Of Jewish Atheists and Non Believers

(Image copied for Jewish Press website)

Forty Two percent.  That is the percentage of Jews in America that do not consider Judaism a valid system of belief. 17% of those believe in God and little else. And 25% are apparently atheists. This is quite a shocking number that a study by Pew Research showed (as reported in the Jewish Press).   

Think about that. The numbers are huge. I’m not sure what the exact population of Jews is in this country. I believe conservative  estimate is about 6 million. Which means that at the very least 1.5 million Jews do not believe in God. And additional 17% do not believe in the religion they identify as.

If you factor out the 10% or so that are Orthodox, the percentages become much higher. While I’m sure that there are some Orthoprax Jews - defined as closet atheists that pretend to be observant for practical or sociological reasons, I believe that they are an insignificant minority of those that identify as Orthodox.

The Jewish Press reports the following by Pew: 

The least religious of the seven groups, relatively affluent, highly educated, mostly white and male, reject all New Age beliefs as well as belief in the God of the Bible or any higher power at all. 

I believe the most important aspect of that comment is the fact that they are highly educated. I wish I could say I am shocked by this. But unfortunately I am not.  

If one is not raised in a home that focuses on God, it will surely not be the focus in the school where religious instruction is entirely omitted because of the first amendment.

We should of course all be grateful for that. And I am. Thank God we live in a country where Church and State is completely separated. But there is a downside. When you take the concept of God out of the classroom it is not too much of a leap to find students not placing much value on it.

The higher the education - the more likely that atheism will be preached as the ultimate truth.  The underlying premise of much of academia is if you can’t see it or prove it, it is probably not there. And the more mankind learns how to explain natural phenomena the less need there is to believe that a Higher Power is in control of things.

That does not automatically mean that one will become an atheist. But it surely pushes one in that direction.

The reason the other 17% does believe in God but not in Judaism lies in their basic ignorance of what Judaism is all about. If they are raised in a secular Jewish home where most rituals are virtually ignored and there is no serious Jewish education, it should not surprise anyone that they do not value their Judaism. Why should they? Their homes did not reflect it I any significant way. And surely there schools didn’t. 

The best that can be said about any Judaism in those homes is that it focused on cultural issues that have little if anything to do with authentic Judaism.  Chanukah is celebrated because of Christmas. Without which no one would have even heard of Chanukah outside of those that had a decent Jewish education or was raised in at least a minimally observant home. 

Commitment to social Justice often sufficed and complete supplanted any core Jewish value.  Nor is eating ‘Jewish food’ which is often not even Kosher a substitute for real Jewish values. As thinking human beings that recognize that food does not define a religion. 

Nor does social justice require any commitment to Judaism. Is it any wonder that Judaism is meaningless to them? I’m surprised that those percentages aren’t even higher! In fact, I firmly believe they will be as most non Orthodox Jews continue marrying out.

Whose fault is it that so many Jews don’t care about Judaism? There is no one single cause. But I believe that a major factor is the mass influx of Jews that immigrated here from Europe in the early 20^th century were unable to provide a decent Jewish education for their children. 

And the fact that many Jews that were observant in Europe felt they had to work on Shabbos when they came here - just to feed their families. While they may have observed some Halachos like Kashrus and - for men - putting Tefilin  on every morning and going to Shul, their children saw the hypocrisy of that. 

And with the strong pull of a melting pot assimilation this country had on their young – they wanted little to do with their ancient Jewish rituals  their parents brought over from Europe to an America that was decidedly un-Jewish. Without any real education about Judaism most of that generation ran as far as they could away from it. The little they might have had in an afternoon Hebrew school or a Sunday school was woefully insufficient and in any case considered by them to be a nuisance that unfairly infringed on their free time after school and on Sunday.

While many of that  generation might have still proudly considered themselves Jewish. It was not practiced in any meaningful sense. By the time their children came along, there was nothing left for them to hold onto – even if they wanted to. Which most of them didn’t.

Interestingly the Conservative Movement saw that and actually believed they could cater to this mentality by giving into it and looking the other way while trying to at least get them to come to Shul. That proved to be a less than fruitful  enterprise as Conservative Jews are a dying breed these days. Why that is – I have discussed many times and is beyond the scope of this post.

Which brings me to the last best hope for any kind of future for Judaism. It is observant Jewry that will carry the torch forward. And we can thank the mid century influx of Jewish immigration after the Holocaust. That is when the fledgling Jewish day school system started taking off. Survivors of the Holocaust had a far greater percentage of Jews that were committed to full observance than previous waves of immigrants and were more determined to perpetuate it to their children.  

That required a serious educational paradigm where  Judaism was uncompromisingly taught - without sacrificing the possibility of fulfilling the American dream of success and affluence which is the promise of America.  

Day schools were established in great number across any section of the country that had significant numbers of Jews that - if not fully observant - were at least open to their children getting a Jewish education. It is from there that the vast majority of observant Jewry comes from. They (we) are the ones that will ‘pay Judaism forward’ through the education of our own children. Which is why Orthodoxy is the only segment of Jewry that is growing in America. By leaps and bounds.

As I often say though when this kind of subject comes up, losing so many Jews to the winds is a sad fact that I would love to see reversed. True - there are Orthodox outreach groups that are doing some good along those lines. But for most American Jews, the handwriting is unfortunately on the wall. As this latest Pew Research poll has once again demonstrated. So as happy as I am that Orthodoxy is the wave of the future, the demise of most of American Jewry is nothing to celebrate.

Torah True Criminals

I already know what their defenders will say. ‘Innocent until proven guilty.’ ‘The raid was antisemitic.’ ‘So was their arrest.’ ‘These are holy people who religiosity should be emulated.’ ‘They are so holy that they eschew the outside world in order to maintain that holiness.’ ‘They only take from the government what they believe is legal.’ ‘Their lack of a decent secular education has nothing to do with their right to financial help from the government when offered.’  ‘They are entitled to welfare even if in some cases they make 6 figure incomes because of their family size.’  ‘This entire episode is nothing more than antisemitism at its worst.’

They will say that my condemnation of it is just more of the same. Just substitute word ‘Jew’ for ‘Chasid. I will also be accused of spreading Lashon Hara about some very fine Frum Jews with Torah true values - family men with wonderful children just like yours and mine.

For all of you ‘defenders of the faith (of these Chasidim)’ out there – save your breath. I’ve heard it all before. Their actions speak a lot louder than your words.

Once again we have the spectacle in major media of the most Orthodox looking of Jews being arrested for government fraud. From NBC: 

Seven Monsey and Kiryas Joel residents - including a rabbi - were arrested Wednesday in connection with an alleged $14 million dollar rip-off of a federal school technology funding program, federal prosecutors said. The FBI arrested the seven for allegedly stealing money meant to help underprivileged children.

Prosecutors said the suspects lied to claim they were serving as independent consultants and vendors to help obtain and provide telecommunication services to private religious school students across Rockland County. Federal dollars would come from the federal E-Rate program which is funded by the FCC. But investigators said the services were never provided with the seven allegedly stealing much of the money from 2010-2016. 

"This indictment is important not only because fraudsters should be held to account for their crimes, but also because the next generation of students should have access to telecommunication services, internet access, and related equipment, irrespective of their means and in spite of the fact that people like the defendants seek to line their own pockets at the expense of underprivileged children,” said U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman.

