Harvey and a Charedi Hero

Miriam and Adam Ballin

The Jewish community of Houston has not been spared from Harvey’s wrath. According to the Jewish Week, 71% of Houston’s Jewish community has had serious water damage. Although the neighborhood of at least one Shul, the Young Israel of Houston has been largely spared. So says its Rabbi, Yehoshua Wender, in remarks he sent out to members of his Shul. Which Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein has reproduced on Cross Currents. 

But even they have been affected.  There is a food shortage in Houston.  A Hebrew Theological College high school (FYHS) alumnus that lives in Dallas has responded. From an HTC e-mail: 

Rabbi Aryeh Feigenbaum, FYHS alumnus and Rav of Ohr HaTorah in Dallas, TX is working with Dallas caterers, the local Vaad and several Dallas shuls to provide the Houston community with a thousand hot meals a day for the next three weeks.  If you would like to help out click here:  

As great as this tragedy is for the citizens of Houston, one of the positive things coming out of it is how great the American people are. Volunteers of all stripes from all over the country have traveled great distances with all manner of boats and other aquatic equipment to rescue the lives of people they have never met. Some of them risking their own lives in the process. 

It did not matter to these heroes what the politics of the victims they rescued were. They didn’t ask who they voted for in the last election. It didn’t matter what their race or religion were. Not for the rescuers or the rescued. It was one huge effort by a disparate group of people whose only concern was to rescue lives – putting their own lives at risk in doing so. 

Many of us will react to a selfless heroic act of a Jew by declaring to God,  ‘Mi K’Amcha Yisroel?!’ ‘Who is like Your people, Israel?!’ My answer might be that when it comes to selfless heroism, Americans are!

But as is also the case Jews do live up to their above billing and have responded. As always Israel if there in the form of IsraAID, a  non-governmental organization . The JUF has set up a fund for victims. As have Orthodox institutions like Chabad,  the OU/RCA, and Agudah.  Next time someone says that Orthodox Jews only care about their own, point them in this direction.

There is one Charedi woman that stands out in all of this. Her name is Miram Ballin. She personifies what a Kiddush  Hashem should be. From the Jewish Journal:

Wednesday evening, Ballin left her husband to watch their five young children and headed to southeast Texas, where she and six other Israeli mental health professionals will help locals cope with the flooding. Their work will be guided by hard-won experience responding to local emergencies, including dozens of terrorist attacks.

“I just feel it’s necessary and needed, and simply the right thing to do,” she said. “When we have 150 people who have been trained to deal with exactly this, not to send them to Houston to help out is I think wrong.”

She is not only a hero for taking this initiative. Miriam earned a certificate in family therapy from Bar Ilan Unviersity. But her story doesn’t begin there. She was brought up in a Reform home in Houston, became more observant in high school and met her husband (who is an  MD and himself Charedi)  in college. They both immigrated to Israel in 2011.

Charedi rabbis gave her a lot of flak for wanting to become a medic. Nevertheless:

Ballin became the first woman medic for United Hatzalah, whose leadership she said embraced her ambition… In April, Ballin again worked with United Hatzalah leaders to start the Psychotrauma Unit. Her husband, Adam, a 35-year-old family physician at Hadassah Medical Center, is also a volunteer medic and member of the unit. The service now has over 150 female volunteers

In addition to her day job as a family therapist, Ballin, 33, is the head of the Psychotrauma Unit of United Hatzalah, a mostly Charedi volunteer emergency service based in Jerusalem. She spearheaded the creation of the unit last year amid a wave of Palestinian violence to provide psychological support to those experiencing potentially traumatic events.

The unit’s 200 or so members include medics, psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers who are trained by some of Israel’s leading experts on the psychology of crises. They have responded to dozens of terrorist attacks, as well as forest fires, car accidents and other medical emergencies.

Perhaps the most outstanding characteristic of Miriam Ballin is her conciliatory approach to the Charedi world. Rather than asserting her rights as a woman and complaining how anti woman the Charedi world is  she instead consistently shows her sensitivity to the concerns of even the most extreme Jews among them. She has for example pledged that she will never answer a call to go to Meah Shearim. (I just hope that if it involves a life threatening situation, they do not act like the ‘Chasid Shoteh’ of the Gemarah that refused to save a naked woman’s life because of modesty issues.)

What a wonderful example for us to follow. Thank you Miriam for being who you are and giving me the opportunity to once again say: Mi K’Amcha Yisroel!

Update
This post has been updated to correct an error I made about the extent of Harvey’s devastation to the Houston Jewish community. I misread  the message issued by Rabbi Wender (published in Cross Currents) to his congregants. I apologize for the error. Thank you to the reader who pointed it out.

Of Shells and Modesty

The late R'n Esther Jungreis - always fashionable yet modest

I am a little uncomfortable talking about women’s fashions in the context of modesty. But that has never stopped me before. After reading a series of articles in the Forward I thought I may as well throw in my own 2 cents. So here goes.

I have to disagree with Michelle Honig. She writes in a Forward article about the current trend among Orthodox women to wear what is called a ‘shell’. This is a  piece of clothing that is generally skin tight, and covers up the arm to at least three-quarter length and whose neckline is in accordance with Orthodox Jewish standards of modesty. 

Wearing this piece of clothing allows observant women to buy just about any style of clothing they wish, no longer having to worry about whether it covers up enough of the body to meet Halachic modesty standards. Fashionable sleeveless dresses low plunging necklines are now an option if worn over one of these shells.

Ms Honig hates this trend. Here is how she puts it: 

(It’s) impossible to look good in a shell. It’s not stylish, it’s not flattering and it cheapens every look. It’s rarely, if ever, used with intention, beyond the intention of making something modest. It’s a lazy approach to dressing, where creativity in dressing falls by the wayside. Wearing a shell makes dressing modestly a mechanical, mindless process, and sucks the joy out of getting dressed.

OK. I will give her the fact that shells are rarely used as a fashion statement. But that is where my agreement ends. Shells are used to conform to Halacha. My wife and three daughters all use shells. The ‘layered’ look that these shells present  does not really make them all that less fashionable. At least to my untrained eye. Or to any ‘eye’ that is not focused on the minutia of fashion. All it does is make them more modest and in compliance with Halacha... and often very attractive and yet modest at the same time

Emily Schneider responded to Ms. Honig in her own Forward article. Here in part is what she said: 

Why would restrictions imposed by men be necessary in order for women to dress creatively? What legitimacy, in fact, do such restrictions hold?

By critiquing minor aspects of tznius, like shells, women may claim to have a degree of control over their bodies and how they choose to cover them. Yet adhering to normative modesty codes, by definition, cedes this control.

Any alleged “creativity” involved in selecting an outfit which will not offend or disturb Jewish men is a sad and minimal compensation. Mild complaints about minute details only grant tacit legitimacy to this system…

However a woman chooses to adhere to modesty, shells or not, the rules she complies with are predicated on male anxiety about women’s bodies and the potentially dangerous responses which the sight of women’s bodies may provoke. 

Ms. Schneider says that women are dominated by a patriarchal society that fears its own illicit thoughts – thereby imposing unfair restrictions upon the way women dress – thus  limiting women’s freedom.

What Ms. Shneider seems to ignore is that fact that those fears are quite real. A holy society ought to avoid instances that lead to erotic thoughts in men. And it is no secret that men react to the visual. Exposure of female skin often generate erotic thoughts in men. The more skin exposred the more likeihood of those thoughts..  

