The Big Dog in the Neighborhood

Rabbi Moshe David Niederman, CEO of UJO in Williamsburg

Lest anyone say that Satmar does not have a sense of humor, I present to you Rabbi Moshe David Niederman. He's a pretty funny guy. Rabbi Niederman is the Executive Director and President of the United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg, Inc. (UJO), the central planning and social service agency for more than 200 organizations of Williamsburg in Brooklyn, which is mostly a Satmar enclave. I say mostly because there are non Satmar people that live there too as well as non Jews.

Satmar is well known to be quite insular. (See yesterday's post.) And it is thought that they are not very friendly to their non Jewish neighbors. But it isn’t true. They seemed to be quite friendly to a young black woman who lives in their neighborhood. How do I know? I saw it with my own eyes. There was an interaction between her and Rabbi Niederman that was recorded on camera and broadcast to millions of people last night.

Rabbi Neiderman came off as very affable and quite humorous himself.   All this on TV apparently filmed and broadcast with his permission. Which is quite ironic considering that very few if any Satmar Chasidim would have seen him. Most don’t own any TVs. I wonder what the Satmar Rebbe of Williamsburg thought of his performance?

I guess you just don’t know about people. The video clip follows below.

Warning: The actual stand-up material that follows Rabbi Niederman may be offensive to some people.

Satmar and Yeshiva University

Elimelech Wagschal gets a kiss from his mother at his graduation 

If only this would start a new trend.

One of the issues I have with Satmar type Chasidus is their attitude about the secular world. Of those in the Charedi world that eschew having anything to do with it, they are one of the most extreme.

 As a result they oppose anything but the most basic secular education for their students.  It isn’t only the possible Kefira they might be exposed to that they are afraid of. It is the culture. They probably fear that more than the Kefira. They do not want any of their Chasidim to adopt anything from that culture. They see the promiscuity that goes on in the world and they want to avoid it at all costs – Tznius being a high priority item. They see what they call the ‘values of the street’ and they run the other way. So when it comes to higher education – well… that’s out. The problems I just mentioned are on the university campuses in spades.

So they live sheltered and even insular lives – believing that in this way the ‘values of the street’ will not penetrate their communities. Only the most minimal contact is allowed and even then – only for Parnassa purposes.

But isolation has proven not to be as effective as they might have hoped for. The internet has assured that.

Satmar will counter that it is true that their insular  ways are not foolproof, but nonetheless it is still the safest way to go - on the whole.

Most Satmar type Chasidim will remain safe. But at a price. By not availing themselves of the opportunities to better their lives and income via the education available to others - the majority end up with menial jobs The pay for those jobs is no where near the amount necessary to support their typically large families. Except for a few that have family connections to welathy entrepreneurs or have their own entrepreneurial spirit to borrow money and invest in a business - many end up being quite poor. This is was demonstrated in a survey taken a few years ago that showed the Satmar village of Kiryas Joel to be one of the poorest in the United States.

Which is why the story of Elimelech Wagschal is such a big deal. He is a Satmar Chasid that through a twist of fate graduated from Yeshiva University undergraduate school. From VIN:

Take one look at Elimelech Wagschal and he looks nothing like the typical Yeshiva University graduate.  With his black payos and bekeshe,  the 22 year old Kiryas Joel man does not fit the classic Yeshiva University mold, yet he found his experience at the school to be nothing but a positive experience and he hopes that others who find themselves in a similar predicament will follow in his footsteps. 

Despite being a straight A student from his earliest days in yeshiva, Wagschal found himself denied admission to Kiryas Joel’s yeshiva gedola.

“I could have gone to a different yeshiva, not in my hometown, but my family and I decided that the thing to do was to go to YU,” Wagschal told VIN News. 

Given his minimal background in secular studies, Wagschal was hesitant to apply to Yeshiva University, and instead spent one year at Touro College where he earned straight A’s.  Buoyed by his academic success, Wagschal transferred to Yeshiva University, where he completed a degree in business management with an above 3.5 grade point average. 

Although he came from a different background than most of his classmates, Wagschal foundthat he was accepted with open arms and felt absolutely no pressure to change in order to better fit in with YU’s student body.

“I am a very strong chosid and that is something that you are at heart,” said Wagschal.  “It isn’t superficial and a chosid can fit in anywhere. At no point in time did I ever have to compromise even a single drop on my values or beliefs.”

This young man bucked the trend in that world. He did something few young Chasidim do. He attended a university in order to better his future. He was welcomed with open arms and did quite well. Furthermore he remained true to his Chasidic heritage.  As I said in the opening line, if only this will start a trend.

I don’t know how the Satmar Rebbe of Kiryas Joel feels about this. Nor do I know how the rest of his community felt. But his parents seemed to lovingly approve of what he did. That is evident from the photo.

Perhaps as important in this story is the way the students at YU accepted him. These young mostly Modern Orthodox students did not see a Satmar Chasid. They saw a peer… a religious student getting an education right alongside everyone else. They treated him as an equal… as one of their own.

I have read more than once about the Satmar type Chasid that goes OTD because of the strictures placed upon him in his community.  Strictures that mostly do not exist in modern Orthodox environments.  But when these young men and women become disillusioned with their Chasdi lifestyles they go straight from being a Satmar type Chasid to becoming entirely secular and non observant. They don’t eve consider becoming Modern Orthodox.

One of the reasons for that is that Satmar type Chasidus treats Modern Orthodoxy as pretty much going OTD anyway.  So they see no more value in becoming Modern Orthodox than they do in becoming completely secular.

But even if they were convinced to try that first before going completely OTD they wouldn’t do it. They feel out of place. Their upbringing is radically different; as is their worldview; their way of life; the way they speak English; their interests; and their intellectual pursuits. They feel a sense of rejection because they are so different in so many different ways. It is like living on Mars.

But as Elimelech’s experience at YU has shown, one can remain true to his core belief and culture and still be welcomed as a full fledged member of that group. The lack of academic preparation can be made up. They can catch up to their peers relatively quickly. They do not have to feel like social outcasts at all. If they end up getting the kind of education YU can provide, their future will likely be a lot brighter, both financially and socially.

It is there fore imperative to make certain that the word gets out among Satmar Chasdim who are having difficulty remaining in the fold. Let them talk to Elimelech Wagschal. He can teach them a thing or two.

Crossing a Line

Dr. Yarom Hazony

Is Open Orthodoxy really heretical?  As painful as it is for me to say so, I’m afraid that Rabbi Yaakov Perlow’s remarks at yesterday’s Agudah convention along those lines may be correct. It is painful because a friend now heads Yeshiva Chovevei Torah (YCT) that espouses Open Orthodoxy. And there is much to admire about their practical approach to educating people for the rabbinate.

Let me first make clear that in no way do I consider YCT head, Rabbi Asher Lopatin to be a heretic. But his movement allows heresy into its midst. One of its premiere graduates, Rabbi Zev Farber seems to buy into biblical criticism and has thereby bought into the idea that it is very likely that none of what is recorded in the Bible prior to the Book of Samuel  - actually happened.

This is Apikurus (heresy). No different than that of the Conservative Movement. To say that our forefathers never existed, that the Exodus as recorded never happened nor was there any direct revelation at Sinai is a violation the Maimonidean 13 Principles of Faith.

Not that I am all that thrilled with the heavy influence feminism has on Open Orthodoxy. Nor am I a fan of interdenominational cooperation that they promote – which violates even Rav Soloveitchk’s lenient rulings.

But as bad as those things are, I never considered that they were anything but Orthodox since they do not in any way promote violation of Halacha.  But that is not enough in light of what Rabbi Farber has said. When a movement tolerates Apikurus, it can no longer call itself Orthodox - even if that is part of their name.

