It seems that I may have been in error about the following post as it was first written. I have therefore adjusted it accordingly. It was an honest mistake based on the fact that it was reported in a column that deals with rabbinic leaders in the Torah world and the name was identical to that of a famous Rosh HaYeshiva. Since the columnist in question is an Orthodox Rabbi himself, I had no reason to question it’s veracity. It is quite possible that the Ephraim Wachsman of this column although an author of a new Sefer, is not the same Ephraim Wachsman who is the Rosh HaYeshiva in Monsey. If so, I apologize for the error.
But I do not want to let of the columnist who reported this story completely off the hook. He had an obligation to make clear that the subject of his article was not the same person as a famous Rosh HaYeshiva of the same name. In not making that distinction it has led who knows how many people to make the same mistake I did. This is unfair to both of these two individuals, if they are indeed two. The post I originally wrote was based on that erroneous understanding. The point of the essay is the same but with a slightly different slant.
As for my obligation to verify the facts of what I comment on, I am not a journalist. I do not have the means nor the time to do that. I rely on the integrity of the journalists who I comment upon to live up to their journalistic duty. Most journalists in major publications are responsible that way. Mistakes are certainly made by all and sometimes things are misreported. I’m sorry if my commentary is sometimes based on erroneous reporting. I do the best I can to comment honestly from my own perspective on things as they are reported by reputable journailsts and I try to admit mistakes when they happen. I have done so now.
Will this happen again? I hope not but it probably will and when it does I will make the necessary corrections.
Once again I apologize to anyone who was hurt by my erroneous commentary. It was not intentional.
The corrected post is now up.
Monday, July 09, 2007
The Ban that Never Was
There is an article in last week’s Jewish Press. This incident was eventually resolved favorably but the elements here are reminiscent of two events from several years ago that did not have such a happy ending.
Ephraim Waxman (incorrectly spelled Wachsman in the article and no relation to the Monsey Rosh HaYeshiva) has written a historical work entitled, ‘Medor Ledor’. He went to the trouble of getting endorsements from various rabbinic leaders, including the Karlsburger Rav and the Voidislaver Rav. The book went on sale. And wouldn’t you know it, some Askanim who bought it were shocked by what they read.
It contains the story of Shabsai Tzvi, one of the most infamous false messiahs of all time. In the span of two years, from his "coronation" in 1664 until his conversion to Islam in 1666, he created a major upheaval throughout the Jewish world. Many were duped by him and his followers, including great rabbinical figures. The controversy did not end even after his conversion to Islam. The Yaavitz, Rabbi Yaakov Emden, famously accused his contemporary, Rabbi Yonason Eibeshitz of being a closet Sabbatean. In fact there are still Sabbateans around today.
These Askanim/Kanaim were not going to let a book with such negative information to be distributed. So they ‘snitched’ on him. They went to one of the rabbis who gave his approbation. What happened was as follows (as reported in the Jewish Press):
“The Karlsburger Rav was alarmed and summoned the members of his beis din. He denounced the development and revealed that he did not personally review the sefer, but rather relied on the recommendation of the rav of the shul where the author is a congregant. He contacted the author’s rav and protested. The Karlsburger Rav then issued a letter categorically denouncing the inclusion of extraneous events in the history of Torah-true Judaism. The letter was widely distributed in shuls in Boro Park, Williamsburg, Flatbush, Monsey, Kiryas Yoel, and Lakewood.”
This was all published on the Front Page of Der Blatt , a Charedi Yiddish newspaper. One can well imagine Mr.Wachsman’s consternation at this turn of events.
Long story short, Rabbi Wachsman had met with the The Karlsburger Rav, had shown him the questionable passages and had received his approbation which included an explanation of the questionable passages and the reason for their inclusion. Rabbi Wachsman’s book and reputation were restored. This story had a happy ending for him.
But in two almost identical famous incidents from several years ago, the ending was not so happy. In one case that of Rabbi Natan Slifkin, his works were deemed heresy. In the other case, that of Rabbi Nosson Kaminetsky, it was deemed inappropriate for publication. In both instances the works were banned and the authors’ reputations besmirched. The authors wanted to meet with the rabbinic leader, Rav Elyashiv, to explain their books and the inclusion of the controversial material. In both cases, the Askanim/Kanaim got involved and it never happened. Not in either case. A great injustice was done.
I beleive that this story illuminates the way events of a few years ago very likely went awry. Had those Israeli Askanim/Kanaim then not blocked access by either Rabbi Kamnetsky or Rabbi Slifkin, things may have turned out a lot differently for both of them and for the entire Torah world.
Modified: 7/10/07 10:30 AM CDT
Ephraim Waxman (incorrectly spelled Wachsman in the article and no relation to the Monsey Rosh HaYeshiva) has written a historical work entitled, ‘Medor Ledor’. He went to the trouble of getting endorsements from various rabbinic leaders, including the Karlsburger Rav and the Voidislaver Rav. The book went on sale. And wouldn’t you know it, some Askanim who bought it were shocked by what they read.
It contains the story of Shabsai Tzvi, one of the most infamous false messiahs of all time. In the span of two years, from his "coronation" in 1664 until his conversion to Islam in 1666, he created a major upheaval throughout the Jewish world. Many were duped by him and his followers, including great rabbinical figures. The controversy did not end even after his conversion to Islam. The Yaavitz, Rabbi Yaakov Emden, famously accused his contemporary, Rabbi Yonason Eibeshitz of being a closet Sabbatean. In fact there are still Sabbateans around today.
These Askanim/Kanaim were not going to let a book with such negative information to be distributed. So they ‘snitched’ on him. They went to one of the rabbis who gave his approbation. What happened was as follows (as reported in the Jewish Press):
“The Karlsburger Rav was alarmed and summoned the members of his beis din. He denounced the development and revealed that he did not personally review the sefer, but rather relied on the recommendation of the rav of the shul where the author is a congregant. He contacted the author’s rav and protested. The Karlsburger Rav then issued a letter categorically denouncing the inclusion of extraneous events in the history of Torah-true Judaism. The letter was widely distributed in shuls in Boro Park, Williamsburg, Flatbush, Monsey, Kiryas Yoel, and Lakewood.”
This was all published on the Front Page of Der Blatt , a Charedi Yiddish newspaper. One can well imagine Mr.Wachsman’s consternation at this turn of events.
Long story short, Rabbi Wachsman had met with the The Karlsburger Rav, had shown him the questionable passages and had received his approbation which included an explanation of the questionable passages and the reason for their inclusion. Rabbi Wachsman’s book and reputation were restored. This story had a happy ending for him.
But in two almost identical famous incidents from several years ago, the ending was not so happy. In one case that of Rabbi Natan Slifkin, his works were deemed heresy. In the other case, that of Rabbi Nosson Kaminetsky, it was deemed inappropriate for publication. In both instances the works were banned and the authors’ reputations besmirched. The authors wanted to meet with the rabbinic leader, Rav Elyashiv, to explain their books and the inclusion of the controversial material. In both cases, the Askanim/Kanaim got involved and it never happened. Not in either case. A great injustice was done.
I beleive that this story illuminates the way events of a few years ago very likely went awry. Had those Israeli Askanim/Kanaim then not blocked access by either Rabbi Kamnetsky or Rabbi Slifkin, things may have turned out a lot differently for both of them and for the entire Torah world.
Modified: 7/10/07 10:30 AM CDT
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Debasing the Torah
What an embarrassment. That is the nicest thing I can say about these people. They are an embarrassment to Klal Yisroel . Why don’t they just go back to where they came from and leave the community of Beit Shemesh alone? They have very few challengers in causing Chilul HaShem amongst Jews who identify themselves as religious. Perhaps Neturei Karta.
The opening line in this article tells us: “Beit Shemesh's main street has become a battle zone between haredi residents and the police.” I read the article and just shook my head in disgust.
I understand their motives. The motives are sincere. Who wouldn’t want what they want… a community of like minded observant Jews who all have the same Hashkafos? A community who has the same goals, values, and stringencies about how to live one’s life in the most pure and pristine environment one can create.
What is so wrong, one might ask in doing that? Isn’t it the right of any group of citizens in a democracy to build a community based on their own values? Values they believe the Torah requires? A Torah lifestyle versus the secular lifestyle. If they move in to a community that lacks those values they must change the environment from one of Tumah, spiritual impurity, to one of Kedusha, holiness.
The problem is that that is not what they are doing. They did not move to an uninhabited area as did the residents of Monroe, Squaretown, or Kirayt Yoel in America. Nor did they move into a Kiryat Sefer or Bnei Brak in Israel and start from scratch. One does not have to agree with these communities to concede their right to build a community from scratch into a Makom Torah as they understand it. Kol HaKavod to those communities.
What this community of hooligans from Meah Shearim want is to move into a fully inhabited town of secular and religious Jews and turn it into another Meah Shearim. The residents of that town don’t want it to become another Meah Sherarim. But these Meah Shearim transplantees don’t care. And that is unconscionable.
They have absolutely no right to impose their standards on that community. Yet they are going to do whatever it takes to get that accomplished. So they move in take over the town imposing all their religious standards upon everyone religious and non religious alike. And when they are challenged about it by city police who removed an illegally placed sign about Tznius, the response is beyond arrogant. It is the kind of full blown hooliganism one would expect from inner city gangs. The following quote from one of their leaders expresses the attitude:
The mayor here thinks that if he removes the modesty plaques, more secular people will come," said Shmuel Haim Popenheim, spokesman of the haredi community, who lives in Beit Shemesh. "But he does not understand that every time the media reports burning trash cans and people being arrested, it keeps the secular people away for another 10 years."
The hatred by these Charedim of other Jews is palpable. This isn’t only about setting up standards of community decency. This about getting their way. The methods don’t matter and include massive protests, spray painting walls and buring dumpsters full of trash. They are not only imposing Orthodox standards upon the secular. They are imposing the extreme standards of Meah Shearim on other non Charedi Orthodox Jews that live there too.
If they are successful, they will have their Meah Shearim in Beit Shemesh. But at what price? They will have alienated all their secular neighbors who heretofore were probably at worst indifferent to Torah observance. They have created a whole new population of Torah haters. They will have alienated any non Charedi Orthodox Jew who does not want to live like a resident of Meah Shearim. And worst of all they created another massive Chilul HaShem. But they don’t care. They only care about themselves. Causing damage to city and private property, and in the process putting innocent bystanders in danger... all for the cause. It doesn’t matter. God is great!
This is not the first time people like this have shown who they really are. I do not believe one can anymore claim that these people are exceptions to the rule. There are just too many of them. Their leaders are talking about burning dumpsters and chasing decent citizens away from their communities… and even further away from Torah. I can barely imagine a Chilul HaShem bigger than this.
