Rav Steinman, Amalek, and Satmar

HaRav Aharon Leib Steinman

I don’t know who this “Rov” is. But it is beyond belief that anyone could suggest even the remotest suggestion that Rav Aharon Leib Steinman, a Zaken – an elder sage and rabbinic leader could even remotely be compared to Amalek.

For those unfamiliar with the term, Amalek is a nation that is so evil, that the Torah commands us to wipe them off the face of the planet - killing every man, woman, and child… and to erase the remotest memory of this people.  The theological reasons for this are beyond the scope of this post. Suffice it to say that this command cannot be carried out today.

There is no other nation in the history of the world where that commandment applied. Not ancient Egypt whose rulers enslaved us; and not even Nazi Germany (…although some believe that Hitler was born of the seed of Amalek).  

I don’ think I need to say how vile this comparison is. And yet someone made it. It was reported in Matzav. They also reported that it was condemned by Gilo Chief Rabbi and Posek for the Jerusalem Religious Council, Rav Eliyahu Schlesinger. I don’t know him or his Hashkafos, but I absolutely share his sentiments about this.

The article mentions that nonagenarian Rav Steinman is the Gadol HaDor… that he was ‘crowned’ as such by Rav Chaim Kanievsky. I am not in any position to make that kind of judgment. My own Hashkafos have led me to both agree and disagree with him at times. I have my own views about who is and isn’t a Gadol and who might best qualify for the title of Gadol HaDor. But that is beside the point. He is an undeniably a rabbinic leader in our day and is widely respected both in and out of his Charedi circle.

There is no doubt in my mind that he is a man of great moral character who would never sell out an ideal for any reason. He has proven himself that way in cases where Ashkenazi educators in his own Charedi sphere were harshly criticized by him for discrimination tactics against Sephardim in their schools. He is a man deserving of all of our respect and even admiration for taking an unpopular but principled stand in cases like this.

The Matzav article does not identify who made these unbelievable comments about R’ Steinman. But I think we can narrow it down somewhat by the actual quote: 

“Who is to blame? Their leaders,” said the rov. “In Bnei Brak sits and instigator and inciter and some ignorant and empty people come along and make him gadol hador. Who made him gadol hador? Several journalists. He is an instigator and an inciter. He maintains ‘asher karcha,’ just like Amaleik. There are some erliche roshei yeshivoswho want to fight against conscription of yeshiva bochurim. They stand by and are silenced, so they are quiet. They threaten them. He is a real ‘asher karcha,’ he is a spark of true Amaleik, and he is yet a gadol hador as well… If they would not take money [from the government], the decree would not have been enacted.” 

This quote is taken somewhat out of context so it is hard to know exactly what R’ Steinman is specifically being blamed for. But it is obviously a reference to the current situation with drafting Charedim in Israel into the army.

This individual somehow faults Rav Steinman for the ‘evil decree’. Which is kind of strange because I’m pretty sure R’ Steinman is opposed to it… unless he means that R’ Steinman approved of the concept of Nachal Charedi in at least a limited form. But that doesn’t really make any difference. It is the last line in that quote that narrows it down:

If they would not take money [from the government], the decree would not have been enacted. 

One can debate the validity of that statement or even side with it in principle. But that too is beside the point. The point is that we know who the rejectionists are. There are Charedi groups who do not take any money from the government. Aside from the Israeli Briskers (who I tend to doubt said anything like this against R’ Steinman) it is basically the Meah Shearim crowd. They are mostly made of the Chasidim of Toldos Aharon, Neturei Karta, and Eida HaCharedis types who reject the very existence of Israel and continually call for its dismantling.

They all follow the philosophy of the Satmar Rebbe, R’ Yoel Teitelbaum who in a published statement called the founding spiritual leader of Religious Zionism, Rav Avrohom Yitzchok HaKohen Kook, an Ish Tzar V’Oyev  - a man (causing) anguish and an enemy! (Book of Esther - 7:6). This is how the biblical Esther described the evil Haman. In fact her very next words are Haman HaRa HaZeh - this evil (man) Haman! The Satmar Rebbe had no problem comparing Rav Kook, to Haman. And just like Hitler was seen in our era as a descendant of Amalek, so do many commentators see Haman as a descendant of Amalek.

It shouldn’t be too hard to figure out where this condemnation of R’ Steinman came from. I doubt it was from one of the two Satmar Rebbes themselves. Rav Schlesinger is quoted in Matzav saying: 

I am confident that the rov who spoke out does not represent the opinion of [those he is associated with] 

So it is likely some lower level Rov in the rejectionist community of ‘Greater Satmar’. Someone who follows the Satmar Rebbe’s philosophy about the State of Israel.

I don’t know why Matzav did not identify who made this statement. (Well… maybe I do.) But it should not be left to the imagination. This fellow has to be exposed and severely condemned. Perhaps even put into some sort of Cherem. There is no excuse for what he did. And there is equally no excuse for Matzav to hide his identity. By doing so, they enable further such comments and thereby are complicit in them.

Update:
The Jewish Worker blog has posted the image of a Pashekevil (wall poster) where it is clear that the individual who said these vile things (and more) about R' Steinman is one of the Dayanim (sitting judges) on the Eida HaCharedis. His  is Rabbi Yehoshua Rosenberger. According to blog owner Marty Bluke, the Lithuanian Charedi world is threatening a boycott of food products that carry the Eida Hechsher if they do not withdraw those statements.

I have advocated boycotting their products in the past. Many times for other reasons. Even though many people agreed with me, the point was made that it would be a virtual impossibilty to do so. The Eida Hechsher is on far too many products to boycott. Well... maybe so. But now the Charedi world is threatening one for another - completely valid reason. If that happens, then there is indeed some justice in he world. In any case my message to the Charedi leaders calling for this boycott is... welcome aboard!

