Glorified Drinking in the Orthodox World

Rabbi Yaakov Bender

1 am a teetotaler. I cannot stand any form of alcoholic beverage. Not even beer. Wine is the only exception, and even then, only for Kiddush on Shabbos.

Over the years I’ve been gently mocked by friends who enjoy an occasional ‘L’Chaim’. I’ve gotten the usual ribbing, and at times have even been cajoled into joining them. Always reluctantly, and never with more than a single shot. No matter how fine or expensive a drink may be, I just don’t enjoy it. Nor do I need the ‘buzz’ that many others seem to relish.

That makes me something of an outsider in social circles where drinking has become a habit - and, for some, a passion. But I wear that as a badge of honor. I do keep a selection of alcoholic beverages at home, but those bottles come out only on rare occasions, such as an engagement party (L’Chaim). Or when a guest specifically requests it. Most of those bottles are decades old.

It seems, however, that people like me are becoming rare. Social drinking among observant Jews appears to have become the norm. 

But is that a good thing? Does drinking truly enhance our friendships or strengthen our communities? What are the downsides? Can serious harm result? And are certain parts of the Orthodox community more vulnerable than others?

These were the questions that crossed my mind after reading a recent article on YWN. Excessive alcohol consumption, it seems, is not limited to any one segment of Orthodoxy. I might have expected the Charedi world - so focused on holiness and spiritual discipline - to be more insulated. Yet when a Charedi publication features a respected Rosh Yeshiva like Rav Yaakov Bender publicly raising the alarm, it’s clear that the problem has reached his own community big time. He called it…

…a “terrible, terrible problem” spreading through frum communities: a rapidly escalating culture of drinking that he says is fueling danger, hypocrisy, and tragic consequences for families and children.

Rav Bender laid responsibility squarely at the feet of parents — particularly fathers — who have normalized high-end alcohol, glorified drinking, and built a social ecosystem where whiskey isn’t just a beverage but a badge of status.

Rav Bender (described) a recent case in which a teenage boy from a prominent frum community caused a fatal car accident and is now facing years of jail time. “You know where he got it from? He went to a toameha in a very choshuv city (Lakewood). Toameha should be stopped.”

When I was in high school (in the 60s), I recall demographic statistics about alcoholism being cited in  my sociology class. Orthodox Jews were described as the exception: aside from a small amount of sacramental wine, they rarely drank.

That dog no longer hunts. I have seen this first hand in the case of a wealthy philanthropist who came to a L’Chaim already well ‘lubricated’. And have been told by an aware mental health professional that more than a few young fathers attend multiple Kiddushim on their way home from shul on Shabbos. Eventually stumbling through the door of their home - drunk.

I have personally witnessed (many times) Yeshiva students attending a wedding of a friend think nothing of getting drunk at the simcha. This is a phenomenon that has easily been going on for the last 15 or 20 years. It didn’t matter whether these young people were Modern Orthodox or Charedi. Far too many of them all sought alcohol and consumed copious quantities of it before the Choson and Kallah entered the room! Resulting in behavior that can only be described as a Chilul HaShem!

The desire to get drunk is often rooted in depression; alcohol becomes a form of self-medication. In that sense, alcohol abuse is simply another form of drug abuse. Becoming an addiction driven by their emotional struggles.

I’m not sure the current trend is primarily about self-medication. But I am certain that we need a conscious communal effort to rethink social drinking of the type described by Rabbi Bender. And certainly alcohol should be off limits to young people at a wedding.

Parents are the primary role models for their children. If they take pride in alcohol consumption so too will their children, It is a slippery slope from there to disaster. Families have been torn apart. Children have suffered. Not only emotionally, but spiritually. Sometimes themselves turning to alcohol to escape the dysfunction created by a parent’s drinking. Alcoholism can easily become the ‘gift’ that keeps on giving.

Once a person becomes addicted, removing the social environment where the addiction began does not eliminate the addiction itself. They will find new ways to feed it.

Rabbi Bender is right to raise the alarm. Awareness is essential. But awareness alone is not enough. Those already struggling need professional help—and strong family support. They must be encouraged to seek treatment. That is the only path that can save both them and their families from disaster. 

Green Lighting a Charedi Draft Bill

Rav Dov Lando (Jerusalem Post)

The burden is not equally shared. Safeguarding the Jewish homeland is currently being undertaken by an IDF that consists primarily of non-Charedi soldiers. Many of whom are nonetheless devoutly religious. That Israel needs an army is not in question. Without it, the Jewish inhabitants of the land would be slaughtered, a fact recently noted by YU Rosh Yeshiva Rav Hershel Schachter.

The problem with this absolute reality is that it is never mentioned by the Charedi leadership. They focus purely on the Torah’s protective power.

I am not here to argue the point. I agree that Torah study is vital to the Jewish people. But it is equally true that without an army, the Jews of Israel would indeed be slaughtered.

This fact is recognized by the Religious Zionist community, whose devout religious leaders require their young to serve.

Charedi religious leaders never talk about that fact. It’s hard to imagine that they actually believe Israel doesn’t need a army. But I have never once heard them say so. Their constant refrain has been that Charedim  may not serve under any circumstances. For two reasons.

One, because those who study Torah should be able to do so for as long as they can without any interruption. Especially army service. 

And two because of a belief recently expressed by Ner Israel Rosh Yeshiva Rabbi Aharon Feldman. Which is that about half the inductees who enter the IDF observant, leave non-observant. This, he says, is unacceptable and why he opposes any Charedi being inducted.

None of this is new. Nor is it new that the rest of Israel - whether secular or observant is subjected to the draft. They serve. And place themselves in harm’s way. Some of whom have paid the ultimate price sacrificing themselves for the Jewish people. As have their families who have been affected accordingly.

Rabbi Feldman’s “hard no” is what motivates the kind of extremism that was reported recently by the Times of Israel:

The two lawmakers, Moshe Gafni and Ya’akov Asher, are receiving the second-highest level of security monitoring, including protection at home… the two have received many threats.

On Saturday night, Haredi rioters demonstrated outside Asher’s home in Bnei Brak, after another group rioted around Shas MK Yoav Ben-Tzur’s car, smashing its window and drawing outcry from across party lines.