If not for the heresy I don’t think that Orthodoxy would have had such a problem with the Conservative movement, especially those on the Conservative religious right. Many Conservative rabbis are observant… and they promote Halacha as binding. They even regret some of the lenient rulings made in the past – like allowing driving on Shabbos. So I’m not sure there would have been such a break with them. Much like there wasn’t with the Traditional Movement who also crossed some serious lines. We might have accepted the Conservative Movement as being no worse than the Traditional Movement - as long as they didn’t allow Apikursus to invade their theology. But they did. And that was a major break that Traditional Judaism did not make.

Open Orthodoxy on the other hand has done what the Conservative Movement has done, by their inclusion of a rabbi who espouses it. So that even though  they do not violate the sins of the Traditional Movement (No Mechitza and microphones on Shabbos) they have done much worse by tolerating heresy within their midst no different than the Conservative Movement.

So yes, it pains me to say it, but unless they completely reject Rabbi Farber, they must be placed outside the camp. I know this will make many of my friends on my left angry with me. But this is Emes the way I see it. 

Judaism is not only about doing the Mitzvos… although that is obviously a big part of it. It is also a belief system. Doing  all of the Mitzvos while being an Atheist for example does not make you Orthodox no matter how careful you are about doing them. Ritual actions like keeping Kosher would be meaningless without the belief that there is a God that required them of you.

By the same token if there was no Sinai, the Mitzvos recorded in the Torah are just someone’s fantasy – right along with the story of how they were given. Saying that the Torah narrative may not be literal but divinely inspired is similar nonsense in my view. Why make up stories? Just list the rituals. Why tell fantastic stories about crossing the Red Sea and other miracles that defy nature? What purpose does it serve other than to make skeptics out of us?!

As I said, I’m sure that many of my friends on the left will be disappointed in me. But perhaps not all of them. Jewish philosopher, Dr. Yarom Hazony is by any definition a ‘lefty’. He is a founder of the Shalem Center and a champion of Dr. Eliezer Berkovits having re-published many of his works in addition to works of his own. He has recently written an article in Torah Musings about an experience he had at an Open Orthodox event that reinforces my views here. He too questions whether the theological direction in which they are going is indeed Orthodox.

Dr. Hazony attended that event one Friday evening. It took place at an Orthodox Shul that featured among other things a discussion of biblical scholarship. What was alarming to him was the overall unchallenged acceptance by all the presenters that evening of biblical scholarship - denying that anything in it is factual up to the book of Samuel. And the audience seemed to buying it. No one challenged anything they said save for one elderly individual who asked, “Don’t any of you believe that God gave the Torah to Moses at Sinai?”. He was immediately dispatched with the following comment by the moderator who said: 

There are some people who think that they can tell God what he can and cannot do. There are some people who think they are so clever that they can know, on God’s behalf, whether he had to give the Torah to one person at one time, or whether he could have given the Torah gradually, in an unfolding fashion, over the course of many generations. And that’s the answer to that question. Next question.” 

Dr. Hazony continues: 

Unfortunately, there is nothing I can do to recreate the extraordinary degree of condescension, the sheer meanness, with which this answer was used to dismiss the old gentleman’s line of thought as illegitimate and not worthy of consideration. 

That there was no Sinai moment and instead we have an unfolding revelation may be a subject worthy of discussion in Academic circles, says Dr. Hazony. Nonetheless I think he sums up the problem with it in the following statement: 

But the fact that something has become a constant refrain in certain intellectual circles does not yet make it a good idea, much less a significant theological position. Perhaps I’ve missed something, but I have not yet seen a carefully constructed and systematically worked out version of an Orthodox Jewish theory of “unfolding revelation,” and I doubt that one exists. 

I suppose this might actually make Dr. Hazony and Rabbi Perlow strange bedfellows. When both the right and the left have the same problems with a movement, I think it is time for that movement to have some serious re-thinking of just how far they want to push their theological envelope. 

Yom Yerushalyim - It Still Stirs the Emotions

Rabbi Shlomo Goren at the Kotel - 1967

I will never forget it. It was June of 1967, the ‘Summer of Love’ so nicknamed by the young people of my generation as many of them traveled to San Fransisco to do just that: make love. The Viet Nam War was in full bloom. A military draft was in place. Many young people my age were increasingly protesting it, growing their hair long, smoking pot, and becoming ‘Hippies’. Promiscuous behavior was the order of the day. Slogans included ‘Make love – Not war’ and ‘If it feels good, do it’.

I was 20 years old at the time and in studying at HTC. The news was unbelievable. The old city of Jerusalem had been liberated in a lightening war that Israel won in 6 days. Upon entering the area of our Holy Temple Colonel Mota Gur proclaimed ‘Har HaBayit Beyadenu - The Temple mount is in our hands.’ Shortly after that Chief army chaplain, Rabbi Shlomo Goren entered and blew the Shofar at the Kotel with a Sefer Torah in his hand.

If you we not alive then or too young to remember, you cannot possibly know the joy that was felt by just about every Jew. To say that most Jews were euphoric would be an understatement.

The 6 Day War (as it was to be called) was seen as one of the most brilliantly executed victories of modern times. Generals all across the globe marveled at the strategy and tactics of a people, though outnumbered 40 to 1, won a war so quickly and with so few casualties. Stories about open miracles abounded then.

I thought the Jews had finally arrived. The nations of the world would never look at us the same way. 2000 years of Antisemitism would be replaced by envy and applause and the sense that justice has been served.  That was indeed how we were perceived back then. Being proud to be a Jew spread to all of us. Wearing a Kipa was a badge of honor and pride.  Many young secular Jews took that pride and began to examine their heritage. Jews with little or no background became motivated to visit the ‘new’ Israel to discover what Judaism was all about.

Those were heady days.

Of course those feelings didn’t last as long as I would have liked them to. A lot has happened since then. But on this day, the anniversary of the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) recapturing the holiest place on earth for the Jewish people after 2000 years in exile, those memories still stir my emotions. 

Paying a Price

Disgusting Price Tag Graffiti on the Romanian Church in Jeruslaem (TOI)

One of the many things I promote on this blog is Achdus. This is one of the primary things missing in the Jewish world. We have been broken down into so many parts that it seems like a futile task trying to put us back together. We are like a shattered window. There is little I would pray for more than to become one united nation of the Jewish people. This is one reason that I don’t like denominations, necessary tough they are.

Since the 2^nd Temple era we were generally speaking always one people. Until the enlightenment.  That changed everything. Instead of being one people, some more religious…  some less, we started seeing  movements. Philosophies developed that spoke to the times. First there was Reform then Conservative… both of which left the boundaries of traditional Judaism leaving the rest of us to be called Orthodox.

Today these divisions have multiplied. In fact many Jews are just plain secular with little interest in their Judaism at all. Even within Orthodoxy the smallest segment in Judaism there has been a plethora of divisions. Just to mention a few there are Charedim -which are divided into the Lithuanian Yeshiva camp and Chasidic camp (itself divided into many different types of Chasidim); Chabad; Modern Orthodox (consisting of right wing Centrists and  Left Wing Modern Orthodox);and Yekkes (observant Jews of German background with their own philosophy and customs). And this does not even take into account Sephardim – a group with their own customs dating back for centuries.

But those were not the only movements.  There is also Zionism. The enlightenment, a history of European Antisemitism; and a continuous 2000 year old yearning to return to our homeland, Israel… all combined to form this movement.

Secular Zionism had many religious sympathizers.  Jews had been praying for a return to Zion (Israel) since the beginning of the Diaspora. Thus was formed religious Zionism which had the support of some great rabbinic figures of the past.  Unfortunately most mainstream Rabbinic figures opposed it.