No one has explained this better than Penina Taylor. She responded in her own Forward article to both Honig and Schneider: 

The opinion that Schneider expressed in her piece, that dressing modestly is a set of restrictions imposed on women by men, is closely related to a commonly held but completely false premise – the idea that exposing one’s body is an expression of empowerment and covering one’s body is a result of male oppression of women.

Of course, in order to come to this conclusion, one must overlook the fact that Western women’s fashion has pretty much always been dictated by men, and has always attempted to expose, or highlight, women’s bodies to a greater degree than men…

From very early on, women have been convinced (read: sold a bill of goods) that flaunting all is an exercise of freedom. That covering one’s body is an indication of shame, and that “if you’ve got it, flaunt it”, and anything else is a sign of oppression or domination.

Psychologists and neuroscientists have long explained that there is a fundamental difference between the way men’s brains are wired and women’s brains are wired when it comes to sexual arousal. Keeping religion entirely out of the picture, it has been proven that men are primarily aroused by visual input whereas women are primarily aroused by touch. That’s not religion. That’s science. 

With this in mind, we can better understand the reasons for modesty laws. This is not to say that men don’t have their own responsibility in this regard. They do. It is incumbent upon men to avoid those circumstances that will lead to erotic thoughts. But that does not mean that women should be free to expose as much skin as they want any time and any place they want.  There are common sense reasons for modesty. As a society we should all try and do what we can to be a holy nation.

For men that means avoiding scenarios that induce erotic thoughts. For women it means dressing modestly in order to minimize those thoughts in their encounters with men.  But being modest need not mean avoiding fashionable clothing. Which brings me back to shells. I believe shells have been a tremendous aid in keeping us a ‘kingdom of priests and holy nation’ and enabling women to dress as fashionable and modestly as they can.

Rabbi Asher Lopatin

R' Asher Lopatin - seen here with R' Y. H. Eichenstein from his days in Chicago

If anyone wants to know how to be a Mentch, one need not look further than Rabbi Asher Lopatin. For those that are ‘yiddishly’ challenged, the word Mentch in this context has no English equivalent. The technical English translation of Mentch -  is man. But as it is more commonly used it means much more than that. It describes a man of refined character, a high sense of ethics, compassion for his fellow man, and great humility.  A man that will treat everyone with respect regardless of their background or personal circumstances.  A man whose good character defines him more than his appearance or material success. I’m not even sure that covers it. But being a Mentch certainly describes R’ Asher. In spades.

Rabbi Lopatin has just announced that this will be his last year as President of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah (YCT). In doing so he took pride in the accomplishments under his leadership. Many of which I have had profound disagreement with. I have even expressed my disappointment with what ended up being a hard turn to the left, when I had expected him to put the brakes on that when he took the helm.  

In taking that approach he has gone way beyond what is acceptable to mainstream Orthodoxy. And thereby has done damage to his own cause which is to open up the tent of Orthodoxy to more Jews. But he truly believes in what he is doing in taking controversial  steps in that it prevents Jews that might otherwise gravitate to heterodoxy and instead stay within the Orthodox tent. Reaching out to those Jews is something we should all support. But it is the lengths to which he has gone that are problematic. Which has generated widespread disapproval of this version of Judaism by all of the mainstream Orthodox rabbinic leadership. In some cases considering it outside the pale of Orthodoxy!

Even though he has the best of intentions and holds that every step he took was L’Shem Shomayim, intentions cannot and do not define the parameters of what’s acceptable in Orthodoxy. As I’ve said many times- the founders of the Conservative movement has similar motives. They wanted to conserve Judaism as a response to Reform. But the way they did it put them on a slippery slope to where they are now – a movement that pays little attention to the observance of their members. Which has resulted in the beginning of their end. More of their members than ever are opting out of Judaism altogether. At breakneck speed, it seems!

So, yes I have had my differences with him and have strongly criticized some of his innovations and public comments. But that does not take away from his pure unadulterated sincerity and Mentchlichkeit. (Yiddish for  the state of being a Mentch).

I first heard about R’ Asher when Yeshivas Brisk honored  him at one of their banquets. He was a Rhodes Scholar who had ‘fallen in love’ with my Rebbe, Rav Ahron Soloveichik - and wanted to study under him at his Yeshiva. R’ Asher went on to get Semicha from Rav Ahron and Yeshiva University (YU) as well.

I became an admirer of R’ Asher when he was a Rabbi at a Modern Orthodox (MO) Shul in the Lakeview neighborhood of Chicago.  That is a neighborhood very similar to New York’s upper West Side where a lot of MO singles live. He built a Mikva in the neighborhood, put up an Eruv... and through his personal charisma he quickly built up that Shul from a very small membership to one that was overflowing. 

He treated every single member like they were the most important person in the world. He made sure that every member of his Shul had a place to eat a Shabbos meal. Every single week. Never was anyone left out.

As one can imagine, every rabbi has his challenges.  Serious questions in Halacha come up all the time that require greater expertise than a typical pulpit rabbi might have. Rabbi Lopatin was no exception. As a man of both great integrity and humility, he knew his limitations. He therefore consulted his Rebbe, Rav Ahron Soloveichik whenever he had that kind of question.

I don’t know who he turned to after Rav Ahron’s death. But I don’t think he has been the same ever since.  This is pure speculation on my part - but it seems like his empathy for others is his Achilles heel. Causing him to make decisions that Rav Ahron would not have approved of. He just does not know how to say no.

As noted, R’ Asher is also a man of great humility.  Self-aggrandizement was not in his vocabulary. No matter how harsh my criticisms of his decisions were, he understood where I was coming from – even while disagreeing with it. He did not hold it against me - knowing where I was coming from and why I said what I said. How many people can do that?

I don’t know what’s next for Rabbi Lopatin. He has so much to offer Klal Yisroel. Perhaps outside the bounds of a Yeshiva whose parameters he felt necessary to uphold and expand, he can find a more mainstream niche – a way to apply his ethics and humility to the benefit of all of Klal Yisroel. But whatever his choice for the future is, I wish him well.

More on Pew

The Chasidic Jews of Williamsburg. (Pew Forum)

Orthodoxy is the future of Judaism. That is the only realistic conclusion that can be drawn from yet another analysis of the 2013 Pew Report , ‘A Portrait of Jewish Americans’.  The statistics indicating that are stark.  From the Pew Forum: 

(T)he median age of Orthodox adults (40 years old) is fully a decade younger than the median age of other Jewish adults (52). Despite being younger, more than two-thirds of Orthodox adults are married (69%), compared with about half of other Jewish adults (49%), and the Orthodox are much more likely to have minor children living in their household.

On average, the Orthodox get married younger and bear at least twice as many children as other Jews (4.1 vs. 1.7 children ever born to adults ages 40-59). And they are especially likely to have large families: Among those who have had children, nearly half (48%) of Orthodox Jews have four or more offspring, while just 9% of other Jewish parents have families of that size.

Moreover, nearly all Orthodox Jewish parents (98%) say they are raising their children in the Jewish faith, compared with 78% of other Jewish parents. Orthodox Jews are much more likely than other Jews to have attended a Jewish day school, yeshiva or Jewish summer camp while growing up, and they are also more likely to send their children to these kinds of programs.