“The threats against elected representatives of the Haredi public have escalated in recent weeks. Evidence of this is the violent demonstration that took place near the home of MK Ben-Tzur from the Shas party, alongside more and more attempted attacks by Haredi extremists who are unwilling to accept the conscription bill that is being formulated,” a senior police official told Channel 12.

It is therefore no small wonder why so many Israelis from all segments - religious or otherwise - are upset - even angered by the Charedi refusal to serve. Even those that concede that Torah study is important and that conditions for army service are not ideal for Charedi needs, the need to protect our people overrides those concerns. That protection is in the hands of an army that is severely understaffed. That shortfall is compensated for by extended tours of duty, which increase the danger to soldiers’ lives and the worry to their families back home.

These are undeniable hard facts. Meanwhile, the military has repeatedly warned that it urgently lacks manpower. They need more soldiers. And the largest available pool of recruits refuses to serve. How can we achieve some sort of compromise that will satisfy both the IDF and the Charedi world?

If it were up to me, I would require all able-bodied men to register for the draft. Once army needs are met, exemptions could then be considered based on how vital one’s service is to the country. Whether in medical research or (if you are observant and feel as I do) - in Torah study. But I am not in charge.

There is, however, currently a bill in the Knesset that would allow for a compromise, where Charedim who do not study Torah could be inducted. That bill has received preliminary approval from the two leading rabbinic leaders of the Lithuanian Yeshiva world: Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch and Rav Dov Lando - provided the army has a framework that fully accommodates Charedi needs. As far as I know, such frameworks already exist and could surely be expanded if needed. As long as those who choose to study full-time are exempted, these leaders are willing to accept this version of a draft law.

I am not overly happy with a law that automatically grants exemptions to those who simply choose to learn. That is what most of them do anyway. It is unfair and would merely formalize the exemptions they have always had. Summing up the opposition to this bill is the following comment in the Jerusalem Post:

“Any attempt to circumvent the court’s ruling and to approve through legislation the mass evasion of tens of thousands of young ultra-Orthodox men — at a time when the IDF needs more than 12,000 additional soldiers, and reservists are collapsing under the burden — is a serious violation of the rule of law and equality,” the organization said.

OK. I get it. However, if there are enough Charedim who do not choose to learn and can fill IDF needs, I think it’s better to take the deal rather than continue the enmity between the Jewish people. To make the bill more acceptable, perhaps it could be amended to include drafting those who choose to stay in a yeshiva but do not actually spend much time learning if at all. Having registered precisely because they wanted to dodge the draft.

I understand the objections and even agree with them. But if we are all going to get along, a compromise that satisfies the needs of both the IDF and the Charedi world is the right way to go.

I am not overly optimistic, though, about this bill passing in the Knesset because of the opposition from the more extreme factions of the Charedi world who feel the way Rabbi Feldman does - and those on the other side who believe the only equitable solution is to draft all Charedim the way everyone else is. No exceptions.

But still, the willingness to compromise at any level by the two most respected leaders in the Charedi world is progress. Of sorts.

Emes Ve-Emunah is now available at substack. To receive posts and comment you must subscribe. It's free.

Groypers - Making Antisemitism Great Again

Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes

I was going to address recent violence by extremist Charedim today. Extremists within that world are as abhorrent to me as extremist religious-Zionist settlers. But I have decided instead to focus once again on another pressing concern. This one for American Jewry: the recent spike in antisemitism.

As I’ve mentioned in the past, antisemitism was once almost the exclusive domain of the far right. Over time, their numbers diminished and they were pushed to the fringes of society. To the point of relative insignificance.

The new antisemitism was found most prominently on the left. The further left one goes the more they will find anti-Zionist (Read antisemitic) views.

That the media has long been more sympathetic to the left and tend to “see” what the left sees and tends to validate their views.

By contrast, mainstream conservatives had been almost uniformly supportive of Israel. Largely because of the influence of Evangelical Christians, who comprise a large portion of the conservative base. Their religious beliefs move them to support the Jewish claim to the Holy Land as stated repeatedly in the Bible. They also support the Jewish people for the same biblical reasons.

But it wasn’t only Evangelicals. Most conservatives had become very supportive of the Jewish state and the Jewish people. A complete 180 from soft antisemitic bigotry that characterized the conservative base before and during the Holocaust.

I felt comfortable with that support. And I still do. But a recent article in Jewish Insider had a comment about young conservatives that genuinely shocked me. Never in a million years would I have believed the following:

Conservative writer Rod Dreher recently estimated that 30 to 40 percent of young Republican staffers in Washington “are fans of Nick Fuentes.”

Those are staggering numbers. These are not fringe characters. These are young people deeply involved in the party. Even though those high percentage figures are disputed, there seems to be broad agreement that the numbers are still disturbingly high.

Nick Fuentes is a white nationalist, an open and rabid antisemite, a Holocaust denier, and an admirer of Hitler. He says Hitler was right about the Jews. If there is an antisemitic trope in existence, he has probably used it.

Not long ago, someone like Fuentes would have been ridiculed as a crackpot living on the fringes of society with little following. Condemned by all decent people, right or left. And while he is still condemned by most conservatives, he has nevertheless managed to worm his way into the national conversation, gaining a degree of respectability thanks to Tucker Carlson - one of the most popular conservative commentators in America, with millions of followers and influential friends in high places.

Carlson, who has recently and repeatedly shown his own antisemitic leanings, interviewed Fuentes on his podcast and agreed with much of his rhetoric about Zionist (read: Jewish) or Neocon (read: Jewish) influence in Congress, the Pentagon, and major American police departments. Influence he claimed to be deliberately designed to benefit Israel rather than America, undermining the ‘America First’ ideology central to MAGA Republicans.

That alone would be bad enough. But what happened next was worse. Prominent Republican conservatives did not condemn the Fuentes interview. Instead, they defended Carlson’s right to host him.

How prominent? Kevin Roberts, head of the highly respected Heritage Foundation, not only defended Carlson but blamed the ‘globalist class’ (read: neocon Jews) for undermining the movement.