So… there are lots of movements and divisions out there. I know it’s hard to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. But I yearn for the day, when we can all stand up and be counted as one people.

But in my desire for unity, I do have my limits. I could never accept movements that are involved in constant Chilul HaShem. This is why for instance I totally reject Neturei Karta. They are not part of Klal Yisroel in my view. Anyone who actively seeks the destruction of the State of Israel even to the point of siding with Fundamentalist Muslims groups - like those in Iran  that are out to wipe Israel off the map by any means necessary - cannot in my view be counted as a part of the Klal.

But there is another group I consider to be outside the Klal. A group that is the polar opposite of Neturei Karta. They are known as the Price Taggers. And they are unfortunately an outgrowth of the Religious Zionist settler movement. From Ynet: 

Since (December 2013) there has been an increase in violent incidents against Arabs on both sides of the Green Line. Since the start of this year, the police unit for nationalist crimes, which investigates price tag attacks, has opened 78 new files, arrested 102 suspects and served 37 indictments.  

The price-taggers are settlers that attack Palestinian towns and property in retaliation for actions against them by the Israeli government. Like the removal of outposts which are either unauthorized or illegal. In recent years dozens of such attacks have targeted not only Muslim residents of the West Bank but Christian sites and the Christian community in Jerusalem. They generally follow actions by Israeli authorities that are perceived as harming the settlement enterprise, or follow Palestinian violence against settlers.

They rationalize that since all of the land of Israel was given to the Jews by God, they are going to whatever it takes to make it happen. No one can get in their way. If the government tries, there is a price to be paid. Not by the government. But by innocent people. To the best of my knowledge they have no rabbinic sanction even among Religious Zionist Rabbis.The Arabs who live in those neighborhoods fear them. And for good reason.

There is only one name for people like this: terrorists. It is they who should be paying a price. Their men may wear Kipot. Their women may cover their hair and dress modestly by Jewish standards. They may keep Shabbos. They may keep Kosher. But they are terrorist outcasts nonetheless and ought to be shunned by all decent citizens. Most of all by the vast majority of decent law abiding Religious Zionists. It is the cause of Religious Zionism that they hurt the most. If I were a Religious Zionist leader, I would put them in Cherem.

I’m glad to see that the government is beginning to crack down on them. l would throw anyone convicted of this in jail for a very long time. If anything can be called a hate crime, this is it.The Chilul HaShem is enormous. The damage they do the Jewish people is incalculable. Not to mention the damage they do to their own cause. Aside from that, they are raising their children to hate no less than Muslim fundamentalists teach their children to hate.

Lest anyone be appalled at my comparing Jews to the Muslim terrorists who blow themselves up for the sole purpose of killing Jews, I would point out that it is only a matter of degree. Terrorism does not always mean murder. It means instilling fear among innocents by way of violence. And for those who might say that there are no innocent Arabs, that is bigotry of the highest order!

There can be no sanction for these people. There can be no sympathy for their cause. Even if one is a settler living in Yehuda or Shomron (the West Bank) and devoted to keeping all of Eretz Yisroel in Jewish hands, you should nonetheless be ashamed of these people. There can be no ‘buts’. You cannot say, ‘I disagree with what they are doing – but - I sympathize with their cause. That too is a Chilul HaShem. 

There is no Achdus with people like this. They have to be completely condemned and rejected - written out of the Klal – unless and until they do Teshuva, realize the error of their ways and make amends. Until then... they may be Jewish by birth, but they should be treated like terrorists. Because that is what they are. 

What Was Rabbi Wein’s Real Message?

A Response to Rabbi Avi Shafran

Refugee Ship 'Theodor Herzl' trying to run a British Blockade in Haifa (1947)

Earlier today, I published a response by Rabbi Shafran to critiques of an earlier essay of his about Rabbi Berel Wein. Therein he makes the following statement: 

The (criticisms) focused on either or both of two complaints.  Paraphrased loosely:

1) How DARE you criticize an elder statesman of the Orthodox Jewish world?  (And a sub-complaint: How DARE you not refer to Rabbi Wein as a Rosh Yeshiva?) 

2) But Rabbi Wein is right! Gedolim have erred in the past!  So what bothers you about what Rabbi Wein wrote? 

I can’t speak for any of the others he may have been addressing. But it seems as though these are exactly the points I made. (Only I did not put them exactly that way, nor did I criticize him for not referring to Rabbi Wein as a Rosh Yeshiva. I mentioned it only in passing as part of his credentials. I do not generally refer to him as a Rosh Yeshiva either.But he certainly is an elder statesman who at age 80 has begun his 9^th decade here on earth.)

In his response to the first criticism Rabbi Shafran professes his profound respect for Rabbi Wein and adds that he has tremendous gratitude to him on many levels. In no way did he mean to insult him. I’m sure that’s true – up to a point. But at the same time he justifies his original comment with the phrase: Ein Cholkin Kavod L’Rav. Which he deems appropriate in this instance.

This phrase is sourced in the Gemarah (Eruvin 63a) which states in full: 'Kol Makom She'Yesh Chilul HaShem, Ein Cholkin Kavod La'Rav'. The meaning of which is: Any place where there is a Chilul HaShem, we do not impart honor to a Rav. In effect this is yet another slight to Rabbi Wein. By using this phrase he has gone a step further than simply saying Rabbi Wein ‘should have known better’.  He in essence implies that Rabbi Wein’s ‘comments are a Chilul HaShem’ which demands not giving him honor and by default, demeans him.

So I must once again protest this. There was absolutely no Chilul Hashem at all made by Rabbi Wein. More about this later.

Rabbi Shafran’s second point is that if one reads Rabbi Wein’s column more carefully we would see that he is not just saying that Gedolim can and do sometimes make mistakes. Rabbi Shafran not only agrees to that, he tells us that the Gemarah itself says so in many places. The problem - in his own words - is the following: 

Rabbi Wein insinuates that the Gedolim of today, who are looked to for guidance by the majority of yeshivos, Bais Yaakovs and Jewish day schools, are limited by  “a mindset that hunkers back to an idyllic Eastern European world of fantasy that is portrayed falsely in fictional stories.”  That jaundiced judgment is used by Rabbi Wein to explain why those Gedolim don’t endorse the celebration of Yom Ha’atzma’ut or the commemoration of the Holocaust on Yom HaShoah (but rather, instead, in other ways and at times like Tisha B’Av).

“The whole attitude of much of the Orthodox world,” he further writes, “is one of denial of the present fact that the state exists, prospers and is the largest supporter of Torah and Jewish traditional religious lifestyle in the world.” No one, though, denies those facts, only that they somehow mean that opposition to the creation of Israel before the Second World War is, as a result, somehow retroactively rendered erroneous. 

Well, I did re-read Rabbi Wein’s column more carefully and I did not see this meaning anywhere in his words.

Rabbi Wein did not mention a word about today’s rabbinic leaders. He simply said that there is a mindset today – not that any rabbinic leader has said anything. Where that mindset comes from – has many possible sources, not the least of which are the many hagiographies by publishers like ArtScroll about Gedolim that speaks about them as though they were born Kodesh M’Rechem (holy from the womb). When young minds full of mush read things like that, they cannot help but feel that these leaders could not possibly have erred.

Nor does Rabbi Wein say anything specifically about Yom Ha’atzmaut or Yom HaShoah with respect to the current rabbinic leadership . What he is really saying is something Rav Eliyahu Soloviechik (Rav Ahron’s son - the same Rav Ahron who said Hallel on Yom Ha’atzmaut) told me personally. That much of the Yeshiva world today has no Hakoras HaTov to the state of Israel for what it has done for them. All one hears these days is cursing of the State and its leadership. Rabbi Wein blames this on the hagiographic mindset that idealizes leaders of the past which is now transferred to the leaders of the present. Perhaps what he does imply is that the today’s leaders have done nothing to change that mindset.