Rabbi Birnbaum Apologizes – Sort of

Last week Gil Student and I were attacked in the Yated because of a perception that we go easy on our own people when they do wrong while being very hard on the right when they do wrong. I responded here and Gil responded in a letter to the editor of the Yated. Without rehashing my response I will just say that his views about my motives and purpose in the way I write are mistaken.  I forgave him and asked only that he apologize to Gil since his criticism of Gil was much stronger than it was of me. Which is kind of odd since my blog is far more critical of bad behavior than Gil’s is – by far!

He has apologized to us both in answer to Gil’s letter (not available on line). But he stuck to his guns about us - mostly directing his criticism to Gil. Gil’s ‘sin’ – he says - remains. That’s because Gil continues to have links to articles in the margin of his blog – some of which are negative. He only apologized for hurting us in his ‘legitimate’ message.

Most of the commentary I read about Rabbi Birnbaum’s apology is highly critical of it – calling it not much of an apology.

I cannot speak for Gil, but I accept his apology even though I did not ask for one. I am also not going to fault him for his views which are based on Charedi Hashkafos. I did not expect him to change those Hashkafos. In the world of the right, only the good is publicized. The bad is kept as hidden as possible so as not to make them look bad to the world.

When they see bad press it hurts them. When they see me (more than Gil) publicizing and criticizing it too, they blame us for helping to spread Lashon Hara about them.

Even when they occasionally concede it is true (as R' Birnbaum does) - why spread it? What is gained? Why hurt them even more? Why increases the numbers of people made aware of this? They consider bad behavior in their community to be such an anomaly that mentioning it paints an unfair picture of them to the world.

To quote R' Nosson Sherman's explanation about why he only publishes flattering things about Gedolim in ArtScroll bios - eliminating even the most innocuous negative (to them) things like the fact that Rav Aharon Kotler once read a secular novel  - "If it doesn't inspire - it ought not be said".  They see their own way of life as the epitome of perfection in serving God. And they see most of their people accomplishing that, if the stick to their script.

They therefore do not want Mussar from us. They think they are not deserving of it since the bad behavior is so rare in their circles… and who are we to criticize them?! I would be fine with that except that if we don't give them any Mussar, they won't get any at all. And, unfortunately it is not as rare as they would like to believe.

The message they give to their public is that their world is a glorious one where the Torah way of life -  emphasized mostly in Bein Adam L'Makom ways - is lived to near perfection. Nor do they understand the need for Orthodox leaders to condemn bad behavior publicly. But as I have consistently maintained - not doing so only adds to the Chilul HaShem. I will therefore continue to do as I do and he will continue to disapprove. That's too bad because we really ought to be on the same page here.

"We are all brothers and sisters" says Rabbi Birnbaum. I agree. No one cries out for unity more that I do. And I would love to never see a negative story about an observant Jew again. But if and when it happens, I am going to say something about it. I only wish Rabbi Birnbaum would do the same.

How Not to Win Friends and Influence People

Brisk (Israel) Rosh HaYeshiva, HaRav Dovid Soloveitchik

I don’t know who Rabbi Gideon D. Sylvester is. Never met him or heard about him until now. A quick search on the internet informs me that he lives in Jerusalem, is a human rights activist, and a member in good standing of Britain’s United  Synagogue. That is the umbrella organization of Britain’s non Chasidic Orthodox Jewish establishment that Lord Jonathan Sacks heads. I have no clue what Rabbi Sylvester’s Hashkafos are. But on this subject I am one with him.

Rabbi Sylvester has penned an article in Ha’aretz that I believe highlights one of the biggest reasons  why so many secular Jews in Israel reject observant Judaism. He blames the Israeli Chief Rabbinate for it. This may be an over-simplification but I think he is on to something. It is the very same thing I talk about quite often here. The religious right.

By example he tells the story of a secular Jewish Israeli who refused to wear a Kipa under the Chupah at his own wedding. When asked why and told that even British Royalty wear a Kipa when entering a synagogue as a sign of respect , his answer was that as a Jew he had a right to practice Judaism as he saw fit. It is one thing for a non Jew to show signs of respect. He saw wearing a Kipa – something he does not believe in – as a form of religious coercion.

That took me aback. In 2013 it is rare to find a Jew so far removed from observant Judaism that he will not don a Kipa in similar circumstances. I recall channel surfing a couple of months ago and stopping on one of those ‘bachelorette’ programs where a man gets to choose from a group of women who he will marry (or vise versa).

Personally I can’t stand this form of entertainment (…and I use the word entertainment loosely). That episode happened to be the season finale and the man and his chosen bride were getting married. I stopped on that program because I noticed that it was a Jewish wedding. How did I know that? Because the bridegroom was wearing a Kipa. There was nothing else on that show that was even remotely Jewish. The women he chose wasn’t even Jewish. The man officiating was not Jewish. The ceremony was civil. And yet the Jewish bridegroom still felt that wearing a Kipa was the right thing to do.

But the above mentioned Israeli would have no part of that. Why? I believe that Rabbi Sylvester quite correctly blames the way the Israeli Chief Rabbinate is perceived. It is perceived as coercive. I would add that the Israeli Rabbinate is but it one cog in that coercive wheel. The way the religious right has been acting lately reinforces the image of ‘Gimee mine and get lost’.  

The religious right may believe that God is on their side… that they are fighting for a Torah way of life and that the current government wants to destroy it. I completely disagree with their take, but I can understand why they feel that way. Even if one would concede their point that does not mean they have to behave in such a negative off-putting manner. Doing so is what creates and perpetuates bridegrooms like that Israeli.