Instead of condemning the interview, Vice President J.D. Vance defended his friend Tucker Carlson’s ‘right to interview whomever he chooses’ as a matter of free speech. And now even the President has chimed in with similar sentiments.

What they should have done is demonstrate moral clarity by condemning the platforming of an antisemite of near-Hitlerian proportions. Instead, they gave him a pass—thereby preserving Carlson’s massive popularity and granting Fuentes’s antisemitism a veneer of legitimacy within mainstream conservatism.

Let me be clear: the President is not antisemitic. Nor do I believe the Vice President is. But they have placed popular support above moral clarity. And that feeds the perception that antisemitism is becoming an acceptable component of conservative dialogue.

This is not OK. Carlson’s  softball interview with Fuentes cannot be dismissed as an exercise of free speech. The lack of moral clarity shown by prominent conservatives as a matter of political expedience is appalling in the extreme.

That being said, I do not believe that most mainstream conservatives are antisemitic. I still believe the vast majority condemns antisemitism in all its forms. But it is nevertheless shocking that any sane individual - regardless of how conservative they are - believes the conspiratorial garbage coming out of the mouths of people like Nick Fuentes. He has millions of followers!  And as many as 30 to 40 percent of young Republican staffers in Washington are fans too. That is terrifying.

This is not OK. This cannot be dismissed as mere free speech. The lack of moral clarity shown by prominent conservatives as a matter of political expedience is appalling in the extreme.

How can so many people be so gullible, so foolish? How is it possible that in 2025 - eighty years after six million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust? There is montains of evidence about what happened, including archival footage taken of atrocities taken by the Nazis themselves. Footage of the camps being liberated with dead bodies left in piles and emaciated survivors barely alive. There have been so many survivors that have testified about the horrors they experienced. Recorded on video for posterity. Some of them still alive!  How can anyone with a conscience think Hitler was right?

That just isn’t normal.  And I don’t get it. 

Emes Ve-Emunah is now available at substack. To receive posts and comment you must subscribe. It's free.

Zero Tolerance for Religious Extremists

The greatest danger facing Israel right now is not Hamas, nor any other terrorist organization that would annihilate us if they could. Even though some have actually tried and failed to do just that, they were instead decimated in their attempts. While they certainly still pose an existential threat, they are not the most serious danger. The most serious danger facing Israel right now is extremism. And I’m sorry to say that it is the religious extremists among us who are doing the most serious damage. That they believe they are being righteous s what makes them so dangerous.

Extremists are, by their nature, the most ideologically pure among us. These are individuals who will not compromise on their ideals. They are willing to do whatever it takes to advance their cause, acting with complete abandon. They are oblivious to the harm they cause in their zeal to achieve their goals. Nowhere is this more evident than what has become known as the settler movement. Although devout in both practice and ideology, they nevertheless endanger the lives of their own people and the very existence of the land which they are so devoted to

But as ideological purists, they deny that reality. They forge ahead with full speed and determination to reach what they see as the fulfillment of God’s word - their destiny as Jews.

There is little more abhorrent to me than extremism. It is ugly. And when extremist views are rooted in religious ideology, people die. This is, in fact, why Hamas does what it does. Their religious ideology tells them that Jews are their version of Amalek. We therefore deserve to die. Every Jew they kill is a  ‘mitzvah’ to them. (Which is why they were screaming ‘Allah Hu  Akbar’ (God is great) when on October 7, they carried out the most violent and massive massacre of Jewish people since the Holocaust.

Unfortunately, we have some extremists who act in a similar vein. They, too, believe that violence in pursuit of settling all the land of Israel is justified. While they do not rise anywhere near the level of Hamas, they resort to their own version of violence in the name of God. They are a tiny minority of the Religious Zionist movement. But there are enough of them to cause great damage to our national soul and great harm to our people.

To be clear: I am not talking about the vast majority of Jews living in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank).  They live in long-established cities there and are peaceful. They do not wish harm upon the Palestinians living in nearby villages. They go about their daily lives just like any Jew living within the pre-’67 borders. Most have lived there for decades without incident.

I am talking about what has come to be known simply as ‘the settlers’. They are distinct and apart from the peaceful residents of Judea and Samaria. These people are inciters of violence. Their goal is to drive Palestinians out of the areas of Eretz Yisroel they have inhabited for generations. They believe the land must be reclaimed - by force if necessary. The consequences be damned. What they may end up accomplishing, however, may very well be the destruction of the Jewish state.

Almost as troubling are the people who try to defend these settlers. Often one hears comments like: ‘Don’t believe everything you read’. Or these are all lies perpetrated by the left which the biased  mainstream media. reports as fact without verification.

I’m sure that’s true some of the time. But it is certainly not true all of the time. There is abundant evidence that these ‘settlers’ are true believers’ And could not care less what the world thinks - as they proceeded with purity of purpose. 

Their apologists are defending the indefensible. thereby aiding and abetting people that could bring disaster upon the Jewish state and its people in very short order.

These defenders forget where Israel gets the military equipment it uses so effectively to defend themselves. Israel doesn’t manufacture a single F-16. Without an air force, where would Israel be? That military strength comes from a steadfast ally whose current leadership is the most pro-Israel in its history.

When the most pro-Israel Secretary of State in American history, Marco Rubio sees this kind of thing happening and complains – that does not instill confidence in our future relationship with the US. It is suicidal to think US support doesn’t matter. Or that ‘the world hates us anyway - so who cares what they think! Without the US, Israel would have no air force at all. 

Even though there is a valuable strategic relationship between our two countries where the US benefits as well, nothing is guaranteed. It certainly doesn’t help to get on the wrong side of the best and perhaps only real ally Israel has. The U.S. is not blind to atrocities committed by these settlers. As noted by JTA:

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said violence in the West Bank, which is surging, could undercut the fragile ceasefire in Gaza, which the United States is working to preserve.

“Certainly there’s some concern about events in the West Bank spilling over and creating an effect that could undermine what we’re doing in Gaza,” Rubio told reporters on Wednesday.

U.S. officials are paying close attention, with alarm, to conditions in the West Bank, where Israeli settlers have increased their pace of attacks on Palestinians in recent months. Masked settlers attacked Palestinians in two villages on Wednesday, drawing an unusual rebuke from Israel’s president.