Nothing really new here. But I can’t help noticing again that, sadly, the handwriting is on the wall for heterodoxy as they continue to struggle for existence.  Sadly because -as the article notes, 12% of the current Orthodox Jewish population came from the Conservative movement. 

Without heterodox movements the march of American Jews towards full assimilation will surely accelerate beyond the already astounding rate. While heterodox movements have in my view contributed mightily to that acceleration, they have at the same time tired to instill some semblance of Jewish identity into their members. But their willingness to overlook the importance of the most important feature of Jewish identity, adherence to Halacha – often substituting worthy (but not particularly Jewish) social causes in their place has not served them well. It has resulted in the mass migration out of Judaism we have today.

This is also not news. Nor is it news that the Conservative Movement is now attempting to rebrand itself - or their's and other heterodox movements are attempting to get recognition by the Israeli government as a means of reconstituting their numbers. 

One thing that is interesting to note about this is the political makeup of the growing Orthodox Jews versus the shrinking of non Orthodox Jews: 

(O)ne important subgroup clearly does not fit the picture of a relatively secular, liberal-leaning, aging population with small families. Unlike most other American Jews, Orthodox Jews tend to identify as Republicans and take conservative positions on social issues such as homosexuality. On average, they also are more religiously committed and much younger than other U.S. Jews, and they have bigger families…  Other U.S. Jews lean heavily toward the Democratic Party, but the opposite is true of the Orthodox. 

This explains why the vast majority of Orthodox enclaves like Lakewood, New Jersey voted heavily for Donald Trump. While he is not really a conservative ideologue neither is he liberal. Orthodox Jews saw the last election as an opportunity to thwart the increasingly liberal and more permissive society that counters their religious values by voting for someone they saw as an antidote to that. 

They ignored Trump's own moral failings listening only his establishment rhetoric. Which included seemed to espouse more conservative values. conservative values tend to more reflect religious values. This is why Orthodox  groups have more in common with evangelical Christians that they do with non Orthodox Jews that are heavily liberal.

While there are individual differences between groups such as Modern Orthodox and Charedi Jews, there is a common features among all Orthodox Jews that explains their growth: Their commitment to Halacic observance and their greater likelihood to give their children a formal Jewish education.

This does not mean that Orhtodox Jews do not have their own rates of assimilating out. They do. Taking the Pew numbers at face value,  fully 52% of Jews raised in an Orthodox home assimilate out of observance. That Orthodoxy remains the only growing demographic is quite a statement in light of that.

Hiw can one explain that? I think it is because we tend to have more children by far than heterodox familes. And because we are pretty successful at outreach. Additionally my own thinking is 52% is an inflated nubmber based on how Pew defined Orthodox Jews. They simply asked each respondant how they were raised. My guess is that a large number of them had non observant parents that were nominally Orthodox by belonging to an Orthodox 

My own experience growing up in Toledo will testify to that. There were 3 Orthodox Shuls in Toledo then. But only 3 families were observant. And yet membership to those Shuls were huge... perhaps in the thousands in total. Children in those families did not receive any formal religious education outside of an afternoon Hebrew school that they hated to attend. It is highly unlikely that any of them are today observant.

In any case, this is a fascinating article to speculate about. Which I just did.

Grass Roots Changes in Tradition

Students - early in  Beis Yaakov's history (Lehrhaus)

Let me begin with full disclosure. I’ve known Dr. Leslie Ginsparg Klein for a long time. She is brilliant young woman who is unafraid to tell the truth. No matter where it lands. She also happens to be my daughter’s sister in law.

Dr. Ginsparg Klein has written an article in Lehrhaus that explodes  some of the myths surrounding Sara Schenirer and the Beis Yaakov Movement she founded.  She does so armed with indisputable facts.

Most Orthodox Jews know that Sarah Schenirer pioneered Jewish education for women in the early 20^th century. Prior to her efforts there were few if any schools for girls and young women in Orthodox circles.  Women were mostly educated in the home. And that was mostly about how to perform the Mitzvos relevant to women and how to perform their domestic duties – which mostly involved raising children and home making. 

Their observance of Halacha was learned entirely by what they saw in the home. When the enlightenment eventually breached the ghetto walls of Eastern European Jewry women started to get formally educated outside of the home.  Being exposed to streams of thought outside what they learned in their homes and experiencing the inviting nature of a secular lifestyle led many of them to assimilate and go OTD.

Sarah Schenirer saw this happening and realized that without a formal Jewish education for women there would be serious damage to our future as observant Jews.  The resistance to changes in tradition was then, just as strong as it is now. But Sarah Schenirer was not deterred. She began a mission to change tradition by creating Beis Yaakov - school system of formal education for women. That eventually mushroomed into what we have today. There is hardly any girl in the Charedi world that has not attended a Bais Yaakov or similar girls school. All with the full blessing of the vast majority of the rabbinic leaders of our day. It is now an established and well respected fact.

Today’s Orthodox Jewish Feminists often cite her as an example – and even role model for further advancement of women in our day. The retort form the right in rejecting their argument is that Schenirer did not move without the explicit endorsement of ‘Daas Torah’ as expressed by the Gedolei HaDor of her time. 

This is the narrative one constantly hears. It is based on many biographies of Sarah Schenirer that reports of her loyalty first to the Gedolim and only after consulting with many of them (the most famous among them being the Chafetz Chaim) did she proceed.  This version says Ginsparg Klein is the account given by two  prominent Orthodox Jewish writers,  Rabbis Chanoch Teller and Peysach Krohn.

But as Ginsparg Klein documents, this is a false account. Sarah Schenirer began her movement without the approval of any on the Gedolim of her day. She saw a need and began filling it. It grew at a grass roots level. The only rabbinic leader that said anything positive at all about it was the Belzer Rebbe, from whom her brother, a Belzer Chasid, urged her to get approval. 

After her brother’ s plea to the Rebbe on her behalf about the need for change, she heard the Rebbe utter two words: Bracha V’Hatzlacha. (Blessings and good luck). The Belzer Rebbe did not, however, send any of his daughters to these new schools and never made any public endorsement of it. She nevertheless began her mission to formally educate women immediately after hearing those two words. There was no other rabbinic endorsement beyond that when she began her quest for formal education of women.

What about the famous endorsement of the Chafetz Chaim? Is that a lie? No. He did endorse this new school system in a famously published letter.  As did other Gedolim of that era.  But as Ginsparg Klein makes clear this did not happen until well after the fact. Until that time the rabbinic establishment including the Chafetz Chaim was firmly opposed to it. There was no epiphany of Hora’as Shah – where the rabbis on their own thought that it would be a good idea to initiate women’s formal education. Approbations came well after the Bais Yaakov system was established and running successfully. 

Ginsparg Klein excerpts the written words of  Shenirer’s successor, Rabbi Yehudah Leib Orlean who wrote the following about what really happened: 

The matzav of chinuch habanos that Sarah Schenirer encountered in Poland was like a rocky, uncultivated field. Although she was about to attempt something that had never been done before, that had no model in our Mesorah, she knew it was crucial. And so she began to build from scratch, transforming her movement from its modest beginnings to a powerful empire ... the people she turned to for assistance, especially in the beginning, turned her away. They had no idea what was happening in the streets. They had no concept of the catastrophe befalling our nation. But Sarah Schenirer was determined, and again and again she persuaded, cajoled, explained and clarified, awakening the slumbering leaders from their blissful dreams and begging them to accept the only solution that could divert disaster. 

