Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel

In what may appear as one of the more interesting ironies to some, the Forward has chosen Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel (pictured here with Senator Joseph Lieberman) as one of the top 5 most influential Jews in America. (They did not say which position he holds on that short list.)

To that end they are showing short videos of each of those top 5. They have started off with one on Rabbi Zwiebel. (Could he be at the top of the list?) These 5 Jews head a list called the Forward 50. Which as the title suggest adds another 45 influential names. Rabbi Zweibel’s video can be seen below.

I use the word irony because of the fact that the Forward is often singled out by Charedim as very anti Charedi. Rabbi Zwiebel - for those who don’t know - is the executive director of one of the most publicly active Charedi organizations in the world, Agudath Israel of America.

This list has been heavily criticized in the past for choosing people who many of us in Orthodoxy never even heard of – to the exclusion of people many of us feel are quite a bit greater than those they have chosen. Like various Roshei Yeshiva and Poskim.

Agree or disagree  - the Forward has its own guidelines for measuring impact (which they are certainly entitled to have) and they have chosen accordingly.

As executive director of Agudah he promotes the policies dictated to him by his organization’s Rabbinic authorities, which they term the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah  - loosely translated as the Council of Torah Sages.

Rabbi Zweibel certainly has his detractors in wider Orthodoxy. There are issues that have stirred controversy. While all of Orthodoxy has more that unites us than divides us, there are some issues that are so controversial that they threaten to tear us apart and separate us forever. Among them are two of 3 which Rabbi Zweibel was asked about.

One is the issue of requiring all suspicions of sex abuse be first reported to a Rabbi before being reported to the police. That is so that the rabbi can determine whether the evidence is credible enough to over-ride the Issur of Mesirah. Even if one holds that Mesirah is still applicable in our era.

Rabbi Zweibel spoke eloquently about this vetting process. But as I have indicated in the past, I disagree with it. My difference with Agudah is that if there is going to be any vetting process about what is and isn’t credible evidence, it ought not be a rabbi that determines it. It ought to be mental health professionals and the police who regularly deal with sex abuse. As I recall it was R’ Elyashiv who Paskined that there are no Mesirah issues when there are Raglayim L’Davar (credible evidence). And he never said that it should be a rabbi that determines it.

The other controversial issue is MbP (Metzitza B’Peh - oral suction of the blood from a circumcision wound). Agudah is fighting New York City’s Health Department requirement of informed consent. Meaning that a Mohel has to warn parents about the dangers of transmitting diseases of the mouth via direct oral contact with the wound.

Again, I have profound differences on this issue. But I hear his argument. For Chasidim - a segment of Orthodoxy that believes MbP is an integral requirement of Bris Milah - asking their Mohalim to warn parents about it sends a message that a Halachic requirement is in fact dangerous! A danger they believe is practically nonexistent.

Although I understand their position and that of Agudah one has to weigh the message’s negative implications for them against the right of a parent to be informed about the possible dangers, rare though they may be. Rabbi Zweibel seems to say that two constitutional freedoms are at stake here. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I guess this is the argument they will make in the courts in order to overturn the health department’s informed consent requirement.

We’ll see how that plays out.

A 3^rd issue mentioned in the interview was an offshoot of the Siyum HaShas. That Agudah managed to fill a football stadium to overflow crowds of mostly Charedim - seems to indicate that American Jewry’s growth is trending towards a more insular way of life. Thus we are less able to influence greater society by directly participating in it.  

Rabbi Zweibel countered that being more insular doesn’t mean we can’t influence greater society. The way we fulfill our mandate to be an Or LaGoyim - a light unto the nations - is by living our lives in religious, moral, and ethical ways. And thus setting an example to the world as compared to how some other segments of the culture lead their lives.

Although, I do not believe we should be insular and instead fully participate, I agree with him about being role models of behavior. However I think we have a long way to go before we can claim the moral high ground here. Not because Jewish ethics aren’t of the highest caliber. But because far too many of our high profile people haven’t lived up to them.

In any case this post isn’t about any of these issues. It is to congratulate Rabbi Zwiebel for receiving this honor. And accepting it with the humility shown in the interview. From a medium that often criticizes positions his organization takes.

I have said this before. Rabbi Zwiebel is a good man. He is a man who serves the Jewish community with integrity and honor. I also happen to believe that that he does not necessarily always agree with the positions of Agudah’s rabbinic leadership. But as good soldier and an admirer of those rabbinic leaders, he follows their lead and fights for their views.  That’s what a good lawyer does anyway, doesn’t he?

A Welcome 180

Manny Waks at the podium - panel members seated to his left (NYJW)

At 18, he left the Orthodox community, his family publicly confronting his abusers, his faith shattered by the abuse he had suffered and the indifferent response he had encountered from many leaders of his then-charedi community. 

This excerpt from a story in the New York Jewish Week is the story of Manny Waks and supports the idea (discussed here a couple of days ago) that many of those that drop observance are survivors of sexual abuse. 

Sex abuse is an issue that has plagued the Orthodox Jewish world and has been the source of much controversy. Many Orthodox leaders have been criticized for their failure to properly address it. Positive change had slowly been taking place but had a long way to go. Leaving survivors with the feeling that they would never see justice.

Survivor advocates were often harsh in their criticism. Which was strongly rejected by rabbinic leaders who said they were not reflecting the Torah point of view. But that seems to be changing.

In what seems like a 180 degree turn… the Agudah Moetzes has dropped its opposition to extending the statute of limitations for abuse victims to file claims against their abusers and enablers. To say I’m surprised is an understatement. Nor can I express enough my gratitude for this turn of events.