I have no sympathy for the religious needs of this community. None whatsoever! Not the way they are seeking to get it. They are a bunch of spoiled babies.
I have written about incidents like this in the past and have been criticized for it. I have been accused of bias: Everybody else is at fault, not the poor Charedim. They are innocent victims. The media is biased. The reporting isn’t fair. The police are brutal and pick only on Charedim. The secular hate us anyway. It isn't the Charedim... it's only a few hooligans. Well some of that may well be true. But if even a fraction of what has been reported by the media is true, I stand by what I say. This kind of behavior cannot be allowed to continue.
I’m not sure what to do about it except help spread the story. I know that some rabbinic leaders have spoken out against this kind of behavior in the past to no avail. But I can’t believe that it can’t be stopped. The problem is the leadership of this very community. I believe that they secretly condone it… or even encourage it. Just look at the statement by the Charedi leader quoted above. Besides it is not possible for so many people in so many different places to act this way when their leadership genuinely opposes it.
So when I hear the occasional denouncements from leaders in their communities I don’t believe them. They have the power to stop it. This mob violence is mostly that of Chasidim. They have Chasidic Rebbes that they venerate. Those Rebbes have to come out full force and completely condemn this behavior unequivocally. That’s the only thing that will work. And if they don’t do it themselves then rabbinic leaders from every other segment of Orthodoxy have to come out and not only condemn it but put pressure on them. These Chasidic Rebbes have been all too tepid in their denouncements. There has to be teeth in them. Sanctions have to be put in place. Strong ones!
We are one Jewish people. Not two. Or ten. We all have a stake in what happens in Beit Shemesh. Our leaders must be moved to speak out more forcefully about incidents like this when they happen. No apologetics. These people are taking our Torah and trashing it… all L’Shem Shamayim.
The opening line in this article tells us: “Beit Shemesh's main street has become a battle zone between haredi residents and the police.” I read the article and just shook my head in disgust.
I understand their motives. The motives are sincere. Who wouldn’t want what they want… a community of like minded observant Jews who all have the same Hashkafos? A community who has the same goals, values, and stringencies about how to live one’s life in the most pure and pristine environment one can create.
What is so wrong, one might ask in doing that? Isn’t it the right of any group of citizens in a democracy to build a community based on their own values? Values they believe the Torah requires? A Torah lifestyle versus the secular lifestyle. If they move in to a community that lacks those values they must change the environment from one of Tumah, spiritual impurity, to one of Kedusha, holiness.
The problem is that that is not what they are doing. They did not move to an uninhabited area as did the residents of Monroe, Squaretown, or Kirayt Yoel in America. Nor did they move into a Kiryat Sefer or Bnei Brak in Israel and start from scratch. One does not have to agree with these communities to concede their right to build a community from scratch into a Makom Torah as they understand it. Kol HaKavod to those communities.
What this community of hooligans from Meah Shearim want is to move into a fully inhabited town of secular and religious Jews and turn it into another Meah Shearim. The residents of that town don’t want it to become another Meah Sherarim. But these Meah Shearim transplantees don’t care. And that is unconscionable.
They have absolutely no right to impose their standards on that community. Yet they are going to do whatever it takes to get that accomplished. So they move in take over the town imposing all their religious standards upon everyone religious and non religious alike. And when they are challenged about it by city police who removed an illegally placed sign about Tznius, the response is beyond arrogant. It is the kind of full blown hooliganism one would expect from inner city gangs. The following quote from one of their leaders expresses the attitude:
The mayor here thinks that if he removes the modesty plaques, more secular people will come," said Shmuel Haim Popenheim, spokesman of the haredi community, who lives in Beit Shemesh. "But he does not understand that every time the media reports burning trash cans and people being arrested, it keeps the secular people away for another 10 years."
The hatred by these Charedim of other Jews is palpable. This isn’t only about setting up standards of community decency. This about getting their way. The methods don’t matter and include massive protests, spray painting walls and buring dumpsters full of trash. They are not only imposing Orthodox standards upon the secular. They are imposing the extreme standards of Meah Shearim on other non Charedi Orthodox Jews that live there too.
If they are successful, they will have their Meah Shearim in Beit Shemesh. But at what price? They will have alienated all their secular neighbors who heretofore were probably at worst indifferent to Torah observance. They have created a whole new population of Torah haters. They will have alienated any non Charedi Orthodox Jew who does not want to live like a resident of Meah Shearim. And worst of all they created another massive Chilul HaShem. But they don’t care. They only care about themselves. Causing damage to city and private property, and in the process putting innocent bystanders in danger... all for the cause. It doesn’t matter. God is great!
This is not the first time people like this have shown who they really are. I do not believe one can anymore claim that these people are exceptions to the rule. There are just too many of them. Their leaders are talking about burning dumpsters and chasing decent citizens away from their communities… and even further away from Torah. I can barely imagine a Chilul HaShem bigger than this.
I have no sympathy for the religious needs of this community. None whatsoever! Not the way they are seeking to get it. They are a bunch of spoiled babies.
I have written about incidents like this in the past and have been criticized for it. I have been accused of bias: Everybody else is at fault, not the poor Charedim. They are innocent victims. The media is biased. The reporting isn’t fair. The police are brutal and pick only on Charedim. The secular hate us anyway. It isn't the Charedim... it's only a few hooligans. Well some of that may well be true. But if even a fraction of what has been reported by the media is true, I stand by what I say. This kind of behavior cannot be allowed to continue.
I’m not sure what to do about it except help spread the story. I know that some rabbinic leaders have spoken out against this kind of behavior in the past to no avail. But I can’t believe that it can’t be stopped. The problem is the leadership of this very community. I believe that they secretly condone it… or even encourage it. Just look at the statement by the Charedi leader quoted above. Besides it is not possible for so many people in so many different places to act this way when their leadership genuinely opposes it.
So when I hear the occasional denouncements from leaders in their communities I don’t believe them. They have the power to stop it. This mob violence is mostly that of Chasidim. They have Chasidic Rebbes that they venerate. Those Rebbes have to come out full force and completely condemn this behavior unequivocally. That’s the only thing that will work. And if they don’t do it themselves then rabbinic leaders from every other segment of Orthodoxy have to come out and not only condemn it but put pressure on them. These Chasidic Rebbes have been all too tepid in their denouncements. There has to be teeth in them. Sanctions have to be put in place. Strong ones!
We are one Jewish people. Not two. Or ten. We all have a stake in what happens in Beit Shemesh. Our leaders must be moved to speak out more forcefully about incidents like this when they happen. No apologetics. These people are taking our Torah and trashing it… all L’Shem Shamayim.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Converting to Judaism
There is a fascinating interview in the Jerusalem Post with Professor Bemjamin Ish-Shalom. Until I read this article I never heard of him. But what he says resonates with me. Professor Ish-Shalom among other things is the head of an institution that educates potential converts to Judaism. He has quite a bit to say about how conversions to Judaism are being handled today. And this is one of the most divisive issues of our day.
The subject of conversions is mentioned in several places in the Gemarah, (e.g. Yevamos 24B). The parameters are outlined and spelled out including various disputes among the sages. The technical aspects of conversions are rather well known: a Bris Milah (circumcision) and immersion in a Mikvah for a man; and for a woman just an immersion. But when it comes to the required commitment to observe Halacha, things get a bit murky.
The procedure is pointed out in the Rambam (Hilchos Isurei Biah 13:14) and Shulchan Aruch (Yorah Deiah 268: 12). Basically we make certain that there is no financial or empowerment motive. We check that they do not do it out of fear or a desire to marry. We then point out the difficulty in observing the Mitzvos and that Jews have been singled out and persecuted throughout history. If they still desire to become a Jew, we accept them lovingly. But even if they are not made aware of the reward of observance of Mitzvos, and punishment for lack thereof, once they are circumcised (for men) and have immersed in a Mikvah, they are Jewish whether they observe the Mitzvos or not. There is no going back.
The conversion process is also discussed in the Gemarah. It struck me when I learned it a couple of weeks ago, as it does now that these requirements are not as I thought they were. The elements as outlined by Professor Ish-Shalom are exactly as the Gemarah said they are. We do not demand maximum observance immediately upon conversion. That would be an impossibility. We only demand a commitment to it. That is what the Gemarah indicates and what the Shuchan Aruch sets forth as Halacha.
The Gemarah tells us that after we warn them of all the difficulties and they still want to convert, we teach them some basics and convert them immediately. Once converted, they are Jewish. The conversion cannot be repealed once done. The only way a convert's Judaism can be denied, is if it is determined that they lied about their commitment to observance. If he or she meant it, then after conversion, it’s final. The convert is Jewish.
That makes me question the incident that generated much of the more recent discussion about religious conversions. About six months ago by Rabbi Avraham Atia annulled the fifteen year old conversion of an unobservant woman and thereby her children’s Judaism as well. His reason was that she was not sincere in her claim that she was willing to observe the Mitzvos as she had not been observant at all over that period. But as the Gemarah and the Shulchan Aruch seem to say, that is not the parameter. Once she was converted she is Jewish forever, no matter whether she observes or not. It is all about her intent at the time of her conversion, not her acts post fact.
Now I am not a Posek. And I’m sure Rabbi Atia had his reasons. But as Professor Ish-Shalom points out the elements of that woman’s conversion were in compliance with Halacha. It would take extra-ordinary circumstances to void a conversion fifteen years after the fact. It would seem from the Gemarah, the Rambam, and the Shulchan Aruch that her non observance is not halachicly valid proof that her statement at the time of conversion was not sincere. And this fact makes Rabbi Atia’s actions very troubling.
Professor Ish-Shalom wants to change things. He is sympathetic to the demands of Charedi Poskim. It is only right and proper to demand maximum Halachic observance, but not as a precondition he says. That would, he says, would make it impossible for the large influx of quasi Jews who have immigrated to Israel from the former Soviet Union to covert. In fact it would make it impossible for virtually anyone to convert.
The basic Halacha does not require maximum observance from a new convert at the moment of his or her conversion, as far as I know. And this stringency seems to be contributing to a crisis in world Jewry today. Intermarriage is at an all time high. Non Jews from the former Soviet Union who had a non Jewish mother but Jewish father have made Aliyah thinking they were Jews. Non observant through no fault of their own they nevertheless participated fully in the culture as Jews and are indistinguishable from secular Jews. Their children for all intents and purposes are identical in every way to their Jewish counterparts, speaking Hebrew, learning in the same schools, and serving in the army. Professor Ish-Shalom believes it is in the best interests of Klal Yisroel to convert as many of these people as soon as possible because a generation or two from now we will have no way of knowing who is a Jew and who isn’t.
This is one of the most important issues of our time. The repercussions are exactly as Professor Ish-Shalom describes it.