The irony – says Rabbi Sylvester is that secular Israelis like him are people that are ready to lay down their lives for their people. All of them including the religious right of both Charedim and extremist Religious Zionists. And yet he is so angered by their religious coercion and behavior that he refuses to have anything at all to do with any symbols of observant Judaism.

Former Chief Rabbi, Lord Immanuel Jakobovitz, ZTL

The question is - why are many non Jews so much more respectful of Judaism than this fellow is? Rabbi Sylvestor tells us about the relationship Margret Thatcher had with the former Chief Rabbi of England, Lord Immanuel Jakobovitz – and later with current Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks. So enamored was she with Lord Jakobovitz that she was the one who had him placed in the House of Lords.  He was her "favorite man of God." Why? Well I can tell you one thing. It was not because of religious coercion. It was because he exemplified the best of Jewish values to the world:

Although she was a believing Christian leading a Christian country, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher held the British chief rabbi, Immanuel Jakobovitz, in the highest regard. She recognized in him a religious integrity which she felt was lacking in her church, so she consulted with him regularly…

Rabbi Jakobovitz, his successor, and other prominent Orthodox rabbis commanded similar respect. Those rabbis understood how to act like a Jew in public They understood Jewish ethics. They understood that acting the way they did was the Jewish way to act. And the result was a Kiddush HaShem.  One that can bring justifiable pride in being a Jew even if one is not observant.

In Israel today, how many of our religious leaders instill pride in being Jewish into the secular public? There was a time where one could easily answer that question. Rabbis Chaim Shmuelvitz, Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, and Yisroel Zev Gustman come to mind. How many religious leaders act like they did in public? How many expressed the Hakoras HaTov to the army as did R’ Shmulevitz and R’ Gustman? How many expressed sensitivity to a secular Jew as did R’ Auerbach -  by not embarrassing a secular woman on a bus because she was immodestly dressed. He got off at the next bus stop much sooner than he had to so she would not think he got up because of her. He walked an extra two blocks so as not to embarrass her.

Compare that to the harsh rhetoric of today. As Rabbi Sylvester clearly points out at the end of his excellent article:

While the Israeli rabbinate is full of excellent scholars and fine individuals, rabbinic voices of decency and integrity are too often drowned out by the shrill, wicked cries of the religious and ultra-nationalist fanatics.

Our Israeli religious leaders must be associated not only with a strong Israel, but also with ethical, caring and compassionate leadership. They must speak out for Israel's majority, and also for its minorities, for those who are learned in the law and those who are not. Then, I imagine that wearing a kippa under the chuppah will be far less of an issue for our many of our fellow Jews.

I could not agree more.

The Preferred Approach to a Bris

Photo Credit: The Forward

The Israeli Rabbinate has apparently weighed in on the the Metzitza B’Peh issue (MbP). Sort of.  A complaint was filed by an anti circumcision activist against Yehudah Teichtal, a Chabad rabbi in Germany who did this procedure on a baby immediately after circumcising him.

Rabbi Teichtal contacted the Chief Rabbinate in Israel requesting a response. He got one. From the Forward: 

Moshe Morsiano, chair of the Division of Circumcision for the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, emphasized in a letter dated April 22 that there is no justification for avoiding metzitzah b’peh “unless the mohel has a sore in his mouth, or some infectious disease.” 

What is interesting about this response is the deceptive nature of it. (Although I do not believe it was purposely done that way.) From the tone it sounds like MbP should almost always be done. And that only in the rarest of circumstances should it be avoided.

I suppose the reason they framed it this way is because of the centuries old tradition of doing so. But the second part of that letter is of no less significance. In fact I would say it is the most important part of it and indicates the exact opposite. It says that MbP should be avoided if the Mohel has a sore in his mouth or some infectious disease.

To me that tells the whole story. Those who carry the herpes virus cannot always tell when it is present in the mouth. It is not always symptomatic in the early stages. A Mohel can have the virus and not be at all aware of it. To me that says loudly and clearly that MbP should be avoided at all times. If cold sores can be asymptomatic there is always a risk of it being there.

It should also be clear from Rabbi Morsiano’s statement that he too believes that MbP is not a requirement. Or he wouldn’t have suggested using an alternative method of doing Metzitza under any circumstances.

In an era where so much more is known about transmission of diseases by the mouth… and where there are strong indications that some babies have contracted herpes around the time they were circumcised from an infected Mohel … and where the CDC advises against it, I don’t see how anyone can do MbP. Even by the Chief Rabbinate’s standards.

The fact that his happened in Germany where circumcision itself is being challenged is significant. I think it highlights the damage that is done by equating MbP with circumcision itself as those who are fighting the New York City Department of health are saying. More than once I have heard that equation being made. Some accuse outright that New York is trying to outlaw circumcision. Others either imply it or say that outlawing MbP is a slippery slope that could lead to outlawing circumcision completely.

If we give the those who oppose circumcision this kind of ammunition, they will have something to base their accusations that a Bris is a barbaric procedure that endangers the lives of innocent little babies! No doubt that is what the anti circumcision activist who filed a complaint in Germany was thinking. If a Mohel insists on a dangerous procedure that he says is a religious requirement, he will have a leg to stand on. This is not a leg that we should concede. Because aside from the tragic results that may occur on a baby and his family, the impact it could have on Bris Mila itself could be devastating.

Even though there are so many Poskim that do not - including the Chief Israeli Rabbinate I realize that Chasidim do consider MbP to be a Halachic requirement. This is why I would oppose any legislation that would outlaw it. But I do support the NY health department requirement that parents be informed of the danger honestly. And by honestly I would include the concession that the chance of infection is indeed very low. But I would at the same time insist that as low as it is, it is real.