It is gratifying to see Agudah’s executive vice president, Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zweibel appearing at a New York Jewish Federation conference on abuse in the Orthodox community. He was joined by Rabbi Mark Dratch a modern Orthodox leader who founded JSafe, an anti abuse organization; and two survivors: Manny Waks who organized the conference and David Cheifetz a member of the panel (...in the picture above, seated in the center between Rabbi Dratch on the left and Rabbi Zweibel on the right).

The Global Summit on Sexual Abuse in the Jewish Community convened last week. From the New York Jewish Week article: 

In an opening night panel discussion, Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel, executive vice president of the charedi Agudath Israel of America, said the umbrella organization’s rabbinic leadership now supports an extension of the statute of limitations in New York State for sexual abuse victims to bring civil and criminal suits.
 Agudath had earlier opposed such an extension, citing the potentially financial liability that day schools, camps and other institutions could face…
 Sexual abuse is “a very, very important issue. This is something we can’t ignore,” Rabbi Zwiebel said... “We’ve become more and more aware of it. 

While I disagreed with  Agudah’s past position on this issue, I have always understood their concerns about extending the statue of limitations. They feared that viable religious schools that had long ago changed the hands of leadership since any abuse took place would be vulnerable to lawsuits decades after any abuse took place.

That would cripple them financially – possibly even forcing them to permanently shut their doors. They refused to listen to advocates that pointed to evidence that this did not happen in communities that lifted that statute.  

They felt even though justice would not be served for a survivor it was outweighed by an existential fear. Every religious school was needed have to accommodate the population explosion that has been filling classrooms to capacity...  even faster than they are being constructed. Schools would be closing because of something that happened decades ago that that current leaders had nothing to do with.

But… justice was left un-served in far too many cases. Abuse victims are often reluctant to come forward since by doing so they creates a stigma about themselves and their families causing communal difficulties for them. Like the all consuming issue these days of Shidduchim. Many survivors of abuse have therefore only come out decades after that abuse, And then find out that it’s is too late to do anything about it.

Agudah has now been convinced that their arguments are valid and have changed course.

There is yet another issue that Agudah seems to have moved forward on, that of Mesira - the prohibition of informing on fellow Jews to secular authorities. Although there are many interpretations that explain this prohibition as not applying to just societies like that of the United States - there are some that interpret it as absolute.  Here are Rabbi Zweibel’s comments about that: 

(T)he concept of mesira… is not applicable when the evidence against an accused abuse perpetrator is clear. He said charedi rabbis are instructed to tell members of their communities to immediately bring accusations of clear sexual abuse to police, instead of to rabbis. And he invited Jewish victims of sexual abuse at the hands of other Jews to bring a case in a beit din (Jewish court), where no statute of limitations exists. 

This is wonderful news. It seems the culture is changing. Past reticence to deal with this issue has changed into pro-activity. Rabbi Zweibel was asked what Agudah is doing to deal with this issue:

“Not enough,” he answered. “We all recognize that we have to do more.”

This summit did not only have Agudah representation. It even had Charedi representatiopon from Israel. Rabbi  Arie Munk who heads a mental health organization in Bnei Brak  attended and said: 

“Twenty years ago, nobody came to these conferences” — if they even took place, Munk said. In the conservative charedi world, where topics like sexuality are traditionally considered a violation of modesty standards, and abuse at the hands of community members would be considered a collective embarrassment, the topic was rarely discussed openly.
 “Nobody’s quiet anymore,” Munk said. 

He wants to create a registry of  sex offenders that would bar them from entering the country.

I will end with an excerpt quoting Dr. Shira Berkovits, a psychologist and attorney who founded Sacred Spaces, a “cross-denominational initiative” which sums up my own feelings about this: 

 (I)t “was not a small thing” that Rabbi Zwiebel “was willing to state on the record that he supports an extension of civil” statutes of limitations. “It is a big deal and he should be given credit for it … and held to it.” Berkovits praised Waks’ initial advocacy work in Australia as being “light years ahead of anywhere else. He didn’t quit until the institutions began dealing with the issue. He’s done it at great personal cost.” She called Waks the most successful anti-abuse activist who had been a survivor.

Mesirah and Making the Right Call on Sex Abuse

A young 9 year old boy came home from school and told his parents that his Rebbe had touched him in an inappropriate way.

The parents were stunned. They have known this man as a charismatic and very popular teacher for many years. Every single other day school in the city would ‘kill’ to add him to their faculty. His talents have inspired even mediocre students to excel in their studies and inspired them religioulsy. Former students testify to that and have gone into Chinuch because of it. In short, he is the role model for Mechanchim.

This Rebbe also has a family of his own his oldest daughter is about to embark on Shiddach dating. He has never been accused of anything like this before.  But even though they are convinced of this man’s innocence, they know that their 9 year old is not given to fantasies such as these. If he said something happened. It happened.

So they decided to press him to see if perhaps there was something else going on here. They asked him to explain in detail what had happened. He was embarrassed and very reluctant to do that. But after being assured by his parents that it was the right thing to do - he went on to describe in graphic detail what had happened.

He added that this was not the first time it happened. His Rebbe who he had gotten very close to had convinced him that there was nothing wrong with what they were doing… and that this very special bond they developed would be their little secret. That was one of the great things about this Rebbe. He famously developed special relationships with many of his students.

The parents were horrified. But as religious Jews they did not immediately report the abuse to authorities. They first went to their beloved and trusted Rav. He would be the honest broker… and surely after speaking to their son and hearing the same thing they did he would urge them to immediately report it to the police.