On the other hand I completely understand the position of the Charedi Poskim in not wanting to convert people who will not be observant. Acceptance of Mitzvah observance may in fact be insincere and converts may only be paying lip service to it as part of a ‘procedure’ never really intending to observe. That, in my view seems like a non starter for conversion.
I am not knowledgeable enough on this issue to weigh one concern against the other. I haven't thoroughly learned all the Halachic parameters of conversions.
But it would be nice to see some sort of uniformity and universality of procedure developed on how to handle all conversion situations that develop before, after, and during the conversion process… that are based on solid principles of Halacha and not politics... which seem to be the driving force in much of Judaism these days.
The subject of conversions is mentioned in several places in the Gemarah, (e.g. Yevamos 24B). The parameters are outlined and spelled out including various disputes among the sages. The technical aspects of conversions are rather well known: a Bris Milah (circumcision) and immersion in a Mikvah for a man; and for a woman just an immersion. But when it comes to the required commitment to observe Halacha, things get a bit murky.
The procedure is pointed out in the Rambam (Hilchos Isurei Biah 13:14) and Shulchan Aruch (Yorah Deiah 268: 12). Basically we make certain that there is no financial or empowerment motive. We check that they do not do it out of fear or a desire to marry. We then point out the difficulty in observing the Mitzvos and that Jews have been singled out and persecuted throughout history. If they still desire to become a Jew, we accept them lovingly. But even if they are not made aware of the reward of observance of Mitzvos, and punishment for lack thereof, once they are circumcised (for men) and have immersed in a Mikvah, they are Jewish whether they observe the Mitzvos or not. There is no going back.
The conversion process is also discussed in the Gemarah. It struck me when I learned it a couple of weeks ago, as it does now that these requirements are not as I thought they were. The elements as outlined by Professor Ish-Shalom are exactly as the Gemarah said they are. We do not demand maximum observance immediately upon conversion. That would be an impossibility. We only demand a commitment to it. That is what the Gemarah indicates and what the Shuchan Aruch sets forth as Halacha.
The Gemarah tells us that after we warn them of all the difficulties and they still want to convert, we teach them some basics and convert them immediately. Once converted, they are Jewish. The conversion cannot be repealed once done. The only way a convert's Judaism can be denied, is if it is determined that they lied about their commitment to observance. If he or she meant it, then after conversion, it’s final. The convert is Jewish.
That makes me question the incident that generated much of the more recent discussion about religious conversions. About six months ago by Rabbi Avraham Atia annulled the fifteen year old conversion of an unobservant woman and thereby her children’s Judaism as well. His reason was that she was not sincere in her claim that she was willing to observe the Mitzvos as she had not been observant at all over that period. But as the Gemarah and the Shulchan Aruch seem to say, that is not the parameter. Once she was converted she is Jewish forever, no matter whether she observes or not. It is all about her intent at the time of her conversion, not her acts post fact.
Now I am not a Posek. And I’m sure Rabbi Atia had his reasons. But as Professor Ish-Shalom points out the elements of that woman’s conversion were in compliance with Halacha. It would take extra-ordinary circumstances to void a conversion fifteen years after the fact. It would seem from the Gemarah, the Rambam, and the Shulchan Aruch that her non observance is not halachicly valid proof that her statement at the time of conversion was not sincere. And this fact makes Rabbi Atia’s actions very troubling.
Professor Ish-Shalom wants to change things. He is sympathetic to the demands of Charedi Poskim. It is only right and proper to demand maximum Halachic observance, but not as a precondition he says. That would, he says, would make it impossible for the large influx of quasi Jews who have immigrated to Israel from the former Soviet Union to covert. In fact it would make it impossible for virtually anyone to convert.
The basic Halacha does not require maximum observance from a new convert at the moment of his or her conversion, as far as I know. And this stringency seems to be contributing to a crisis in world Jewry today. Intermarriage is at an all time high. Non Jews from the former Soviet Union who had a non Jewish mother but Jewish father have made Aliyah thinking they were Jews. Non observant through no fault of their own they nevertheless participated fully in the culture as Jews and are indistinguishable from secular Jews. Their children for all intents and purposes are identical in every way to their Jewish counterparts, speaking Hebrew, learning in the same schools, and serving in the army. Professor Ish-Shalom believes it is in the best interests of Klal Yisroel to convert as many of these people as soon as possible because a generation or two from now we will have no way of knowing who is a Jew and who isn’t.
This is one of the most important issues of our time. The repercussions are exactly as Professor Ish-Shalom describes it.
On the other hand I completely understand the position of the Charedi Poskim in not wanting to convert people who will not be observant. Acceptance of Mitzvah observance may in fact be insincere and converts may only be paying lip service to it as part of a ‘procedure’ never really intending to observe. That, in my view seems like a non starter for conversion.
I am not knowledgeable enough on this issue to weigh one concern against the other. I haven't thoroughly learned all the Halachic parameters of conversions.
But it would be nice to see some sort of uniformity and universality of procedure developed on how to handle all conversion situations that develop before, after, and during the conversion process… that are based on solid principles of Halacha and not politics... which seem to be the driving force in much of Judaism these days.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Strength in Numbers
One of the interesting things abut the Conservative Movement is that their rhetoric sounds so similar to that of Orthodoxy. A column in today’s Jerusalem Post illustrates that quite clearly. Conservative Rabbi Jerome Epstein’s column today could have been written by Rabbi Avi Shafran, except for the opening two and concluding paragraphs there is very little difference between their views if any.
Which is why I sometimes wonder about the strident opposition to interacting with them on areas of mutual concern. I of course understand the reasons and even agree with them to a point. We can’t be seen as being on the same team with those whose views include heretical ones. I’ve written about this many times. And I’ve pointed out that although that is the case, we should perhaps rethink the extent to which we avoid interaction in a today’s changed circumstances. The principle of course still holds true, but its application should be re-evaluated.
I first suggested this policy change when an Orthodox Charedi Rav, Rabbi Yosef Reinman, was called on the carpet by members of the Agudath Israel Moetzes for writing a book with a Reform Rabbi and then going on a book tour with him. The Agudah Moetezes made him stop and withdraw the book saying that the unchanged position of our Gedolim is that even the hint of recognition of another movement is sufficient cause to forbid such an enterprise no matter what the benefits.
At the time I challenged that position in today’s climate in instances like this one where it was clear that Orthodoxy was in no way endorsing Reform Judaism by simply befriending a Reform Rabbi and then wrting a book together. Both rabbis agreed to disagree without being disagreeable. The Kiruv benefits would have been enormous. Who knows how many more people would be observant today had they permitted that book to be distributed and that tour to go on. And there would be no chance that anyone would even dream that an Orthodox Rabbi was endorsing Reform as a legitimate alternative within Judaism. The mere thoughr of that is laughable. But, the Aguda Moetzes felt otherwise. In my view their decision was counterproductive. And I still strongly feel this way.
But perhaps we should even consider going a step further than that.
In light of article like this one in the Jerusalem Post I once again wonder why, when an issue comes up in Judaism where we are in agreement… that we can’t join forces. Imagine the impact on Mitzvah observance if we were all on the same page at the same time and in the same place. There is definitely strength in numbers.
I realize that this step is a bit more controversial than simply allowing a book to be published. By joining forces on a religious issue it can be misconstrued as endorsement of one group by the other. And that is precisely the objection to it.
But it need not be so. The appropriate mechanisms can be put in place to insure that no one would ever make the mistake that Orthodoxy considers any other stream of Judaism as acceptable. For example public statements by leading rabbinic figures that are published and frequently repeated can serve to eliminate the false perception that Orthodoxy accepts the legitimacy of other streams of Judaism.
I’m not sure how well this would go over with the Conservative movement. I’m sure they don’t like being considered illegitimate by their Orthodox brethren. But they already know that now. That should not diminish the belief in their legitimacy. And perhaps the possible benefits of success on issues of mutual concern would overcome the objections to our attitude about them. The issue of Kashrus in Israel is a case in point. As can be seen Rabbi Epstein’s stated views. His views are identical to Orthodoxy’s on the issue he write about. Would it not be more effective if we came in together in united cause?
I think it would. And it would have the additional benefit of thawing relations between us.
This does not mean we need to dialogue with them on theological issues. That would be wrong as that would imply a Hillel/Shamai Elu VeElu relationship. And that is certainly not the case. But in areas where we agree at least in theory there perhaps should to be a re-thinking on cooperation with them.
If we can unite with Christians in areas of mutual concern in the courts system, we should be able to do the same with out own brothers. I know there is a difference. There is no chance anyone will think we have an Elu VeElu approach to Christianity. And there is a very strong chance that people will think we have one with the Conservative movement. But on a case by case by case basis, where there is a clear statement of disagreement with them, maybe the good that could come from it would outweigh the bad.
None of what I wrote is written in stone with me. I’m not necessarily calling for change to this extent. It is just me thinking out loud. But it is certainly food for thought.
Which is why I sometimes wonder about the strident opposition to interacting with them on areas of mutual concern. I of course understand the reasons and even agree with them to a point. We can’t be seen as being on the same team with those whose views include heretical ones. I’ve written about this many times. And I’ve pointed out that although that is the case, we should perhaps rethink the extent to which we avoid interaction in a today’s changed circumstances. The principle of course still holds true, but its application should be re-evaluated.
I first suggested this policy change when an Orthodox Charedi Rav, Rabbi Yosef Reinman, was called on the carpet by members of the Agudath Israel Moetzes for writing a book with a Reform Rabbi and then going on a book tour with him. The Agudah Moetezes made him stop and withdraw the book saying that the unchanged position of our Gedolim is that even the hint of recognition of another movement is sufficient cause to forbid such an enterprise no matter what the benefits.
At the time I challenged that position in today’s climate in instances like this one where it was clear that Orthodoxy was in no way endorsing Reform Judaism by simply befriending a Reform Rabbi and then wrting a book together. Both rabbis agreed to disagree without being disagreeable. The Kiruv benefits would have been enormous. Who knows how many more people would be observant today had they permitted that book to be distributed and that tour to go on. And there would be no chance that anyone would even dream that an Orthodox Rabbi was endorsing Reform as a legitimate alternative within Judaism. The mere thoughr of that is laughable. But, the Aguda Moetzes felt otherwise. In my view their decision was counterproductive. And I still strongly feel this way.
But perhaps we should even consider going a step further than that.
In light of article like this one in the Jerusalem Post I once again wonder why, when an issue comes up in Judaism where we are in agreement… that we can’t join forces. Imagine the impact on Mitzvah observance if we were all on the same page at the same time and in the same place. There is definitely strength in numbers.
I realize that this step is a bit more controversial than simply allowing a book to be published. By joining forces on a religious issue it can be misconstrued as endorsement of one group by the other. And that is precisely the objection to it.