Thankfully, Israel’s leadership realizes that these zealots are doing enormous damage to Israel.  And they not having any of it:

“The harsh events that took place this evening in the Shomron by a handful of violent and dangerous individuals are shocking and serious,” Israeli President Isaac Herzog said in a statement. “Such violence against civilians and against IDF soldiers crosses a red line and I condemn it severely. All state authorities must act decisively to eradicate the phenomenon and to strengthen the IDF fighters and security forces who protect us day and night.”

The question remains: what do we do about these people? 

Severely condemning them is not enough. I used to think that convicting them of their crimes and putting them in prison for a long time was the answer. But that will only motivate other ‘settlers’ like them who have not yet participated in these kinds of incidents – to go even further.

The time has come to consider expulsion. Anyone found guilty of trying to forcefully expel Palestinians from their homes in Judea and Samaria should themselves be permanently expelled from the land of Israel.  With a warning that the same fate awaits anyone else who is convicted of it.

The people of Israel must be protected from the consequences of these religious zealots. I have come to believe that the only way to assure they will never again endanger the very existence of the State of Israel is to make sure they no longer have a connection to it.

Where will they go?  They can go live in New Jersey. 

Emes Ve-Emunah is now available at substack. To receive posts and comment you must subscribe. It's free.

Admiring Charedim with Faint Praise

Charedi children in Jerusalem (TOI)

I get where he’s coming from. I understand what he’s trying to do and I applaud him for  trying. In fact, I have said some of those same things myself. But I’m afraid that Rabbi Yisroel Motzen’s attempt has failed to accomplish his goal.

In a noble attempt to overcome the increasing enmity between Charedim and most of the rest of Israel over the former’s refusal to serve in the army, Rabbi Motzen suggests we look at the positive - what we can all learn from them. He lists four areas where they seem to excel over the rest of us. But if one reads his praise carefully, one can see that he isn’t quite as admiring as he tries to sound.

First is his admiration for their family size:

While Jewish law allows for birth control, Haredi society places a premium on large families. They choose to bring children—many Jewish children—into this world. While those blessed with the ability to bear children in the rest of the Orthodox world weigh considerations like finances and other priorities before having more children, this society is willing to live in two-bedroom apartments, with limited means, so they can bring more life into this world. That’s a choice they make, and it’s a noble one.

There is certainly much to praise about bringing many Jewish children into the world. But as Rabbi Motzen also notes, Jewish law allows for birth control too. The problem arises when birth control is not used where it should be. 

While most parents with large families do quite well raising their children, too often there are parents who not emotionally equipped to handle the enormous demands of raising many young children, along with the cost of educating them. Which places their children at great risk. Not only for remaining observant, but even becoming victims of drug addiction, clinical depression, and even suicide. There is unfortunately a large population of former Charedim that have become victims of this culture. Which has given rise to Orthodox rehab organizations like Amudim.

Using birth control in the Charedi community typically requires asking a Posek for permission. My understanding is that Chasidic Poskim are the most stringent and rarely issue such permits. The Yeshiva world, more commonly, does issue permits - but usually based on  health considerations. Depending on the Posek, the definition of what kind of health issues would qualify for that vary widely. 

Some do not give sufficient weight to mental health, which is a gray area with little consensus about when birth control should be permitted. As much as I admire large families whose children thrive - and in some cases eventually become great leaders in Israel, I cannot admire the simple fact that a family is large. And I should add that large families are not the exclusive domain of Charedim.

The second thing Rabbi Motzen admires is their modesty standards.

Here too, I question why he does not admire the modesty standards of Jews across all Orthodox sectors who observe the laws of modesty. What he seems to be saying is that the excessive modesty characteristic of the Charedi world (including an example he personally experienced) is worthy of admiration even while he acknowledges: There is a dark underbelly to some of these practices.

There certainly is. And I would argue that this ‘underbelly’ does more harm than good. A subject I have discussed extensively. The decision, for example, by mainstream Charedi publications to no longer publish pictures of women, and other measures that effectively erase women from the public square, are prime examples. I’m sorry. There is little about excess that I can admire. That certainly includes excess modesty.

The third thing he admires is their ‘aversion to the outside world’.

He wonders who is really better off spiritually: someone like himself who is immersed in the culture, or the Charedi Jew whose ‘yearning for purity… refuses to get a smartphone’.

But spiritual purity is not denied to people who participate in worldly matters. One can chew gum and walk. If someone is able to relax and recharge through permissible cultural activities - and thereby serve God with a more positive frame of mind - that should enhance their Avodas Hashem. If someone can serve God without any such outlets, God bless them. But if someone needs a way to relax in order to move forward, that does not - and should not - detract from reaching spiritual heights.

The fourth thing he mentions is indeed something to admire:

94% of those raised Haredi identify as Orthodox, whereas only 54% of those raised Dati Leumi remain Orthodox. For all the flaws—and there are many—they are doing something right.

If those numbers are anywhere near accurate, that is indeed an admirable aspect of the Charedi world. How to improve those numbers across all communities is beyond my pay scale. But it should be a top priority for religious leaders.

At the end of the day, I sense that Rabbi Motzen is just as upset as I am about how Charedi leadership is handling the draft issue. His purpose in writing this essay was to try to highlight their positive side. And yes - they do have a positive side. But the way he framed it almost comes off like backhanded praise. Except for that last item, there isn’t that much in what he lists to admire.

Emes Ve-Emunah is now available at substack. To receive posts and comment you must subscribe. It's free.

If Everyone Just Sits and Learns...

Rav Aharon Feldman

It was the best of times and the worst of times. Charles Dickens’ opening line from his classic work A Tale of Two Cities could not have been more prophetic for the Jewish people in our time. While I applaud the positive developments that resulted from the war, my spirits are not lifted. I am profoundly disappointed by the negative ones.

I am not talking about the military victories Israel’s armed forces have achieved over the last two years. The fruits of those victories have changed the face of the Middle East for the better in ways that no one could have ever imagined. But as exhilarating as that is, it came at a very high cost — both in Israeli blood and in the increased world enmity toward Israel and the Jewish people. It is no coincidence that there has been a spike in antisemitism because of that.