After listening to the boy’s graphic description of the abuse he too was incredulous. He also knew and appreciated this Mechanech and had spent many an occasion with him discussing various issues related to his job. Based on all those experiences this Rav too considered him a role model for Chincuh. But his reaction was a bit different than that of the parents. His experiences with that Mechanech lead him to suspect that the child might just be lying, despite his obvious discomfort and sincerity - even though he had never lied about anything like this before.  

Fearing that a good man’s reputation would be ruined and that his family would suffer untold pain -  he decided to err on the side of what he believed to be caution and not allow the parents to report the abuse to the authorities. He determined this was not a case of Raglayim L’Davar – credible evidence.

Telling the authorities would then be Mesirah based on the testimony of a child. He felt confident that he did the right thing – saving this wonderful Mechanech from the devastation and untold pain that he and his family would surely have suffered. He still teaches today.

The problem is that a victim of abuse was telling the truth. His parents who knew their child better than anyone else believed him. They were sure of it. But they could do absolutely nothing about it. Three days later the boy committed suicide.

This story is fiction. However - except for the act of suicide it is a common one told by many victims. And suicides are not unheard of by victims of abuse.

The Rabbi in this story is not an evil person. He chose to side with his gut feeling that this long time, well known, and successful Mechanech could not possibly do what he was accused of.  But he had no training in how to investigate the truth of an allegation. He just said “Couldn’t be!” ...and decided that it should not be reported.

This brings me to an article in yesterday’s Forward. Apparently Rabbi Dovid Zweibel (pictured above) has spilled the beans about the Agudah’s real reason for requiring every allegation of abuse to be first vetted by a Rabbi. From the Forward:

Central to the issue for Agudath is mesirah, the prohibition in Jewish law against informing on a fellow Jew to the authorities. This religious principle flourished in Eastern Europe in centuries past, when Jews lived in ghettoes ruled by hostile, often anti-Semitic governments. But Zwiebel said the notion that mesirah doesn’t apply in modern-day democracies, where there is a fair criminal justice system, is “a minority view” among top rabbis in the ultra-Orthodox world. “The majority view is, there is a prohibition against mesirah,” Zwiebel said.

So the real issue for Agudah is not that justice will be served if rabbis are consulted first. It is that a Jew not be reported to the police even if he is guilty. Because that constitutes Mesirah.  It seems that the only way they would allow reporting it to the authorities is if there was a clear and present danger. But if that danger has somehow disappeared (for example when an abuser has been barred from being around children and monitored by the community) abusers go scot free. I find that unconscionable.

Rav Elyashiv had been the hero of both victims and their advocates with his directive that if there is credible evidence of ongoing abuse that it should be reported to authorities  – and that it was not considered Mesirah. There is apparently another aspect of Rav Elyashiv’s psak that is not so widely quoted. But it was this time by Rabbi Dovid Zweibel who (along with Rabbi Avi Shafran) was interviewed for this article:

(He) read in Hebrew from an edict issued last year by Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, a widely revered talmudic authority based in Israel. In the excerpt, the 102-year-old Elyashiv warned that a “bitter” student could wrongly accuse a teacher of abuse, putting that teacher in “a situation where he would rather be dead than alive.”

Asked how a rabbi could ascertain whether a child is lying, Shafran said, “There are certain subtle [signs] in a child that show whether the child is fantasizing.” He said these indicators included a child’s tone of voice or specific things he or she says.

Offering the hypothetical example of a parent who came to a rabbi after his child told him she had been abused by a teacher, Zwiebel said the rabbi’s decision on whether the parent can go to law enforcement “depends on whether your child has the habit of fantasizing. It depends on whether your child and the teacher have had run-ins in the past. It may require some level of nuance and investigation [by a rabbi] that go beyond the mere allegation.”

In other words the benefit of the doubt always to go to the accused. Who determines that doubt? Not a professional but a rabbi. What are some of the parameters for determining whether evidence is credible? Subtle signs; tone of voice;  nuance; a habit of fantasizing...

Even if these are legitimate ‘tells’ of whether an accusation is credible, is a Rav the best person to determine it?  Or is it a mental health professional specially trained to do it with years of experience dealing exclusively in sex crimes. Can a Rav honestly say he will make a completely unbiased evaluation if he knows the accused socially and is predisposed to believe him?

If the accused is a community member in good standing the benefit of the doubt that the Rav subconsciousnessly accrues to him multiplies. What about the parents who know their child best and believe him? Sorry. Not good enough to report to the authorities. It will ruin the man’s life. What if he’s innocent? 

I’m sorry but I don’t understand this rationale. It is grossly unfair to the victim. And it allows for pre-existing biases to favor the accused – even if it is unintentional and made with the best of intentions.

By following this path, victims feel like they have been abused again. Only this time by the religious leaders that they once respected and by the community to which they belong.

Is there any question as to why so many people who have gone OTD were victims of sex abuse? Is it any wonder they feel rejected by their community? Is it any wonder that many of them become clinically depressed and on a downward spiral that can lead to anti social behavior, alcoholism, drugs, and even suicide? How many victims like this need to be created before their voices are heard and the right thing is done by them?

A Lawsuit Without Merit

School in Kiryas Joel

I hate to keep harping on the same subject. But as long as the issue keeps coming up in various different forms, I feel obligated by conscience to comment on it. The issue is whether the government (in this case, the state of New York) has a right to require all schools, whether public or private, to teach a core  curriculum that includes subjects as basic as English and math. And whether religious schools that to refuse doing so are merely exercising their legitimate religious rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

I believe that the state does have that right, as long as those subjects do not violate the religious tenets of the school. The controversy is what constitutes a religious tenet. How far does that right go?