I therefore reassert my plea that the Agudah withdraw its opposition to this requirement. Because the more we oppose requirements by experts in the field with no axe to grind against Judaism; people whose intentions are only the health and welfare of the public - the more we endanger circumcision itself. The anti circumcision people are no doubt looking very carefully at what is happening in Germany… and that will certainly influence their actions here. Eizehu Chacham? Ha Roeah Es HaNolad!

Another Fallen Religious Leader

Chief Rabbi of France Gilles Bernheim Photo credit: Getty images via the Forward

I do not know him at all – or anything about him, really. But I believe that Gilles Bernheim - the Chief Rabbi of France - is not Charedi. Although one may assume he is based on the photo, his activities as Chief Rabbi as described in a Forward article speak to a very open minded individual. Open to things no Charedi would ever approve of. If anything he leans left of center on most issues. This would belie any attempts to describe him as Charedi. Which shows that looks can be deceiving.

But it doesn’t really matter what side of the Hashakfic fence he resides. His deceptive practices which he has admitted to are an embarrassment to all of world Jewry… and, I might add a Chilul HaShem. Having a major position like being a Chief Rabbi of a country like France gives him that dubious honor. He is out there representing French Jewry as their ‘chief’! A rabbinic leader of high standing in the Jewish world.

Pretending to be writing scholarly philosophical works pertaining to Judaism; he was found to be guilty of plagiarizing much of it from others some of which were not even Jewish: 

A French academic noticed that long passages in Bernheim’s critically acclaimed 2011 book “Forty Jewish Meditations repeated word for word an earlier book by the eminent philosopher Jean-François Lyotard…

The scholar Jean-Noel Danarde who specializes in literary plagiarism, flagged other passages in Bernheim’s book taken from thinkers as diverse as Elie Wiesel, Jean-Marie Domenach (who, ironically, had been accused of anti-Semitism toward the end of his career) and Vladimir Jankelevitch. Moreover, [Danarde ??] revealed that one thing left unsaid in “What Is Often Left Unsaid” was that Bernheim hijacked entire passages from the writings of the reactionary Catholic priest Joseph-Marie Verlinde and Beatrice Bourges, the Pasionaria of the anti-gay movement. 

At first he denied it but then he admitted it and tried to blame others. He was also found to be lying about his credentials. Claiming to hold a PhD in philosophy - some good investigative work on the part of reporters has determined that he held no such degree. Officials at the university he claimed to have granted him a doctorate, the Sorbonne declared that Bernheim never finished it.

This goes beyond just lying about oneself for purposes of self promotion. That would be bad enough - but ultimately forgivable via an admission of guilt and a contrite apology. But when one involves himself in a consistent pattern of deception which includes plagiarizing word for word the work of others -  claiming them as his own, it shows that aside from being a liar he is an empty shell. That he has no depth and nothing personal to offer.  All of this makes him unworthy of any kind of leadership. To say the least.

To add insult to injury, he has the Chutzpah to insist on remaining France’s Chief Rabbi – claiming that to resign would be an act of desertion.

Desertion - my foot! He wanted to keep his job. And was probably more motivated by the Kavod he got than he is by any desire to help his people.

I don’t know if what he did will have any legal consequences. But they do have moral and ethical consequences. There is no way that he should have any position of authority or respect.  Fortunately the French Jewish community has forced him to resign. Had he stayed on he would have brought dishonor to his office, the Jews of France, and ultimately the entire Jewish people.

Update (5:07 PM CDT)
I would like to express my appreciation for those who pointed out an error in this post. Although my feelings about Rabbi Bernheim have not changed, I had somehow overlooked the clear and unambiguous statement in the Forward article that he was forced to resign by officials from the French Jewish community. I have altered the post to reflect that and I apologize for my lapse.

Thank You

Rabbi Avi Shafran

I am humbled. I have a received a lot of support since I was attacked (along with Rabbi Gil Student) in last week’s Yated. Support has come from all segments of Orthodoxy. Some of it from the right. Some of it from the left.  Some of it from in-between. I am truly grateful for all of it.

I would especially like to thank Rabbi Avi Shafran for his piece on Cross Currents. He has written a very strong defense of both Gil and me.

I am a long time admirer of Rabbi Shafran. He is a talented writer and an articulate spokesman for Agudah.  Although I am not Charedi and sometimes disagree with him - most of the time I do agree with him. As I often say, what unites us – fealty to the precepts of theTorah - is far greater than what divides us.

I would just add that I think that the venomous comments I sometimes see expressed on other blogs towards him by those who disagree is – well – disgusting!  …and unbecoming of anyone who claims to be an adherent of the Torah.  

Disagreement need not be disagreeable. Rabbi Shafran is a principled human being and he is entitled to his views. Which are all thought out and expressed rationally,  calmly… and yes - quite brilliantly most of the time. I wish his critics would learn to do the same. It would make for a much more enlightened discourse and truer expression of the pleasant ways of the Torah.

One again my hat is off to R’ Avi and all those who have come to Gil’s defense – and to my own. Thank you.

Terrorism and Immigration Reform

September 11, 2001

One of the questions raised by the events in Boston last week is whether it should effect changes in US immigration policy.

As a child of the Holocaust I am very sensitive to immigration issues. The sorry actions of Breckenridge Long, a State department official who was thinly disguised anti Smite contributed mightily to the numbers of my people who perished in the Holocaust. From a PBS website:

(In) an intra-department memo he circulated in June 1940... (Breckenridge Long)  wrote: "We can delay and effectively stop for a temporary period of indefinite length the number of immigrants into the United States. We could do this by simply advising our consuls to put every obstacle in the way…

90 percent of the quota places available to immigrants from countries under German and Italian control were never filled. If they had been, an additional 190,000 people could have escaped the atrocities being committed by the Nazis. 