But it need not be so. The appropriate mechanisms can be put in place to insure that no one would ever make the mistake that Orthodoxy considers any other stream of Judaism as acceptable. For example public statements by leading rabbinic figures that are published and frequently repeated can serve to eliminate the false perception that Orthodoxy accepts the legitimacy of other streams of Judaism.
I’m not sure how well this would go over with the Conservative movement. I’m sure they don’t like being considered illegitimate by their Orthodox brethren. But they already know that now. That should not diminish the belief in their legitimacy. And perhaps the possible benefits of success on issues of mutual concern would overcome the objections to our attitude about them. The issue of Kashrus in Israel is a case in point. As can be seen Rabbi Epstein’s stated views. His views are identical to Orthodoxy’s on the issue he write about. Would it not be more effective if we came in together in united cause?
I think it would. And it would have the additional benefit of thawing relations between us.
This does not mean we need to dialogue with them on theological issues. That would be wrong as that would imply a Hillel/Shamai Elu VeElu relationship. And that is certainly not the case. But in areas where we agree at least in theory there perhaps should to be a re-thinking on cooperation with them.
If we can unite with Christians in areas of mutual concern in the courts system, we should be able to do the same with out own brothers. I know there is a difference. There is no chance anyone will think we have an Elu VeElu approach to Christianity. And there is a very strong chance that people will think we have one with the Conservative movement. But on a case by case by case basis, where there is a clear statement of disagreement with them, maybe the good that could come from it would outweigh the bad.
None of what I wrote is written in stone with me. I’m not necessarily calling for change to this extent. It is just me thinking out loud. But it is certainly food for thought.
Helping Our Neighbors in Need
I wonder how many people in the Torah world would agree with this? Here are the published words from an Israeli politician and a man I respect:
Sometimes even experienced politicians don’t understand how the government works, especially when the government does not bother to explain what it’s doing, and the echoes of the cries of the people hang in the air, unanswered.
Here we are, after the occupation of the Gaza Strip by Hamas, who used cruel and horrific methods, and has been executing people without trial. Hundreds of people are standing at the gates of our country and begging for their lives and requesting entry to the Palestinian Authority, and we stand like a fortified wall and shoot at them if they dare near the exit.
Our claim is that among those trying to leave are Hamas members, or other terrorists, and the Palestinian committee that used to filter out the people interested in moving no longer functions.
Why can’t we turn to the Palestinian Authority and request that they send a committee from Ramallah to filter out those seeking refuge, and those deemed to be honest will be immediately transported to Ramallah without Israel having to absorb them?
Again, Israel is being portrayed in the international community (which is keeping an eye out for us to commit injustices) as cruel people who don’t take into account the plight of the persecuted.
I can understand that Israel is a small country and is unable to handle the millions of refugees from Darfur. It is more fitting that they find their salvation in the larger Egypt, instead of Egypt sending the Darfur refugees to Israel. It is also unclear to me why the Egyptians don’t do more to save the refugees from Gaza.
Why must the Philadelphi Route serve as a one-way street to smuggle weapons into Gaza and cannot be used as a way to Egypt to absorb the persecuted Gazans?
We live in a cynical and hypocritical world. In a world without justice and without integrity.
But obviously, in my opinion I think that Israel needs –from a humanitarian standpoint and from a political one – to be a bridge for the refugees from Gaza to the Palestinian Authority, for those they are willing to absorb. And those that Palestinians don’t want to absorb, we certainly will be exempt from absorbing them.
Sometimes even experienced politicians don’t understand how the government works, especially when the government does not bother to explain what it’s doing, and the echoes of the cries of the people hang in the air, unanswered.
Here we are, after the occupation of the Gaza Strip by Hamas, who used cruel and horrific methods, and has been executing people without trial. Hundreds of people are standing at the gates of our country and begging for their lives and requesting entry to the Palestinian Authority, and we stand like a fortified wall and shoot at them if they dare near the exit.
Our claim is that among those trying to leave are Hamas members, or other terrorists, and the Palestinian committee that used to filter out the people interested in moving no longer functions.
Why can’t we turn to the Palestinian Authority and request that they send a committee from Ramallah to filter out those seeking refuge, and those deemed to be honest will be immediately transported to Ramallah without Israel having to absorb them?
Again, Israel is being portrayed in the international community (which is keeping an eye out for us to commit injustices) as cruel people who don’t take into account the plight of the persecuted.
I can understand that Israel is a small country and is unable to handle the millions of refugees from Darfur. It is more fitting that they find their salvation in the larger Egypt, instead of Egypt sending the Darfur refugees to Israel. It is also unclear to me why the Egyptians don’t do more to save the refugees from Gaza.
Why must the Philadelphi Route serve as a one-way street to smuggle weapons into Gaza and cannot be used as a way to Egypt to absorb the persecuted Gazans?
We live in a cynical and hypocritical world. In a world without justice and without integrity.
But obviously, in my opinion I think that Israel needs –from a humanitarian standpoint and from a political one – to be a bridge for the refugees from Gaza to the Palestinian Authority, for those they are willing to absorb. And those that Palestinians don’t want to absorb, we certainly will be exempt from absorbing them.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
A Mighty Heart
"Back in the town of Bnei Brak there is a street named after my great-grandfather Chaim Pearl, who was one of the founders of the town."
These were among the final words spoken by Daniel Pearl the Wall Street Journal reporter who was brutally murdered by his Islamic fundamentalist captors. They killed him via decapitation and then cut his body into pieces. And just before he uttered those words, he said the following:
"I am Jewish. I am a Jewish American from California. My father is Jewish. My mother is Jewish. I am Jewish."
In that one moment, He was Koneh Olam HaBa. He died a martyr’s death. He died proclaiming his Judaism.
So who was Daniel Pearl? He was an assimilated Jew who intermarried. His wife Mariane is a practicing Nichiren Buddhist. The wedding ceremony was an abomination of combined Jewish and Buddhist ritual. Why God chose this man as a Martyr will forever be a puzzlement to me. But that is what he was. He was killed because he was a Jew.
Last Sunday I saw the film ‘A Mighty Heart’. It is based on the memoirs of his wife Marriene and has received much critical acclaim. I couldn’t wait to see it. But after I did, I was disappointed. The story told was sterile. It lacked passion and perspective. Filmed in documentary style it was quite tedious to watch. Although it was very likely an accurate portrayal of events, it did not convey the insidiousness of the captors. Nor the motives or religious devotion that moved them to do it. It was bereft of any context. Instead it showed events as they played out without commentary. As if this was just another kidnapping albeit with a sensational ending. One that was not shown just referenced.
I understand the director Michael Winterbottom’s motives. He wanted to be apolitical and present as factual a reproduction of events as he could. Normally I would applaud such an approach. But not here. Context is all important. This isn’t just some random work of artistic expression. This movie was made post 9/11. The people who slaughtered Daniel Pearl would just as easily crash a airplane into a skyscraper given the opportunity to do so. That should have been the focus of this movie. But it was virtually ignored. The courage and stoicism of Marrien Pearl as poignant as it was should have been secondary to that. The only point in the movie that came anywhere close to presenting context was at the end when Daniel Pearl uttered his final words before being beheaded.
People who bend over backwards not to present a point of view in a major film like this are unwittingly complicit with the very people who perpetrated this crime. There is no shortage of propaganda on their part. Their points of view get plenty of expression in an all too sympathetic media. It is the duty of all good and decent people in the arts to present a counter to that. This film failed in that responsibility. It was… objective. One cannot afford to be objective when the enemies of freedom are anything but objective. Balance in the absence of a countervailing viewpoint equals complicity with the enemy. In a medium which is so influential it behooves them to present the truth about the captors. Leaving out that truth is a distortion of it. They should have presented the beliefs and motives of the kidnappers. That is entirely absent in this film.
Instead it pays homage to the co-operation between people of different cultures and religions. Muslims, Buddhists, and Christians are seen working together in complete harmony to find and free a Jewish captive. This film did not pay tribute to anything else.
So as accurate as the event portrayed in this film is, I do not recommend this movie. The absence of perspective makes the viewer feel complacent and resigned to the realities of the world we live in. And that is a bad outcome. Without a clear message of condemnation and sense of outrage, this film is no more than a process movie. I should have felt anger and outrage after I saw it. Instead I felt disappointment.
These were among the final words spoken by Daniel Pearl the Wall Street Journal reporter who was brutally murdered by his Islamic fundamentalist captors. They killed him via decapitation and then cut his body into pieces. And just before he uttered those words, he said the following:
"I am Jewish. I am a Jewish American from California. My father is Jewish. My mother is Jewish. I am Jewish."
In that one moment, He was Koneh Olam HaBa. He died a martyr’s death. He died proclaiming his Judaism.
So who was Daniel Pearl? He was an assimilated Jew who intermarried. His wife Mariane is a practicing Nichiren Buddhist. The wedding ceremony was an abomination of combined Jewish and Buddhist ritual. Why God chose this man as a Martyr will forever be a puzzlement to me. But that is what he was. He was killed because he was a Jew.
Last Sunday I saw the film ‘A Mighty Heart’. It is based on the memoirs of his wife Marriene and has received much critical acclaim. I couldn’t wait to see it. But after I did, I was disappointed. The story told was sterile. It lacked passion and perspective. Filmed in documentary style it was quite tedious to watch. Although it was very likely an accurate portrayal of events, it did not convey the insidiousness of the captors. Nor the motives or religious devotion that moved them to do it. It was bereft of any context. Instead it showed events as they played out without commentary. As if this was just another kidnapping albeit with a sensational ending. One that was not shown just referenced.
I understand the director Michael Winterbottom’s motives. He wanted to be apolitical and present as factual a reproduction of events as he could. Normally I would applaud such an approach. But not here. Context is all important. This isn’t just some random work of artistic expression. This movie was made post 9/11. The people who slaughtered Daniel Pearl would just as easily crash a airplane into a skyscraper given the opportunity to do so. That should have been the focus of this movie. But it was virtually ignored. The courage and stoicism of Marrien Pearl as poignant as it was should have been secondary to that. The only point in the movie that came anywhere close to presenting context was at the end when Daniel Pearl uttered his final words before being beheaded.
People who bend over backwards not to present a point of view in a major film like this are unwittingly complicit with the very people who perpetrated this crime. There is no shortage of propaganda on their part. Their points of view get plenty of expression in an all too sympathetic media. It is the duty of all good and decent people in the arts to present a counter to that. This film failed in that responsibility. It was… objective. One cannot afford to be objective when the enemies of freedom are anything but objective. Balance in the absence of a countervailing viewpoint equals complicity with the enemy. In a medium which is so influential it behooves them to present the truth about the captors. Leaving out that truth is a distortion of it. They should have presented the beliefs and motives of the kidnappers. That is entirely absent in this film.
Instead it pays homage to the co-operation between people of different cultures and religions. Muslims, Buddhists, and Christians are seen working together in complete harmony to find and free a Jewish captive. This film did not pay tribute to anything else.