(Two of those arrested – one of which is a rabbi) are accused of helping to run the criminal ring. (The rabbi) who work at a religious school in Rockland allegedly used his school to try to obtain over $1 million in funds – some which was then allegedly shared among members of the ring or used for purposes not included in the E-rate program.

"The suspects in this investigation allegedly used funding from a program designed to give underprivileged schools internet access to pad their own bank accounts," said William Sweeney, FBI assistant director in charge. "To add insult to injury, school officials, who see the day-to-day struggle to even find money for pencils and paper, were allegedly involved in the scheme."

The FBI said the scam was especially brazen because the suspects requested technology funding for Hasidic religious schools where students are often banned from using the Internet, computers and any other kind of technology. 

That it’s actual purpose was to provide online access to children of families could not otherwise afford it is nowhere near as important as using it for their own purposes. Even if ethics are ignored (which of course they in no way should be) it appears that no matter how many times something like this has happened  it doesn’t help.  The 7 men accused took no lessons from those  events. They did not alter their behavior.  

They apparently just figured that they would ‘outsmart the system’ when others could not. They would take that 14 million dollars under some pretext that it would be used under loosely interpreted federal guidelines – and get away with it. They rationalized that in any case the money would be put to far better use than it would be in the hands of a ‘drugged out  black or Hispanic single mother that probably had her children out of wedlock from - who knows which man she slept with’. I am embarrassed to say how often I have heard this kind of comment in the past from some of their defenders. That kind of thinking suggests an inherent racism that by itself ought to be condemned in the strongest possible terms. 

Using a legitimate loophole in the law - which I believed was unethical but not necessarily illegal was what I had originally thought was the case when their Yeshivos were raided a couple of years ago. But now enough evidence was found for an indictment that accuses them of outright theft 14 million dollars from the government. Much of it for personal use. 

If they are convicted they will be proven to just be a bunch of religious looking crooks. Once again making a huge Chilul HaShem. I hope for their sake and for ours that they are not.

I will reserve final judgement until then. But I am not holding my breath. And it has happened too many times for this to be a rare exception. 

Just to be clear, I know many - perhaps even most Chasidim from these cloistered societies do not think this way. They are both honest and ethical. And just as appalled as any decent human being would be. But I have heard it too often to think it isn’t a pervasive attitude in those circles.

I have mentioned many times why I believe this community has this attitude. Briefly - I believe it stems from a negative view of all ‘Goyim’ brought over from Europe by their ancestors maintained and perpetuated by their offspring.  Experiences their ancestors had that do not happen here. Their isolationist lifestyle prevents them form getting a true picture of what the vast majority of non Jews are really like. Most non Jews here are nothing like those in Europe responsible for the pogroms their ancestors experienced. 

To the extent that the majority of this community has any contact at all with the outside world is only out of necessity. They might even have cordial relationships with some. But in  their hearts they are taught to hate Goyim. (I actually heard a recording of a Chasidic Rebbe urging the Jewish people to hate Goyim!) 

How can that not result in an attitude that we have a right to rip them off whenever we can get away with it. When they get caught, they cry ‘foul’ and ‘antisemtiesm’ which of course stems from their perception that they hate us anyway. 

Besides - they ‘need’ the money to support their large families. Which is so common since their views about the permissibly for birth control are the most stringent in all of Orthodoxy. 10 children or more per family is very typical.  As is the need to support them with government financial aid.

Yeah… I know. It sounds almost antisemitic. But it is no less true.  A people whose values require them to be ignorant of their non Jewish neighbors. Values that devalue secular studies that would help them get the kind of jobs that would better support their families. Values that maximize family size. Values that hold that Goyim hate us anyway so  it’s OK to rip them off - if you don’t get caught. And then cry foul when they do.

I would love nothing better than to extol the virtues of this community. Of which there are many. But when it comes to the massive Chilul HaShem that I believe their lifestyle choices have in most part generated, all that ‘holiness’ is lost. 

I feel bad for those among these Chasidim that are honest and ethical. And are just as upset about this as I am. They do not deserve to be treated as guilty by association. That needs to be mentioned. I feel bad that because this kind of thing happens so often, they will be increasingly be painted with broad brushstrokes. But it is equally important for responsible Orthodox Jews to call out bad behavior among our own every time it happens, condemn it, and to label it the Chilul HaShem that it really is.

If someone desires to call me an anitisemite because of this, they have that right. But it is desire derived of firmly sticking their heads into a hole in the ground.

Can the Catholic Church Survive?

What did the Pope know and when did he know it? (NPR)

I hate that it is a Jewish Attorney General that has exposed this. That will surely bring the antisemites out of the woodwork. But what is happening in the Catholic Church is not Josh Shapiro’s fault. He is just the messenger who after due diligence has exposed massive sex abuse among the priesthood of the Catholic Church – as well as cover-ups going all the way up to the Pope. For this Shapiro should be thanked by all people of good will.

As noted in an earlier discussion of this issue, I believe that the Church’s celibacy requirement of priests is a major contributor to this sad and unacceptable phenomenon.  There is little doubt in my mind that the sex drive cannot be denied. It will somehow find expression clandestinely if not overtly. But it’s even more than that.

If I understand correctly - because of its requirement of celibacy - the priesthood attracts homosexual men to serve as priests. They join with the best of intentions. Intentions that have a dual purpose. One of which is to serve their laity’s spiritual and sometimes physical needs. They refer to it as a ‘calling’. I believe that most people that want to become priests probably do join the priesthood for that altruistic reason. But joining the priesthood serves a second purpose for homosexual aspirants. They know that based on the Church’s teachings homosexual sex is forbidden. As good Catholics they believe that joining the priesthood where celibacy is mandated would be a good ‘solution’ to their forbidden desires.

They are obviously very wrong about that. Instead of protecting themselves from acting on their lust many of them find they can’t resist it and become predators. 

I used to think that such priests were rare. It appears that  they are not all that rare. In some instances there are actually predator priest sex rings. I’m not even sure what that entails. Perhaps it is only to share experiences. Or worse – conspiring to find more victims. Or both!

In his initial press conference Shapiro announced that in Pennsylvania alone there were at a minimum 301 priests that have abused over 1000 young parishioners over the last 7 decades. Most of them young boys. He urged that others that were abused by priests or clergy to call a hot-line set up for that purpose. Since then over 400 additional reports of sex abuse have been called in!

And it isn't only Pennsylvania. Just today, the Chicago Tribune reported the following:

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Gary has published a list of 10 former priests who it says have been found guilty of “credible actions of sexual molestation of minors.” 

10 priests! Gary, Indiana is a pretty small town.

I am still shocked by all of this – despite all of my ‘explanations’... how can a forbidden desire that one wishes to control while serving their flock in the most altruistic of ways end up in predatory behavior? One is the antithesis of the other! And yet, that seems to be the case.

Another shocking revelation is the apparent complicity of Pope Francis in covering up the abuse of at least one  predatory priest. From the Wall Street Journal: 

A former papal ambassador to the U.S. has claimed that Pope Francis knew as early as 2013 about charges that the former archbishop of Washington, ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, had been sexually active with seminarians and priests and that Pope Benedict XVI had privately disciplined him over the charges.

In a letter published by two conservative Catholic outlets, LifeSiteNews and the National Catholic Register, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò wrote that Pope Francis had ignored then-Cardinal McCarrick’s record and rehabilitated him as a kingmaker in the U.S. episcopate. 