I have consistently maintained that required core curriculum  demanded by the state in no way violates the tenets of Judaism. The reason I feel that way is beyond obvious. The vast majority of Orthodox religious schools are in compliance with those demands. Some go even further in requireing their students take the New York State Regent’s Exam that tests their knowledge upon graduation. Some of those schools are Charedi. Like Torah Vodaath for instance. And yet as reported in the Jewish Link they are among the parties to the lawsuit which claims the following: 

“We’re facing a sea of change in the way the government acts with the community and specifically private schools and the yeshiva community,” said Agudath Israel of America Executive Vice President Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel, adding this “radical way” of dealing with the schools has alarmed the community.

“We feel threatened that this is the end of the autonomy over our yeshivas and of our independence,” said Rabbi Zwiebel in a phone interview with The Jewish Link.

“Parents choose yeshiva education for their children, despite their substantial tuition payments, instead of the local public schools because they want their children to have an education that is rooted in Jewish texts and informed by Jewish morality, history, culture, values, ideals and hopes,” reads the suit. “Above all, the parents of yeshiva students hope that their children grow into fully fledged and thoughtful citizens, while sustaining and upholding their culture and their religious beliefs, values and traditions.”

The suit alleges the regulations would force the yeshivas to substantially revise their curriculum and alter their emphasis on Jewish studies. There are currently more than 170,000 enrolled in approximately 450 yeshivas in New York State. 

I could not disagree more. The state is dealing with schools in a ‘radical way’?!  Their curriculum is being substantially revised?!  In what sense? The state has always required a core curriculum equivalent to public education. What makes this different is that this time it will include enforcement. What are they enforcing? The very education that the vast majority of religious schools provide anyway. 

The only schools that are affected are those that have ignored those requirements - refusing to teach even a subject as basic as the English language. Leaving their students completely ignorant of their native language to the point of being unable to construct a sentence without gross spelling and grammatical errors. The argument that they do well financially without those requirements may be true. But not every issue is about money.

What bothers me the most about this lawsuit is the way it characterizes what is at stake. The implied claim is that enforcing these rules undermines the rights of observant Jewish parents to assure they are being taught ‘Jewish morality, history, culture, values, ideals and hopes,”.

This is such nonsense! I can’t believe they are making that claim in public. Teaching a core curriculum in no way undermines those rights. That should be obvious by the fact that they have been teaching those core subjects for decades - and continue to do so.

Perhaps they are making the ‘slippery slope’ argument. But they have not put it that way. They are characterizing this as an attack on the here and now.

Then there is the claim that ‘Above all, the parents of yeshiva students hope that their children grow into fully fledged and thoughtful citizens, while sustaining and upholding their culture and their religious beliefs, values and traditions.’

That is truly admirable. But it is the secular education they receive at the majority of Orthodox schools that help them achieve becoming thoughtful citizens. And yet they are fighting for the right of a few schools to not teach a word about being ‘fully fledged and thoughtful citizens’.

I am also relatively certain that there is no slippery slope here at all – even if that is what they meant. I do not believe for a moment that the state will require schools to teach values that conflict with our religious values. 

In the event that I am wrong and at some point that unlikely scenario materializes, I would agree with a lawsuit like this But that time is clearly not now. Nor do I think it ever will be. We have deacades of precedent were this was never a issue.

I belive that what this lawsuit is really all about is letting a certain segment of the Orthodox Jewish population to remain purposely ignorant of these core subjects as a matter of their narrow religious values. Values based on the erroneuous assumption that studying those subjects will undermine those values. 

That is of course is ridiculous in its face. The aforementioned fact is that these very subjects are being taught even in Charedi schools like Telshe, Torah Vodaath, and Philly. Schools that have been resposible for the massive explosion of full time Torah study post high school for as long as possible. The vast majority of whom received a core secular education.

Like I said. I hate repeating myself. But every time Agudah et al expresses those views, I feel the obligation to refute them with the abovementioned indisputable facts.

I just cannot understand the apparent unanimity of views among Orthodox educational and advocacy groups that seem to be ignoring those facts and proceeding with a lawsuit with claims that New York’s requirement to teach substantially equivalent curriculum is a violation of our First Amendment rights. I honestly do not get it. 

Why does it not matter to them that a large and exponentially growing segment of Jewry will remain ignorant of basic language skills and knowledge about what their civic duties are? Am I the only one that cares?!

Message to Agudath Israel of America

I owe a debt of gratitude to the Internet version of the Yated Ne’eman. They often give me the best material for my blog. And they have done so again. This time they have written about the upcoming Agudah convention and have included a very predictable critique of Orthodox blogs. It is a quote of Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel an executive vice president of Agudah. Here is the quote:

"In recent years, though due to a variety of factors, the authority of daas Torah has been significantly undermined, even within our own chareidi circles. Most troubling has been the proliferation of Internet 'blogs' where misguided individuals feel free to spread every bit of rechilus and loshon hora about rabbonim and roshei yeshiva, all with the intended effect of undermining any semblance of Torah authority in our community. It is most appropriate for an organization like Agudath Israel, whose very essence was built on the recognition of the authority of Torah leaders, to address this issue head on, and formulate concrete plans to reinvigorate public awareness of this essential element of the Torah way of life."