Needless to say I am very much in favor of immigration reform. Never again should the State Department be able to pursue such restrictive immigration policies. 

That said I understand the dilemma this country faces. America is a very desired place to live by people of all nations, especially those that are economically depressed. Illegal immigrants from Mexico and elsewhere have risked their lives trying to gain entry just so they could work at menial jobs. Jobs that very few Americans are willing to do. Those jobs provide income for their impoverished families back in their country of origin – even at the very low wages they make.

So an open door policy would mean a flood of immigrants coming in hoping to improve their lives. They would all be seeking the same number of limited jobs. The same menial ones that Americans are unwilling to do. There is a limit to how many of even those jobs are available. What America does not want is a new dependency class that will break our welfare system… and possibly even destroy our economy. So immigration must be controlled.

And yet there has been an almost free flow of illegal immigrants coming across our southern borders. There are an estimated 11million illegal immigrants currently living here.

In a perfect world, they should all be penalized for violating our immigration laws by being deported. But it is not as simple as that. Most of these people have jobs that actaully aid the economy. Jobs that would mostly go unfilled.  They have lived here many years, pay taxes, have families and are law abiding respected members of their new adopted communities. Their children have known no other world. Having been born here they are legally American.  They are also culturally American. Deporting their parents (who would take their children back with them - or leave them here in some sort of foster parenting situation) would be counter-productive and a great injustice.

In my view there needs to be a way to allow these people to stay here legally – unfair though their entry may have been. This doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be penalties for what they did. But deportation would be an injustice in far too many cases – and it would probably hurt the economy.

Proposed legislation deals with these issues. Based on media reports I see a more or less fair resolution of the problem. It includes fines, requirements to have jobs, and a ten year waiting period that provides a path to citizenship. It also includes measures to tighten our borders so that crossing them illegally will be reduced by 90%.

But one thing I have not seen addressed is who we will be allowing in.

As a Jew and a child of the Holocaust - remembering the Breckenridge Longs of the world - I am loathe to base restrictions on any particular religion. But that is precisely what I am doing. I propose that Muslims be given extra scrutiny when they apply for immigration. If they are found to have any connection at all to Jihadism  they ought to be rejected. The point is that if an applicant is Muslim, immigration officials should require much more scrutiny of them than other applicants to determine that.

I am not proposing they should be completely barred. As I have said in the past many times, most Muslims are not terrorists. Most are law abiding citizens and should be given the same opportunities to pursue life, liberty, and happiness in a country based on that credo. Religious freedom embedded in the Bill of Rights is one of the cornerstones of our way of life. Immigration policy should reflect this. So I would never suggest that Muslims be barred from entry. Nor would I ever suggest quotas for them that are different than for anyone else.

But I do believe they should get extra scrutiny. There should be extra vigilance by immigration officials - backed by law that will enable them to profile Muslims and check their backgrounds more thoroughly.

It should be obvious by now that it is from their number that the greatest threat of terror comes. Radical Islamist/Jihadists are Muslim by definition. There is no way to separate them as a distinct ethnic or religious group. If an immigrant is Muslim - this ought to be seen as a red flag and it should generate extra scrutiny.

This should not be seen as racist or in any other way prejudicial. It is nothing more than prudence in light of recent history. A history that includes violence as the philosophy of one of their branches. A branch that believes in murder and carnage to achieve their religious goals. A branch that 2 American Muslims somehow gravitated to. Ignoring Islam’s part in this because of a misguided form of political correctness is why things like the Boston bombings happen.

Martin Richard, youngest victim the terrorist attack

I realize of course that the immigration scrutiny I suggest would have prevented Boston. The Tsarnaev brothers became fanatics long after they immigrated here. But that doesn’t mean we just ignore the fact that they were Muslim. Muslims should be examined to see if they have any ties to an Islamic fundamentalism that preaches violence. And even if they ‘pass the exam’ and are allowed entry, they should be monitored. If the 2 terrorists would have been monitored, this would have never happened.

There are some who may say that this is unfair to the vast majority of law abiding Muslims. Maybe so. But it is also unfair to the families of the victims that they were not.

In this great country of ours, where freedom of religion and the right to privacy are paramount, I can understand the extreme opposition to this by civil libertarians. In a vacuum they would be right. But if Boston has taught us anything, it is that sometimes one right supercedes another. The right to live without the fear of being blown to bits by the likes of the Tzarnaev brothers surely supercedes their right to privacy.

I don’t know about the constitutionality of implementing this kind of policy. But it should at least be considered and ways found to pass constitutional muster.

This will of course not eliminate all terrorism. We will still have the Timothy McVeighs of the world. But there can be little doubt where the source of the vast majority of terrorism in the world lies. And that is in the Islamist version of Islam.

Civil Liberties

Charedi classroom - Photo credit: Abir Sultan/Flash90 via Times of Israel

I find myself in the awkward position of defending actions that I abhor. According to an article in YWN - the arm of Israel’s education ministry that is responsible for providing funds to Charedi schools is deciding what sanctions these schools should get. They were open on Yom Ha’atzmaut which is in direct violation of the Ministry’s requirement that all schools should be closed on that day.

I find the position of the ministry not to be in consonance with the character of a free society.  I suppose that technically they can issue any conditions for funding they choose and implement financial sanctions if those conditions are not met.  But I believe it undermines the very nature of a free and democratic society to force people to close their institutions on any given day of the year no matter what its significance. 