Eventually Agudah  whose rabbinc leaders were some of the Gedolei HaDor of that era (including the Chafetz Chaim) did support the Beis Yaakov movement.  But Agudah only sought rabbinic approval to ‘silence the critics’. 

Letters of approbation often used to show that she had support before she began were written well after the movement was established - as the dates on those letters show. The Chafetz Chaim’s  letter of approbation (often cited as proof that she consulted the Gedolim first - was actually written over 10 year after the movement’s founding in 1933!).  R’ Zalman Sorotzkin wrote his approbation six months after her death!

This clearly contradicts the contemporary Charedi notion that Daas Torah must always be consulted before attempting to change tradition. And that it has always been that way. Clearly that was not the case with the biggest and most innovative change in tradition of the 20^th century. Change was initiated at a grass roots level by a single individual that saw what ‘Daas Torah’ did not quite see.

Does that make the claim of today’s Orthodox Jewish feminists that Sarah Schenirer is indeed their progenitor? Is she the quintessential Orthodox Jewish feminist? I think it is fair to say that she was the Orthodox Jewish version of Susan B. Anthony . She ‘bucked’ the system and succeeded.

At the same time, I don’t think it justifies in any way the kind of egalitarian goals that are sought today. There is a huge difference between what motivated Sarah Schenirer and what motivates today’s feminists. In Sara Shenerir’s case she saw a legitimate existential threat – before the rabbis of her time did. She went ahead with he mission without their support. Her success opened the eyes of the rabbinic leaders of her day and they eventually came around.

Today’s feminists are not motivated by an existential threat. Even if their motivation is sincere, They are clearly not motivated by an existential threat. Nor is it likely that the changes in tradition they seek - such as the ordination of women - will ever receive the approbation of any of today’s rabbinic leaders. Even after the fact the way the Beis Ya’akov movement did. Not even the more moderate Centrist rabbinic leaders have done so even well after a school for women's ordination (Yeshivat Maharat) was established. If anything opposition has increased!

So while it’s true that Sarah Schenirer is a pioneer and role model for successful grass roots change that did not initially involve ‘Daas Torah’. She is not a role model for the kind of egalitarian change modern day Orthodox feminists seek. I don’t think there can be any doubt about that.

Coming Full Circle? Not Entirely

Charedim in college - an increasing phenomenon

Charedi society is the most dynamic society in Israel.

So says Eitan Regev, an economist and senior researcher at the Taub Center for Social Policy Studies in Israel.  Not that this should surprise anybody. If there is any segment that has grown both in numbers and influence in Israel, it is Charedim.

But what is also true is that it has not only changed drastically over the last few decades, it is still changing. Perhaps this time for the better.

First let me say that the growth of number of people that study Torah among our people in the late 20^th and early 21^st  century is unparalleled. I don’t think there have even been as many Jews studying Torah full time as there are today. Especially in Israel.

We can certainly pat ourselves on the back about this, as well as (in the case of Israel) expressing gratitude to the State of Israel for this phenomenon. The decades long government support for that is one of the primary factors in achieving this milestone. As Regev notes: 

The major turning point took place when Begin came to power in 1977 and the ultra-Orthodox parties joined the coalition for the first time. As part of the coalition agreements, the “Torato Omanuto” law (literally meaning “Torah study is his art”) was greatly expanded. This law exempted yeshiva students from military service – and granted them generous stipends – on the condition that they would not work and would dedicate their time solely to Torah studies.  

That is still pretty much the status quo – despite efforts by recent government to modify or qualify that support.

Let me be clear about the importance of Torah study. As the Mishnah in Peah (1:1) tells us, Talmud Torah K’Neged Kulam. Torah study is the most important Mitzvah - an absolute good that we should all do as much as we can. No one should dispute that.

The only question is how many of us should do it full time to the exclusion of everything else to the point of ignoring our material welfare. Which often comes at a cost of hurting our spiritual welfare as well.

This makes that abovementioned statistic one of questionable value. This is not to say there should not be those among us that do study full time. Clearly there should. We need world class Roshei Yeshiva and Poskim  both of whom require a lifetime of Torah study – and more (…at least for Poskim. The lack of ‘more’ in some cases detracts from those Poskim that don’t have it  - for reasons that are beyond the scope of this post).

As I’ve said many times, I do not believe all men should be guided into a lifetime of full time Torah study as they are today. But that is exactly the Charedi paradigm. Charedim are persuaded from a very early age towards a goal of full time Torah study for as long as possible. And to that end they have eliminated all other ‘distractions’ including but not limited to secular studies. Which leaves them with no preparation for the work place at all.

While it is true that many Charedim can catch up. Many don’t. Or can’t. Which leaves them with few options to find jobs that will enable them to support their large families. Bearing all this in mind, here are some statistics that show how things have evolved since the government greased their way: 

The share of Haredi men attending advanced yeshivas jumped from 56% (among the older generation) to more than 90% (among the younger generation) and the average duration of study in the yeshivas increased significantly to about 20 years. Birth rates among Haredim rose as well: from 6.5 children per family in 1980 to 7.5 children in 2000. 

Picking up some of the slack are women. They are now often the bread winners. They are the ones that ‘work with the sweat of their brow’ – the ‘curse’ given to Adam and all of his male descendants after the sin of eating fruit from the ‘tree of knowledge’.  Women now have double duty. The pain of child birth (and child rearing) and the formerly male responsibility of supporting the family.

What may surprise many people is that the Charedi world was not always structured this way: 

(I)n the past, a significant percentage of Haredi boys (especially among the Sephardic Haredim) studied core curriculum subjects, such as math and English, in high school. However, the data show that the formation of the “society of learners” gradually led to the abandonment of secular studies and their removal from Haredi boys’ education. These changes contributed to the gradual adoption of a new narrative that sanctifies religious study and a spiritual lifestyle and utterly renounces the world of employment and secular studies. 

As I’ve said many times the current system is not sustainable as is. You can’t have 90 percent of your male population studying full time in Yeshivos (post high school)  for 20 years without significantly impacting the material (and thereby spiritual) welfare of the entire community. This has caused a change for the better: 

In recent years, employment rates of Haredi men have risen to 51% and those of women have risen to 73%. Thus, we have actually returned to the equivalent of one and a quarter persons in full-time employment per Haredi family, on average – as it was during the late 1970s – though divided differently between the genders. Birth rates have also returned to their previous level (6.5 children), yet today, these Haredi mothers are also the primary breadwinners.

Between 2008 and 2014, the number of Haredi students in academic colleges and universities  tripled  and today stands at about 11,000 students – one third of whom are men. 

This is all good news. This kid of change was inevitable. It still however leaves over the question about those that are not able to catch up in their secular studies to succed in colleges and universities. That is one area that still needs to be addressed. The way to do that is to go look back to the time Charedim studied core curriculum subjects, such as math and English. Just the way they still do in most Charedi Yeshivos in America. Something I have strongly advocated here many times.

Alas, this has been successfully fought by the Charedi leadership. Unfortunately I don’t see things changing. Which means that there will remain an unnecessary level of poverty in the Charedi world that could change if only some common sense would prevail.

HT: emet l'amito

What Do They Really Want?

Image from Arutz Sheva

Any residual respect I may have had for the Women of the Wall is now history. Even though I was in profound disagreement with them, and believed that much of their motivation was a slavish loyalty to egalitarian ideals, I conceded the possibility that many - perhaps even most - of these women were genuinely interested in serving God in their own peculiar way. 