I’m not sure how he would characterize my own blog but my very strong feeling is that he would not like it. That being said, I agree that some Orthodox blogs do cross some lines that shouldn’t be crossed. And that is equally true of the commenters on these blogs, perhaps even more so because of the anonymity feature available to them. But I don’t think that Rabbi Zweibel is talking about only those blogs or those commenters. I believe he is talking about blogs like mine as well. That remains to be seen.

At this point I do not feel the need yet to specifically defend what I write. I’ll wait until after the convention and see what they say. But if my suspicions are correct they are going to blast bogs like mine and by implication people like me for lacking Kavod HaTorah and undermining Daas Torah. They will accuse me of an agenda to “undermine any semblance of Torah authority”. This is of course untrue. Although my approach to Daas Torah is not their approach, I have absolutely no agenda to undermine it. My intent is only to improve it, and make it more inclusive. And to define what, who, and when I believe that Daas Torah even applies. I differ with Agudah on that. But that is not undermining it. It is only defining it differently. And I base my beliefs on those of Gedolim outside of Agudah like those of my Rebbe, Rav Aaron Soloveichik.

It is really too bad that Agudah chose to address Orthodox blogs and bloggers in this indirect way. Don’t they realize that we are all on the same team here? Most of the respectable blogs like Hirhurim and Cross currents want to promote Kavod haTorah not denigrate it. The only question is how to do it properly.

All this is related to the famous essay written by Ner Israel Rosh HaYeshiva, Rav Aharon Feldman who blamed Rabbi Nosson Slifkin and the bloggers for the deterioration of Kavod HaTorah. Yes, this entire episode has generated a tremendous denigration of Kavod HaTorah. But the blame cannot be placed on only one side. The denigration by one side was caused by the denigration of it by other.

The genesis for this horrible condition is not Rabbi Slifkin and his supporters, although I freely admit that there is a lot of that going on there. But it is mostly reaction. The genesis of the denigration is the Charedi condemnations of what was until then mainstream thought on issues of science and Torah on the part of educated people. This is what has caused this backlash.

Doesn’t Agudah leadership like Rabbi Zwiebel see that? You can’t call beliefs of sincere and educated Orthodox Jews heretical and expect them to just say… OK, sorry about that. I’ll change my beliefs now. You cannot expect intelligent people to suddenly reject everything they’ve learned about the origins of the universe that was perfectly acceptable until that point. No intelligent person is going to do that, including most educated Charedim. Not everyone is going to get down on their knees and ask forgiveness and say, “What can I do to atone for my here-to-fore heretical beliefs?” And it doesn’t help when they try and absolve large portions of Orthodox Klal Yisroel by saying, “You can’t blame them for believing in heresy, they know what they do!” This only makes matters worse and puts a cloud over geniuses who are accepted by the Charedi world, like Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan who had those self same beliefs.

No, this is not the way to win friends and influence people. Trashing those of us who seek Emes without even talking to us isn’t the way to promote Kavod HaTorah.

A far better approach (and it’s not too late to do this) would be to invite successful and intelligent bloggers like Rabbi Gil Student to address the Agudah Convention. Rabbi Student would give the convention the much needed balance it is missing. What is to be gained after all by preaching to the choir? Agudah knows full well that its audience generally rubber stamps its pronouncements. Why not be the broader based umbrella institution of Orthodoxy that Agudah claims to be? Why not include non-Charedi rabbinic leaders to address the crowd on these issues? Why not Include Rabbinic leaders of Modern Orthodoxy, like Rav Hershel Shachter or Rabbi Yosef Blau to speak about these issues as well? Why not bring other perspectives to the fore? If the goal is to increase Kaovod HaTorah this would be a far better and broader way of doing it.

A couple of weeks ago I wrote a version of an address I wished an Aguda keynoter might say. I wrote it tongue firmly implanted in cheek. I wish it would happen, although I know it won’t, certainly not after reading this quote from Rabbi Zweibel. And that’s too bad.

The Yated article states that Rabbi Ephraim Wachsman is going to be addressing the convention as a featured speaker. He is a dynamic and very entertaining speaker. I have heard him speak here in Chicago and can testify to that. But if history is any indicator of what to expect, this won’t be good. Rabbi Wachsman is guilty of precisely what Agudah wants to stop. He alienates all people whose Hashkafos are different than his which will cause even more denigration of Kavod HaTroah. He will likely condemn most, if not all Orthodox blogs. He will be very convincing and derogatory with his words. I hope I’m wrong. But I doubt that I am. The convention is worthy of boycotting based just on this man alone.

Agudah's Anti Mandate Policy

An antivax protest in 2020 (Washington Post)

The harder I try to get out of the quicksand, the deeper I sink. That’s how I’ve been feeling lately about what seems to be becoming an endless pandemic. Back in early 2020, I thought for sure that by the end of 2021 we would be out of this mess. And I surely believed that when safe and effective vaccines were developed and distributed. 

That being said the COVID situation is not as bad as my feelings would indicate. But it seems like just when we think that the corner has been turned, something happens to turn us backward. 

That is how I felt when the COVID mutated into the Delta virus. That variant was more contagious than the original virus and spread very quickly. Fortunately, however, the vaccines proved to be effective against Delta. So my angst there was short-lived.   

Not so the Omricon mutation. No one has any hard data that tells us how contagious it is, how dangerous it is, or how effective the vaccine against it is. One thing that is certain is  that it will spread in this country and could very easily become the dominant virus. (It has already been detected here in several states.)

Health experts are saying that vaccinations will likely still help somewhat in preventing serious illness and death. They base this on their experiences with vaccines in general. They just don’t know to what degree it will help in this case.