But that is not what I was referring to. I was referring to the impact on Israelis by the event that precipitated the war. Israelis that were not particularly observant if at all. Tragedies like the massacre of 1,200 Jews on October 7^th tend to unite all of us as a people and open up a clear path toward outreach. Without getting into details, there was a huge spike in mitzvah observance among Israelis from a variety of backgrounds. This enabled increased and successful outreach on a scale not seen since the 6-day war in 1967. On that level, it is the best of times.

But here comes the worst of times. Honestly, as good as I should feel about the increased interest in observance, the ‘worst of times’ is so depressing that it overwhelms any positive feeling I might otherwise have.

I have no illusions about how divided the Jewish people are. This has been the case for as far back as I can remember. I am not talking about the division sowed by breakaway movements like Reform and Conservative. Sad as that is, at least it is understandable why observant Judaism rejects philosophies that either deny the mandatory nature of Halacha or bend it to fit the times. I am talking about the increased divide within observant Judaism. That is what aggravates me now more than ever.

This is not a new phenomenon. There have always been differences among observant Jews who had different ways of understanding the Torah’s demands. While those differences were often quite strong, we somehow always managed to get along. We lived together as one family;  in the same neighborhoods; davening in the same shuls; sending our children to the same or similar schools; intermarrying with each other; and generally trusting each other on matters of kashrus.

On that last point, nowhere was this kind of integration more evident than in the OU, where halachic questions about supervised products were decided jointly by a Torah Vodaath Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Yisroel Belsky, and a YU Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Hershel Schachter. Both respected each other’s decisions as those of knowledgeable Talmidei Chachamim and devout Jews.

It has become apparent to me that this kind of cross-fertilization may soon come to an end. Aall because of what’s going on in Israel right now. The issue is the Charedi leadership's refusal to allow any of their young men to be drafted into army service. While there may be some willing to compromise, it has become increasingly more common for Charedi rabbinic leaders to reject any army service at all, even for Charedim who do not learn in any yeshiva.

Ironically, the reason for this strident opposition was succinctly stated by Rav Aharon Feldman, Rosh Yeshiva of Ner Israel, probably the most moderate Charedi yeshiva in America. As noted in the following:

One prominent representative of this group is R. Yitzchak Yosef, former Sephardic Chief Rabbi. He has insisted that no Charedi person should enlist, whether or not they are in yeshiva; he also declared they will leave the country instead.

R. Aharon Feldman, along with R. Malkiel Kotler and R. Elya Ber Wachtfogel, wrote a letter to R. Yitzchak Yosef wholeheartedly endorsing his approach, describing it as “the only true approach.”

Why does he feel that way? Because he believes that “at least half” of religious Jews who join the IDF abandon mitzvah observance.

I don’t question Rabbi Feldman’s sincerity. But I do question where he gets his information. First, there is the Hesder Yeshiva program. I do not believe that half of those soldiers ‘abandon mitzvah observance’. If any at all do.

But even without factoring in Hesder, the IDF has established Charedi military units where Charedim can serve without compromising their values.

The complaints I sometimes hear about the IDF not living up to its promises to Charedim are beyond ridiculous. In most cases, these are mistakes that the IDF is happy to correct. Surely it is not their intent  to undermine Charedi recruits - thereby discouraging any further Charedi enlistment. The intent was to increase recruitment among a community that is extremely under-recruited. 

Why would they undermine a program designed to solve such a serious IDF manpower problem? And in cases where these ‘mistakes’ were deliberate, I doubt they were the actions of anyone other than a tiny minority of IDF commanding officers with extreme animus towards Charedim.

Rav Hershel Schachter

And then there is this. Rav Hershel Schachter was recorded saying that the recent anti-draft prayer rally was utterly ridiculous. The country is at war! And no one wants to go to the army? No one from YU would participate in such an atzeret. The(Charedi leaders in Israel) are big Talmidei Chachamim. But they exaggerate so much that nothing else counts for them. Torah is important. The war is important. Everything is important. They shouldn’t exaggerate that everything depends only on Torah. The Jewish people have to have an army. If everyone just sits and learns, the enemy is going to kill all of us.”

I agree with Rav Schachter. These Charedi leaders do exaggerate. And completely ignore the reality that: ‘If everyone just sits and learns, the enemy is going to kill all of us.’

Do Rav Feldman and company not believe this? Do they think Rav Schachter is now an Azuz Panim - an apikores even? Will the exponentially growing Charedi world now throw Modern Orthodoxy and Religious Zionism into the trash heap of history along with Conservative and Reform Judaism?

I would never have thought this possible. But at this point, who knows. 

That being said, I don’t think we are there yet. Hopefully we never will be. But we are heading in that direction. And unless someone with enough stature in the Charedi world steps up and says, ‘The emperor is wearing no clothes’ we may eventually get there. A lot sooner than anyone thinks.

What Does It Mean to Be Modern Orthodox?

Bernard Revel, founding president of YU

Orthodox Judaism encompasses a wide range of people who identify with that term. Yet in recent years, it has become increasingly divisive within the Modern Orthodox community itself. This division stems largely from a relatively new phenomenon known as Open Orthodoxy (OO) — a movement that claims the mantle of Modern Orthodoxy. Its ideas have proven so controversial that many mainstream Orthodox rabbis and institutions do not consider it part of Orthodoxy at all.

The debate continues, even though most Modern Orthodox Jews do not identify as Open Orthodox. Still, OO has become an established movement, with its own schools, synagogues, and rabbis. Because of the confusion this has created, I thought it would be useful to clarify what I believe Modern Orthodoxy truly is — and what it is not.

Let us start by defining Orthodox Judaism itself. At its core, Orthodox Judaism describes Jews who follow Halacha — the laws of the Torah as interpreted by rabbis throughout the generations. Although Orthodoxy includes many subgroups, it can broadly be divided into two main streams: Charedi (right-wing) and Modern Orthodox Judaism.

Charedi Judaism is characterized by an intense commitment to observing all mitzvos of the Torah at the most exacting level. Over the centuries, many halachic debates have remained unresolved. When faced with two legitimate halachic opinions — one lenient and one stringent — Charedim generally follow the stricter ruling to minimize any risk of transgression.