So as accurate as the event portrayed in this film is, I do not recommend this movie. The absence of perspective makes the viewer feel complacent and resigned to the realities of the world we live in. And that is a bad outcome. Without a clear message of condemnation and sense of outrage, this film is no more than a process movie. I should have felt anger and outrage after I saw it. Instead I felt disappointment.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Charedim and the Army
One of the biggest areas of tension in Israel between secular Jews and Charedim is army service. As is well known Charedim are exempt as long as they are learning full time in Yeshivos. This arrangement was made by Prime Minister David Ben Gurion and the Chazon Ish and is a primary component of the the so called ‘status quo agreement’ that allows all laws pertaining to religion to be handled by religious figures and all secular matters to be handled by the state.
Since the founding of the state this issue has divided the country. And it has contributed to another contentious area, that of Charedi poverty. In Israel one cannot legally work without having served. So if a Charedi wants to work, he must join the army first.
This is a system that is flawed for many reasons. From the Charedi perspective, it keeps many in the Beis HaMedrash for inflated periods of time, well beyond when they might have decided to go to work and support their families.
While it may be the goal of the Charedi Rabbinic leaders to keep people in full time learning for as long as possible, I doubt that they meant it to keep them there artificially as a means to prevent army service. That said, They tolerate it because they feel the environment in the army is so anti religious that it is Assur for them to serve in any case.
That argument is debatable because the Hesder Yeshiva system has conditions that are not anti religious. And now they have Nachal Charedi. But… that’s the argument they make. So Charedim stay in the Beis Hamedrash even when their learning is not so great. In some cases they hardly learn at all. And then there is the Hashkafic pressure. Working is seen only as B’Dieved a last resort. So you have a population of Charedim who are not living up to their ideals. Some learn more, some less, some not at all, but very few learn at the high levels expected of them. They are there for reasons of practicality or pressure. And they are all exempt from army service.
The secular Jews in Israel have no such educational exemption. And most of them are upset that their sons and daughters blood is being spilled while the sons and daughters of Charedim are sitting in air conditioned study halls. They look at the poverty which that lifestyle fosters and the lack of their contributing to the tax base while being a big drain on the economy via the welfare they receive. It understandably upsets secular Jews. In some cases they are so upset that they are beyond angry. They simply consider them beneath contempt. Having no religious education themselves they see no value in studying ancient texts. All they see is a bunch of privileged Jews who siphon off the public dole. A favored term” parasites. And they also see some Charedim who are not legally allowed to work because they haven't served, working and getting paid under the table or in the black market. That isn't going to endear them to anyone secular and it can easily be seen as a Chilul HaShem.
In an attempt to repair this situation a group of religious and secular Jew sat down and worked out a bill that went into law three years ago. It is called the Tal Law and is designed to get Charedim into the work force with the approval of the rabbinic leadership.
Some of the rabbinic leadership is opposed to it. But many are not. Be that as it may at least now there is an option. Additionally this law has the potential of taking Charedi families out of welfare and into the workforce. The bill mandates doing one year of national service.
I’m not exactly sure how the parents of captured IDF soldier Gilad Shalit feel about the Tal Law. Nor do I know how any other secular parent feels about Charedim being exempted from all hazardous duty. But at least it has the potential to take them off the public dole. And secular Jews will at least see this as a contribution to the country. Something they do not see Torah learning as.
The Jeruslam Post reports that now, three years after its implemention Charedim who opted for the plan will finally be called upon to fulfill their national service. Those who opted for it were allowed to go immediately into the workforce because there was no infrastructure for national service for Chredim yet. The time has now come. But hardly anyone is showing up. Of all those in the system contacted only 175 men have responded. And it doesn’t help that the religious parties are complaining that the pay for national service is too low and that Charedi families cannot be expected to live on it. The pay is much higher than the stipends paid by most Kollelim. They ought to instead be encouraging people to take advantage of it.
But even though the Tal Law is a good start. It’s not an answer. The truth is that the entire way army service is handled in Israel is flawed at this point. The only thing that will solve the problems inherent to it, will be to eliminate the draft and make army service voluntary.
While it is true that Israel has always needed the citizen soldier because of the relatively small population size and constant threat from its neighbors, I still believe that it can be done. Eliminating the draft should not hurt Israel’s security any more than eliminating the draft has hurt the United States. Israeli culture idealizes the soldier. Every boy wants to be one. It is a badge of honor to serve for most. Israel will attract all those who want to serve their country and they will probably get the same numbers they have now. And they will then have a fighting force that is 100% motivated. The draft doesn’t do that.
By eliminating the draft and making army service voluntary they eliminate the primary sore point of secular Jews against Charedim. True, 60 years of animosity won’t go away overnight. But it would be a start.
There will still be animosity for other reasons such as shoving religion down the throats of the secular Jew through legislation by the religious parties. And there will still be resentment against those who continue learning in poverty while being supported the state. But at least one major problem will be solved.
No longer will a mother of a slain soldier be able to ask, “Why my son?!” “Why does my Charedi neighbor mother’s son get to live and my son does not?” The answer will be that it was her son’s choice to serve and that he died honorably.
As I’ve said in the past, the other problems have solutions too. If only there is the will to do so. There is no reason that Charedim can’t live a completely Torah lifestyle and gets along with secular Jews. If the draft is eliminated and Charedim start getting more into the workforce, it will be a big step toward re-conciliation.
Since the founding of the state this issue has divided the country. And it has contributed to another contentious area, that of Charedi poverty. In Israel one cannot legally work without having served. So if a Charedi wants to work, he must join the army first.
This is a system that is flawed for many reasons. From the Charedi perspective, it keeps many in the Beis HaMedrash for inflated periods of time, well beyond when they might have decided to go to work and support their families.
While it may be the goal of the Charedi Rabbinic leaders to keep people in full time learning for as long as possible, I doubt that they meant it to keep them there artificially as a means to prevent army service. That said, They tolerate it because they feel the environment in the army is so anti religious that it is Assur for them to serve in any case.
That argument is debatable because the Hesder Yeshiva system has conditions that are not anti religious. And now they have Nachal Charedi. But… that’s the argument they make. So Charedim stay in the Beis Hamedrash even when their learning is not so great. In some cases they hardly learn at all. And then there is the Hashkafic pressure. Working is seen only as B’Dieved a last resort. So you have a population of Charedim who are not living up to their ideals. Some learn more, some less, some not at all, but very few learn at the high levels expected of them. They are there for reasons of practicality or pressure. And they are all exempt from army service.
The secular Jews in Israel have no such educational exemption. And most of them are upset that their sons and daughters blood is being spilled while the sons and daughters of Charedim are sitting in air conditioned study halls. They look at the poverty which that lifestyle fosters and the lack of their contributing to the tax base while being a big drain on the economy via the welfare they receive. It understandably upsets secular Jews. In some cases they are so upset that they are beyond angry. They simply consider them beneath contempt. Having no religious education themselves they see no value in studying ancient texts. All they see is a bunch of privileged Jews who siphon off the public dole. A favored term” parasites. And they also see some Charedim who are not legally allowed to work because they haven't served, working and getting paid under the table or in the black market. That isn't going to endear them to anyone secular and it can easily be seen as a Chilul HaShem.
In an attempt to repair this situation a group of religious and secular Jew sat down and worked out a bill that went into law three years ago. It is called the Tal Law and is designed to get Charedim into the work force with the approval of the rabbinic leadership.
Some of the rabbinic leadership is opposed to it. But many are not. Be that as it may at least now there is an option. Additionally this law has the potential of taking Charedi families out of welfare and into the workforce. The bill mandates doing one year of national service.
I’m not exactly sure how the parents of captured IDF soldier Gilad Shalit feel about the Tal Law. Nor do I know how any other secular parent feels about Charedim being exempted from all hazardous duty. But at least it has the potential to take them off the public dole. And secular Jews will at least see this as a contribution to the country. Something they do not see Torah learning as.
The Jeruslam Post reports that now, three years after its implemention Charedim who opted for the plan will finally be called upon to fulfill their national service. Those who opted for it were allowed to go immediately into the workforce because there was no infrastructure for national service for Chredim yet. The time has now come. But hardly anyone is showing up. Of all those in the system contacted only 175 men have responded. And it doesn’t help that the religious parties are complaining that the pay for national service is too low and that Charedi families cannot be expected to live on it. The pay is much higher than the stipends paid by most Kollelim. They ought to instead be encouraging people to take advantage of it.
But even though the Tal Law is a good start. It’s not an answer. The truth is that the entire way army service is handled in Israel is flawed at this point. The only thing that will solve the problems inherent to it, will be to eliminate the draft and make army service voluntary.
While it is true that Israel has always needed the citizen soldier because of the relatively small population size and constant threat from its neighbors, I still believe that it can be done. Eliminating the draft should not hurt Israel’s security any more than eliminating the draft has hurt the United States. Israeli culture idealizes the soldier. Every boy wants to be one. It is a badge of honor to serve for most. Israel will attract all those who want to serve their country and they will probably get the same numbers they have now. And they will then have a fighting force that is 100% motivated. The draft doesn’t do that.
By eliminating the draft and making army service voluntary they eliminate the primary sore point of secular Jews against Charedim. True, 60 years of animosity won’t go away overnight. But it would be a start.
There will still be animosity for other reasons such as shoving religion down the throats of the secular Jew through legislation by the religious parties. And there will still be resentment against those who continue learning in poverty while being supported the state. But at least one major problem will be solved.
No longer will a mother of a slain soldier be able to ask, “Why my son?!” “Why does my Charedi neighbor mother’s son get to live and my son does not?” The answer will be that it was her son’s choice to serve and that he died honorably.
As I’ve said in the past, the other problems have solutions too. If only there is the will to do so. There is no reason that Charedim can’t live a completely Torah lifestyle and gets along with secular Jews. If the draft is eliminated and Charedim start getting more into the workforce, it will be a big step toward re-conciliation.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Rabbi Jonathan Rosenblum’s Attitude
Rabbi Gil Student’s post today has caused me to write my own take on the issue he raises. He suggests Rabbinc leaders who tend to dipparage ten to become role models for behavior amonsts their constituents. It is also true that criticism by the right of leaders on the left will generate much of the negativity in reverse. It is understandable but it doesn’t excuse the bashing by members of the Left of Gedolim of the right. With that in mind an article written by Rabbi Jonathan Rosenblum where he castigates Rabbi Shlomo Goren and his defender, Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet is troubling.
I happen to be a big fan of Rabbi Jonathan Rosenblum, a fellow Chicagoan, now living in Israel who attended HTC. Although he is Charedi, his views on issues that concern the Torah world are usually right on the mark. I rarely disagree.