So, after nearly 2 years of trying to survive a deadly virus and taking extraordinary precautions, we are far from being ‘out of the woods’. True, there will be no mass lockdowns. But masks are now once again being urged in all indoor venues. And more than ever vaccinations are being urged by health officials as the best defense at preventing serious illness and death.  Even now with Omricon.

How did we get here? Why haven’t we defeated this virus? There are probably many reasons for that. Some of which are beyond human control. But the one thing stands out that may have had a  powerful impact against COVID - did not happen. Had more of the world population been vaccinated, the chances for mutations would have been less. And COVID may have never mutated into Omricon. We may have even achieved herd immunity. 

Which brings me back to the anti vaxxers and reluctant vaxxers. They are in part the reason we are where we are. Resistance to vaccines has become political. The political right considers refusal to get vaccinated a right protected by the constitution.   

As someone that leans politcally conservative,  I would have ordinarily agreed with that. But when not being vaccinated affects the health of others, that right should disappear. Because as I often say, your rights stop at my door. Once you cross that line, you no longer have that right. 

But many (if not most) conservative Republicans seem to disregard this.  They are fighting any and every mandate ordered by the government. Whether federal, state, or local.

I’m sorry, this is just plain stupid. By absolving people of their responsibility to get vaccinated they are granting them the ‘right’ to infect others.  And increase the probability that COIVD will mutate into variants like the Omricon. Or worse - mutations that will be deadlier and impervious to vaccinations.

Being politically conservative should not mean abandoning common sense. The right of society to be safer from infections that might kill them overrides the individual right to refuse being vaccinated. This is why I support all the vaccine mandates issued by governments at any level. These mandates will surely save lives. I don’t think this is arguable.

Which brings me to Agudah. They are taking a position that I believe is counter to the welfare of the very people they trying to protect. From the Jewish Press: 

The City of New York has issued a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for all non-public school employees, WABC reported late Thursday.

All those employed in non-public schools in New York City are required to get at least their first shot of a COVID-19 vaccine by December 20, according to the report.

Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel of Agudath Israel responded to the new mandate as Chairman of the Committee of New York City Religious and Independent School Officials, representing private schools all across New York City.

Zwiebel sent a sharply worded letter to NYC Health Commissioner Dave Chokshi over the just-announced mandate, writing that “government should be using its bully pulpit to persuade, not its regulatory arm to coerce… (read there for more).   

To say I am disappointed is an understatement. In the vast majority of Agudah’s public policy decisions, I respect their right to espouse them even when I disagree. But not this time.

The unvaccinated are at heightened risk for serious illness and death. They are also far more likely to contract the virus than those who are vaccinated - and spread it to vulnerable people. Vulnerable people are not as well protected even when fully vaccinated.  They may still get sick and die as a friend of mine did. He was fully vaccinated and had even gotten the booster. But he had diabetes and was immune compromised. The vaccine was not as effective on him. He got very sick and died. Is Agudah willing to sacrifice people like this? They shouldn’t be fighting mandates. They should be doubling down on them. 

I get that good teachers are hard to find these days. Fewer people than ever are choosing to go into that profession for lack of sufficient pay to support their families. This is one of the most discussed topics among Jewish educators these days as they scratch their heads trying to figure out how to effectively deal with this problem. I get that requiring vaccine refusers to stay home will hurt. 

But to challenge a potentially life saving mandate for that reason is like saving the bathwater instead of the baby. Sure - the welfare of their children’s education will suffer. But is it worth the price of an immune comprised death caused by an unvaccinated but asymptomatic carrier? Agudah should be doing everything they can to help protect the vulnerable in their community. Haven’t enough people died?!  They need a few more? 

They may argue that most of their teachers are vaccinated and unlikely to get infected and infect others. But that argument falls flat. That community does not fully live in some sort of protected bubble - much as they would like to. People still shop in stores and use public transportation with people they don’t know, from all walks of life and states of health. If they are unvaccinated, the chances of infection increase significantly over those that are vaccinated Delta is now the dominant variant because of how contagious it is. 

Now it’s true that some people have serious allergies to vaccines. But I am equally sure that they will be exempt. Or at least should be. At the same time they need to be extra cautious about social distancing and masking. But the rest?! In no way should they be let off the hook. They need to comply with the mandate or stay quarantined in their homes indefinitely. Especially with the new Omricon variant. That Agudah is defending them is in my view bad policy.

‘We are Holier than Thou’

One of the problems in Orthodoxy now is the holier than thou attitude of the Charedi world. I see it uttered from time to time by people who will try and divert attention from their own problems by pointing out the problems of others. If I see a major Chilul HaShem done by religious Jews and the problem seems to manifest itself mostly in one segment, I will make a public condemnation of it and call upon those in that segment to take steps to fix the problems. I may even suggest some ways in which they might try and do it.

I do sometimes criticize what I see as missteps along the way but it is all done L’Shem Shamyim. I do not want to see anymore public Chilul HaShem. And yes, sometimes I get very emotional and angry about it. The events of the last 10 days certainly warranted it. Those events all took place within that period - and made a Chilul HaShem. And in each of those cases - those involved were Charedim of one sort or another.

Most Charedim I believe realize that there is a problem and they understand that something needs to be done. Agudah also finally realizes that this problem can no longer be swept under the rug.

But there are some who take umbrage when they are given Musser from outside their camp. They see it as an ‘us versus them’ situation. They will say to a Centrist like me ‘Your community is worse’ so shutup about ours’. ‘You have no right to criticize us until you clean up your own house.’ This is the difference between many in the Charedi world who think like this - and me. I see this as our problem. They see it as a ‘your community versus our community’ problem.