The facts are as Rabbi Wein states them: 

(The Holocaust and the creation of the State of Israel) occupy no space or time in many Orthodox schools and days of commemoration of these events are absent on school calendars. Instead there is a mindset that hunkers back to an idyllic Eastern European world of fantasy that is portrayed falsely in fictional stories - hagiographic biographies and omissions of uncomfortable facts and doctored photographs – to a world that never was.

I see no mention of any current rabbinic leader. All I see is his observation that this mindset has been carried forward to today with the same animus toward the state that existed pre Holocaust. As though nothing has changed.

But things have changed. The Holocaust did happen. We must now recognize that change. As Rav Yoshe Ber Soloveitchik explained (in Kol Dodi Dofek):  God Himself had Paskin’d and sided with Mizrachi (Religious Zionism), not Agudah (with which Rav Soloveitchik himself sided before the Holocaust). We now see that God (for His own reasons unbeknownst to us) sent non religious Jews to do the job instead of religious Jews. In miraculous ways no less!

One can disagree with Rav Soloveithcik, as I’m sure Rabbi Shafran, the members of the Moetzes, and many right wing Roshei Yeshiva and Chasidic rebbes do. But to go so far as to imply that it is a Chilul HaShem to point this out;  and to constantly hear negative things about Israel while rarely if ever saying anything positive is just plain wrong.

I hope that upon further reflection Rabbi Shafran will recognize that, despite his own personal acknowledgement of the positive side of the state, that it barely exists in - or at least is rarely ever publicly expressed by the right. And that is one of the reasons we have such anger and acrimony between the right and everyone else. That was Rabbi Wein’s message. Which should give us pause about the way things are… and the way they should be.

Retroactive Prophecy Redux

Guest Post by Rabbi Avi Shafran*

Rabbi Avi Shafran

In an article entitled Retroactive Prophesy, Rabbi Avi Shafran strongly criticized an essay by Rabbi Berel Wein. I responded to that with a post of my own yesterday stating that I felt Rabbi Shafran’s opening comment was unfair to Rabbi Wein - and then proceeded to  explain why I thought he misunderstood Rabbi Wein’s comments.  

I sent Rabbi Shafran a copy of my post and he responded to me in almost exactly the way he did in this follow-up essay. I do not normally cross-post. But I have made an exception in this case for obvious reasons. I will be responding to this essay later today. Rabbi Shafran’s words follow.

As I expected, my critique of some recent writing of Rabbi Berel Wein has generated many comments and communications.  There were, also as expected, yeas and nays

The nays focused on either or both of two complaints.  Paraphrased loosely: 1) How DARE you criticize an elder statesman of the Orthodox Jewish world?  (And a sub-complaint: How DARE you not refer to Rabbi Wein as a Rosh Yeshiva?)

And 2) But Rabbi Wein is right! Gedolim have erred in the past!  So what bothers you about what Rabbi Wein wrote?

The first thing first.  I have great respect for Rabbi Wein as a person and a scholar, and feel enormous personal hakaras hatov to him for several things, among them his wonderful history tapes, which I used back in the 1980s to create a syllabus for a high school Jewish history course I taught then; and his mentorship of, and Torah-study with, a cherished son-in law of mine, who remains close to, and works with, Rabbi Wein to this day.

I meant no insult, chalilah, by not referring to Rabbi Wein as a Rosh Yeshiva (he led Yeshivas Shaarei Torah in Monsey for 20 years).  He has not, however, served in that position since 1997, and his rightful claims to fame are his great knowledge of Jewish history and his writings.  The Wikipedia entry for Rabbi Wein, in fact and accurately, identifies him as “an American-born Orthodox rabbi, scholar, lecturer, and writer… regarded as an expert on Jewish history…”

As to the reason I felt it was acceptable, even required, to publicly criticize his recent essays, I can only say that there are times that “ein cholkin kavod lirav” – “we do not defer to even great men”  This, I felt and feel, was such a time.

As to the second complaint, the complainers need only read – this time, carefully – what Rabbi Wein wrote, and – just as carefully – what I did.

I did not contest the assertion that the religious leaders of Klal Yisrael can err; in fact the Gemara says so, in many places; to the contrary, I clearly stated the fact.

What I contested was the attitude that any of us can be sure, based only on our own lights, that great men in fact erred in specific cases; and – most egregiously – that those judgments allow us to cavalierly reject the current guidance of our own generation’s religious leadership.

To wit, Rabbi Wein insinuates that the Gedolim of today, who are looked to for guidance by the majority of yeshivos, Bais Yaakovs and Jewish day schools, are limited by  “a mindset that hunkers back to an idyllic Eastern European world of fantasy that is portrayed falsely in fictional stories.”  That jaundiced judgment is used by Rabbi Wein to explain why those Gedolim don’t endorse the celebration of Yom Ha’atzma’ut or the commemoration of the Holocaust on Yom HaShoah (but rather, instead, in other ways and at times like Tisha B’Av).

“The whole attitude of much of the Orthodox world,” he further writes, “is one of denial of the present fact that the state exists, prospers and is the largest supporter of Torah and Jewish traditional religious lifestyle in the world.” No one, though, denies those facts, only that they somehow mean that opposition to the creation of Israel before the Second World War is, as a result, somehow retroactively rendered erroneous.

Rabbi Wein also writes that “One of the great and holy leaders of Orthodox society in Israel stated in 1950 that the state could not last more than fifteen years. Well, it is obvious that in that assessment he was mistaken. But again it is too painful to admit that he was mistaken…”

Perhaps Rabbi Wein is referring to someone else, but if his reference is to the Chazon Ish, it is a tale widely told in some circles that lacks any basis I have been able to find. On the contrary, the contention has been utterly rejected by someone, a talmid of the Chazon Ish who became an academic, who spoke to the Chazon Ish extensively about Israel.  The godol, the talmid writes, expressed his opinion that time would have to tell whether Israel would develop into a positive or negative thing for Klal Yisrael; but the Godol did not, the talmid stresses, ever opine what he felt the future held, much less offer some timeline.

The issue is not whether Gedolim are Nevi’im (they are not) but the Gedolim of each generation are, in the end, those to whom the Torah wishes us to turn for guidance, the “einei ha’eidah,” the “eyes of the people.”  Or just some righteous but out-of-touch ivory tower scholars who cannot be relied upon for anything but issues concerning kashrus or Shabbos.

I make no apologies for standing up for the former conviction.  And I would welcome Rabbi Wein proclaiming a similar stance.  But, alas, words he has written have struck me, and many, many others (including both those upset at those words and others who welcomed them with glee) as implying the latter.

I truly wish I hadn’t felt the need to address those words, but I did.

*Cross-posted with permission from Rabbi Shafran's blog

A Day of Remembrance and Gratitude

Generals Eisenhower, Bradley, and Patton watch a demonstration of Nazi torture 

Today is Memorial Day. If anyone should recognize the sacrifices of the American military, it is the Jewish people. It was the supreme allied commander, General Dwight D. Eisenhower who led the invasion of Normandy at Omaha Beach in France so as to enable the defeat of the Nazis in World War II. Omaha Beach was a virtual slaughter house as wave after wave of soldiers moved forward into massive gunfire by the enemy. Many soldiers died or became permanently injured. And yet they kept on coming until the eventually landed and overcame the enemy.