This desire to maintain a more spiritual exitence often leads to avoiding secular environments and influences that might detract from religious devotion. Some Charedim live in communities largely separated from wider society, interacting with it only when necessary for livelihood or health. The ideal Charedi life is centered on Torah study, which they regard as the highest mitzvah. Consequently, secular studies are often minimized or even discouraged. Charedim also tend to look to the leading rabbis of each generation as the ultimate authorities. Not only in religious matters. Not only  in public and communal policy. But often in personal matters as well.

While this is a simplified summary, it captures, I think, the general orientation of the Charedi worldview.

Modern Orthodoxy is equally devoted to Halacha, yet differs in several key ways. It does not automatically embrace the strictest halachic position and often (though not always) relies on more lenient rulings within halachic boundaries. Modern Orthodox Jews engage freely with the broader world and its culture — provided it does not conflict with Halacha.

While Torah study remains a core value, Modern Orthodoxy also places a high value on secular education, believing that knowledge of the world can enhance one’s service to God and society. Modern Orthodox Jews are more likely to make personal decisions in areas unrelated to Halacha  without always consulting rabbinic authority.

That has long been my understanding of Modern Orthodoxy. Although there are nuanced variations - such as Torah Im Derech Eretz versus Torah U’Mada - the common denominator is a commitment to Halacha alongside meaningful engagement with modernity. Both approaches honor the mesorah - the sacred traditions passed down through generations and deeply rooted in Jewish culture.

In recent years, however, some have sought to redefine Modern Orthodoxy in ways that depart dramatically from tradition. Open Orthodoxy, in particular, has moved so far to the left that it scarcely resembles a traditional Orthodox lifestyle. Among its departures are the ordination of women, full acceptance of the LGBTQ agenda, and — in some cases — an openness to modern biblical scholarship that allows for human authorship of the Torah.

For those of us who adhere to traditional definitions, this rebranding is unacceptable. Consequently, many of us identify instead as Centrists. We reject Open Orthodoxy’s claim to represent modern Orthodoxy. Yet because its adherents assert that they observe Halacha, they continue to describe themselves that way.

I am not in a position to excommunicate OO from Orthodoxy -  though both the Charedi world and many Centrists have already done so. Still, I refuse to cede the title ‘Modern Orthodox’ to Open Orthodoxy. I don’t think they qualify for that description at all.

Which leaves Centrism as the true Modern Orthodoxy in my view. Centrism is the authentic heir to the Modern Orthodox tradition. Centrism embodies full commitment to Halacha and mesorah, while also valuing Torah-guided engagement with the modern world.

That, I believe, is the true essence of Modern Orthodoxy. And I am confident that Yeshiva University, the flagship institution of the Modern Orthodox movement, would define it that way too.

Emes Ve-Emunah is now available at substack. To receive posts and comment you must subscribe. It's free.

 

The Future of Jews in America

For as long as I can remember, the Democratic Party has been broadly pro-Israel. But that support was often conditional. The moment there was a policy or Israeli leader that did not align with American policies on Israel, enthusiasm quickly cooled.

The Republican Party, by contrast, wasn’t always that supportive of Israel. But in recent years, that has changed dramatically. Republican support has become both consistent and deep. When the media questions most GOP leaders about their support for Israel, their responses leave little doubt about their commitment. Much of this comes from the party’s conservative base. Particularly Evangelical Christians - whose support for Israel often exceeds that of many (even pro-Israel) Jews.

As a Jew, I long took comfort in the bipartisan nature of that support. It gave me a sense of security, even pride, in knowing that my ancestral homeland was admired by both major parties. Antisemitism certainly existed, but it was relegated to the fringes of society. Rarely seen and never accepted in the mainstream.

That feeling has begun to change.

Let me be clear: I still believe in the vision expressed by President George Washington in his 1790 letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island:

“May the Children of the Stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants… For happily the Government of the United States gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.”

But Israel’s defensive war in Gaza, following the Hamas massacre of October 7^th, has unleashed a reaction among many Americans that challenges that ethos.

A bit of history for purposes of context.

Ever since the Six-Day War, when Israel recaptured Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), it has been accused of oppressing Arab refugees - people who had lived in squalid conditions under Jordanian rule after the 1948 War of Independence until 1967. The world was silent about their suffering then, but once Israel assumed control, the blame shifted instantly to the Jewish state.

Around that time, those Arab refugees began calling themselves ‘Palestinians’. A few years later, in 1970, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) hijacked a commercial flight and held its passengers hostage. An act that led to modern airport security. The PLO’s goal was explicit: the destruction of Israel and its replacement by a Palestinian state.

That was the beginning of a decades-long propaganda campaign that has successfully vilified Israel. Over time, the narrative evolved: Israel was labeled an ‘apartheid state’, and the BDS movement—Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions—emerged, advocating policies that would, in effect, dismantle Israel.

This narrative found fertile ground in academia, where diversity initiatives brought in faculty - some Palestinian, many from the far left - who embraced and promoted the Palestinian cause. The far-left worldview tends to divide the world into ‘oppressors’ and ‘oppressed’.” In that framework, Israel could only be the oppressor, and the Palestinians the victims. Who, after all, wants to side with an oppressor?

That mindset has deeply influenced university culture, where student governments across the country have passed resolutions supporting BDS.

As the Gaza war progressed, those voices grew louder. The relentless images of devastation (women weeping, children bloodied, cities reduced to rubble) have had a profound emotional effect. Unless one knows the history and context of the conflict, it is easy, even natural, to feel sympathy for Palestinians and anger at Israel.

And so we return to America’s two political parties. Many Democrats have now fully internalized the anti-Israel narrative and have become far more sympathetic to Palestinians. Which ends up giving tacit legitimacy to figures like Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, who openly question Israel’s right to exist.

With Zohran Mandami, an avowedly anti-Israel Democratic socialist now elected mayor of America’s largest city, this shift poses serious long-term consequences for Israel’s bipartisan support. The Democratic Party faces a defining choice: follow the progressive path that appeals to younger voters, or hold to the centrist tradition that has long characterized its mainstream.