Attorney Benjamin Brafman demonstrated this very well in the anecdote he spoke about at the Agudah gathering last Tuesday night. He was denied his right to lead the prayer service as a mourner by a Chasidic fellow in charge of a Minyan - because of the way he looked. He was not wearing a hat and did not have a Gartel - the extra belt that Chasidim use for prayer.

Had the situation been reversed Mr. Brafman would have surely given that right to a Chasid without any hesitation. Mr. Brafman considers him part of the same Klal – the same people as himself. It is the Chasid in his anecdote that made this artificial division – thus denying Mr. Brafman his Halachic right. This is what certain elements in the Charedi world are doing. They want to separate and divide.

It isn't my house versus their house. It is our house. We are all family. When one brother errs it does not do any good to say that another brother is just as bad or worse. One has to deal with the problem at hand. Many in the Charedi world have a problem with receiving Mussar from people outside their own little space – their own Daled Amos. They refuse to take it from those they perceive to be lesser Jews.

They then try and prove others are lesser Jews by finding as much fault in them as possible and then saying 'clean your own house’. Thus they divert attention from their problems. They see us as the enemy - to be put in our proper places - just as guilty in financial or ethical matters - and worse in ritual matters. They think that only their own people - Unzere - can criticize. Others have no right.

Well, guess what? We ARE ALL 'Unzere'. It's called Klal Yisroel.Instead of trying to divert attention from their problems they ought to be doing what Agudah tried to do. And realize as Agudah did that there is a fly in the ointment of Charedi Hashkafos:

From the Forward:

A “wake-up call” is how a number of ultra-Orthodox Jewish leaders are describing the recent arrest of several New York-area rabbis on federal money laundering charges.

The clearest indication of the newly awakened state came at a public symposium on business ethics held in the middle of ultra-Orthodox Brooklyn just a few days after the arrests. Rabbi David Zwiebel, head of the main ultra-Orthodox umbrella organization, Agudath Israel, said that the event had not been on the schedule a week earlier. But the money laundering arrests reminded him and other leaders that the ultra-Orthodox, or Haredi, community was facing problems caused by the community’s famous insularity.

“There are a lot of benefits of insulating oneself from the broader culture around us, as we do,” Zweibel told the Forward. “But one of the costs of insularity is perhaps a lack of appreciation of the importance of compliance with secular law. That is a message that is important for people to hear.”

We can quibble over whether it was right to let the Spinka Rebbe - who is about to serve a sentence for his own money laundering scheme - speak or not. Or whether what he said was appropriate or not. But to automatically say with righteous indignation: 'You cannot criticize us because and you guys are worse' is missing the boat entirely. Those who think like this ought to take some sage advice: ‘Take the Truth from whoever states it!’ That means even if it is from someone who is Modern Orthodox.

Of Angry Retorts, Justice, and Money

New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan, and Agudah's Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel

I am not a survivor of sex abuse. So I cannot put myself in the same place as someone that is. Which is why often say that I can’t imagine the mental anguish and pain a survivor must feel. I can’t. I am told that the mental pain lasts entire lifetime. A pain that is so severe that survivors often succumb to clinical depression. Which in and of itself might be so severe that it leads many clinically depressed survivors to attempt suicide. And in some cases, unfortunately,  they succeed, bringing additional pain to their loved ones. There are no words!

This is why I supported the Child Victims Act that allows a one year window going back up to 50 years for survivors of sex abuse to sue their abusers and the institutions that in some way protected them. Until that law was passed, survivors who missed the deadline set by the statute of limitations (which was a common occurrence since they are often reticent to speak about it publicly for years)  had no recourse. Now they have a year to actually get a modicum of justice for what  happened to them and what they continue to go through.

This is an eminently fair law. Judgments are not automatic. Survivors will not just be able to show up at the door of their abuser or the institution that enabled him and  have a huge check written out to them. They will have to go to court and prove their claims. For a variety of reasons, old claims like these are difficult to prove. It will not be a cake walk. But at least they will now have an opportunity to try. And if they succeed they will finally get some justice if not total relief from the mental anguish they must still feel many years after the fact.

That being said, I find the angry nature of allegations made against Agudah by survivor advocates to be grossly unfair. Here is what Asher Lovy, Za’akah’s Director of Community Organizing said. In my view it is an unfair attack against Agudah said on Za’akah’s Facebook Page.

Over the last 13 years, Agudah fought vociferously against the Child Victims Act. Along with the Catholic Church, Boy Scouts of America, the UFT (United Federation of Teachers), and various insurance lobbies, Agudath Israel claimed that the laws were unnecessarily and unfairly punitive, and threatened the future of Jewish education as we knew it.

Unlike the Catholic Church, they didn’t even pay lip service to the idea that sexual abuse is prevalent in the community, or attempt to even make a show of caring about survivors. While the Independent Reconciliation and Compensation Fund established by the Church to address abuse allegations is far from a perfect or even good step forward… it is at least the beginning of an acknowledgement on the part of the Church of the horrendous abuse and coverups that were rampant for decades.

Neither Agudah nor any other Jewish institution has done anything similar. All they’ve done was attack the people advocating for the Child Victims Act, malign and impugn the bloggers and watchdogs who have been educating the community about the severity of the problem, and claim that survivors who wanted the right to sue their abusers and institutions that covered up for them were just angry moneygrubbing liars with axes to grind inflating the scope of a problem that barely existed. 