While the Pope’s accuser is a somewhat controversial figure in the Church, no one has accused him of lying. And there has been no denial by the Vatican.

The magnitude of this revelation, should it prove to be true, is enormous considering how warmly Pope Francis has been received by virtually the entire world – including non Catholics. And for good reason. He was until now revered as a near icon of virtue and self sacrifice. 

A man that put people first and himself last. A man whose character was to be emulated by all. A role model for clerical leadership. A man who dedicated his life to helping the poor.  A man that eschewed all the perks of the Vatican that popes are entitled to - such as the luxurious living quarters – preferring a simpler setting for himself. A man of great compassion, humility, and self sacrifice. A man whose relationship with the Jewish people has been warmer than any of his predecessors (with the possible exception of Pope John).

A man that was a determined voice on behalf of survivors of abuse. A man that apologized profusely for the decades of sex abuse by priests. And calling on the Church to do whatever it takes to eradicate it all from their midst. He has been relentless in that call. 

Here is a man that surely entered the priesthood for all the right reasons. But now some Church officials are calling for an investigation into the Vatican to see who knew what - and when.  And why they did nothing when they did know, allowing the sex abuse to continue. And yet, it might very well be that Pope Francis might be part of the problem! Some are even calling for him to step down! 

My how the mighty have fallen. How can the Catholic Church survive all of this?

One might ask, how does any of this apply to us, as Jews?  Perhaps the best lesson for us is that no matter how holy a rabbinic leader might be; no matter how sincere and dedicated he might be; no matter how much he has personally sacrificed for his (our) people… it is very possible that he may unwittingly participate in a cover up under the mistaken impression about the accused. Allowing the predator to continue his predation. 

Good people with the best of intentions can make errors based on the fact that they are only human and subject to their own prejudices. Prejudices about people based on years of dedicated service to the community at the highest levels. Prejudice that will prevent justice for survivors and instead will assure injustice. A rabbinic leader might have the same kind of pristine credentials as Pope Francis. But just as the Pope decided to overlook Theodore McCarrick, a predator priest (a  Cardinal no less!) so too can a rabbinic leader do the same – all in their sincere belief that he is doing the right thing by protecting a falsely accused man with a lifetime of dedication to his (our) people.

The jury is still out about the current pope. But I’m not so sure he will come out unscathed by this. Nor am I that sure about the fate ultimate fate of the Church.

Sex abuse among our own clergy is nowhere near what it is in the Catholic Church. They are light years apart. They are two different scenarios with major distinctions in why we would find predators more in one than in the other. But as we know all too well, it exists.  And to the Jewish victims the damage is no less severe.

It is time that all segments of Orthodoxy come together on this one issue and eliminate the middle man. Any credible suspicions of sex abuse should be reported to the police immediately.  The rare circumstances where there are false accusations are exponentially outweighed by the number of times those accusations prove to be true. If there is any one thing we can learn from what is going on in the Church, this is it.

Can a Four Year Old Child be Racist?

Nissim Black meets with R' Kanievsky (Life in Israel)

There is a Facebook Page created by Rabbi Yosef Bechhofer dedicated to fighting racism. It’s called Orthodox Jews Against Discrimination and Racism. I applaud Rabbi Bechhofer for setting up and maintaining a website that will hopefully dispel the notion that Orthodox Jews are inherently racist as well as fighting racism anywhere it raises its ugly head – whether in our own community or anywhere else. Unfortunately racism does exist in Orthodoxy just as it exists everywhere else. No society is completely free of the kind of ignorance that generates bigotry and racism.

A recent entry by an American Orthodox Jewish woman now living in Israel is an honest attempt to understand and deal with racism in one’s own very young children.  I have chosen to deal with here since I can give it a much fuller treatment. Here is what she said: 

I'm sharing this because I am guessing that other white members of the group may have had, or will have, similar parenting experiences. 

My kids - like most Orthodox Jewish kids - are growing up in an overwhelmingly white environment. (Unlike most Orthodox Jews, they do have relatives who are black, but we see them infrequently because we live on different continenents.) I try to find a balance of trying to get some diversity into their experience without engaging in tokenism - although often even tokenism isn't easily achievable in our not-so-diverse communi 

Anyway, one day a few years ago my four-year-old announced that she does not like people with dark skin (not the first time I have heard this from a pre-schooler). I needed to take a deep breath, not over-react, and respect her feelings (because "correcting" peoples' feelings usually backfires) while trying to nudge her in the right direction (isn't it wonderful that Hashem made people in so many different beautiful colours!).

I don't honestly remember everything I did and I'm sure some of it could have been improved. The main thing is that I didn't panic, even though I wanted to. (How can you say such a horrible racist thing?!)

Then, when she turned six and I told her she could choose just two girls from her gan to invite for a very small birthday celebration - one of them was the mizrahi girl whose "dark skin" she had specifically objected to the previous year. And when we visited the US, she wanted to spend as much time as she could with the black aunt and uncle she had been shy of on our previous visit and whom she now adores.

So something worked, b"H. Although the challenges of raising tolerant kids in a non-diverse (and not necessarily tolerant) environment will always remain.

I don't know if there are child psychologists in this group who can enlighten us about early-childhood racism. I don't know if anyone has better advice on how to address it. Opening it up for discussion. 

I am not a child psychologist. But I still believe that I can explain why a child whose parents are clearly not racist and abhor the very idea of it in others displayed some racism before she even understood what that word means.

The truth s that it was not racism that her child displayed. It was the fear of seeing something different than what she was used to seeing. Living in an all white society - white people are the only kind of human beings she ever saw from the moment she was born. A 4 year old child that experiences human beings as exclusively white and suddenly encounters a black person might think something terrible happened to them to make them dark skinned. There is a natural fear of seeing something outside the norm that that we can’t explain or understand. 

It has nothing to do with believing that there is anything inherently wrong by virtue of one’s race. It s just that seeing something you are not used to seeing is so different that it might seem threatening to a child. What might be going through the mind of a child that first encounters a black individual are questions like the following: Why are they black? What happened to them to change their color from white to black? What did they do to deserve that? Why did God make them black? They look scary!

The mother of that four year old did nothing wrong and everything right. By living the ideals of abhorring and fighting racism her daughter eventually picked up those values for herself so that by age six she not only realized that black people are not only human beings not to be feared but to seek them out for friendship.

This entire episode raises the possibility that some of the racism that exists among any of us might originate from the kind early childhood fear of difference and the unknown experienced by that four year old

That some of us do not eventually understand what that young girl eventually did is probably the result of that fear being reinforced by parents that might be racist themselves. Even if they don’t realize it. There are subtle cues that a parent might exhibit to a child that will instill in them a racist attitude – long after that fear of the unknown subsides.  

Sometimes parental cues are not so subtle – and instead very overt. I wish I could say otherwise but I have witnessed more than once racist comments from some Orthodox Jews that are otherwise very fine people. Not that any of them would harm another human being for no reason. Nor would they ever say anything to a black person that would be racist. But in private, I have heard such comments being made way too often.