Even on the issue of Rabbi Goren I tend to side with him. Rabbi Goren’s Halachic decision in the Langer case was in error in my view. For those who don’t know what that is, let me briefly explain.
An issue of an adulterous relationship came before the religious courts in Israel . The products of such a relationship are Mamzerim, Halachicly illegitimate. They may not marry other Jews. The rabbinic judges, all of them of impeccable credentials and perhaps even Gedolim ruled on just such a case. There were siblings by the name of Langer whose legitimacy was in question her mother had remarried without the benefit of a Get, a Halachioc divorce. That makes any product of such a marriage a Mamzer. The court ruled that they were Mamzerim. But there was factor which could have changed that ruling. The first husband was a convert. This issue was whether the conversion to Judaism of the first husband of their mother was a legitimate conversion. If it were not legitimate, the second marriage would not have been considered adulterous. And the products of it are not Mamzerim.
After the Psak (religious ruling) was made, Rabbi Goren gave his own a Psak that the original conversion was indeed invalid. He stated that he had ‘proof’ that the first husband had never truly accepted Mitzvah observance, a requirement of conversion.
It was a very controversial decision, to say the least since it defied the court decision whose members were rabbis of very great stature. He was strongly criticized for it They felt his proof was debatable at best, and since this a stringent biblical level Halacha, they have no choice but to assume the worst case scenario. If I understand correctly, Rav Elyashiv resigned from the Rabbanut over that incident.
Even though my heart goes out in sympathy to people in these kinds situations, and am emotionally inclined to side with Rabbi Goren, my intellect tells me that Rabi Goren’s Psak was wrong.
And that brings me to Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet. He defended Rav Goren and explained why he believed that Rav Goren was correct. But Rabbi Rosenblum not only disagrees as I do but he disagrees in a very disagreeable manner. He dishonors a man who has earned the right to be called a Rav, teacher, and preacher in Israel.
Rabbi Rakeffet is a Musmach of Yeshiva University and of the Rav, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik. He is a Talmid Chacham and a Rosh Kollel of the Gruss Kollel in Israel. A sincere man who is a Yiras Shamyim of the first order. For Rabbi Rosenblum not to treat him that way in his essay is just plain wrong. Referring to him by his last name is disrespectful to a Rosh Kollel and thereby disrespectful to the Torah itself. But it is more than just that. The animosity or Rabi Rosenblum against Rabbi Rakeffet comes across loud and clear. For example in the very first paragraph he refers to him as Dr. instead of Rabbi or Rav. This is typical of the right wing. They get out of referring to heretical rabbis as rabbis if the have any kid of doctorate, real or honorary; they refer to him as Dr. It is not the same as calling someone Dr. who self identifies that way. I do that all the time such as Dr. Lamm or Dr. Berkovits. Rabbi Rosenblum is talking about a Rosh Kollel who does not self identify that way. To refer to an Orthodox Rav who is a Rosh Kollel as Dr. demeaning at best. And he goes on in hos article referring to him by his lkast name only!
Rabbi Rakeffet is a man who I greatly admire and respect. He has written several biographies on great historical figures. They include a biography Rav Eliezar Silver, Yeshiva College founder, Dr. Bernard Revel, and the Rav. I heartily recommend them. He is a Talmid Chacham of the highest order. You don’t get to be a Rosh Kollel if you’re not.
And his Hashkafos are in the right place too. For example he is a strong proponent of mixed seating at weddings a position with which I completely agree. And he has forthrightly and publicly defended that view.
I happen to disagree with his position on the Langer case. But that does not mean I don’t respect and admire him. Why can’t rabbi Rosenblum do the same?
This in a nut shell is one of the major problems I have with the right. It is evident in comments I often hear from them. Anyone that disagrees is Krum (crooked, not straight)! It is only their own Shitos that are straight.
This is not true of Centrists or even the left. I may disagree but I never disparage. I would never refer to Rav Elyashiv as “Elyashiv”. Nor would I ever say his Haskafa is Krum. Is it too much to ask that the other side do the same? We disagree on some Hashkafic matters! So what?! We have far more in common than we disagree about. Why must a disagreement about Hashkafa always result in disparagement by the right against the left? That’s how it usually breaks down.
It’s is true that the left sometimes criticizes the right unfairly. And they are wrong when they do it even as they have role models to justify it as Rabbi Student suggests in his piece today.
As I said. I am a fan of Rabbi Rosenblum’s. But in this piece, his attitude is all wrong.
Updated: 7/2/07 12:30 PM CDT
I happen to be a big fan of Rabbi Jonathan Rosenblum, a fellow Chicagoan, now living in Israel who attended HTC. Although he is Charedi, his views on issues that concern the Torah world are usually right on the mark. I rarely disagree.
Even on the issue of Rabbi Goren I tend to side with him. Rabbi Goren’s Halachic decision in the Langer case was in error in my view. For those who don’t know what that is, let me briefly explain.
An issue of an adulterous relationship came before the religious courts in Israel . The products of such a relationship are Mamzerim, Halachicly illegitimate. They may not marry other Jews. The rabbinic judges, all of them of impeccable credentials and perhaps even Gedolim ruled on just such a case. There were siblings by the name of Langer whose legitimacy was in question her mother had remarried without the benefit of a Get, a Halachioc divorce. That makes any product of such a marriage a Mamzer. The court ruled that they were Mamzerim. But there was factor which could have changed that ruling. The first husband was a convert. This issue was whether the conversion to Judaism of the first husband of their mother was a legitimate conversion. If it were not legitimate, the second marriage would not have been considered adulterous. And the products of it are not Mamzerim.
After the Psak (religious ruling) was made, Rabbi Goren gave his own a Psak that the original conversion was indeed invalid. He stated that he had ‘proof’ that the first husband had never truly accepted Mitzvah observance, a requirement of conversion.
It was a very controversial decision, to say the least since it defied the court decision whose members were rabbis of very great stature. He was strongly criticized for it They felt his proof was debatable at best, and since this a stringent biblical level Halacha, they have no choice but to assume the worst case scenario. If I understand correctly, Rav Elyashiv resigned from the Rabbanut over that incident.
Even though my heart goes out in sympathy to people in these kinds situations, and am emotionally inclined to side with Rabbi Goren, my intellect tells me that Rabi Goren’s Psak was wrong.
And that brings me to Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet. He defended Rav Goren and explained why he believed that Rav Goren was correct. But Rabbi Rosenblum not only disagrees as I do but he disagrees in a very disagreeable manner. He dishonors a man who has earned the right to be called a Rav, teacher, and preacher in Israel.
Rabbi Rakeffet is a Musmach of Yeshiva University and of the Rav, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik. He is a Talmid Chacham and a Rosh Kollel of the Gruss Kollel in Israel. A sincere man who is a Yiras Shamyim of the first order. For Rabbi Rosenblum not to treat him that way in his essay is just plain wrong. Referring to him by his last name is disrespectful to a Rosh Kollel and thereby disrespectful to the Torah itself. But it is more than just that. The animosity or Rabi Rosenblum against Rabbi Rakeffet comes across loud and clear. For example in the very first paragraph he refers to him as Dr. instead of Rabbi or Rav. This is typical of the right wing. They get out of referring to heretical rabbis as rabbis if the have any kid of doctorate, real or honorary; they refer to him as Dr. It is not the same as calling someone Dr. who self identifies that way. I do that all the time such as Dr. Lamm or Dr. Berkovits. Rabbi Rosenblum is talking about a Rosh Kollel who does not self identify that way. To refer to an Orthodox Rav who is a Rosh Kollel as Dr. demeaning at best. And he goes on in hos article referring to him by his lkast name only!
Rabbi Rakeffet is a man who I greatly admire and respect. He has written several biographies on great historical figures. They include a biography Rav Eliezar Silver, Yeshiva College founder, Dr. Bernard Revel, and the Rav. I heartily recommend them. He is a Talmid Chacham of the highest order. You don’t get to be a Rosh Kollel if you’re not.
And his Hashkafos are in the right place too. For example he is a strong proponent of mixed seating at weddings a position with which I completely agree. And he has forthrightly and publicly defended that view.
I happen to disagree with his position on the Langer case. But that does not mean I don’t respect and admire him. Why can’t rabbi Rosenblum do the same?
This in a nut shell is one of the major problems I have with the right. It is evident in comments I often hear from them. Anyone that disagrees is Krum (crooked, not straight)! It is only their own Shitos that are straight.
This is not true of Centrists or even the left. I may disagree but I never disparage. I would never refer to Rav Elyashiv as “Elyashiv”. Nor would I ever say his Haskafa is Krum. Is it too much to ask that the other side do the same? We disagree on some Hashkafic matters! So what?! We have far more in common than we disagree about. Why must a disagreement about Hashkafa always result in disparagement by the right against the left? That’s how it usually breaks down.
It’s is true that the left sometimes criticizes the right unfairly. And they are wrong when they do it even as they have role models to justify it as Rabbi Student suggests in his piece today.
As I said. I am a fan of Rabbi Rosenblum’s. But in this piece, his attitude is all wrong.
Updated: 7/2/07 12:30 PM CDT
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Skokie - Parts Five and Six
New Challenges
As is almost always the case, things do not remain static. The successes HTC had enjoyed were not going to remain untouched. A new Yeshiva was founded by several very talented Mechanchim, one of whom was former Brisk Yeshiva high school principal, Rabbi Meir Yehuda Lichtman. When Brisk realized it could no longer afford to stay open, it had to terminate the services of some of its own people. Rabbi Lichtman was one of them. If that name sounds familiar, it is because his father was former HTC Rosh HaYeshiva, Rabbi Yechezkel Lichtman.
The new Yeshiva has successfully attracted students from the moderate right wing of Orthodoxy who might otherwise have gone to HTC. Those parents wanted a Yeshiva for their sons that was more like Telshe... but were unhappy with Telshe’s strong opposition to college. Yeshivas Brisk was first approached by these parents, but they made demands upon Brisk which they could not accept. Shortly thereafter Yeshivas Meor HaTorah was born.
HTC’s high school enrollment is down. At least one Rebbe has been re-assigned to another position as there were not enough students to justify his class. But more importantly the potential of HTC’s Beis Hamedrash program has never fully been realized, despite the fact that some of the best Rabbeim and Roshei Yeshiva in the city and perhaps even in the country are HTC’s Beis Hemdreash Rebbeim.
And that is no exaggeration. I have been around the block a few times… as a student, as a parent, and as a board member I have encountered many Rebbeim in many Yeshivos. No where have I found Rebbeim more dedicated to the students than at Skokie, both in high school and in the Beis HaMedrash. My experiences with my son’s Rebbeim, both in high school and Beis Hamedrash, will forever testify to that. They are by far amongst the most dedicated and talented Mechanchim I have ever known.