As many people have noted, no one can really know what the true motives are behind what these women do at the beginning of  every month. And it was wrong – and even a Chutzpah - to assume only the worst. As a Jew I have an obligation to be Dan L’Kaf Zechus… to judge them favorably.  But that is now almost impossible to do. If there was ever any question about the real intentions of these women, what happened this time should erase all doubt.

From the Arutz Sheva: 

While in the past, Women of the Wall activists have attempted to smuggle the scrolls in duffle bags, allegedly using IDF soldiers among others to sneak the items past plaza security checks, on Wednesday, guards at the entrance to the plaza found activists had concealed Torah scrolls underneath their clothes.

Following the revelation, Rabbi Shmuel Rabinovitch, Rabbi of the Western Wall area, blasted the group, calling the smuggling attempt “a desecration”.

“Today, on the first day of the month of Elul, all of the red lines were crossed. They [Women of the Wall activists] smuggled holy Torah scrolls which were wrapped around their bodies and hid whistles in their private places, and for what? For the sake of a civil war at the Western Wall.” 

I could not agree more with Rabbi Rabinovitch. So married are they to the goal of equality with men that they are willing to pursue it by desecrating a Torah - hiding it under their clothing. This is clearly not about serving God at all. That anyone might think so after this is delusional.

For their part, the Women of the Wall deny this ever happened. But security guards there have no dog in this hunt. if anything a secular guard might be more inclined to agree with their egalitarian goals. I believe them. 

I guess that these women realized that sneaking Sifrei Torah (Torah scrolls) into the Kotel in duffle bags wouldn’t work any more. So they  figured they’d try to do something new and clever. It was clever. But it also exposed a motive that had nothing to do with their Godly mandate to be a holy people. Holy people do not hide Sifrei Torah  under their clothing so they can sneak them into places they choose to pray.

Making matters worse is the following: 

Women of the Wall responded, "The Kotel Rabbi is better off thinking less about what’s under women’s clothes, and more about what’s in their minds. 

The not so subtle implication is that the Kotel Rabbi is just a ‘dirty old man’ -  thinking about what is under women’s clothing. I guess it is not beneath them to smear their opposition by inuendo.

What they also don’t seem to realize is that acts like this shows exactly ‘what’s in their minds’: Making egalitarian statements at the Kotel regardless of the desecration it entails to one of the holiest objects in Judaism! 

The claim that all Women of the Wall  want to do is ‘pray respectfully according to their custom in the women’s section’ is laughable after this incident. Furthermore, that they have criticized Rabbi Rabinovitch for preventing them from ‘doing what every boy and man are allowed to do in the men’s section’ further exposes their feminist agenda.

Now supporters of feminism might say, ‘So what?!’ What’s wrong with feminism? Why is that not an ideal worth fighting for? …even in Judaism? 

I have addressed that question more times than I can count. All I will say about it now is that Judaism is not about egalitarianism. It is not about making men and women equal in every respect. It is about the obligation to do what God expects us to in order worship Him properly. Not about how we choose to worship Him. I could for example never do the sacrificial service on the alter in the Beis Hamkidash no matter how much I feel it would enhance my devotion to God. Only a Kohen may do that. 

Although some matters of service to God are discretionary, and women may do them – or are even encouraged to them - not everything that one wants to do – should they do. In those matters we seek clarity and guidance from tradition. We do not dismiss tradition just because it is no longer in vogue. But don’t tell that to the Women of the Wall, by gosh they are going to do whatever it takes to pray according to their custom, (which never existed as a custom until our time).

But let us even say that feminists seeking egalitarianism at the Kotel are right. OK. But let them be clear about their motives so that we can all know what the dispute is really about.  To claim this is only about serving God in a way that is most meaningful to them is either a blatant lie, or something that at least some of them have talked themselves into.

And finally to say that Rabbi Rabinovitch of represents an extreme minority is at best misleading. While it might be true that most secular Israelis support their egalitarian goals - that is support made in absentia.

The fact is that the vast majority by far that goes to the Kotel to actually pray (and not as a tourist attraction) and upon whom this has a direct impact do not support them. They may not all shriek about it. Or even vocalize it. They may just look aside. But there is no way that the majority of people that utilize the Kotel for holy purposes side with the Women of the Wall.

This was demonstrated a while back when hundreds if not thousands of young seminary girls were asked by their seminary heads go to the Kotel to pray in traditional ways at the same time that the Women of the Wall were scheduled to be there. They showed up there in overwhelming numbers in order to show their opposition.

The bottom line here is that we have to call a spade a spade. Let us recognize what this is really all about and them we can discuss it intelligently.

Look Who's Talking!

Shas Party head and Interior Minister, Arye Deri (JTA)

One has to consider the source. Which in this case is Shas Party head, Aryeh Deri who now serves as Israel’s Interior Minister. He is a convicted criminal having served time (3 years in an Israeli prison) for of bribery, fraud and breach of trust. 

That his party has chosen to resurrect his political career as its political leader is a stain on their record. Skilled politician though he may be. The price of political party choosing a criminal to lead it - who thought nothing of abusing his political position to commit fraud - is too high.

Normally I would ignore him as an unpleasant fact of life. But he has opened his mouth recently and condemned a community of religious Jews more committed to his country than he ever will be. From JTA: 

The head of the Sephardic Orthodox Shas party called members of the Religious Zionist movement “borderline Reform,” an insult among his haredi Orthodox constituents.

“Even the ‘knit kippot’ today, as some know even in very large communities, mainly in the center of the country, they’re already borderline Reform,” Aryeh Deri said earlier this month at a conference of a haredi Orthodox rabbinic organization, Benoam. The remarks were captured on video and broadcast Monday on Israel’s Channel 2.

“Knit kippot” refers to the crocheted kippahs worn by the more modern Orthodox community.

It’s true, there are more kippot” in these communities than in American Reform synagogues, Deri went on. “It looks different, it’s more Israeli. But it’s still borderline Reform.” 

And from Arutz Sheva:  

Members of the Religious Zionist community, who tend to represent a less insular form of Orthodoxy than haredim, have been critical of the haredi Chief Rabbinate’s strict control of marriage and conversion issues in Israel. Modern Orthodox Jews in Israel are less likely to support yeshiva exemptions from army service and expensive subsidies for large families.

Deri also attacked Tzohar, a rabbinical group that has sought to make the Chief Rabbinate more user friendly and which has opposed a more stringent conversion law proposed by Shas.

“Together and in collaboration with the Reform, because they know their intention is to destroy [the Chief Rabbinate], they benefited from the baseness of others who were slandering the rabbinate and searching for faults in it,” Deri said. “They [do] everything for free, welcoming, lenient and all that, but we all know the truth.” 

"Even those with knitted skullcaps (religious Zionists), in very large communities, are already on the edge of the Reform Movement," Deri said at a closed conference Monday.  

To their credit, Tzohar’ responded’ with the following: 

"these things are not worthy of a response, both because of their content and because of who spoke them."               

Damage control is one of the hallmarks of a good politician. Deri has ‘explained’ his comments by saying that he was speaking only about those elements that are on the left most fringe of Modern Orthodoxy. He added that even many Religious Zionist rabbis have expressed similar thoughts.(Modern Orthodoxy is where most Religious Zionists find their cultural home.) 