God created all of humankind in His image. And all humankind deserves to be treated with the dignity and respect God’s creations deserve. But too many of us do not live this creed. Which might help to explain a curious comment made to Nissim Black by R’ Chaim Kanievsky. Nissim Black is a Ger Tzaedk  - a righteous convert to Judaism. Rafi Goldmeier who features a picture Nissim Black's visit to R' Kaneivesky on his blog Lifein Israel made the following comment:

I am not quite sure what it means, but Rav Chaim Kanievsky told Nissim Black that Being "Black" is your Mayla (Virtue) not a Chesaron (Lacking). 

What I think R’ Kanievsky might have meant is that Mr. Black’s race is his virtue in the sense that he is an example that proves to the world that race is absolutely meaningless when it comes to Judaism. And that he is living proof of that. Nissim Black exemplifies what is truly valuable in life. Which is one’s relationship with God and with man.  As a black man who has chosen Judaism as the best way to do that makes him uniquely qualified to make that statement. I believe that R’ Kanievsky emphasized that being black is not a deficiency in order to both acknowledge that racism exists in our world and that his very being is the complete repudiation of it.

Mr. Lauder: With All Due Genuine Respect...

Malcolm Hoenlein (Left) and Ronald Lauder

I get it. I understand Hamodia’s umbrage at comments made by World Jewish Congress President Ronald Lauder. (Republished at Cross-Currents). Ronald Lauder is the son of world famous cosmetics entrepreneur Estee Lauder. He has been a very generous philanthropist to Jewish causes. Among them: Holocaust remembrance and the state of Israel.  

Most of what I have ever read about Ronald Lauder has been very positive. He deserves the gratitude of the entire Jewish people for all he has done. Raised as a secular Jew, he has nevertheless been very active in Jewish organizations. One of which is the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations that has been  led for over 4 decades by its Executive Vice-President, Malcolm Hoenlein, an Orthodox Jew.

That said, I share some of Hamodia’s outrage. But I do not share all of it. Some of what Lauder says rings true. More about that later.

As Hamodia notes, Lauder blasted Israel in a recent oped in the New York Times. In what was a two pronged attack, he first blamed Israel’s settlement activity for the possible demise of the 2-state solution. Whether that is accurate or not… or even whether a 2-state solution is good idea at this point in time regardless of settlement activity – is matter of debate upon which serious, well intentioned people can disagree. But it is not the issue that I am concerned with here. It is the second prong of the attack that is. There-in is where I both share and dispute Hamodia’s criticism. Here is some of what he said in that New York Times op-ed: 

“The State of Israel distorts Jewish values and harms democracy and equality. This will cause more Jews to distance themselves from the State of Israel. The West is indifferent and even hostile to it.” In addition, Mr. Lauder wrote that the behavior of the State of Israel is “a great threat to the future of the Jewish people.”

“Orthodoxy should be respected, but we cannot allow the politics of a radical minority to alienate millions of Jews worldwide.”

“By submitting to the pressures exerted by a minority in Israel, the Jewish state is alienating a large segment of the Jewish people.”

“Many non-Orthodox Jews, myself included, feel that the spread of state-enforced religiosity in Israel is turning a modern, liberal nation into a semi-theocratic one. A vast majority of Jews around the world do not accept the exclusion of women in certain religious practices, strict conversion laws or the ban of egalitarian prayer at the Western Wall.”  

As I have said many times, If Israel is going to be defined in any meaningful way as a Jewish state it must at some level be based on Jewish law. This is not to say that we should have religion shoved down the throats of all secular Jews. That would be a disaster of epic proportion. But that doesn’t mean we ignore Halacha either. 

Israel’s early leadership attempted to accommodate both secular and religious Jews so that each side could live their lives accordingly without interference from the other. It was agreed that various aspects of the state’s character should be based on Halacha. That is why for example, Shabbos is the official day of rest. And why Kashrus standards are maintained in its military establishment.   And why the Rabbinate was given full and exclusive authority to rule in all religious matters.

But at the same time no one was forced to observe anything in their personal lives.  That was the status quo agreement that promised to maintain the balance between secular and religious Jews.

Hamodia says pretty much the same thing. It is Jewish Law that ultimately determines Jewish character. They reject... the counterfeit “unity” built on the shaky foundations of “enlightenment,” “human progress” or “worldly culture. 

My only quibble with that is that I do not consider those values counterfeit. They are values of of an enlightened democracy. What they are not - are particularly Jewish values.

So while I disagree with Lauder’s desire for pluralism in Israel, I sympathize with his  lament that the vast majority of Jews in the world (who are secular) have been alienated from supporting Israel. However, I reject that the religious rights ascertained by the status quo agreement is the reason for that. The real reason for that alienation  has been made clear by that now famous 2013 Pew research study that showed most of those Jews are not just alienated form Israel - they are alienated from Judaism. And could not care less about what goes on in Israel. It is only heterodox leadership that is upset by this. 

To the extent that non observant Jewish lay people are upset at all is directly due to the incitement of those rabbis. Without that, I believe that most of those 90% would not know or care about it. The vast majority of those Jews will never visit Israel – let alone the Kotel. Even that part of it that egalitarian. That they support an egalitarian space is only a matter of principle to them at the urging of those leaders. Egalitarianism having nothing to do with Judaism.

That said, there is a sense of ascendant Charedi power in Israel that is disturbing even to me. Not via any new legislative religious coercion that they currently support. (Although there might be some of that in some isolated cases). But by the increased level of extremism emboldened by that ascendancy. 

But perhaps more important - is the strident nature of negative comments about fellow non Orthodox Jewish leaders that seek those changes. They fail to understand why they are so upset and seem to prefer riding roughshod over them. Which is why you hear the occasional comment from a Charedi rabbinic or political leader that Reform Jews are not even Jews. Which they almost always backpedal when they are challenged on it.

That Orthodox Jew believe that the values of Reform Judaism are not necessarily Jewish is one thing. I agree with that. But to say their people are not even Jewish is exactly the kind of thing someone like Ronald Lauder would have legitimate complaints about.

We ought not be alienating non Orthodox Jews. We should treat Jews as Jews that have unfortunately never had the educational opportunities Orthodox Jews have had. And not denigrate or vilify them. We need to better understand where they are coming from and stop calling all of their values counterfeit all counterfeit. They are not. Nor are they evil people with nefarious agendas (At least not all of them). They are good people that have been led astray by a version of a religious education that we do not accept. That they will disagree with us does not mean we have to become enemies.

What we must do is continue to express why we oppose their goals from an Orthodox perspective without any rancor; agree to disagree; and then find ways to compromise that will not contradict our values. It will take a lot of work. But people of good will should be able to do it.

A Moral Failing Based on Human Nature

Sigmund Freud whose theories of the sex drive revolutionized modern psychology

Women don't exist for men's pleasure or abuse. This is literal objectification. It turns women into objects created for men to use as they wish. It removes the humanity from women. It's incredibly dangerous and, yes, vile.

This was a tweet by Shoshanna  Keats Jaskoll about a truly disgusting new enterprise:  a sex doll brothel. I am not going to link to it because the pictures of those dolls are beyond disgusting. 

But as I read her tweet about the objectification of women, I thought about how true that is even today where there is a new determination by women that they will no longer stay silent when they are sexually assaulted. The culture of silence is over. Women who in the past were reluctant to reveal they were assaulted in any way, are no longer keeping quiet. Those that were assaulted long ago are now coming forward to tell their stories. 