One of the images that will be seared into my memory will be the tour Eisenhower took into one of the liberated camps. What he encountered was the unimaginable and yet true events of torture that took place at the hands of the Nazis, while the German citizens looked the other way. Eisenhower went to a nearby town and forced the entire town to go to one of those camps to see what their leaders had done… and forced those townspeople to help bury the dead.  

I think it is only right to think of all the sacrifices that American soldiers did for the sake of triumphing over evil… an evil directed primarily against us. We owe those men… and this country an tremendous debt of gratitude. God bless them and God bless the United States of America.

Facing the Truths of History

Rabbi Avi Shafran

One of the biggest issues (perhaps the biggest issue) that divides the Charedi world from the rest of the Orthodox world is how we view our rabbinic leaders …or even the great Gedolim of the past. The Charedi world (as is so often stated by the Agudah) defines itself by its unbending fealty to the Gedolim.  They call it Daas Torah… the wisdom of the Torah. The Daas  of the common man is Mevutal (nullified) to theirs. That does not mean that that the Daas of the common man is totally devalued. Of course it isn’t. But in comparison to that of the rabbinic leaders – it is of little import.

For much of the rest of the Orthodox world, we too honor and value the judgement of our rabbinic leaders. We too often ask for – and take their advice, recognizing their wisdom is based largely on their superior understanding of the Torah. But unlike the Charedi world we do not see their advice as binding… at least not as binding as Charedim.  We recognize that no matter how  great in stature - they can be and sometimes are wrong.

Nowhere has this been more evident than in the pre Holocaust attitude of the Gedolim to Zionism. That opposition was recently touched upon by Rabbi Berel Wein who even though a self described Charedi said the following in a recent article (upon which I commented earlier this month): 

The great struggle of most of Orthodoxy in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries against Zionism influenced all Orthodox thought and behavior. As late as 1937, with German Jewry already prostrate before Hitler's madness and Germany already threatening Poland, the mainstream Orthodox rabbinate in Poland publicly objected to the formation of a Jewish state in the Land of Israel on the grounds that the heads of that state would undoubtedly be secular if not even anti-religious.

They were correct in that assessment but, since the Holocaust was then an unimaginable event in their worldview, they continued in their opposition to Jews leaving Poland to settle either in the United States or in Israel. Because of this past mindset, the Holocaust is more unsettling – theologically, at least, to Orthodoxy - than perhaps to any other group in the Jewish world.

Much of Orthodoxy chooses to ignore the issue or to contrive very lame excuses and causes for this catastrophe. In my opinion, there is no human answer to the event itself but the event cannot be ignored. One of the consequences of confronting it is naturally an admission that great and holy men can be wrong in their assessment of current events and future occurrences. Much of Orthodoxy is so hagiographic about its present and past leaders that it cannot bring itself to admit that. As such, the past cannot truly help to assess the present. A false past is almost as dangerous as having no past at all. 

I found this to be a very reasonable evaluation of the people and their times… as well as how it is presented today in the Charedi world.

Rabbi Berel Wein

I don’t think there can be any doubt in the minds of rational people that the Gedolim erred in their assessment and thereby in the advice they gave. This is not to say they said or did anything wrong. All they did was take the information at hand and make the best judgments they could at the time based on how they saw the Torah dictating it to them. As Rabbi Wein clearly notes, no one could have predicted the Holocaust. They probably believed that they could weather the coming storm and survive…  while moving to  a ‘Godless’ Israel and assimilationist America would surely destroy Jewish souls.

But history has clearly proven their error in judgment. They were human. They cannot really be blamed for their miscalculations. My sincere belief is that had they known the Holocaust was going to happen they would have advised the Jewish people to leave.

Although there were irreligious Jews, like Zev Jabotinsky, that did predict the Holocaust, their predictions were no more informed than were those of the Gedolim of that era. So most religious Jews who ended up perishing in the Holocaust clung naturally to the views of their Gedolim and stayed put, unfortunately.

I mention all this in response to an article in Hamodia (which can be read online in the Baltimore Jewish Life ) by a man for whom I have great admiration and respect, Rabbi Avi Shafran. He is a man with whom I agree most of the time.  But not this time.

First I must strongly object to the way he characterized Rabbi Wein in his opening statement: 

There exists a mentality, even among some who should know better, like the respected popular historian Rabbi Berel Wein, that any one of us can, and even should, second-guess the attitudes and decisions of Torah luminaries of the past. 

A man who should know better? I find that to be insulting. Rabbi Wein is an elder statesman of great stature. Among his many achievements is that he is Talmid Chacham. He is the founding Rosh HaYeshiva of Sharrei Torah in Monsey. He is a man who studied at the feet of Gedolim that he says influences his thinking to this day.  A man of this kind of accomplishment should not be insulted in this way just because he stated his considered, Torah based opinion in contradistinction to the Charedi view.

My primary objection to Rabbi Shafran’s article is that I believe he misunderstands Rabbi Wein. He is not second guessing their decisions. He did not say that they should have been prophets. He is not using retroactive prophesy as the title of his article implies. He is simply saying they made a mistake based on the information they had at hand. I don’t see how there can be any other interpretation. 

Are we to assume that they did not make a mistake? …and that they would have made the same decision even if they had known the outcome of 6 million Kedoshim? Because if that is the case, it would be a far worse to say that their advice pre-Holocaust to stay put knowing that such a decision would cost 6 million Jewish lives.

The bottom line is they made a mistake. It was an honest one. But it was a mistake. It does not diminish the respect of the Gedolei Yisroel to say so.  But attributing a defacto infallibility to Gedolim (despite lip service always paid to their being fallible) does a great disservice to their greatness as human beings. They were not Malachei HaShareis (ministering angels). They made a mistake and cannot be faulted for their humanity.

In our day, as Rabbi Wein points out, we live in a hagiographic times. In their attempt to give great honor to the rectitude of rabbinic leaders, they refuse to in any way say mistakes were made. They may err, but it is not for the common man to determine that. Thus implying defacto infallibility to all their decisions.  Instead of using historically proved error to show that Gedolim are indeed human, they instead insist that their views were not wrong if only we interpret them correctly.

Making this attitude even more perplexing is what Rabbi Shafran says here: 

Please don’t misunderstand. Every sane and sensitive Jew today supports Israel’s security needs, and appreciates the fact that we can freely live in or visit our homeland; and that the state and its armed forces seek to protect all within the country’s borders.
And more.

We are makir tov for the good that previous governments in Israel have in fact provided Klal Yisrael, the support it has given its religious communities, yeshivos, Bais Yaakovs and mosdos chessed. 

I certainly appreciate his views here and only wish there were more of this kind of gratitude expressed by the right. But then in the very next line comes the non-sequitur: 

None of that, though, need come along with an abandonment of respect for great leaders of Klal Yisrael who felt that a different path to Jewish recovery from the Holocaust would have been wiser.  

The clear fact is that had they urged the Jewish people to leave Europe when they still could, a lot less people would have died. Furthermore history has shown that until the State of Israel was declared, Jewish survivors of the Holocaust had nowhere to go. The British who controlled Palestine at the time - closed the doors to these survivors. I don’t know what kind of path Rabbi Shafran imagines could have taken place without the establishment of a state that immediately swung their doors wide open to survivors.

One final thought. I take strong exception to the characterization that anyone least of all Rabbi Wein (or me) has abandoned respect for the great leaders of Klal Yisroel. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have profound respect for the Gedolim of the past, as I’m sure Rabbi Wein does. Saying that they made an honest mistake – even one where the negative consequences were of unprecedented magnitude - does not and should not diminish our respect. All it does is tell us that they were human and not Malachei HaShareis. What continues to be unacceptable is living in a world where hagiography has replaced the truths of history. 