Sanctions for doing so seem inappropriate and heavy handed. Ministry officials argue that this is a form of lawlessness which can lead to a general disregard for the law in other areas. I don’t think so. This is not hurting anyone. It does not detract from others their right to celebrate that day. All they end up doing is looking like bullies who want to force people to do something they don’t want to do. Charedim may be unpatriotic for refusing to close schools on Yom Ha’atzmaut. But a lack of patriotism is not – in my view a cause for punitive measures. In a free society people should have a right to do as they choose as long as they don’t hurt anyone in the process.

That said, the fact that these schools do not voluntarily close is in itself very troubling. This is not to say that I think Torah study should stop on that day. It shouldn't.  But not in ways which dishonor the day. By treating it as a normal school day – as most of them do – they are sending a message that they have absolutely no Hakoras HaTov (gratitude) for what they have been given since the very founding of the state over 65 years ago. They show that they are takers without saying thank you.

This is indicative of an attitude expressed time and again by some Charedi leaders. I am not talking about the rejectionists of Meah Shearim like Netrurei Karta and Satmar. I am talking about mainstream Charedim who rarely if ever have a good word to say about the State. Mostly what you hear them saying is that Israel is an evil empire out to destroy Judaism.  

They continually bring up examples of that evil which they say took place during the formative years of the State.  Examples that are of questionable reliability. I am not going to delve into those issues. All I will say is that there are different versions of what happened in every case. There are always at least 2 sides to every story.  

Nonetheless they insist on believing the most unflattering versions of those stories. This is what they focus on. Never mind that this is ‘ancient’ history and the religious climate then was not what it is now. Nor are today’s political leaders anything like those early pioneers. Some Charedi rabbinic leaders still see children being kidnapped from their parents and disabused of their religious beliefs.

More importantly - it is their refusal to recognize all the truly great things that Israel has done for the Jewish people that is so troubling.

It was the declaration of Statehood that opened the doors to all Holocaust refugees that were in displacement camps waiting for someone – anyone – to help them get back to a normal life. Nobody wanted them after they were liberated from the death camps. Including the British Mandatory government in Palestine. Very few permits were issued to those Jewish refugees. But the day Ben Gurion declared the State of Israel – the flood gates opened.

I cannot image the depth of joy, fulfillment of destiny, and sense of promise that must have been in the heart of a refugee when he or she first beheld the shores of the promised land after suffering the worst degradations imaginable to man. That moment must have been cathartic. Every refugee now had the right to come to the land of Israel.  The inscription on the Statue of Liberty first uttered by the Jewish Poet Emma Lazarus was never more appropriate than it was in Israel in those early and heady days of the state:

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door. 

Wretched refuse. After years of anti Semitic degradation, deprivation and torture by the Nazis and their willing accomplices of occupied lands - this is how the world saw the Holocaust refugee. It must have been hard for those refuges to think of themselves in any other way before they came to Israel’s shores. With the founding of the State these people had their dignity restored.

How in heaven’s name can any human being, let alone a fellow Jew not recognize that momentous day in Jewish History? I doubt that there is a single rational Holocaust survivor who immigrated who does not recognize it.

My wife had an uncle that was a Ger Chasid, who went through hell during the Holocaust losing his his wife and all of his children. Even though he was very close to the Gerrer Rebbe, on Yom Ha’atzmaut he Davened in a Mizrachi Shul so that he could say Hallel. There are probably hundreds if not thousands of stories like this. Surviving Jews of all stripes recognize the importance of Yom Ha’atzmaut. That’s because they lived through the horrors. But too many rabbinic leaders today refuse see any of this.

But even if there had been no Holocaust, what about the of the land of Israel being returned to the Jewish people after 2000 years. Do they not recognize the  miraculous nature of that event?! Satmar refuses to recognize it calling it the work of the devil. But supposedly this is not the mainstream Charedi view. And yet they ignore it.

What about the fact that the state has enabled the development of the greatest Makom Torah in the world? Greater in depth and scope than at any time in history since the time of Chazal? It was Ben Gurion that exempted all Yeshiva students from army service! According to an article in last week’s Mishpacha Magazine, the Chazon Ish himself had said that Ben Gurion would have no idea why he would be given such honor in the next world. It would be due to the few words uttered from his mouth. He declared that he would not be the destroyer of Yavneh and its sages!

And then there is all that money given to Yeshivos and their students. There has probably never been a greater Issachar- Zevulun partnership in history.

And yet, not the slightest bit of Hakaras HaTov. All they see is evil. That is the message far too many Charedi Mechanchim impart to their students. Especially now that there is a threat of a draft and reduction of funding. 

I’m surprised they don’t tear Kriyah on that day based on the rhetoric I hear from some from some of their leadership these days.

I have absolutely no sympathy for their position on this matter. None! And yet I support their right to be as contrarian about it as they choose. Because that is the way of a free society.

The Dzhokar is Not Wild

Tamerlan and Dzhokar Tsranaev - Photo credit: Reuters

It seems that my suspicions about the motives of the Boston terrorist bombers were correct. This was not some crazy person going wild. This was a deliberate act based on Islamist/Jihadist fervor. Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and his younger other, Dzhokar carefully planned and executed it.  Fortunately the death of one and capture of the other has to be the quickest end to a manhunt (of criminals of this magnitude) in US history. It also seems to be clear that Tamerlan, a once assimilated Chechniyan who married an American woman - became a radicalized Islamist during a lengthy visit to his homeland.