It was a nice dodge. But it doesn’t mitigate his original smear of a community of which I – as a Kipa Seruga wearing Modern Orthodox Jew - am a part of.

It is no secret that I too have my issues with the extreme left, and have spelled them out many times. I too fear that the extreme left (which is referred to by some as Open Orthodoxy) is on the same dangerous path once taken by the Conservative movement – for similar well intentioned  reasons. Which is to reach out to Jews influenced by the culture in which they live and speak to the issues raised by that culture.

It is only the methods the extreme left employs in trying to do so that I (and rabbis from across the board of all of Orthodoxy) believe can all too easily lead to the same slippery slope Conservative Judaism fell into. 

But certainly most  Kipa Seruga wearing Jews are not in that category, including Tzohar. Although they were created in response to a growing disaffection with a Chief Rabbinate that has moved to the right - to the best of my knowledge Tzohar does not reflect the views of Open Orthodoxy. I have for example been told that in all cases where people come to them for conversion to Judaism, it is done in conjunction with the Chief Rabbinate. That some people might gravitate to Tzohar is because they are seen as a kinder and gentler option and easier to deal with than the Chief rabbinate.

And even Open Orthodoxy is not Reform. Reform Judaism rejected Halacha completely. Only recently have they started to advocate observance as a wise but not required way to express one’s Judaism.

Open Orthodoxy still requires full adherence to Halacha as expressed in the Shulchan Aruch and its commentaries. Their controversy is in how they respond to modern sensibilities in ways that challenge long held tradition. And in how they might tweak interpretations of Halacha towards that end. (As did Rabbi Shlomo Riskin recently by claiming that homosexuals are not responsible for actions that are clearly forbidden by the Torah because their nature forces them to behave that way.) While these kinds of ‘interpretations’ are rejected by mainstream Orthodox rabbis of all stripes, I don’t think we can yet say that Open Orthodoxy is not Orthodox. At most we can say they are going in that direction. 

But Deri has decided that that those of us that wear the Kipa Seruga are all the same.  We are just a bunch of borderline Reform Jews. His ‘explanation’ notwithstanding.  That’s nice. But like I said, consider the source.

As the Orthodox Jewish Demographic Grows

Walking to shul in Monsey

"How goodly are your tents, O Jacob, Your dwelling places, O Israel!"  This wonderful blessing about the Jewish people expressed in the Torah (Bamidbar 24:5) by Balaam is not one you will likely hear today. At least not about Orthodox Jews in certain areas of New York and New Jersey. This is not to say that Orthodox  Jewish homes aren’t individually beautiful. Many of them are. But as our numbers increase, so do our dwelling places. And as those grow, so does the enmity of some of our new or potential neighbors. Bethany Mandel describes just such a situation in the Forward: 

Recently, residents of Mahwah, New Jersey, noticed utility trucks driving around town, attaching strange-looking PVC piping to telephone poles. Soon they learned their purpose: the establishment of an eruv, a mysterious boundary that makes it possible for Torah-observant Jews to carry objects on the Sabbath. 

It’s a crucial step in making a neighborhood inviting to would-be hasidic buyers — which is exactly what worried the residents of Mahwah, who formed a Facebook group called “Mahwah Strong” to “voice their concerns over the installation of an Eruv and the impact it could have on our community.” 

At first glance this might seem like a typical ‘snobbish’ exercise in ‘soft bigotry’ to keep the Jews out of their neighborhoods! Surely putting up an Eruv – if done properly - is not usually anything that will blight a neighborhood. Most people wouldn’t even notice it unless it is pointed out to them. Eruv construction tries to utilize natural boundaries whenever possible. So why do they protest it?

It isn’t the Eruv they are protesting. It is what that Eruv symbolizes to them. An onslaught of change so drastic that it will not only change the character of the town but will affect the way government funds are allocated to important public facilities like public schools.

I’m not sure it’s is correct to say that Mahwah Strong is based on an innate hatred of Jews. As Mandel notes there is a Reform Rabbi that has joined them in opposing the Eruv. What they really oppose is the kind of change their neighborhood will likely go though. Which is what often happens when Orthodox Jews move in an large numbers. It is about the drastic cultural change that will result and more importantly the financial change that will affect the welfare of the secular residents.

One need not go too far from this New Jersey community to see what that kind of demographic change has done to towns where this kind of thing has already happened. The now proportionally much smaller secular demographic  in places like Monsey and Lakewood suffer from that.

Monsey’s public schools needed to tighten their budgets by eliminating nonessential enrichment courses.

That was the result of a legal maneuver of the now majority Orthodox population who voted Orthodox Jews onto their school board. They legally redistributed much of the funds allocated by the government to their own parochial schools. True, they had every right to do that. They were entitled to those funds as mandated by law. Funds that were not allocated to them by the previous secular board.

The financial burden on tuition paying parents (especially those with large families) is so great, that Orthodox residents are grateful for whatever financial relief that public funds will give them. Nobody did anything illegal. But at the end of the day the public schools suffered.

This is one thing Mahwah is afraid of. But it isn’t the only thing. One of the most problematic results of an explosion of new residents into a small town is the rapid construction of new homes to accommodate that growth. The cheapest way to do that is to build multi unit dwellings, large and ugly buildings containing many condos per building.

Thus changing the pleasant look of suburban neighborhoods filled with single family homes with attached two car garages and large front lawns into one that looks more like a tenement slum albeit with newer buildings. Adding unprecedented traffic congestion and shortages of places to park. It is so bad in places like Monsey and Lakewood that even many of the Orthodox residents are upset! 

Furthermore the ambiance of what was a once small quiet secular town is changed into the hustle and bustle of Orthodox Jewish communities filled with grocery stores; restaurants and shops geared to them rather than to the secular public. This is what happened to Lakewood and Monsey.

Looking at towns like these and seeing all the above mentioned changes that took place, I don’t think you can consider opposition to that antisemitism.

For the observant Jew, these places might be idyllic. What better neighborhood to live in than one that in a suburban setting that is geared to Orthodox Jews?!  Where all of your neighbors are shomer shabbos and there are a variety of shuls to go to. All within walking distance from your home. No matter what part of that town you live in there will more than one shul or shteibel near your home.  And shops to shop from for all your Orthodox needs.

But think what that must look like to a secular neighbor that saw a once idyllic quite secular town geared to a secular lifestyle with pleasant  traffic patterns and plenty of parking spaces - now having to put up with those all of these changes! I do not blame them one bit for opposing it. If I were in their shoes, I would oppose it too.

As Mandel points out Jews have the right to live anywhere they choose in this country. It is discriminatory to bar members of a particular demographic group from moving into your neighborhood. No different than opposing black people from moving in. So on technical grounds the growth of influx of Orthodox families – no matter how large - into any town is perfectly legal.  Barring them from doing so is against the law.

While the need to expand our borders is  great because of our own demographic explosion, one should take into consideration what that growth means to the residents of a town who see you as coming in and taking over. Thereby changing the character of the town from being secular to being Orthodox. 

Put yourself in their shoes before you yell ‘Antisemitism’! Because even if that is the real motivation in some of the opposition, it clearly is not what motivates all of it. As these kinds of things increase, the actual antisemitism may increase  as well. We would do well to remember that as we pursue our legitimate rights to live where we choose.