Extremism in Defense of Tznius

Not that beautiful? Halle Berry with a short haircut

People often ask me what I consider extreme Charedism. The answer is not really that simple. I’m tempted to use Supreme Court  Justice Potter Stewart’s response to a similar question about pornography:  I know it when I see it.

The reason I find it difficult to define is because extremism is sometimes defined by context. In one environment a certain activity might be considered normal while in another it would be considered extreme.  So when I use the term extremist or extremism, it has to be taken in the context of the post.

But as the retort by Potter Stewart indicates, there are times when extreme behavior is such in any context.

One of the things I constantly advocate here is normalcy. I am a firm believer in leading one’s life in ways that are considered normal by 2 measures. One is Halacha. And the other is by societal standards. Obviously Halacha comes first. But often Halacha has broad interpretation. And it is sometimes interpreted by societal standards. One Halacha that is a prime example of this is Tznius. Or more precisely modesty in dress. 

I believe that modern psychology accepts the notion that there are generally (there are always exceptions) differences in how men and women are sexually aroused. Without getting into long detail, men are aroused by the visual.  Women... not so much. Halacha recognizes this. So men are commanded not to gaze at women for purposes of enjoyment. Women are asked to dress in ways that will not initiate thoughts of arousal in men. That is what the laws of Tznius are based upon. One can see expressions of this not only in Judaism, but in the 3 major faiths. The most extreme example of this is Islam. The more religious sects ask their women to wear face covering Burkas that are basicly tents that cover the entire body.

Where does Judaism come in on this? Well that’s where local custom comes in. There are basic laws that require certain parts of the body to be covered up called Erva (nakedness). The rest depends on the culture in which one lives. For practical purposes, then,  Iran or Saudia Arabia might require a Jewish woman that lives there to wear a Burka in accordance with the modesty customs of those countries. In the United States, I think it is safe to say that the modesty standards do not go beyond the minimum standards of Erva.

I should add that there is a requirement for a married woman to cover her hair because  ‘Erva’. But the Erva in the case of hair is a horse of an entirely different color. The reasons for which are beyond the scope of this post. But the accepted Halacha is that the uncovered hair of a married woman is considered Erva. And most if not all of it must be covered.

So how should Jewish women in this country dress in order to fulfill the laws of Tznius? One would think that no matter what faction of Judaism one is from, the customs should be the same. But that is far from the case. If one travels to Williamsburg, one will see one style of dress for Orthodox women. And if one travels to Teaneck, one will see another.  But I think it is safe to say that in the vast majority of cases there is a lot of overlap. Most Orthodox women in America dress by covering just below the neck line, covering their arms at least 3/4s of their length and wear skirts that cover the knees .  And most cover their hair.  Those are the basics. There are of course variations of this theme

How should an Orthodox married woman cover her hair? That is a dispute among the Poskim. Some say every strand must be covered and a wig cannot be used. Others say a wig can be used as long as it covers all the hair. Still others allow some hair to be shown as long as most of it is covered. Why these differences? The answer is based on how it affects men. Or more precisely how Poskim perceive that it affects men. There is a variety of opinion about that among the Poskim.  And therein lies the controversy. Which has most recently been demonstrated at a gathering in Lakewood (which was addressed by “The Rosh Yeshiva and the Mashgiach”).  And the calling posts (robocalls). One announcing it and another commenting afterwards.

Here are the issues as discussed by Eliyahu Fink on his blog: 

Apparently, the rabbis suggested that the teachers of Lakewood shorten their wigs to make them look less alluring…

 Rabbis are instructing women to cut their $2000 wigs. The wigs are expensive because they look nice. So the rabbis say that the women should chop the hair that won’t grow back on their costly wigs which look nice so that the women won’t look as pretty 

A robocall congratulated the women who attended the (gathering) for cutting their wigs to a shorter length. The voice announced that because of the great merit of the righteous women who shortened their wigs to the new appropriate lengths there were (Baruch Hashem) no Hatzalah (local ambulance corp) calls in the entire Lakewood. This is truly historic as it was the first time ever that there were no Hatzalah calls for a few days…

(But the problem is that) there were Hatzalah calls in Lakewood this week. Several calls in fact. Some of them were rather serious too.

Rabbi Fink and many others were appalled by this for two reasons. One is the very demand that women are asked to not to look too good. That’s right. A woman may not look too beautiful lest she sexually arouse men. A wig that is too long is deemed sexually arousing.

In my view, these men are paying much too much attention to women. I guess if you live in a bubble like Lakewood something like a long haired wig can turn a man on. But for those of us who live in the real world, wigs are not a turn on. A beautiful woman that is dressed modestly by American conservative modesty standards will not turn on a man in America even if she doesn’t cover her hair at all. That is even true in Jewish law. Because Jewish law allows beautiful Jewish woman that are not married to not cover their hair at all.

I strongly protest the message that a Jewish woman is not allowed to look beautiful within the letter of Halacha in this country. Of course she can. In fact she must. It might even be a Chilul HaShem for a religious Jewish woman not to look her best in public. What isn't permitted is for her to look sexy in public.

Now I’m sure that the retort to that would be: We are not asking women to be ugly. We are just asking them to not be too beautiful.

 Really? Where do we draw the line? There are some very beautiful women in the world with short hair that are quite ‘alluring’. The physical beauty of anyone is based on their total appearance. It is not reserved only for wig length.

What makes this even worse is the complete lie these organizing Kanaoim told in order to encourage women to look ugly. Telling them they saved lives by doing it when this was shown to be false, undermines any credibility they might have had for their cause. People with a righteous cause do not have to lie to make their point. In fact truly righteous people do not lie at all in order to get their way.

I am surprised at the participation by the Rosh Yeshiva and Mashgiach at this gathering. I am even more surprised that here has been no reaction by them to these lies!

This is not Judaism. This is extremism at its finest. It is not much different from telling women to wear Burkas because without that - the mere fact that you can tell the person you are looking at is a woman and it will sexually arouse you. This is the rationale of the Burka Ladies in Bet Shemesh.  It is why Lev Tahor requires their women to wear Burkas.

With this kind of thinking - the next thing you know, Burkas will no longer be considered modest. After all, you know there is a woman under there. Who knows what lurks in the heart of a man when he sees that? 

Is Orthodoxy Winning?

R’ Joseph B. Soloveitchik, R’ Aharon Kotler, & Irving Bunim

It would seem that Orthodox Judaism has a lot to be happy about these days. In the recent much discussed Pew Research Center Survey it was only Orthodox Jewry that has enjoyed an increase in numbers. The other major denominations are experiencing decline. Should we be triumphalist? Some of us are. But let’s take a closer look at this.

Reform Judaism which was instituted in America by Issac Mayer Wise in the 19^th century was at the time thought to be the wave of the future. Many Jews flocked to this form of Judaism that was created with compatibility and assimilation in mind. They were triumphalist about their movement and saw Orthodoxy on its last legs.

But Reform was quickly overtaken by a new movement created in the early 20^th century. The Conservative movement which had more of a connection to Jewish tradition was more appealing to the masses of European Jewish immigrants that came to these shores in waves at that time. Many felt that they had to work on Shabbos to survive. The assimilated Reform Jews of that time did not really embrace these ‘greenhorns’.

Which was pretty much fine with the ‘greenhorns’. They wanted to retain as much of their Judaism as they could. Conservative Judaism spoke to that need. It allowed them a sense of observance while tolerating violations of Halacha – and in some cases encouraging it for a ‘higher purpose’. Driving to Shul was permitted. Since Jews were driving anyway they were told if you’re going to drive – drive to Shul.