Some of those stories are pretty sordid. But even those that aren’t as sordid are nevertheless still assault. I believe that at the core of this behavior is the at least subliminal attitude of objectification. One that has been around since the beginning of time.  A culture recognized by Chazal and rabbinic authorities throughout Jewish history. Which is why the focus has always been on women to minimize their sexuality in public by dressing modestly. I don’t think you can separate the phenomenon male sexual assault of women from the reality objectification.

It is the nature of men to see women in sexual terms. That’s what make the world go round. Chazal recognized that too. Which is why they never prayed that the sex drive be eliminated by the human psyche. Because without it, mankind would become extinct. What they did instead was legislate protections designed to protect us all from immoral behavior.

The fact is that the burden of being moral is an individual responsibility for both men and women. That men see women in sexual terms means that they must control their thoughts. It is a man’s responsibility to do that. But women can help  by doing their best to minimize licentious thoughts in the men they might encounter.  How each segment of Orthodoxy does that a is what has created controversy.

First let me state the obvious. Women are NOT - objectively speaking - sex objects. They are human beings just like men. There is no difference between us. Each serves God in our own way that are equal in the eyes of God. And each of us contributes to the world in our own way.  A man is of no greater value to God than is a woman. Which means that we need to treat each other with the same level of respect and dignity.

In the modern world most men are acculturated to see women in ways other than in sexual terms. We interact with each other at work and at play. So much so that most men in our culture do not overtly see a beautiful and react with an immediate licentious thought. But as Freud so clearly understood, the sex drive is still there and in men. And is subject to visual stimulation. We have just been socialized to completely subdue those thoughts to the point of not even being conscious of them. Why are men not given the same degree of restrictions with respect to modesty in dress so that women will be prevented form their own licentious thoughts? It’s because women are not as sensitive to the visual. They are more sensitive to the touch.

It is in the climate of modern civilization and its social constructs that men are accustomed to  not react to to women dressed in what society deems modest. In other words, it’s all what we are used to. That en should not react to even the most immodestly dressed women with same same sense of self control s true. It just take more effort.

This is why the modesty restrictions of the most right wing Orthodox Jews among us are so extreme. They are simply not used to seeing women at all.  Living secluded lifestyles does not expose them women the way the rest of society is. The women in their culture they might encounter in the streets are almost de-feminized in their appearance. They are covered up head to toe in layers of loose fitting clothing. With every strand of their hair covered by some sort of unflattering headscarf.

This is why some of their youth react so badly to a woman that to the rest of us might see as modestly dressed. This is not to excuse them. Which I clearly don’t and have condemned them for. Many times! It is only to explain them.

All of this boils down to the male sexual response. Which in my view does in fact objectify women. Whether at the subliminal level of the modern world or at the overt level at the extreme right wing of Orthodoxy. We can deny it all we want. But in my view there is a part of all men that sees a beautiful woman as a sex object. The difference is only in what we do about it in each culture. By no means  should that determine our behavior when interacting with each other.

Evidence for male objectification of women lies in one of the strongest influences in modern culture, the entertainment industry.  In the vast majority of movies that feature women - at some point in the movie she will become the object of her male counterpart’s sexual desire. Upon which he will act. 

Whether a woman reacts with consent or not is not the point of this discussion it is only that when a man pursues a woman in a casual relationship, it is because wants t satisfy his lust. President Carter said it best in his famous Playboy interview.  (Ironically Playboy is the granddaddy of magazines that objectify women.) As a religious born again Christian Carter nonetheless admitted that he sometimes lusts in his heart. In other words his thoughts upon seeing a beautiful woman were not all that subliminal. But he did not act on them and treated them with the respect and dignity that we have all been socialized to do in our culture.

So this new sex doll brothel is just the latest and somewhat extreme manifestation of objectifying women.  

Again, this not to excuse male objectification of women. It is degrading to women and wrong to behave that way. And we should try to avoid thinking that way. But it does help to explain why there have been so many inexcusable liberties taken by men of women they have encountered in their lives.  

It is wrong and should never be tolerated. And thank God it appears that there are some important societal changes taking place that will help prevent it in the future (although I am equally convinced that it will never be completely be eradicated).  Women that are sexually attacked or in any way taken advantage of sexually is a moral failing of those men that do it. But it should be clear that at the heart if their lack of self control is the male sex drive that is awakened when they see a desirable woman and see them as an object to be used for their own pleasure. That some act on it is a serious moral failing that deserves the condemnation of all of us.

Crying Wolf

Rabbi YY Rubinstein

We are at war.

Actually we aren’t. But sometimes it seems that way. The differences between the right and the left could not be more stark than in how each side views the President. So strident are the views of each that in my view both are blinded to reality. If you are politically left wing, Trump cannot be credited with anything good. If you are on the right, Trump cannot be blamed for anything bad. Neither of which is the reality. 

Of course there are exceptions. Especially on the right. Some actually do see his faults. But the right sees the merit of his policies overriding those faults. While the left does not concede any of his polices to have merit. Or attribute anything positive to people or factors other than Trump or his policies. 

The best example of that is Trump’s Supreme Court nominees. The right could not be happier with them. The left is fit to be tied about them.

I don’t recall this country ever being so divided in my lifetime. Although there always has always been a right and a left, the divisions were not as strident and antagonistic against each other as they are now. 

The question is, how does this affect the Jewish people? Where do Jews lie on the political spectrum with respect to Trump, the right, and the left? 

Well, its complicated. Most Jews in this country tend to side with the Left on most political issues and on how they view the President. On the other hand most Orthodox Jews side with Trump and the right on those issues. 

Of course there are exceptions. Of which I am one. I try and see the truth about Trump. I see the good (mostly in his policies) as well as the bad (mostly in his character).  As noted in the past, his character is so bad that his good polices do not justify him being President in my view. But I refuse to spin good things into bad just because Trump was responsible for them. And I will give him credit when he deserves it. Which the Left never does.

Because of the world’s political climate (much of it based on the ‘Trump phenomenon’) there are some who currently see the Jewish people in a time of danger. Comparing our times to those of Germany in the 30s.

Rabbi YY Rubinstein has expressed that view in a Jewish Press article. He says we need to see the handwriting on the wall  which the Jews of 1930s Germany failed to do and learn the lessons of history. He is not the only one that thinks along these lines. The late Rebbeztin Esther Jungries said much the same thing many years ago. I have seen others make the same kind of observation.

Of course it is important to see the future through the eyes of the past. There is after all truth to what late 19th and early 20th century philosopher, George Santayana said: ‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.’

Yes we must all be vigilant and learn history’s lessons. But the examples that Rabbi Rubinstein give to make his case, don’t quite make his case. Although having British roots might make his views somewhat understandable in light of what’s going on in England. 

Do Jews have anything to fear along the lines of the Holocaust there? I doubt it. But it’s not too hard to see why he might say that in light of Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour Party. A  Party that could very well win the next election and put Corbyn in the prime minister’s seat. 

Corbin’s views have been widely condemned by all segments of the Jewish community because of his tolerance of antisemitism in his party - and for his rabidly anti Israel perspective to the point of honoring Palestinians terrorists. Which he was recently recorded doing.

That said, I do not believe that the UK is anywhere near a Holocaust. Even if Corbyn does become prime minister. Even though I believe Europe has latent antisemisim in its blood, we are too close to the Holocaust for it to rear its ugly head now. Besides, Corbyn is socialist. Not a Nazi. The danger lies only in how his leadership will effect the UK’s traditional support of Israel (such that it is). It will surely become non existent or more likely antagonistic. The UK will end up supporting things like BDS under Corbyn. 