Footsteps, Chabad, and Moishe House

Some formerly religious Jews at Mosihe House (The Jewish Week)

One of the things I talk about often here is the fact that there are so many Jews that go ‘Off the Derech’ (OTD).  This is when a religious Jew decides he no longer wants to be religious. As noted here many times, there are a variety of reasons this happens. Sometimes it is an intellectual decision as was the case with Shulem Deen. 

Other times it might be because of a dysfunctional religious family situation that ‘teaches’ a child that being religious leads to dysfunction. Still other times it might be because a child was sexually abused and treated miserably by his or her community that disbelieves them - vilifying them as outcasts who lied about the ‘respectable’ person they accused of the abuse.  

Modern Orthodox (MO) Jews  that go OTD  have additional reasons for doing so. That there may be a large number of MO Jews that go OTD is a problem beyond the scope of this post - the solutions for which are more complex. Ironically though, the Modern Orthodox lifestyle may be part of the solution for the Charedi OTD problem.

One of the more prevalent reasons is that some young people in the world of the right go OTD is that they just don’t fit the mold that their community requires of them. In some cases that means not being able to compete at the increasingly oppressive and  competitive levels of religious education at the schools they attend. In other cases it might just be that they cannot live up to the strictures imposed upon them by the particular sect or group they belong to. Or a combination of both. Especially since they see what  the so-called outside world has to offer them and can’t quite understand why they are so completely shielded from it. (Obviously this reason does not apply to Modern Orthodox OTDs)

This problem is most acute in the Chasidic world where their rabbinic leaders go to great lengths to isolate their people from the outside world. And to a lesser extent this applies to the more Yeshivishe world too. But the more isolated, the more it applies. Living in isolation from the rest of the world is the definitive state of Chasidic lifestyle. 

But that technique doesn’t work that well anymore. The internet and smart-phones have changed everything! Be that as it may, I believe that this rather large group of OTD young people are the ones that can be convinced to voluntarily return to religious observance.

The strictures that causes these people to go OTD can be corrected by offering them an alternative lifestyle that still enables them to get what they are looking for while remaining observant. The obvious lifestyle I am referring to is a Modern Orthodox lifestyle. While that would seem like a logical first step  for a Charedi youth affected negatively by the strictures of his own community, that ‘step’ is almost always skipped. 

Unfortunately the reason for that is in part because the Chasidic lifestyle in which they were raised is so unlike modern Orthdodxy - they feel like aliens from another planet in such an environment. The feeling might be reciprocal from the MO community to them. It is also true that Chasidim are indoctrinated to believe that being MO is tantamount to not being religious at all. It is therefore not surprising that modern Orthodoxy  has not been considered a realistic option for them. So they just go completely OTD.

While the secular world is equally not compatible for them, they have no place else to go. Which is  perhaps why there is so much depression, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, and even suicide  among these young OTD people. They have rejected their former religious community - and have been rejected by them.

Along came an organization called Footsteps that has helped them make the transition from being Orthodox to being secular – with a goal of mainstreaming them into the secular world.

This organization may have saved many lives. But they have been accused of being an anti religious organization that deliberately disabuses their ‘clients’ of any thoughts about returning to religious observance. Leaders of Footsteps deny that and say that they are not anti religious. They claim to not deal at all with religious observance at all and could not care less about it one way or another. They simply want to help people transition into a productive and positive lifestyle in the secular world that they have now chosen to live in. That the vast majority of their clients choose not to be observant is irrelevant to Footsteps. 

I had in the past lamented why there was no ‘religious ‘Footsteps’ that could convince these young people that there is another way where they could  ‘have it all’. They could be observant and participate in much of the culture legitimately - without violating Halacha (unlike what they have been indoctrinated to believe by their former communities). One such organization was founded by one of my heroes, Allison Josephs. It is called ‘Makom’ and is designed to do exactly what I just described: offer an alternative lifestyle that will give them much of what they desired but were denied in the past.

Now there is another initiative that isgeared toward Chabad and is located near Crown Heights. Moishe House, once geared toward reaching out to secular Jews has been re-tooled to reach out to OTDs. And as if to corroborate Footsteps own narrative about not being anti religious, they have partnered up with them. From the Jewish Week: 

“We have always appreciated and admired Footsteps. This felt like the perfect opportunity to specifically engage more folks from that community,” (says Moishe House founder and CEO David Cygielman)...

Moishe House, one of the fastest-growing outreach initiatives for Jews in their 20s, announced its newest house last week in the hip Brooklyn neighborhood, but this time with a twist: the house is staffed by four young Jews who recently broke with their ultra-Orthodox pasts.

“Most of our members live in Brooklyn, as well as most of our potential members — we expect that this house will not only serve official Footsteps’ members, but others who have left the ultra-Orthodox community for whom this space might be more resonant,” said Rachel Berger, director of community engagement for Footsteps, a nonprofit that helps Jews who have chosen to leave their chasidic or black-hat communities.

The pluralistic organization, previously geared primarily towards the unaffiliated, now aims to serve the growing “off the derech” community — a self-identified and growing group of Jews who have split with Orthodox pasts. 

I could not be more pleased. There are now 104 Houses in 26 countries. Although most of these residences are geared towards expatriate Lubavitchers they are open to OTD Jews from all kinds of Charedi backgrounds. And apparently they embrace  modernity as a means to show their ‘clients’ that they can indeed have it all.

How successful are they? I don’t know. But it is interesting that Chabad now has a Kiruv organization working on their OTDs. One that seems to use to use Modern Orthodoxy as a means toward that end. Will they will they be successful? I don’t know. It will be interesting to see how this develops. 

Rabbi Michael Broyde Responds

A Very Short Reply to the Many Substantive Comments on my Article: An Initial Analysis of Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch’s Teshuva on the Beth Din of America’s Prenuptial Agreement 

by Rabbi Michael J. Broyde

Thank you to many people who made substantive comments.  I share a brief reply to the many substantive thoughts voice in the comments section.  (I have not repeated any of citations that are found in the original article.)

Before I reply, I want to encourage all to listen closely to shiur by Rabbi Mordechai Willig שליט"א on this matter.  (One of the commentators also mentioned it.)  I believe that everything I have written is consistent with his remarks and Rabbi Willig says many other interesting things as well that I did not touch on.  Rabbi Willig remains a fountain of wisdom in this (and many other) areas.  Let me add that Rabbi Willig states directly in his shiur – based on his own and direct conversations with Rabbi Sternbuch שליט"א himself – that Rabbi Sternbuch’s view is NOT (as one commentator claims) “that any payment that is triggered by the failure to give a divorce is in essence a penalty” but rather that the payment that is triggered by the PNA has to related to the proper amount of support due in financial reality, given the economics of the community and person.  That is both the only reasonable way to read the teshuva and is now attested to by Rabbi Willig as something Rabbi Sternbuch said directly to him as his own view as well.

The remaining substance of the many comments fits into four categories.

First, some argue with my read of the economic fact in the Modern Orthodox community which uses the BDA prenup. I reproduce below what is referred to an Apendix A in the paper, which was not posted in the prior version and was written by Professor Leon Metzger.  I think it makes it clear that for large segments of our community, around $150 a day is reasonable support measure for housing, utilities, health care, car costs and insurance, personal care, housecleaning and clothing.  