For decades Conservative Judaism enjoyed immense popularity too. Surely enough to feel triumphalist about themselves.  But as was the case with Reform then - in our day, the Conservative movement is struggling to maintain it members. And as of now they seem to be losing the battle. The Pew report has given us some truly depressing figures. Non Orthodox Jews are intermarrying at a 70% rate. Even if (as many claim) those numbers are grossly exaggerated, it can certainly not be discounted that the intermarriage rate is extremely high.

Reform Judaism which does not consider Halacha binding has had some success in changing their numbers by changing the rules. They have redefined for themselves who is a Jew. Jewish lines had always followed the mother. Patralineal descent was never considered legitimate. That is basic Halacha. But now they accept patralineal descent. And they now define Jewish identity by how an individual defines himself. Halachic  practice is unnecessary. Formal conversion is unnecessary.

Conservative Judaism has not resorted to that. Yet. But it is hemorrhaging Jews. Assimilation is winning.

As I said above, Orthodoxy is growing according to the Pew survey. But is it really? Should we be Triumphalist? There are many among us who might feel this way. And for good reason.  We believe we are following in the Halalchic footsteps of our forefathers. That has kept us separate, identifiable, and therefore alive. We have the most children and we raise them to be Orthodox. We send them to religious schools and we live in religious neighborhoods. Our social groups are mostly Orthodox.  Assimilation is not done at the expense of abandoning Halacha. Some of us discourage it completely and some of us assimilate where Halacha permits.

While there is some attrition away from Orthodoxy, that is counter-balanced by those who join us via successful outreach.There have been some statistics published that indicate that more Jews leave Orthodoxy than join it. I would dispute that. Those surveys do not define Orthodoxy properly. Self identifying as Orthodox or claiming to be raised Orthodox is not any way to define Orthodoxy. Just because your parents belonged to an Orthodox Shul – that does not make you Orthodox.

Orthodoxy means following Halahca… and being so committed to it, that raising your children to be observant is of the highest priority. That usually means sending your children to religious schools through high school and beyond. These are the real Orthodox Jews. And there is very little attrition away from Orthodoxy by them. Which means the numbers coming in far surpass the numbers going out.

So… is the future of Orthodoxy assured? Let us examine this more closely. Orthodox Judaism encompasses many groups. From the extreme left to the extreme right. The two ends of that spectrum are hardly compatible. To an outsider these two extreme might seem to be living on two different planets. There are many other groups that are defined as Orthodox. Among them are: Chasidim, Lubavitchers, Yeshiva types, Religious Zionists, Centrists, Sephardim… all of which are significantly different from each other.  And then there is the Atlantic Ocean which separates us more than just geographically. Because of cultural differences, American Orthodoxy is radically different from Israeli Orthodoxy.

I often say that what unites us (observance of Halacha) is far greater than what divides us. That may be true. But there is a lot that divides us and that - in some cases - has led to hatred of one form of Orthodoxy against another.

There are other factors that do not bode that well for our future. The fact is that we no longer have the kind of Gedolim that – a few generations hence - will be remembered the way those of the immediate past are and will be. There is no-one today like R’ Aharon Kotler, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, the Satmar Rebbe, R’ Joseph Soloveitchik, R’ Ahron Soloviechik, R’ Moshe Feinstein, R’ Yaakov Kaminetsky… and numerous other American Gedolei Yisroel of that stature… far too many to mention.

This is particularly true in America. This is why the current American rabbinic leaders look to Israel for guidance. And yet the two worlds could not be further apart culturally. There is no possible way to see an Israeli rabbinic leader whose values were developed there, leading American Jews whose values were developed here.

On the other side of the Orthodox spectrum there is the challenge of feminism. It has become the most important feature of the left. One does not have to look far to find feminist values taking hold that are changing the face of Orthodoxy. Just to name a few innovations resulting from that: An Orthodox Yeshiva that ordains women (Yeshivat Maharat). There are Women’s Teffila Groups; Partnership Minyanim; Women of the Wall; Women wearing Teffilin, Female cantors in certain portions of public prayer service… all things that are condemned by the right or at best strongly frowned upon even among Centrists.

There are also deep divisions in how to confront modernity. On the one side you have Modern Orthodoxy and on the other you have Charedim and Chasdidm. The latter tend to be insular – rejecting all but what is necessary for life (like modern medicine). While the former embrace those parts of modernity that are compatible with Halacha – seeing much of it as a positive contribution to our Yiddishkeit.

And then there are all those scandals. There have been so many of them involving identifiably Orthodox Jews in recent years that to an outsider looking in, there has to be major reservations about joining us. Are we a light even among our own people …let alone to the nations of the world (an Ohr La’Goyim)?

I don’t think we can see ourselves as one cohesive unit of Orthodox Jews any more. There are too many divisions among us that break us up into tiny little parts which seem incompatible with each other. And the chasm between Israel’s Orthodox Jews and America’s Orthodox Jews is as wide as ever- and growing. We do not have the kind of rabbinic leadership to rely upon as we have in the past. Not in any segment of Orthodoxy. The divisiveness among us is increasing.

With no one to lead a movement, how can Orthodoxy survive? Yes, we are growing. But do we have a future? Yes there is a core mainstream at least in America that includes moderate Charedim and right wing MOs (Centrists). But who will lead us? What direction will we go? What will our values be? Will we remain cohesive? And how will we and our Israeli counterparts see each other as we continue to grow further apart?

Orthodox Triumphalism? Not a chance.

An Apology - and a Reputation Restored

Badge of the Israeli Defense Forces

Anyone (religious or not) who gives his life in defense of the Jewish people gets rewarded with immediate Olam HaBah. We are therefore bound by common decency to have Hakoras HaTov - gratitude to the soldiers of the Israeli Defense Forces for putting their lives on the line daily in exactly that way. This is sometimes overlooked by the Yeshiva world in Israel (especially in the current political climate) that focuses on the other side of the equation: The Torah side.

This sentiment was expressed by Rabbi Nissan Kaplan in a Hashkafa Shiur a couple of days ago. It has been recorded. I heard it. He meant it. This reestablishes the Mir Hashkafa as expressed by its past Gedolim like R’ Chaim Shmulevitz who expressed the same sentiment publicly at a Seudas Hoda’ah, thanking God for sparing Yeshivas Mir in the ‘73 Arab Israeli war. As I have said many times, R’ Shmuelvitz spoke of two necessary armies of Israel the spiritual one of the Yeshiva world and the physical one of the IDF.

I agree with R’ Eliyahu Fink who said yesterday on his blog, Fink or Swim: 

In a fairly remarkable section of the lecture, Rabbi Kaplan demands that his students express hakaras hatov (gratitude) to the Israeli government and the Israel Defense Forces. In strong language, Rabbi Kaplan impresses upon his audience that the philosophy of their society is that the people who keep Israel safe and secure, from Knesset Members and police men, to soldiers and special forces... 

I believe that Rabbi Kaplan’s remarks in his class last night effectively communicate his true feelings on this issue. In fact, I think that he has gone further than critics of charedi society would ever dream.

Rabbi Kaplan correctly says that hyperbole is a common tactic in Yeshiva. The students know it. The rabbis know it. No one takes the hyperbolic statements literally. He’s right about that. 

I think this explains what happened and what Rabbi Kaplan’s true feelings are. They are in line with the more moderate factions among Charedim about the new laws affecting Charedim. They see them as very negative and are vehemently opposed to them. And some among them express their views with hyperbolic comments from time to time. But the truth is, moderate Charedim are quite aware of the importance of the army and value its contributions to their own welfare as well as the welfare of the rest of the country. What was missing (until now) was any public expression of that… or any mention of it in a Shiur to their students. Rabbi Kaplan has now corrected that by doing both.