But there will be no pogroms. And no Kristallnachts. I assume that kind of antisemitism is abhorrent to a socialist like Corbyn. For now Jews in England are safe from that kind of persecution. It just will not happen under the current political climate no matter how anti Israel Corbyn is. Corbyn is not Hitler. Not even close.

But then Rabbi Rubinstein goes a bit further and says that the United States is in the same boat. Referring to the Democratic party as Labour’s sister party in America, he points to the anti Israel things happening there. Such as the choice of an anti Israel candidate for congress from Queens, Ocasio-Cortez as a prime example of where the party is headed.

I should add that Ammar Campa-Najjar, the Democrat opposing indicted California congressman, Duncan Hunter - is of Mexican-Palestinian heritage and spent part of his childhood in Gaza. He is also the grandson of an architect of the 1972 Olympic massacre. 

And then there is the Democrat running unopposed for congress in Michigan, Rashida Tlaib. Her views on Israel are so bad that even J-Street had to withdraw their support. 

Here is some more evidence Rabbi Rubinstein cites as handwriting on the wall: 

Then there is the Democratic Black Caucus, many of whose members were photographed in a Corbynesque wreath-laying display of anti-Semitism. Many of them lined up to hug and shake hands with American arch-anti-Semite, Louis Farrakhan – including, it has emerged, a certain Barak Obama.

The political debate in American has devolved into tribalism and blind loyalty. In the most extreme examples, on college campuses, even a faint suspicion that one harbors a smidgen of sympathy with the “other” tribe is enough to unleash a level of persecution that Senator Joseph McCarthy would have envied.

Once more, the writing has started appearing on American walls – and on my Facebook page. Orthodox Jews are stereotyped as being the quintessential antithesis of all things “New Left.” We “all” support Trump. We oppose all of the most sacred verities of progressive politics, “trans rights” and all the rest. I am warned in chilling terms that there will be a “reckoning.”

Concerning, Yes. And as noted, I agree that the ‘political debate in American has devolved into tribalism and blind loyalty’. But handwriting on the wall of an impeding Holocaust? Based on some sort of underlying antisemitism? Hardly.

Rabbi Rubenstein does more or less accurately describe some of the things going on in Democratic Party. But it does not even remotely resemble 1930s Germany. Or even what is going on in the UK. Not unless you consider the Democratic Senator from New York, Chuck Schumer another Corbyn.  

Schumer is the Senate minority leader . He is a proud Jew that has not hidden that fact. He even sided with Republicans against his own party and opposed the nuclear deal with Iran. His party did not attempt to deny him its pending (at the time) leadership.  

And who is Ocasio-Cortez’s mentor? Bernie Sanders. She shares his socialist political philosophy. Now one may disagree with Sanders, especially on Israel – as I do. But to say he is antisemitic is ridiculous. He never hides his Judaism and often cites his time working on a Kibbutz in Israel. Hard to call either of them antisemitic. 

And then there are the Trump supporters. The vast majority of which are fundamentalist Christians. If that bodes ill for Jews in America you wouldn't know it. That most Orthodox Jews support Trump is seen as a plus by them. Orthodox Jews are embraced by them.

Meanwhile the vast majority of Jews in this country hate Trump. And that suits the left just fine. They are happy to count any Jew like that as one of their own. In fact the Democratic Party has many Jews that are members of both houses of Congress. Some of them prominent, like Schumer. There are more Jews in the liberal Democratic party in congress that hate Trump equally with their fellow non Jewish Democrats than there are Jews serving in congress from the Conservative Republican Party that love Trump. (Are there any?)

This is hardly a prescription for a potential Holocaust.

Now as I always say, we have to be vigilant and keep our radar up. History has shown us that we must. My eyes and ears are constantly attuned to anything antisemitic going on in the world. But even with all the angst over a Democratic party increasingly hostile to Israel, we are a long way from seeing any kind of handwriting like that on the wall.

Faith: Going Out and Coming In

Mayim Bialik - a now observant Jewish woman 

I’m a believer. This title to a great Monkees song composed by Neil Diamond is also a truth by which I live. I am a believer in God and that the Torah was given by Him to us – His chosen people - at Sinai. The Torah contains the blueprint for life as a Jew on this world – in preparation for the next. Why I am a believer is not the subject of this post. It is why people that were raised in religious homes stop being observant at some point in their lives. And why people that were not raised in observant homes become observant.

Both types of Jews have always fascinated me. Why, I wondered, is a Jew driven to leave observance. How can they so easily leave the world in which they were raised? And by the same token why does a Jew that was raised to live a relatively carefree non observant life chose to become observant - with all the restrictions that involves?

There are a great many Jews that comprise both communities. The trek away from observance has been discussed ad infinitum. There are probably as many reasons for that as there Jews that stopped being observant. Among the more common reasons is being raised in a dysfunctional family, or having experienced a form of abuse  (whether sexual, physical, or emotional).  

It is understandable when that happens. Doubt is generated by the abuse with questions like, ‘How could a loving God have allowed this?’ This question really became relevant after the Holocaust. After the Holocaust it was difficult for many survivors to retain their faith and thus their observance. 

I certainly can’t blame them for asking a question that neither I nor anyone else can answer. That some survivors like my parents retained their faith is a testament to their deeply held, unshakable belief in God and the Torah. That is truly amazing. And at the same time perplexing. They surely must have had the same unanswerable questions after their experiences and yet remained as observant as ever!

Extreme trauma is surely an understandable reason why someone would question their faith. Which is why the extreme trauma experienced by survivors of sex (or other forms of) abuse must never be judged. Just like survivors of the Holocaust must never be judged. Not equating the two. Just explaining what extreme trauma can cause with respect to our beliefs. 

There are some that stop being observant for intellectual reasons. What might be called a crisis of faith. They begin questioning the dogma they have been taught by the contradictions they might come across in various ways. Sometimes ultimately questioning God’s existence altogether. I believe this is not the more common reason - abuse by far being the greater cause. It does, however, apply to a lot of Jews that stopped being observant. 

But those that leave for intellectual reasons (without the attendant trauma) have always fascinated me.  I have many of the same questions they do, and yet I remain a firm believer, while they don’t. 

In most instances they will say the left because of those unanswered questions. But questions do not constitute proof that the God does not exist or that the Torah is not true. Questions aren’t proof. They are just questions. And yet, these once believing Jews point to these questions as the reasons for disbelief. And ultimately becoming non observant.* 

Then there is the other side of the coin. What brings rational thinking Jews that have been raised without any trauma in non observant homes to become observant? That brings me to Jew in the City. Eric Goldstein reviews, The Skeptic and the Rabbi: Falling in Love with Faith, a memoir by Judy Gruen. 

Judy is a ‘passionate ‘Ba’alas Teshuva’ who is the prototype for this question. She tells us of her journey as proud liberal and feminist who did not see the Torah compatible with her values. After meeting her eventual husband who was a Ba’al Teshuva she started exploring her Jewish heritage in more detail . Judy found that her preconceived notions were untrue. What she found out was that: 

...the dignity that was taught and ideally practiced for women, for individuals, I didn’t know it, I just had these misconceptions.” Unfortunately for many people beginning to explore their Jewish heritage, these misconceptions often hold them back from truly engaging with the material, but throughout her journey, Gruen had many notable experiences which defied those preconceived notions. She describes an intimate Shabbos experience as “this oasis in time, making space for the sacred. This is beautiful, this is peaceful. I want this too.” …Gruen (notes that there are) tens of thousands of us over the past decades, who have said hello, not goodbye, and are happy to have done so.” 