Republicans, meanwhile, remain overwhelmingly pro-Israel. But the antisemitism that once festered only on the far right has begun to reappear in more mainstream conservative circles. Encouraged by popular media figures and, disturbingly, by a few members of Congress such as Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie.

When extremists in America on both the far left and far right converge in hostility toward Israel, there can be only one conclusion: we are witnessing antisemitism, plain and simple, whatever denials are offered.

So where do we go from here? Will Democrats continue their leftward drift? Will Americans embrace socialism as New Yorkers just did? And will some conservatives continue to mask antisemitism as mere ‘anti-Zionism’? Or will pro-Israel leaders like Speaker Mike Johnson and Secretary of State Marco Rubio define the future of their movement?

My instinct tells me that moderation will ultimately prevail in the Democratic party. And that the pro-Israel factions will continue to dominate the thinking of fair minded conservatives. The Mamdanis and Carlsons of American politics will fade from influence. Sooner rather than later. Hopefully. And now that the war is over, Israel’s positive reputation - earned over decades of good works - will be restored.

For despite the turmoil of the moment, I still believe in the blessing of America that George Washington described so beautifully:

“May the Children of the Stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants, while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

Emes Ve-Emunah is now available at substack. To receive posts and comment you must subscribe. It's free. 

When The 'Gold Standard' in News Coverage Lies

Former BBC News CEO, Deborah Turness (JTA)

How much is public opinion shaped by the mainstream media? Turns out the answer is: a lot.

I’ve made no secret of my growing awareness of just how biased the media has become. A fact made abundantly clear over the last two years by their coverage of the war in Gaza. I’ve always known the media had bias. After all, the people reporting and editing the news are human beings with their own opinions. No matter how hard they try, that bias inevitably creeps into how a story is told.

Still, I had always given them the benefit of the doubt, believing their bias wasn’t intentional. That there was at least an honest attempt to present both sides.

That perception vanished quickly during the early stages of the war, when the media almost invariably presented events through the eyes of Palestinian correspondents stationed in Gaza. Some of those correspondents, it was later discovered, had actual connections to Hamas - the very terrorists Israel was fighting. Others were UN-affiliated individuals whose bias against Israel is nothing new.

This, in my view, is one of the primary (though not the only) reasons that American public support for the Jewish state has diminished so sharply over the last couple of  years.

Some will argue that pictures don’t lie. That images of the devastation caused by Israeli airstrikes spoke for itself. The images of blood-covered bodies, seen in nearly every report, were accompanied by Hamas-supplied casualty numbers, embellished to suggest that most of the victims were women and children. These numbers were reported without question. The media insisted they were merely “doing their job” by shining a light on the carnage.

Yet there was virtually no mention of how many of those ‘innocent’ casualties were actually Hamas operatives. Or that Hamas terrorists deliberately embedded themselves within civilian enclaves such as hospitals and schools, precisely to maximize casualties and ensure Israel took the blame for ‘indiscriminate’ killing.

But some outlets went far beyond mere bias. Some flat-out lied - accusing Israel of atrocities they knew had never happened. The worst offender was, ironically, the most respected news organization on the planet: the BBC.

Yes, the BBC—an outlet that even the New York Times can’t match in global prestige. Those of us who pay attention already knew about that bias, but the BBC’s influence is so vast that other outlets uncritically buy what it sells. Its credibility gives cover to its distortions.

Recently, this bias was exposed by The Telegraph, a conservative British newspaper, which laid out in detail how the BBC knowingly misled the public. The evidence was incontrovertible: they presented lies as truth, and the rest of the global media followed suit. JTA reported the following:

“The head of BBC and its top news executive have quit amid allegations that the network misled viewers in coverage of President Donald Trump and the Gaza war…
The BBC’s director general Tim Davie and CEO of News Deborah Turness resigned on Sunday after a leaked report by Michael Prescott, a former standards adviser to the broadcaster, accused it of anti-Trump and anti-Israel bias.

Prescott’s memo accused BBC Arabic of choosing to ‘minimize Israeli suffering’ to ‘paint Israel as the aggressor’ in Gaza. The BBC previously faced backlash for failing to identify the narrator of a Gaza documentary as the son of a Hamas official, and for using a contributor who had publicly said Jews should be burned ‘as Hitler did.’ The network was also criticized for livestreaming a Glastonbury performance of the punk group Bob Vylan, which included chants of ‘Death to the IDF.’”

The BBC is infested with anti-Israel bias, yet it gets away with it because – it’s the BBC. Beyond reproach. The  ‘gold standard’ of fair and balanced reporting. The American media tends to take the BBC’s word as gospel and reports it the same way. Thus the damage multiplies.

Making matters worse, many people - especially the young - don’t even rely on mainstream outlets anymore. They get their ‘news’ from social media platforms or podcasts run by charismatic personalities whose opinions masquerade as truth.

Still, the influence of the mainstream media remains enormous. A recent example illustrates this perfectly: a poll found that more Americans blamed Republicans than Democrats for the government shutdown. Even though it was the Democrats who voted against every Republican attempt to reopen it.

That’s an indisputable fact. Democrats held the country hostage. Using the shutdown as leverage to pressure Republicans into funding the Affordable Care Act. Even if their cause was just, the shutdown hurt ordinary Americans, especially the poor, who were deprived of food assistance through SNAP (food stamps). Yet whenever Democratic politicians were interviewed, they called it a ‘Republican shutdown’. And the left leaning media rarely pushed back.

The result? The majority of American voters came away believing that Republicans were to blame. Hence the those poll numbers. Fortunately 8 Senate Democrats with a conscience broke ranks yesterday and voted with Republicans to reopen the government. But I’m sure the impression stuck: ‘Republicans were starving the poor.’

If there was ever proof of how powerful media bias can be, this is it. And if the public can be so easily misled about domestic politics that affects their daily lives, how can we expect them to see the truth about Israel?

I don’t know how to change the hearts and minds of a public so dependent on media narratives. But recognizing the problem is a start.