It is still early in the investigation. But is unlikely that any new information will change the basic assumptions now being made. Radical Islam is behind the attack. I assume Dzhokar was somehow persuaded to to join him in this effort by his older brother  – who was somehow also able to convince him about about the ‘justice’ of killing innocent people for ‘the cause’.  

Everything that has been revealed about Dzhokar so far says ‘normal’. He was a popular out-going19 year old; a completely naturalized citizen. He was enrolled in college - well adjusted and well liked. He was kind and considerate. There seemed to be no anger issues with this young Muslim. So far all those interviewed who knew him only had superlatives to say about him. They are shocked that he had anything to do with this. That a normal and seemingly well adjusted American kid can be so easily convinced to help commit a terrorist act of this magnitude is in and of itself is terrifying. 

In this era of the ubiquitous surveillance camera, they were quickly identified as having placed the bombs. A manhunt ensued. Tamerlan was shot and killed in a confrontational major shootout with law enforcement officials. His younger brother Dzhokar was later captured alive although seriously wounded. Hopefully he will survive and will be interrogated.

There are a lot of unanswered questions. Are there any additional co-conspirators?  What was their motivation? What precipitated their act? How could Dzhokar join his older brother so easily? Could this have been prevented with better security measures? How much liberty are we willing to give up for better security? …All good questions. But for me the one question that keeps coming up that I am not sure has an answer is how do we fight an idea?

As of now it seems that these two brothers were not a part of any organized terrorist group. They decided to act on their own motivated by the ideals of Radical Islam.

These are the ideals that are behind every suicide bomber who blew themselves up in Israel. This is the ideology behind Hamas, Hezbollah, and every other Jihadist group in the world. This is what caused our problems Iraq after we eliminated Saddam Hussein - and still causes our problems with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Just about every American soldier who was ever killed in the Middle East was killed because of Islamist radicalism. And let’s not forget 9/11. I don’t think there can be any doubt about that. 

Yes - there are other non Islamist radicals that can carry out terrorist bombings. That was made very clear by Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma in April of 1995. But I don’t think it is arguable that Islamism is the biggest international threat to security in our day.

More than ever the focus needs to be on the idea rather than it does on any given group carrying out terror. Whether it is Al Qaida or any other group. This should be painfully obvious after the events in Boston last week. You don’t need more than one person to carry out a major act of terror. Not that Al Qaida should be ignored. But it is the idea that motivates them that ought to be the main focus of counter terrorism.

This is something that anyone with half a brain should have known for the longest time. But in our politically correct world, connecting terror to a specific religion is counter to one of America’s most sacred values – religious tolerance. Government officials are therefore loathe to mention Islam and terror in the same sentence. While I agree that we ought not castigate an entire religion for the acts of a few, it makes no sense to overlook the obvious.

I am the first to say that the vast majority of Muslims living in America are not terrorists. Most of them love this country and want to live peaceful lives while practicing their religion freely. This does not mean that they aren’t anti-Israel. I’m sure that most of them are.  They buy into the narrative of Israeli occupation being the source of all evil. But most of them would never support terror in pursuit of what they perceive to be justice for the Palestinians. But the root of worldwide terror is in Islam’s radical religious element. Ignoring this simple fact because of political correctness may be our biggest folly.

That said Muslims in this country ought not be persecuted.  On the contrary. They have the same right as anyone else to pursue happiness and practice their religion in this country. But even they must realize the extent of Islamist extremism.  Extra vigilance about Muslims living in this country must be part of our security considerations. Muslims themselves can be just as easily victimized by terrorist bombers as anyone else. A truly patriotic Muslim should therefore be the first to condemn it and understand why their community gets more scrutiny. They should welcome that. I’ll bet that some of them actually do welcome it.

If there is any silver lining here, it is that the media will hopefully finally realize what I have from the very beginning. That it is Islamism that is the enemy and not Al Qaida  Al Qaida is but one ‘tool’ of many dedicated to the cause. There must be hundreds more like them. Who knows how many sleeper cells there are! Some Jihadist groups might only have two members as was most likely the case with the Tsarnaev brothers. There are a number of Jihadist websites that are dedicated to recruiting innocent Muslims into their cause and provide simple instructions on how to build devastating bombs with easily obtainable household items.

How stupid must the media have been not to have seen all of this till now? These websites did not happen yesterday. Well at least now it is being noticed. Much of the commentary I’ve seen since the bombing seems to finally be getting it. And that is a good thing.

I just hope that this new realization does not wear off so that we end up going back to a political correctness that ignores the real danger. If it does, then we will have learned nothing from what happened in Boston last week.

Avrohom Birnbaum's Mistaken Umbrage

Rabbi Gil Student

“Why are they so quick to snipe so resentfully at every perceived lapse of their chareidi brothers?”

So reads the ‘pull quote’ in the middle of an article in the print version of the Yated about fellow blogger Rabbi Gil Student and me.

A fellow named Avrohom Birnbaum takes us both to task in his perception of how we handled the news about one of our own versus how we handle news about Charedim. Both Gil and I had written about former RCA Dayan, Rabbi Michael Broyde. Gil’s posts have been more about reporting what happened. Mine were more critical in nature.

Rabbi Broyde was caught in what I would call a childish prank. Over a period of many years he faked his identity in order to gain online access to a rival rabbinic organization - the IRF (International Rabbinical Fellowship). As well, he was caught using aliases for purposes of what can only be seen as self aggrandizement – commenting with lavish praise about his own writings and his own brilliance.

It was an ethical lapse for which he is paying a very high personal and professional price. Soon after he was exposed, Rabbi Broyde admitted what he had done and apologized to the IRF. Immediately after that he made a public apology that was published on Gil’s blog. Both Gil and I were accused of going soft on him while being overly harsh on Charedim who have erred.