Judy Gruen’s journey ‘in’ was however more than sentimental. She has contacted me to say that her book had the following consistent theme:

(T)he discovery of the intellectual integrity, depth and breadth of Torah had as much to do with my decision to live a Torah-observant life as much, if not more so, than any issues involving my emotional attachment to my people or to my husband.  

As a rationalist, I wonder how anyone can change their lives without an intellectual rational underpinning. No matter how appealing a lifestyle is, I have to believe it isn’t all about choosing a lifestyle. There has to be an underlying rational belief in God - and in the truth of Judaism. 

That is true about Judy Gruen as well. That she just found observance to be compatible with her values was only part of her journey.

But my experience talking to many Baalei Teshuva is that they cose it because they saw it as a desirable lifestyle. So much so that they were willing to change from a life of relative freedom to live as one pleases to one of many restrictions. Those Ba'alei Teshuva I have had discussion with rarely say it was for intellectual reasons. 

I wonder why? Doesn’t a lifestyle change from one of great ease to one of many restrictions require rational thought at least as part of the equation?

Updated - based on new information provided by the book's author.

*Warning: 

Just as in the past when this subject comes up - I will reject any discussion or debate about matters of faith in the comments. I am not interested in posting comments that may shake the faith of believers unprepared for these challenges.  

I do not want to have any part in being responsible for someone losing their faith because of an unanswered challenge. Not because many questions can’t be answered. They can. But in some cases because they can’t be answered and must remain a question.  

The conclusion someone might take from an unanswered question might lead to losing faith and becoming non observant. 

Not gonna happen here. As I said, unanswered questions are not proof of anything. This post is simply food for thought.

Fair or not: My blog. My rules.

Implications of Michael Cohen's Guilty Plea

Michael Cohen (ABC News)

It pains me to say this but it seems that the President is more in danger of impeachment than ever before. Not now. But after the election when it seems like the House of Representatives will be taken over by liberal Democrats. If I understand the procedure, all it takes is a simple majority of the House to impeach a President. This of course does not mean removal from office. But that could be a next step.

Impeachment is rarely used since it overturns the will of the people that voted the President into office. It takes ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’. Which is kind of an amorphous description of what it takes to impeach a sitting President. 

Once the House impeaches the President, the Senate can then put him on trial. If he is found guilty of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ by a super-majority (2/3 of the Senate)  then he is removed from office. 

It is highly unlikely that the Republican majority in the Senate will change after the next election. But even in the unlikely event that it does, it will not become a super-majority. And there will not be enough Republicans joining Democrats to form the super-majority that will remove him from office.

It’s not that I wouldn’t like to see someone else in the Oval Office. I would. The President’s behavior has been a disgrace. I say that despite my support of many of his polices. You cannot divorce the policies from the man. Just because he  is responsible for some positive things in both domestic and foreign affairs, that does not wipe away all the damage he has done to his lofty office. He has turned the Oval Office into an embarrassment. If the Presidency was a sitcom it would have been canceled a long time ago!

I am pained by the thought of an impeachment because dragging the President through the mud (of his own doing) will further damage the image of this country.  It pains me because it will divert congressional energy from legislating to the impeachment process. It pains me because removing a freely elected President from office (if it should ever come to that) would be almost like a coup d’état. That is something that happens in 3^rd world dictatorships. Not in the the most powerful and free democracy in world history.

What happened to make me ruminate like this?

Former Trump lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen  pleaded guilty to 8 criminal counts and admitted making illegal campaign contributions. As I understand it, the benefit Trump received from money paid to two women in order to silence them about his alleged affair - is considered payment in kind. Which is measured against the actual amount used to  pay them off. The sum of which is well above the legal limits of what can be contributed to a candidate for federal office. According to Cohen, he did this at the instruction of then candidate Trump.

I don’t know if directing Cohen to do this rises to the level of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’. But it is another nail in the coffin of public opinion about the character of this President. One that will surely comeback to haunt him in 2020 when he will almost certainly run for re-election. (Although based on the last election – you never know). If Trump loses that election, I fear the Left will come into power with a vengeance! Who knows how much damage they will do by undoing some of the positive things under Trump’s watch.

I have said many times that I am very pleased with those things. Among them: increasing  the nation’s prosperity; reducing unemployment, protecting religious freedom; reducing the nuclear threat from North Korea; strengthening our friendship with Israel, and bringing Iran to its knees. But the cost of all of this has been too high. And I will not support his re-election bid. He is not making America great. He is making it ugly by virtue of his character and behavior.

As noted, I don’t think Trump will be removed from office. So nothing will change. At the end of the day, at most we will get an impeachment.

If Trump is impeached, I almost wish he would go on trial and be removed from office. Difficult as that would be for the nation - the result would be replacing Trump with a man that is a true political conservative. Mike Pence will very likely continue the current President’s policies. Most of which I strongly support.

But perhaps just as importantly Pence is a man of impeccable character that would restore dignity and honor to the Oval Office. He is a man whose values reflect my own. He is a religious man; a moral man that does not take indecent liberties with women; a man that never uttered a misogynist or racist comment; a man who never secludes himself with women other than his wife; a man who supports Israel’s interests no differently than I do; a man that does not lie; does not insult people that disagree with him; does not call people derogatory names; and does not attack the media as the enemy of the people!

In short Pence seems like a man who has everything an Orthodox Jew that leans politically conservative could want in a public servant. Especially one that occupies the highest office in the land.

Unfortunately, that is an highly unlikely outcome. We are stuck with Trump.The question is, what will I do in 2020? Who will I support for President if Trump runs for re-election?

Although I cannot support Trump, I am unlikely to support a candidate from a party where some of its policies are anathema to religious Jews; a party that attracts anti Israel candidates; a party that – although nominally pro Israel -  has been less than friendly to her in recent years; a party that places the blame for all the problems in the Middle East on Israel’s settlement policy; a party that sees socialism as a virtue; a party that has turned so far to the Left it would not be recognized by one of its icons, JFK. Who by today’s standards would probably be more of a Republican than a Democrat.

I don’t know who will run against Trump in 2020. But based on the current poltical philosophy of the Democratic Party, I’m not likely to support anyone they nominate.  Which might mean that for the very first time in my life  I will not support either candidate.  The lesser of 2 evils is still evil.

That said, we have 2 years to go. So we shall see what happens.

Ask the Rabbanit

Some of the women that will be answering questions on the website (VIN)

I honestly don’t know what to make of it. I have mixed feelings. The Jerusalem Post published an article (republished at VIN) about a new online forum called ‘Ask the Rabbanit’.

It is sponsored by the Beit Hillel Organization in Israel whose mission is to advance the cause of women in public leadership roles. Something which is in and of itself of dubious merit since it involves issues of Serara - which disallows women from serving in positions of communal Jewish authority.

I am however trying to look at it objectively without its sponsoring agency. Are these women ordained and now acting as rabbis ...and even as Poskim that rule on difficult and complex issues of Halacha? Or are they more like Yoatzot Halacha – advisers who answer commonly asked questions  - leaving the more complex questions to an established Posek?

