulate their children from all outside influences, then of course there will be less attrition than from a community that not only allows outside influences, but actually encourages it if it doesn’t violate Halacha. And it is sometimes hard to draw a line between what violates actual Halacha and what doesn’t.

Once we engage with the outside culture crossing lines can easily occur. There are also a lot of grey areas that may be permissible but violate the spirit of Halacha. This can foster a slippery slope climate into becoming OTD.

It is also true that there are a lot of Modern Orthodox Jews who are observant for social rather than ideological reasons. Which makes it more conducive for a child to go OTD when exposed to the general culture in large doses.

But before the Charedi world can pat itself on the back, I noticed a very disturbing statistic about one of the most Charedi and insular cities in the world. From Marty Bluke’s blog, The Jewish Worker:

10% of the Charedi teenagers in Bnei Brak are OTD.  So says Mishpacha (Hebrew Edition) in an interview with people who work for the city of Bnei Brak in this area. What is sad is that they say that many times the kids not only go OTD but become criminals, addicts, etc. and that their efforts are not to bring back the kids to religion but to turn them into functioning members of society.

How could this be? How do people that are so insulated end up with one in ten children going OTD? If the average family has ten children, that means that every family has one OTD child. Perhaps one can begin to explain this by an excerpt from an article by Jonathan Rosenblum:

EVEN ON THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL, I'm not convinced that more mixed communities do not offer their own advantages. A friend of mine once commented to me, "I raised half my children in Tel Aviv and half in Bnei Brak, and on average, I have to say that those raised in Tel Aviv turned out better. In Tel Aviv, I raised them; in Bnei Brak the street raised them." What he meant – at least in part – was that in a mixed community, the children had to work on their identity and figure who and what they were. In the all chareidi community, everything was just assumed, without ever being thought about. The former produces people whose first question is, "What does Hashem want from me?;" the latter those who ask, "What will the neighbors say?"

And from yet another article by Jonathan in this past week’s Mishpacha Magazine:

I do remember being told by one of the world’s most prominent marbitzei Torah, as we chatted on a transatlantic flight, that the most insular and tightly controlled Torah communities have the highest incidence of dropouts. And when I mentioned this observation a few hours later to another equally prominent Torah figure, as we waited for our baggage, he looked at me as if to ask why I was taking up his time with something so obvious. (Emphasis mine.)

If one combines this with Rabbi Moshe Grylak’s latest editorial (which is part of a continuing series of editorials) about Charedi parents throwing their OTD children to the streets, it adds up to a shocking situation. My guess is that even if more MO children go OTD, very few are abandoned by their parents like that.

Typical Modern Orthodox Teenagers

All of this raises some obvious questions. Among them the following. Is it in fact better to be raised in the type of insular community that is typical of the Charedi world? Should parents seek to avoid any contact with the outside world because of its negative influences? Or is it better to follow the path of Modern Orthodoxy with its philosophy of controlled engagement with the outside world? If the latter is the case, then what about all of those MO children who go OTD? And there are many!

I think the answer is not in the numbers as much as it is in the actual philosophies of the two worlds.  One that views insularity as the ideal and the other who views interaction as the ideal.  There are actually two worlds in Modern Orthodoxy. One is the social world which is very large. And the other is the philosophical world which includes its own right and left and is probably a lot smaller.

When I speak of Modern Orthodoxy as being the better of the two options, I am speaking about the Hashkafa of Modern Orthodoxy. If that were the guiding principle of all Modern Orthodox Jews, there would be a lot fewer dropouts. Why? Because  Modern Orthodoxy believes that engagement with the culture is a good thing.

The benefits of that are twofold. One is that we can appreciate God’s world in its larger context (outside the halls of the synagogue, study hall, and focus on pure ritual) and enjoy what the surrounding culture has to offer in the realm of the Halachicly permissible. But perhaps more important is that inoculation works better than insularity.

If properly raised to honor God and his Torah and observe his commandments, then being exposed to the culture in that context will enable parents to teach their children how to enjoy the permissible while avoiding the impermissible. From the perspective of Modern Orthodoxy, doing God’s will by following Halacha is number one. Once a child  is imbued with Yiras Shomayim, he can be taught by his parents how to engage the world and to better deal with any challenge that may come up.

While it is not foolproof, I think it should be obvious by the statistics and anecdotal evidence quoted by Jonathan Rosenblum, and Rabbi Grylak that a philosophy of controlled exposure to the culture that is one of the hallmarks of Modern Orthodoxy clearly trumps the almost total insularity of the Charedi world.  The only reason that many MO children dropout is not due to its philosophy but due to the fact in all too many MO families - observance is more social than ideological.

I recently saw a Modern Orthodox Bat Mitzvah video where there was very little ‘Mitzvah’ and a lot of culture that was anathema to Judaism. The girls were dressed immodestly and they were all dancing to the sexually suggestive music being played by a disc jockey they hired. Unfortunately these people had little interest in following the letter of the law, let alone the spirit of the law. There was nothing Jewish in that video at all. And I’m sure that most of those young people come from observant homes – socially observant homes.

I believe that a lot of MO Jews are like this. I don’t know the numbers, but I fear they may even be the majority. It would not surprise me if more than a few of those kids went OTD at some point in their lives. But that does not speak to the validity of Modern Orthodoxy as a Hashkafa.

It is my belief that those of us who are serious about the Hashkafa have the fewest dropouts of all. A lesson that the Charerdi world should learn from us - if it isn’t too late.