I had thought from the beginning that the words in his original Shiur were hyperbole.One of the reasons I judged them that way is because of what I had heard about him in the past. The son of a very good friend of mine came back from Israel a few years ago extolling his virtues. This did not fit with the words in that original Shiur.

After I posted my critical post about Rabbi Kaplan, I received emails from some of his former students. Here is what one of them said: 

I can testify based on what I witnessed personally for 5 years in his shiur that Rabbi Kaplan has been moser nefesh for his talmidim.

I witnessed how for example, he calls weak talmidim who missed the shiur to try to encourage them. After the daily shiur there were always lines of people waiting to speak to him and he patiently spoke to each one and told him what he needs. I also know that he spends time late night contacting old talmidim outside Israel to help them with their problems. All this on top of his busy schedule of preparing daily shiurim in talmud, mussar, chumash, halacha, and shalom bayit shiurim to the mir yeshiva.

We have an obligation to judge him favorably and remind everyone of his merits. He has apologized profusely and we must urge everyone to accept him back with love. 

I believe that Rabbi Kaplan is a good man. The love his students have for him is obvious. And for good reason it seems - even if based only on this email. (I’m sure there are many testimonials like this about him.)

There’s more. Rabbi Fink goes on to say: 

The lecture ends with a surprise dismantling of another charedi stereotype. Rabbi Kaplan talked about advising young men to leave the study hall and enter the workforce. He reported that he heard from 10 of his students in the last week. Of the ten, he had advised six to go to work and the other four were advised to study because they had potential to be great scholars and teachers. After some time, the four who were still in yeshiva followed up with Rabbi Kaplan because they were struggling financially. Rabbi Kaplan advised one of the four to get a job. The other three were advised to return to their studies. Within a short while, the remaining three were hired as rabbis teaching in other yeshivas. 

This is more like it. It almost matches my own views (as a practical matter- not a Hashkafic matter).  As an aside, if this approach were used in every Yeshiva, there would be more than enough Charedim to fill the quota of recruits. And there could be no complaints about pulling people out of the Beis HaMedrash since that is exactly what Rabbi Kaplan advised them to do – to leave the Beis HaMedrash and support their families.

Yes, he is Charedi and his views on various issues (like drafting Charedim) do not match mine. And as part of the Charedi culture in Israel he has expressed those views in hyperbolic ways. Ways which he now regrets and has apologized for. I respect him for that. And though I disagree with some of his views, I respect his Hashkafos; his right to express them publicly; and teach them to his students.

At this point I would like to apologize to him, his family, and Mir Yeshiva for any grief that I may have caused them through my writings.

Countering Harassment with More than a Band-Aid

Poster saying ‘Chardakim, Get out!’

One of the saddest things to result from the new draft law in Israel is that Charedim who have in the past joined army units like Nachal Charedi are derisively called Chardakim and often harassed when they show up in uniform in Charedi enclaves. There have been many stories like that in the media.

One of the arguments against the draft made by moderate Charedim who are actually in favor of more Charedi participation in the army is the following. They say that until recently Charedi enlistment was on the increase and the reaction to it by Charedim in general was pretty much benign. But once the draft became an issue, the Charedi world became apoplectic about it. That anger has spilled over into the Charedi street. Some Charedi zealots have decided to treat Charedi soldiers like dirt for joining the ‘anti religious’ Israeli establishment.

The problem is that instead of moderate Charedim blaming the real culprit, they blame the government. The real culprit of course is the venomous attitude of Charedi leaders towards the government which includes vilifying the army. Instead of looking at the positive too, they look only at the negative and scream at the top of their lungs about how the army destroys Jewish souls.

Any counter to that such as pointing to Nachal Charedi  - will be met with retorts like:  Only Charedi dropouts go into that. Or mostly non Charedi Religious  Zionists who want a more religious environment. Or that Nachal Charedi units do not measure up to real Charedi standards. Or that army officers in charge of those units constantly violate the rules and do not really accommodate Charedi needs. Or that the real purpose of the army is for social engineering - to disabuse Charedim of their religious observances.

The bottom line is that because the Charedi world is so upset at the draft, they have poisoned the atmosphere with respect to any army participation at all. That atmosphere has spawned hate-fests by some Charedim directed against their own members who have ‘defected to the enemy’ by joining the army.

With all due respect to the moderates who lament this hatred, it is not helpful to blame the government of Israel for it. True, the drafting of Charedim may have precipitated it. But the real blame should be placed on the constant vilification we still hear about the government and its army. 

Instead of blaming the government, the fault lies in the hateful rhetoric of the Charedi leadership, their media, and their politicians. That trickles down to the common Charedi man in the street. Which degenerates into harassing Charedi soldiers. Charedi leaders do not seem to protest it all that much (if at all). And it continues without abatement.

I don’t know how it is possible for the Charedi leadership to have gotten to a point where they can not spare a single kind word for the army. Instead all they speak about now is how evil the government is. And it appears they look the other way when good people – their own people - are harassed.

Rafi reports that the army is aware of the problem and to their credit, they have dropped the requirement that Charedi soldiers from Bet Shemesh wear the uniform when traveling near their homes. They may wear civilian clothing so as not to incite verbal or physical attacks against them by their zealous neighbors.

What a sad state of affairs we have arrived at in 2014. Instead of having a situation like that of the previous generation where Gedolei Yisroel publicly recognized the value of the army –  even though it was composed mostly of secular Jews, current Charedi leaders now completely bash it even though there are more religious Jews it now than ever. Including Charedim.

Not only do we not hear any praise these days, we hear little to no condemnation of the increasing harassment of their own people – just because they joined the army.

But there is good news to report. Rafi’s blog, tells us that a demonstration in support of the army is being planned. From Life in Israel: 

The march will consist of residents, but will mainly be meant for soldiers and reservists, along with supporters, who will march through different parts of the cities, especially through Haredi neighborhoods, to show that they are proud to serve in the IDF and not scared.

The protest march is being organized by Moshe Shitrit, a city councilman from the Likud party. Shitrit is upset that instead of solving the problem, the IDF has moved to a temporary solution. Bet Shemesh is a Zionist city, has raised many soldiers over the years and has lost a number as well, and it is intolerable that residents in Bet Shemesh should be harassed just because they are wearing the IDF uniform. Shitrit also blames Abutbol, the mayor, for not taking a strong stand against the extremists. Shitrit says people can walk around in uniform wherever they want, proudly, and if someone does not like it, they are welcome to pack up and leave the country.

Although I am not supportive of his ‘Love it or leave it!’ attitude, I agree with Councilman Shitrit about the following. I’m glad the army is sensitive to Charedi soldiers. But this is not the ultimate solution to the problem. It is a band-aid.

What I would like to see is a grass roots participation in this event. Only I would change it from a protest to a rally in support of the IDF. I would love to see a sea of Kipot in this protest. Kipot representing all religious factions. Religious Zionist Kipot Seruga as well as Charedi velvet Kipot. Black hats and Shtreimels. It is time for moderate Charedim to come out of the closet in public support their Jewish brethren who protect their people. Regardless of their level of observance.

I don’t know how to make this happen, but it should. It may not be a million man march. But if this rally can get the kinds of numbers that would pack the streets in Bet Shemesh the way Charedim did in Jerusalem when they protested the draft a few months ago, it would have a major impact. It would tell the world that religious Jews do support their army. It would send a message to their IDF brothers that they are indeed appreciative of what they do. It would counter all the negative rhetoric by Charedi leaders, their media, and their politicians about how evil the government is and how destructive the army is to Jewish souls.

I would argue that even those that are opposed to the draft show up at this rally. Let the army know that the real Chredim of Israel support them. Just like the Gedolim of the past did. That would be a Kiddush HaShem of major proportion.