The dedication and virtual self sacrifice extended to each student defies description. My son will tell you the same thing. He will tell you that he owes everything to Rabbi Avraham Freidman who stood by him through thick and thin and helped guide his path from high school to Kerem B’Yavneh and later from the Beis Hamedrash of Skokie to the Beis Hamedrash of Yeshivas Mir in Jerusalem.
I think it is safe to say that all the Rebbeim he encountered when he was in the Beis HaMedrash in Skokie have significantly contributed to the successful path in learning he has taken. But none of this is so well known outside the Yeshiva. And that is an important factor in the lack of success in the Beis Hamedrash.
A Yeshiva’s primary function is the Beis Hamedrash program. That is its centerpiece, its crowning glory. It is the learning that takes place there by post high school students that defines it. Skokie’s Beis Hamedrash is not strong. It has not lived up to its potential. For years the Yeshiva has tried to build up the Beis Hamedrash and attract better students. That is one of the reasons it sought and received accreditation for its college.
But it has not succeeded in attracting a significant number of students, what I would call a critical mass. They have gone elsewhere post high school: Yeshivos like Ner Israel and Yeshiva University and various other East Coast Yeshivos. There are a few exceptions that do come to Skokie and of those, some are indeed quite brilliant. They are the ones who stay on in the Yeshiva’s Bellows Kollel. But that is what they are, exceptions. The post high school serious learning presence is mostly that of the Kollel.
It isn’t for lack of desire or lack of trying on the part of the Yeshiva. As brilliant as the Rosh HaYeshiva's Shiurim might be, the fact is the Beis Hamedrash is weak.
There are many reasons why this is the case. Here in my view are some of them:
Geography: Most young men who graduate high school in Yeshivos like Skokie tend to go to Israel for a year or two. When they return, they want to be in a good high quality Yeshiva. And the East Coast has a lot of great ones with long established reputations to choose from.
The Roshei Yeshiva in Israel: I have been told that some of them actively discourage the better students from going to Skokie.
Shiduchim: The New York area is where one can find many Yeshivos plus a Jewish atmosphere unlike anything the Midwest has to offer. And when it comes time for Shiduchim… dating prospects are much more numerous there, too.
Academic studies: For those interested in a university program that enjoys respect in academia and has many academic options for study while at the same time is a Yeshiva with serious Torah learning and top Rebbeim, YU is an obvious choice.
Reputation: For those who want a solid right wing type Yeshiva, they will not choose Skokie. As good as the Yeshiva is now, it’s not Lakewood or even Ner Israel.
On the other hand Chicago is no wilderness. We too have Yeshivos. And a vibrant Jewish community. And when it comes to Shiduchim we are no wilderness either. While it’s understandable that a young man would want to go east, that doesn’t really explain why HTC is not as successful as it should be in attracting students.
It is all about the level of learning. This is its most important attraction to serious students. In order to attract a critical mass of top students it has to concentrate on this the most because potential Beis Hamedrash students are going elsewhere.
While all the above mentioned items are important, they pale in comparison to this one. Improving the college by adding more courses and granting advanced degrees is indeed an imperative. The Yeshiva is in fact expanding its course options. And they need to do a lot more. But, as important as that is, it’s secondary.
To a serious student of Torah, it is about the quality and quantity… the depth and the scope of the learning. Once a serious student has gotten the taste of serious leaning for a year or two in Israel, he wants to advance. Skokie does not attract on that level. No matter how great the Rebbeim are, or the Rosh HaYeshiva's Shiurim are... they are not attracting students. Their reputations have not spread. There are too few Beis Hamedrash students in the Yeshiva to help spread it.
As I said the Yeshiva has tried and is still trying to recruit students to its Beis Hamedarsh. But they are not succeeding. The question must be asked: Why?!
Over the last decade or so I have observed numerous missed opportunities to hire some very charismatic Rebbeim who easily could have attracted more students. In one case they missed out on a top name in Torah world. Here are four cases in point that I am familiar with:
Rabbi Zev Cohen. As the Rav of a large Shul in West Rogers Park here, he was still willing to be a regular presence at the Yeshiva. The Yeshiva had initially hired him as a Rebbe. But the obligations to his Shul increased to a point where he could no longer be a full time staff member. There are few Rebbeim in any Yeshiva that are as charismatic as Rabbi Cohen is. He attracted people. He was beloved by almost all students he encountered… students that over the years are still loyal to and seek out for advice and council no in matter what part of the world they live. It may not have been ideal, but they should have held on to him. That would have been a start.
Rabbi Yosef Bechoffer. He is a brilliant Talmid Chacham. And what he brought to the table, few others can bring. His depth and breath of Torah knowledge was tremendous. He was a full time member of the Beis Hamedrash there. But the Yeshiva never utilized his talents. He was passed up for opportunities to teach. Eventually the Yeshiva let him go. He would have been a tremendous asset. There are very few Mechanchim like him.
Rabbi Avraham Kivelevitz is a great scholar, who was a great source of intellectual development, his knowledge of Jewish history is shared by few people in the Torah world and as a Jewish thinker he had few peers.
But the biggest mistake in my view was in turning down an opportunity to hire Rav Eliyahu Soloveichik, Rav Aharon’s son. He was the Rosh HaYeshiva in Brisk under his father. His knowledge of Torah had very few peers in this city, which boasts many fine and even great Talmidei Chachamim. He is modest, mild mannered, and eschewed the limelight. He sees his entire purpose in life as a teacher of Torah. As Brisk was winding down, Lander College hired him to commute weekly to New York and give Shiurim there. As would be expected he became a very popular Rebbe.
In my never ending quest to improve the state of my alma mater I had approached Rav Eliyahu to see if he would be interested in taking a position as a Beis Hamedrash Rebbe in Skokie. He told me that if asked, he would accept. He had no real interest in moving to New York at the time, Chicago having been his home for most of his life.
I approached the Yeshiva with this prospect. Although it had support from some key members of the administration and board, the idea was rejected. HTC could have had him with no strings attached. Imagine the impact of having Rav Eliyahu Soloveichik teaching a high level Shiur in Skokie. But they said no.
I’m sure they had their reasons. And they are under no obligation to share them with the public. But in my view they need to explain why they passed up on opportunities that surely would have attracted more top students and created a much higher level of Torah learning.
The high school is no longer filled to capacity. And while there is no controversy anymore thanks to the years of hard work on the part of Rav Morgenstern, Rabbi Isenberg, and the board, that alone is insufficient. The Yeshiva needs more than that.
The potential is there. But they have yet to achieve success as a major Yeshiva.
Postscript
I would be remiss if I did not convey some of the more interesting events that occurred along the way.
The Traditional Movement is dying movement today. There are a few Traditional Shuls left most of which now have Mechitza Minyanim that are attended by more people than the main Shul. The largest of these Shuls, KINS, became Orthodox several years ago. After almost dying it has now been completely resuscitated. The long term Traditional rabbi of KINS, Rabbi Moses Mescheloff was a Musmach from Yeshiva University. He was given Smicha by Rav Aharon’s father, Rav Moshe Soloveitchik. He is well into his nineties now and sits next to the dynamic young modern Orthodox Rav of the Shul, Rabbi Leonard Matanky.
Rav Aharon certainly played a part in the Traditional Movement’s demise. I happen to believe those Shuls would have died anyway. But credit should certainly be given to those in the front lines of the fight against non Mechitza Shuls. And Rav Aharon certainly deserves it. I believe it cost him his health.
Mizrachi, once a powerhouse movement here in Chicago, has become very small. It is dwarfed by Agudath Israel now. They no longer even have an independent building in Chicago. The property they bought from the proceeds of the sale of the old Mizrachi building to Buddhist missionaries was eventually sold to The Chicago Community Kollel (Lakewood) many years ago. There have been attempts to revive Mizrachi over the years, but they have been largely unsuccessful thus far.
During the hieght of the battle between Rav Aharon and HTC, Rav Aharon was offered the job of Rosh HaYeshiva at Yeshivas Rabbenu Jacob Joseph (RJJ). He declined as he felt his mission was not yet acomplishged here in Chicago.
Seymour Abrams was the chairman of the Board of HTC when Rav Aharon was fired. Many years later he chaired a banquet for Yeshivas Brisk. It was just a short time before Rav Aharon's death. He spoke at that banquet and donated a substantial amount of money to the Yeshiva at that time.
As I said in an earlier chapter, some of Rav Aharon’s hand picked faculty did not support him. Rabbi Gedaliah Rabinowitz had been hired by Rav Aharon from Yeshiva University to become the high school principal. He ended up being in the forefront of Rav Aharon’s opposition. Some have blamed him as being directly responsible for Rav Aharon’s ultimate ouster from Skokie.
Here is what happened. Rabbi Rabinowitz had made some decisions in the high school without consulting and getting the approval of the Rosh HaYeshiva. Rav Aharon countermanded those decisions. Rabbi Rabinowitz felt that his ability to function as a principal was being undermined. He complained to the board and led the charge against Rav Aharon amongst the members of the faculty that opposed him.
After Rav Aharon’s departure from Skokie in 1973, the Yeshiva hired a major name in the Torah world, Rav Moshe Herschler. Rabbi Rabinowitz had stayed on as principal of the high school.
After a relatively short tenure Rav Herschler returned to Israel. Rabbi Rabinowitz filled the void and became the defacto Rosh HaYeshiva giving the Smicha Shiur and signing Semichos. The students in the Yeshiva loved, honored, and respected him. Over the next few years he changed his look. He came to the Yeshiva clean shaven and wearing a suit. By the time he left he was wearing a Chasidishe Bekeshe, a Shtreimel and he had a long full beard. He had become the Manestricher Rebbe. Apparently he was descendant from a Rabbinic line in Chasidus.
When he finally left Skokie to move to Israel in the early eighties he took out a full page ad in the Sentinel, then Chicago’s weekly Jewish newspaper, publicly apologizing to Rav Aharon. He left Chicago after that, never to return.
Updated: 7/2/07 11:33 AM CDT
As is almost always the case, things do not remain static. The successes HTC had enjoyed were not going to remain untouched. A new Yeshiva was founded by several very talented Mechanchim, one of whom was former Brisk Yeshiva high school principal, Rabbi Meir Yehuda Lichtman. When Brisk realized it could no longer afford to stay open, it had to terminate the services of some of its own people. Rabbi Lichtman was one of them. If that name sounds familiar, it is because his father was former HTC Rosh HaYeshiva, Rabbi Yechezkel Lichtman.
The new Yeshiva has successfully attracted students from the moderate right wing of Orthodoxy who might otherwise have gone to HTC. Those parents wanted a Yeshiva for their sons that was more like Telshe... but were unhappy with Telshe’s strong opposition to college. Yeshivas Brisk was first approached by these parents, but they made demands upon Brisk which they could not accept. Shortly thereafter Yeshivas Meor HaTorah was born.