Before I address that, I want to address how Mr. (Rabbi?) Birnbaum described our blogs:

“(T)he level of intellectual discourse (on my blog) is lower than that of Hirhurim (Gil’s blog).”

I would normally take offense at something like that. But I am very willing to say that Gil’s blog does have a higher level of intellectual discourse than mine. Not because he is more cerebral than I am (…although that may very well be the case even though he is probably about 20 years my junior). But because of the different focus our blogs have. Gil’s blog features a lot more Torah and Hashkafa than mine does. Gil is a Masmid and does his homework.  And when he discusses Halacha and Hashkafa he does so with sources. This is one of the reasons that Rabbi Broyde guest posted so many times on Gil’s blog. He too is interested in sourced Halachic discourse and he too does his homework.

My blog is more about opinion. Although I too discuss Halacha on occasion, and more-so Hashkafa, the majority of my posts are commentary on the events of the day. Hence by its nature - less intellectual.

Back to Mr. Birnbaum.  Aside from his unnecessary and somewhat insulting (to me, my readers and commenters) comparison of our 2 blogs - he was much harder on Gil. Gil was sent a series of loaded questions by the Yated about his frequent hosting of Rabbi Broyde’s Divrei Torah and Divrei Hashkafa. I say loaded because the questions were designed to either embarrass Gil , Rabbi Broyde or both. Here is an example: 

2. Do you feel you owe your readership an apology for prominently featuring the articles and halachic rulings of a person who has been revealed to be both an outright liar and an ethically tainted individual? 

Answering an insulting question like this would have had no purpose other than making at least one of them look bad. And calling Rabbi Broyde a liar is not exactly how they would treat one of their own rabbis in similar circumstances. I do not for example recall very many instances where a Charedi rabbinic leader or commentator has been critical of Charedi miscreants.  They claim that doing so is Lashon Hara or Motzi Shem Ra. On the rare occasions where they might even agree that one of their own had an ethical lapse, to the best of my recollection - they never mentioned any individual by name.  But when it comes to one outside their circle, they have no difficulty doing so.  

This is exactly what Mr. Birnbaum accuses us of! This gander does not treat our goose the way he would like our goose to treat his gander.

Gil to his everlasting credit chose not to answer them. I imagine that it was because for the most part, he wanted to spare Rabbi Broyde any additional embarrassment.

What is inexplicable to me is that he characterized our two blogs the same way: 

(T)here are many similarities in the way they cover chareidim. Mr. Maryles is especially adept at surfing the internet for negative stories about chareidim, posting them, and bemoaning chareidi dysfunction and the resultant chillul Hashem. He consistently claims to only have the welfare of the chareidi community - which he claims to admire - in mind, but begs them to just “be normal,” like he is. Whenever there is chareidi scandal or weird story, he is on it. 

That Gil does not do that should be obvious to anyone who reads his blog on even a semi regular basis. But the fact is that Mr. Birnbaum is wrong about me too. I have written about this before. But no matter how many times I say so, there are just some people who cannot understand what I am doing. They see me only as a Charedi basher.

I am not a Charedi basher. But I do in fact post a lot of commentaries about Charedim who have made Judaism look bad… in some cases making an actual Chilul HaShem. That isn’t because I am ‘adept at surfing the internet for negative stories’ about them. I don’t do that. 

These stories hit me in the face like a ton of bricks. When a negative story about a Charedi misdeed hits the mainstream Jewish media - it is not my editorializing that makes Judaism look bad. It is what that individual did that makes Judaism look bad. These stories are often picked up by larger mainstream media outlets like the New York Times, too.

If I see media exposure of bad acts by religious looking Jews, I am going to comment on it and condemn it. That’s because I want people who read these stories to know that there is at least one Orthodox rabbi that isn’t going to rationalize it away or ignore it.

Why do I seem to ‘pick’ on Charedim? Because they are the ones making the news most of the time. My standards are the same for all religious Jews, whether Charedi or Modern Orthodox. When anyone does something wrong I evaluate the extent of the wrong-doing and comment accordingly.

But there is a difference that I will admit to. I am a bit harder on Charedim for 2 reasons. One is because they claim to be the most religious Jews among us... that their lives are more about Torah and Avodas HaShem than ours is. So by their own definition then they should be judged by a higher standard. 

But the second reason is even more important.The more religious a Jew is perceived to be by the public, the greater the Chilul HaShem. Charedim simply look more religious. Perceptions are more important than reality when it comes to Chilul HaShem.When a Chasidic Rebbe - who is often spoken about in saintly terms - sins, that Chilul HaShem is far greater than when a simple nondescript Jew does the same thing. Both are equally wrong. But both do not have the same negative impact. So I will be much harder on a prominent religious leader than I would be otherwise. And even among rabbinic leaders, a Chasidic Rebbe is perceived by the public to be more representative of Jewish leadership than is a Modern Orthodox rabbinic leader.

Also - as I hinted above - there are differences in various types of wrong doing. And my reactions are therefore different. Hacking a rival rabbinic fraternity or using aliases for purposes of self aggrandizement is not the same as being involved in a criminal money laundering -tax evasion scheme. Both are wrong. But my reactions to the two are going to be entirely different.

That is a lot more that can be said. But this post is already too long. I have no personal animus to Mr. Birnbaum for this. His criticism of me is rather mild in comparison to some of the criticism I have received in the past. I am Mochel him. 

But in my view he needs to ask Mechila from Gil. He has done to Gil what he accuses us of doing all the time. He has grossly mischaracterized his blog… and Gil himself! He is guilty of Motzi Shem Ra. And for that he must apologize. And I would add, so too should the Yated for publishing it.