There are, thankfully, some hopeful signs. The resignations of top BBC officials is one. Another is the reported purchase of The Washington Post by conservative entrepreneur, Jeff Bezos, which has already had to a rare editorial that actually assigned blame correctly in the shutdown. Likewise, CBS’s acquisition by Skydance -whose CEO is pro-Israel and who appointed the pro-Israel Bari Weiss to oversee its news division. Exposing the BBC and changes to 2 big media outlets are all positive developments.

And it’s no small thing that the anti-Israel bias that has long permeated academia has finally been addressed by the Trump administration. Their efforts have borne fruit. Universities like Columbia and Cornell have now expanded their antisemitism initiatives. In return government funding for their research programs has been restored.

We have a long way to go. But with these developments, we may have just turned a significant corner. Perhaps the media’s coverage will, at last, begin to resemble something closer to balance.

We shall see. 

Emes Ve-Emunah is now available at substack. To receive posts and comment you must subscribe. It's free. 

How Pro-Israel Is Trump, Really?

That question has been asked rhetorically by many who believe Donald Trump is not as pro-Israel as some people think. That he could turn on Israel on a dime. I don’t agree. I believe the Trump administration has been one of the best things ever to happen to Israel.

That statement will no doubt draw guffaws from Trump’s detractors., who love to point out that he has often been strongly critical of Israel. Far more than Democratic presidents like Joe Biden. But while that might seem true on the surface, when you look at the overall picture, Trump’s consistent and unconditional support versus Biden’s cautious and qualified backing — the contrast is striking.

A recent JTA article by Ron Kampeas explored this issue, noting that Trump’s criticism of Netanyahu was far harsher than Biden’s ever was. And yet Netanyahu took it in stride, whereas Biden’s milder criticism was met with tension and even anger. Kampeas quoted Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, who cited examples of Trump (who unlike Biden) has an underlying antipathy toward Israel. Such as his brokering a deal with the Houthi militia in Yemen that allowed it to continue attacking Israeli ships, and his visit to Qatar,  a Hamas backer, while skipping Israel on a Middle East tour:

“Trump has actually pushed Netanyahu quite a bit and used sharp language in the process,” she said. “He was emphatic in saying that Israel should not annex the West Bank. Now, it’s not that I disagree with that position, but he warned that Israel would lose ‘all support from the United States’ if it did. That kind of language would have been wholly unacceptable coming from a Democrat.”

There are other examples like this. And yet Netanyahu has said that this administration is the most pro-Israel in U.S. history. How can that be? And why do I agree?

For one thing, Biden’s support for Israel at the outset of the Gaza war came with strings attached. From the very beginning and repeatedly he urged Israel to exercise restraint, and when he decided Israel had gone too far, he withheld critical weapons shipments. That limited Israel’s ability to achieve its military objectives.

Trump, on the other hand, never placed restrictions on Israel’s tactics in Gaza. His overall policies with respect to the Middle ‘East in general and Israel in particular led to several positive outcomes no previous administration managed to achieve: The relocation of the US embassy to Jerusalem, the release of all remaining hostages; the end of the war with Hamas; and a broad ceasefire agreement that has given Israel far greater control in Gaza than anyone thought possible. Not to mention the creation and  continued expansion of the Abraham Accords, with yet another Muslim country recently joining the circle of peace.

Then there was Trump’s unprecedented speech to the Knesset - overflowing with praise for Netanyahu’s leadership and Israel’s military prowess. His admiration for Israel was unmistakable, and it was reciprocated — even by members of Netanyahu’s opposition. In Israel, Trump is seen as a hero. Biden? Not so much.

When you have a deep personal relationship with someone, you can criticize them out of goodwill. Trump wants to see a prosperous Middle East, a strong Israel - free of terrorist organizations like Hamas. That’s why he has given Israel the green light to eliminate Hamas if it crosses his red lines (but otherwise to leave them alone). He doesn’t want to upend the ceasefire or jeopardize the chance for a broader peace between Israel and her Arab neighbors. A peace that might even include some limited self-governance for the Palestinians - though the phrase ‘Palestinian state’ has vanished from the conversation. The fact that much of the world, even those once hostile to Israel, now supports this vision is a remarkable diplomatic achievement.

So when Netanyahu’s far-right coalition partners do something reckless — like voting to annex the West Bank — of course the president will be angry. Vice President JD Vance rightly called it stupid and insulting. Netanyahu said in response to that reaction that the vote to annex was ‘a deliberate political provocation by the opposition to sow discord during the Vice President’s visit to Israel’. Netanyahu’s rebuke of them wasn’t submission to Trump. It was leadership and responsibility.

Similarly, when Israel attacked Hamas leadership on Qatari soil, Trump’s anger was understandable. Israel wanted to demonstrate its ability to strike its enemies anywhere . And it succeeded in sending that message, even if the mission didn’t fully achieve its goal. 

The president on the other hand sees Qatar playing a vital role in his peace plan and they were instrumental in securing hostage releases. Attacking them undermined that strategy. Netanyahu’s apology didn’t erase Israel’s message; it simply honored the president’s request and preserved a key diplomatic relationship.

There have been other times when Trump’s language toward Israel or Netanyahu was sharp. But his core belief has never. wavered: that Israel has the right to exist securely as a Jewish state and that the Middle East can - and should - become a region of stability and prosperity for all its inhabitants. His respect for Netanyahu’s leadership remains intact, despite moments of tension where harsh words were used.

Yes, previous administrations supported Israel. But none have shown the depth of personal commitment and strategic alignment demonstrated by this one. That support helped free the hostages, end the fighting, and strengthen Israel’s regional standing.

Of course, we can’t ignore the antisemitic elements that have tried to creep into Trump’s conservative base Some of whom have very powerful influences. But despite their huge following and a couple of high profile conservative politicians that have defended them. I believe they have  been successfully marginalized as being outside the mainstream.

As long as Trump is the head of his conservative base, Israel will not be abandoned. And antisemitism will not be tolerated.

Meanwhile, We are a long way from peace in the Middle East. Much still needs to happen. But maybe — just maybe we are on a path towards that long-sought after but elusive peace. And maybe it finally has a chance to  come to fruition. Maybe even in my lifetime, God willing.

Emes Ve-Emunah is now available at substack. To receive posts and comment you must subscribe. It's free.