HTC’s high school enrollment is down. At least one Rebbe has been re-assigned to another position as there were not enough students to justify his class. But more importantly the potential of HTC’s Beis Hamedrash program has never fully been realized, despite the fact that some of the best Rabbeim and Roshei Yeshiva in the city and perhaps even in the country are HTC’s Beis Hemdreash Rebbeim.
And that is no exaggeration. I have been around the block a few times… as a student, as a parent, and as a board member I have encountered many Rebbeim in many Yeshivos. No where have I found Rebbeim more dedicated to the students than at Skokie, both in high school and in the Beis HaMedrash. My experiences with my son’s Rebbeim, both in high school and Beis Hamedrash, will forever testify to that. They are by far amongst the most dedicated and talented Mechanchim I have ever known.
The dedication and virtual self sacrifice extended to each student defies description. My son will tell you the same thing. He will tell you that he owes everything to Rabbi Avraham Freidman who stood by him through thick and thin and helped guide his path from high school to Kerem B’Yavneh and later from the Beis Hamedrash of Skokie to the Beis Hamedrash of Yeshivas Mir in Jerusalem.
I think it is safe to say that all the Rebbeim he encountered when he was in the Beis HaMedrash in Skokie have significantly contributed to the successful path in learning he has taken. But none of this is so well known outside the Yeshiva. And that is an important factor in the lack of success in the Beis Hamedrash.
A Yeshiva’s primary function is the Beis Hamedrash program. That is its centerpiece, its crowning glory. It is the learning that takes place there by post high school students that defines it. Skokie’s Beis Hamedrash is not strong. It has not lived up to its potential. For years the Yeshiva has tried to build up the Beis Hamedrash and attract better students. That is one of the reasons it sought and received accreditation for its college.
But it has not succeeded in attracting a significant number of students, what I would call a critical mass. They have gone elsewhere post high school: Yeshivos like Ner Israel and Yeshiva University and various other East Coast Yeshivos. There are a few exceptions that do come to Skokie and of those, some are indeed quite brilliant. They are the ones who stay on in the Yeshiva’s Bellows Kollel. But that is what they are, exceptions. The post high school serious learning presence is mostly that of the Kollel.
It isn’t for lack of desire or lack of trying on the part of the Yeshiva. As brilliant as the Rosh HaYeshiva's Shiurim might be, the fact is the Beis Hamedrash is weak.
There are many reasons why this is the case. Here in my view are some of them:
Geography: Most young men who graduate high school in Yeshivos like Skokie tend to go to Israel for a year or two. When they return, they want to be in a good high quality Yeshiva. And the East Coast has a lot of great ones with long established reputations to choose from.
The Roshei Yeshiva in Israel: I have been told that some of them actively discourage the better students from going to Skokie.
Shiduchim: The New York area is where one can find many Yeshivos plus a Jewish atmosphere unlike anything the Midwest has to offer. And when it comes time for Shiduchim… dating prospects are much more numerous there, too.
Academic studies: For those interested in a university program that enjoys respect in academia and has many academic options for study while at the same time is a Yeshiva with serious Torah learning and top Rebbeim, YU is an obvious choice.
Reputation: For those who want a solid right wing type Yeshiva, they will not choose Skokie. As good as the Yeshiva is now, it’s not Lakewood or even Ner Israel.
On the other hand Chicago is no wilderness. We too have Yeshivos. And a vibrant Jewish community. And when it comes to Shiduchim we are no wilderness either. While it’s understandable that a young man would want to go east, that doesn’t really explain why HTC is not as successful as it should be in attracting students.
It is all about the level of learning. This is its most important attraction to serious students. In order to attract a critical mass of top students it has to concentrate on this the most because potential Beis Hamedrash students are going elsewhere.
While all the above mentioned items are important, they pale in comparison to this one. Improving the college by adding more courses and granting advanced degrees is indeed an imperative. The Yeshiva is in fact expanding its course options. And they need to do a lot more. But, as important as that is, it’s secondary.
To a serious student of Torah, it is about the quality and quantity… the depth and the scope of the learning. Once a serious student has gotten the taste of serious leaning for a year or two in Israel, he wants to advance. Skokie does not attract on that level. No matter how great the Rebbeim are, or the Rosh HaYeshiva's Shiurim are... they are not attracting students. Their reputations have not spread. There are too few Beis Hamedrash students in the Yeshiva to help spread it.
As I said the Yeshiva has tried and is still trying to recruit students to its Beis Hamedarsh. But they are not succeeding. The question must be asked: Why?!
Over the last decade or so I have observed numerous missed opportunities to hire some very charismatic Rebbeim who easily could have attracted more students. In one case they missed out on a top name in Torah world. Here are four cases in point that I am familiar with:
Rabbi Zev Cohen. As the Rav of a large Shul in West Rogers Park here, he was still willing to be a regular presence at the Yeshiva. The Yeshiva had initially hired him as a Rebbe. But the obligations to his Shul increased to a point where he could no longer be a full time staff member. There are few Rebbeim in any Yeshiva that are as charismatic as Rabbi Cohen is. He attracted people. He was beloved by almost all students he encountered… students that over the years are still loyal to and seek out for advice and council no in matter what part of the world they live. It may not have been ideal, but they should have held on to him. That would have been a start.
Rabbi Yosef Bechoffer. He is a brilliant Talmid Chacham. And what he brought to the table, few others can bring. His depth and breath of Torah knowledge was tremendous. He was a full time member of the Beis Hamedrash there. But the Yeshiva never utilized his talents. He was passed up for opportunities to teach. Eventually the Yeshiva let him go. He would have been a tremendous asset. There are very few Mechanchim like him.
Rabbi Avraham Kivelevitz is a great scholar, who was a great source of intellectual development, his knowledge of Jewish history is shared by few people in the Torah world and as a Jewish thinker he had few peers.
But the biggest mistake in my view was in turning down an opportunity to hire Rav Eliyahu Soloveichik, Rav Aharon’s son. He was the Rosh HaYeshiva in Brisk under his father. His knowledge of Torah had very few peers in this city, which boasts many fine and even great Talmidei Chachamim. He is modest, mild mannered, and eschewed the limelight. He sees his entire purpose in life as a teacher of Torah. As Brisk was winding down, Lander College hired him to commute weekly to New York and give Shiurim there. As would be expected he became a very popular Rebbe.
In my never ending quest to improve the state of my alma mater I had approached Rav Eliyahu to see if he would be interested in taking a position as a Beis Hamedrash Rebbe in Skokie. He told me that if asked, he would accept. He had no real interest in moving to New York at the time, Chicago having been his home for most of his life.
I approached the Yeshiva with this prospect. Although it had support from some key members of the administration and board, the idea was rejected. HTC could have had him with no strings attached. Imagine the impact of having Rav Eliyahu Soloveichik teaching a high level Shiur in Skokie. But they said no.
I’m sure they had their reasons. And they are under no obligation to share them with the public. But in my view they need to explain why they passed up on opportunities that surely would have attracted more top students and created a much higher level of Torah learning.
The high school is no longer filled to capacity. And while there is no controversy anymore thanks to the years of hard work on the part of Rav Morgenstern, Rabbi Isenberg, and the board, that alone is insufficient. The Yeshiva needs more than that.
The potential is there. But they have yet to achieve success as a major Yeshiva.
Postscript
I would be remiss if I did not convey some of the more interesting events that occurred along the way.
The Traditional Movement is dying movement today. There are a few Traditional Shuls left most of which now have Mechitza Minyanim that are attended by more people than the main Shul. The largest of these Shuls, KINS, became Orthodox several years ago. After almost dying it has now been completely resuscitated. The long term Traditional rabbi of KINS, Rabbi Moses Mescheloff was a Musmach from Yeshiva University. He was given Smicha by Rav Aharon’s father, Rav Moshe Soloveitchik. He is well into his nineties now and sits next to the dynamic young modern Orthodox Rav of the Shul, Rabbi Leonard Matanky.
Rav Aharon certainly played a part in the Traditional Movement’s demise. I happen to believe those Shuls would have died anyway. But credit should certainly be given to those in the front lines of the fight against non Mechitza Shuls. And Rav Aharon certainly deserves it. I believe it cost him his health.
Mizrachi, once a powerhouse movement here in Chicago, has become very small. It is dwarfed by Agudath Israel now. They no longer even have an independent building in Chicago. The property they bought from the proceeds of the sale of the old Mizrachi building to Buddhist missionaries was eventually sold to The Chicago Community Kollel (Lakewood) many years ago. There have been attempts to revive Mizrachi over the years, but they have been largely unsuccessful thus far.
During the hieght of the battle between Rav Aharon and HTC, Rav Aharon was offered the job of Rosh HaYeshiva at Yeshivas Rabbenu Jacob Joseph (RJJ). He declined as he felt his mission was not yet acomplishged here in Chicago.
Seymour Abrams was the chairman of the Board of HTC when Rav Aharon was fired. Many years later he chaired a banquet for Yeshivas Brisk. It was just a short time before Rav Aharon's death. He spoke at that banquet and donated a substantial amount of money to the Yeshiva at that time.
As I said in an earlier chapter, some of Rav Aharon’s hand picked faculty did not support him. Rabbi Gedaliah Rabinowitz had been hired by Rav Aharon from Yeshiva University to become the high school principal. He ended up being in the forefront of Rav Aharon’s opposition. Some have blamed him as being directly responsible for Rav Aharon’s ultimate ouster from Skokie.
Here is what happened. Rabbi Rabinowitz had made some decisions in the high school without consulting and getting the approval of the Rosh HaYeshiva. Rav Aharon countermanded those decisions. Rabbi Rabinowitz felt that his ability to function as a principal was being undermined. He complained to the board and led the charge against Rav Aharon amongst the members of the faculty that opposed him.
After Rav Aharon’s departure from Skokie in 1973, the Yeshiva hired a major name in the Torah world, Rav Moshe Herschler. Rabbi Rabinowitz had stayed on as principal of the high school.
After a relatively short tenure Rav Herschler returned to Israel. Rabbi Rabinowitz filled the void and became the defacto Rosh HaYeshiva giving the Smicha Shiur and signing Semichos. The students in the Yeshiva loved, honored, and respected him. Over the next few years he changed his look. He came to the Yeshiva clean shaven and wearing a suit. By the time he left he was wearing a Chasidishe Bekeshe, a Shtreimel and he had a long full beard. He had become the Manestricher Rebbe. Apparently he was descendant from a Rabbinic line in Chasidus.
When he finally left Skokie to move to Israel in the early eighties he took out a full page ad in the Sentinel, then Chicago’s weekly Jewish newspaper, publicly apologizing to Rav Aharon. He left Chicago after that, never to return.
Updated: 7/2/07 11:33 AM CDT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)