I recognize, of course, that both around the United States and outside the United States, these numbers will change, but as the chart below shows, $150 a day is a good starting number and halachicly reasonable.  As I note in my comments, I have no particular problem with changing this formulation to “construct a new document in which the spousal support provision was not set at a fixed number, but was instead indexed to some official government averages for income and cost of living in the time and place in which the couple was domiciled prior to the dissolution of their marriage.”  

That number might be higher than $150 a day of course in some locations.  My sense is that secular courts have a preference for precise and non-liquidated damages, which would make this formulation more complex.  On this chart with its 38 locations calculated, only South Bend Indiana is below $100 a day and the overwhelming majority of locations are above, or at, or very close to $150 a day (including, Silver Spring, all of the Manhattan locations, Queens, all of the Brooklyn locations, Monsey the Bronx, West Hempstead, the Five Towns, Teaneck, New Rochelle and Scarsdale).

It is important to add that the halachic rule (See Tur EH 70 and Shulchan Aruch EH 82:3, 89:1 and many other places) is that the wife is entitled to support at either the level of the husband’s standard of living or the wife’s pre-marriage standard, whichever is higher.  (Thus, when a man from South Bend, Indiana marries a woman raised and living in the Upper East Side of Manhattan, and they live in South Bend, the rate of $150 a day is completely proper.)

Second, many ask what to do in cases where for one reason or another the woman is not entitled to support as a matter of halacha (such as she is a moredes) and yet the BDA Prenup mandates support.  There are two  primary answers, each important and independent of the other (and a third that is less relavant).

One approach is of the  Tzitz Eliezer I quote here from my book (page 51) “Marriage, Divorce and the Abandoned Wife” at page 51:

Indeed, this policy is noticeably different from the policy of the rabbinical courts in cases where the woman is a moredet (a "rebellious wife") and thus, according to most authorities is obligated to be divorced. In the case of a woman who is a moredet (such as, in the case Rabbi Waldenberg addresses below, an adulteress), a husband has no right to both decline to support her and decline to divorce her. As Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg notes:

[When a woman has improperly abandoned the marital abode (is a moredet)], she forfeits her (marital) . . . rights and other financial claims against the husband. However, on the other side, the husband must [chayav] divorce her and may not keep her connected to him.[1]

Waldenberg states that the ruling (psak) of the Israeli rabbinical courts, with which he agrees, is to require support payments to be paid even to a spouse who improperly abandons the home and is an adulteress, when a reasonable time has elapsed and the husband has not ended the marriage by writing a get. Indeed, in the case of a moredet, no less an authority than the Pitchai Teshuva (Even Haezer 154:4&7) notes that the accepted practice is to make the husband support his wife (until he gives her a get) specifically to encourage him to give a get and not to compel a woman to remain in a "dead marriage," even if the marriage "died" because of her misconduct. Similar sentiments can be found in the name of many poskim, including such luminaries as the author of the Noda Beyehuda, Rabbi Akiva Eiger, as well as the authors of Chatam Sofer and Beit Meir; this view is the normative halachic posture, even if it is contrary to the assertion of Tosafot.[2]  Payments are not designed to support the women, they are designed to encourage the giving of a get.

Second, since the BDA Prenup is an arbitration agreement, the bet din panel hearing this matter could decide not to order the payments, in a situation in which the totality of the circumstances would cause the dayanim hearing the case to favor such a resolution.  It is exactly the job of the rabbinical court that is hearing any given case to determine that such payments are proper and to order them in a proper time frame.  The BDA Prenup gives the panel hearing the case such discression and authority, and when such payments are ordered, it is because the panel determined that they are appropriate.

(Also the BDA prenup explicitly notes that if the parties agree to submit the whole matter to the BDA, marital fault may be a factor, making this even clearer.)

Third, is the question of what to do when the husband fits either into a socioeconomic patern that makes the payment of $150 not a proper reflection of the amount he owes her given their standard of living, or the payment is a proper reflection of the amount he owes her, but beyound his actual ability to pay now.  [There are two ways this could happen.  The first is that $150 a day reflects her standard of living prior to marriage )see above) – and he can not afford her premarriage standard of $150 a day.  The second is that he can no longer afford the standard of living they jointly had while married due to changes in his earning ability post-seperation.]

In a case in which the proper reflection of their standard of living is less than $150 a day (such as in South Bend, Indiana, according to the chart), the answer is clear and is directly stated by Rabbi Willig in the above shiur.  THE BETH DIN OF AMERICA WILL REDUCE THE PAYMENT LEVELS TO REFLECT THE ACTUAL STANDARD OF LIVING OF THE COUPLE.  

This is not something new or unusual or a concession.  This is a support agreement and not a liquidated damages agreement and support must reflect the actual reasonable support.

The second case is much more interesting: A more than reasonable claim could be made that if the correct amount of the payment is actually $150 per day, but the husband geneuinely can not make such a payment due to his post seperation poverty, there is no illicit coercion at all, and what the husband ought to do in a case when the payment is proper, is give the get.  The decision to avoid a marital debt rightfully owned by giving a get is not a get meuseh at all.

Fourth and finally, it is important to emphasize that the BDA Prenup is not a communal decree, but is a contract signed by the parties withot coercion and of the free will of both sides.  Many – maybe most – Orthodox Jews do not use this or any other prenuptial agrement.  The community of those who will not do a wedding without any prenup being used is far from the majority of the Orthodox rabbinate and no agreement beyond a ketubah is mandated as a matter of halacha.  This agreement, with all of its various clasuses is selected by the husband and wife and binding as a matter of halach because they agreed to it and wanted it.   

The assertion that this or that specific provision of the BDA Prenup is a matter of dispute in Jewish financial law is perhaps sometimes correct.  But the BDA Prenup states explicitly that “As a matter of Jewish law, the parties agree that to effectuate this Agreement they accept now (through the Jewish law mechanism of kim li) whatever minority views determined by the Beth Din of America are needed to effectuate the obligations, procedures and jurisdictional mandates contained in this Agreement” and that is a very powerful tool to address matters of Jewish financial law.  Having realized that this agreement is a valid contract – and not some imposed agreement – allows one to accept clauses as proper because the parties accepted this as governing their agreement.

Of course, those of you who want to follow up with me, should know that my email address is not hard to find and I welcome your comments to me directly.

---

     [1]Tzitz Eliezer 18:58. This psak can also be found in Peskai Din Rabaniyin 1:238 and 9:171 as the psak of the rabbinical courts of Israel and is defended by Rabbi Herzog and others in the appendix to volume 2 of Otzar ha-Poskim. Particularly the analysis found in 9:171 supports the contention that the moredet issue is not significant, since a get should be given even to a moredet.

     [2]Tosafot, Zevachim 2b s.v. stam. The approach of Tosafot is rejected, or limited to a case where the woman does not want to be divorced, by a breadth of authorities, including Noda Beyehuda, Tenyana Even Haezer 12, Rabbi Akiva Eiger, Derush Vechedish, teshuvah at the end of the ketavim section, Chatam Sofer, Nedarim 89a s.v. berishona (cited in the preface), Beit Meir Even Haezer 117, Pitchai Teshuva 154 (4&7) and it can be implied from Aruch Hashulchan Even Haezer 178:25-26. See the short article by Rabbi Yakov Moshe Tolidano in the appendix to Otzar ha-Poskim (2:16); he avers that the approach that requires a husband to support his wife who is a moredet, and thus not technically entitled to support, in order to encourage the writing of a get by the husband, is the normative halachah without a doubt.