If it is the former – they are putting themselves in a position they are very likely not qualified to be in. Poskim are a lot more than just rabbis. Quoting from the OU statement about the requirements for innovative Psak: 

(I)t is essential for a halakhic decisor to be aware of, and keenly sensitive to, the broader context of Torah values. Such values originate from, but frequently extend beyond, specific legal dictates. Halakhah itself, if examined closely, reflects underlying themes, and sources from mikra, aggadah, and kabbalah complement the halakhic rulings to express values that direct our avodat Hashem. These core values, derived from these multiple sources, form a “Halakhic Ethos,” and throughout our history, these values have been integrated into the technical, practical resolution of complex halakhic issues. 

So unless they have this kind of intensive training, which takes many years of full time Torah study; and have had ‘Shimush’ (…a sort of apprenticeship to a legitimate Posek) they shouldn’t be doing that.

Even in the unlikely event that these women have spent many years in full time Torah study and were as knowledgeable as men who have done the same thing, I doubt that any of them have had Shimush. But even then it would still be a problem. There is no historic precedent for a woman becoming ordained as a rabbi. And precedent matters in Judaism as much as it does in the hallowed halls of the American system of jurisprudence. Even as the idea of precedent in Judaism  is devalued by the Left wing of Orthodoxy. 

Although there have been times historically where precedent was overturned - it was rare and required more than merely seeking egalitarianism as a goal. As I have said many times - it is not that men and women aren’t considered equal in the eyes of God. They are. But that doesn’t mean that men and women are identical.  Nor does it mean they must have identical roles in order to be equally valued. Is a heart surgeon more valued than a neurosurgeon? Is a criminal lawyer more valued than corporate lawyer? Is a nuclear physicist more valued than microbiologist? 

Having different roles does not devalue anyone. In Judaism fulfilling one’s role in service to God makes them more valued than does doing so outside of  those roles.  Egalitarianism seeks to eliminate the very idea of different roles for men and women. The long and short of it is that women need not overturn precedent in order to serve the Creator successfully in their roles as women. 

It isn’t that women aren’t capable of doing what men do in the realm of rabbinics - given the same circumstances of education and experience. It’s about whether what approach God prefers them to have. That is set by the Torah as interpreted by the sages and rabbinic leaders throughout history - and tradition. 

Despite some of the insulting attacks by some feminists against Poskim that this is all motivated by misogyny and maintaining a patriarchal society – that is the furthest thing from the truth. It is a canard stemming from self serving activists of egalitarianism that belittle anyone that gets in their way.  Unfortunately that attitude has somehow permeated certain segments of modern Orthodoxy and has led some very intelligent and sincere religious women astray.

If, on the other hand the women answering these questions are more like Yoatzot Halacha – advisers answering certain questions from women who feel more comfortable asking them of women, I am inclined to support it.  

Sadly, I am also inclined to believe it is the former. However, I will be happy to learn that it is the latter. Which is it?

Do Europeans Really Care about Us?

British Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn (Jerusalem Post)

I cannot recall a time where the leader of a major political party in the UK, one of America’s closest allies, was such an antisemite. But that is clearly what Jeremy Corbyn is. Not only is he the leader of his party. He stands to become the UK’s next prime minister.

The media has reported that Theresa May, the UK’s current prime minister is on shaky political ground. Her Conservative Party could easily lose the next election – giving rise to Corbyn as the next prime minister. 

How antisemtic is he? There have been many examples of it in the media of late. Here is what a recent article in the Jerusalem Post said: 

British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn attended a conference in Qatar in 2012 alongside senior Hamas figures who were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Israelis, according to an exclusive report by the British daily The Telegraph published Sunday.

At the conference, Corbyn hosted a panel discussion which was attended by senior Hamas member Husam Badran, who was the leader of Hamas’s military wing in the northern West Bank and the orchestrator of some of the most deadly suicide bombings of the Second Intifada, for which he received a 17-year sentence.

Besides Badran, participants of the conference included former Hamas Politburo Chief Khaled Mashaal and Abdul Aziz Omar, who was sentenced to seven life sentences for his involvement in preparing explosive belts.

Both Badran and Omar were released as part of the 2011 deal in which Gilad Shalit was swapped for 1,027 mainly Palestinian and Arab-Israeli prisoners.

The conference in Qatar under the title “Seminar on Palestinian Refugees in the Arab World,” of which Corbyn was part, took place less than a year after the prisoner exchange.

Several days after the conference, Corbyn commented that he had listened to people released in the Shalit deal and that their contribution was “fascinating” and “electrifying.”

In an interview with Iranian television, he later confirmed specifically that he had met with Omar while at the conference.

The revelation of this incident comes as the latest of a series of controversies involving the British Labour leader.

Last week pictures emerged showing Corbyn alongside Tunisian terror chief Maher al-Taher at a 2014 wreath-laying ceremony for the terrorists who massacred 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.

Al-Taher is the leader-in-exile of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which is classified as a terrorist organization in the US, Israel and the EU, and which claimed responsibility for the 2014 Har Nof synagogue massacre.

In another controversial photo of the event, Corbyn is seen close to the grave of terrorist Atef Bseiso, intelligence chief of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Bseiso, who was assassinated in Paris in 1992, was also linked to the Olympic massacre two decades earlier.

Only a week prior, the Labour leader made headlines when a video emerged of a speech he gave in 2013, in which he ostensibly compared Israel’s control of the West Bank to the Nazi occupation of Europe during World War II.

In addition, the Labour Party and Corbyn have been at the center of a protracted row over the party’s failure to address antisemitism within its ranks, and its recent decision to adopt an abridged version of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definitions, specifically omitting a clause that discourages comparing Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.  

Had anyone told me even just a couple of years ago that England would  have an antisemite at its helm any time soon, I would have said they were crazy. Not that England has been the stalwart supporter of Israel the US has been. Even under Obama. But they clearly did not evidence anywhere near the obvious hate for the Jewish State that Corbyn has had for years - and continues to have.

His protestations to the contrary are laughable – as he tries to spin his views as anything but antisemetic. 

The Labour Party has always enjoyed the support of the Jewish community. I wonder though whether that support will still exist at the next election. My guess is that even Liberal Jews that are critical of Israel will see Corbyn for what he is. And that he will be rejected by them should an election be called.

But that doesn’t mean his party won’t come into  power. And as a result Corbyn would become the next prime minister of the UK.

How is it possible, one might ask, in this day and age for England - an enlightened and progressive nation - to elect a man like that is into office? Are the English innately antisemitic? Well, I have my suspicions about that. As I do for all of Europe.

But even if they are not innately antisemitic - antisemitism is not on their political radar. The British want a change in leadership that will make their lives better. The majority of which may see Corbyn being the leader that will make that change. As he constantly promises to do. Besides, if his antisemitism ever comes up, British voters will probably just buy Corbyn’s denials and be satisfied with that.

And that’s the problem with England - and all of Europe. They may not be antisemitic. At least on the surface. But when it comes to their welfare they could not care less what their leader thinks about the Jews or Israel. As long as he gets the trains to run on time. That is all that matters.

Which is why I couldn’t care less if Europe sank into the ground. All of it!  Because that is where the enemies of the Jewish people belong.

God bless America!