I have said recently that despite my disagreement with Agudah about the Child Victims Act, I am nevertheless convinced that their opposition to it was a principled one. They have legitimate fears that Jewish education as we know it will be irreparably damaged by multi million dollar judgments against them. It is a matter of preserving Judaism itself in their eyes. It decidedly NOT about hurting survivors o ignoring their pain and suffering. To say that good people that see things differently that others do - including me - does not make them the monsters they are so often portrayed as.Which is exactly what this Facebook post did - in so many words. 

This is what they are afraid of. If religious day schools, Yeshiva high schools, are bankrupted and fail, who will teach our children? To go back to the public schools and try and educate our children religiously at home has proven to be a colossal failure in the past – before day schools proliferated. 

I know that there are people that say things are different now. That today it could work. But if past is in any way prologue, there will be a great deal more Jews opting out of observance than there are now. The culture they will become fully immersed in will surely have a huge impact. 

It is one thing to appreciate the permissible things that the general culture has to offer while one is fully immersed in a religious environment that can teach them the difference between what is and what is not permissible or appropriate. It is another to be fully immersed in that culture and associate with peers that have no limits in their lives. Not in terms of food nor in terms of Shabbos. 

True there might be a lot more students today that will survive under those conditions than was the case in the past. But they will surely not be as Jewishly enriched as they would be if they were in a day school and yeshiva high school. And there will surely be a lot more students that will opt out of observance altogether – influenced by their non Jewish or not observant teachers and peers..

As I said, when Agudah strives to hire attorneys that can successfully defend them, they see it as an existential issue.  Agudah should not be expected to just sit by passively while there is the prospect that Jewish education as we know it might be bankrupted. 

There has been a lot of angry rhetoric gong both ways. That is not uncommon in situation where each side accuses the other of nefarious motives. But to say (as does Asher Lovy) that Agudah has done nothing is untrue and unfair. They may not have set up a fund for survivors like the Catholic Church has. But they have acknowledged the error of  how they dealt with abuse in the past and have tried to correct it. While they are not fully on board with everything survivors justifiably advocate, that does not make them the nefarious self serving individuals Asher paints them as. By the same token, I do not consider Agudah’s accusations about survivor advocates to be accurate either. It is not all about the money.

But the fact is that there is a lot of money involved. Enough so that if every judgment went in favor of the survivors many of them would become instant millionaires while Jewish education might be irreparably damaged because of the certain bankruptcies many of them would suffer by such huge judgments.

There are always two sides to every issue, some might say there are three sides; the plaintiff's side, the defendant’s, and the truth.

How to get justice for both sides is the real issue. That is beyond my pay grade. I see truth on both sides.

But here’s an idea that might work. There ought to be some way to limit the amount of judgments for the plaintiff so that it would not bankrupt Jewish education. (No clue what an appropriate limitation would look like.)

As much as a survivor might suffer, making him or her an instant multi millionaire at the expense of Jewish education does not seem like a just outcome.

I am not saying that judgments should not be substantial where they are deserved. But justice tempered with a little mercy might go a long way to curbing the enmity on both sides and help to preserve a system whose success at educating masses of Jewish children, while not perfect - is nevertheless responsible for the exponential growth of observant Judaism in our time. 

Is it ‘Torah True’ to Advocate for Ignorance?

The problem is I care. 

I have often been criticized even by those that agree with me that I should stop wasting my time criticizing those that do not.  To just forget about this ‘impossible task’ of changing hearts and minds on issues that matter to me. And instead focus on my own community. 

But, it isn't just about what matters to me. It’s about what matters to all of us - the Jewish people. I care about those ‘outside’ of my community because they are not really outside of my community at all. No matter how far to the right they have gone – they are Jews. Part of the same chosen people by God to do what’s right in His eyes and the eyes of the world. It is a Torah obligation to care for one’s fellow Jew. Kol Yisroel Areivim Zeh BaZeh. We are each responsible for the welfare of each other. This is why I cannot let go of the educational issues facing a huge portion of Klal Yisroel.

It is why I keep talking about the tragedy of some of the more extreme elements among us trying to keep some of our young ignorant of a general education. It is why I am relentless in arguing for  change to make it happen. And why I am so upset at Agudah (and PEARLS) in this regard.  As noted in the Forward, they are actually fighting it under the banner of parental rights and religious freedom. 

Agudath Israel of America, which represents Haredi Orthodox Jews, is urging its members to make their opposition to the proposed oversight known to state officials. “We cannot allow the government to come in and unreasonably control how and what we should be teaching our children,” Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel, Agudah’s executive vice president, said in a statement.

Another group opposed to the guidelines, Parents for Educational and Religious Liberty in Schools — or PEARLS — has launched its own campaign, asking parents and yeshiva graduates to write to state education officials. According to its website, it has directed more than 64,000 comments to the education department.

They have been on a tear to get as many people as possible to sign an online letter of protest to the implementation of the new ‘public school equivalency’ guidelines by NYSED (New York State Education Department). 

I am not going to rehash all the reasons why a stand alone secular studies curriculum is important - other than to counter the argument that NYSED should assign value to religious studies towards that end. 

Although there is merit to that argument, it should not be considered fulfillment of any equivalency requirements any more than what responsible parents might teach their children at home should be. In either case, no matter how valuable such guidance might be, there is no way to quantify it. In both cases any benefits learned outside the classroom should be treated as just that: benefits. (Kind of like extra credit.)

For arguments sake, let us even concede that Agudah is right. That this is undue government interference in the rights of parents to determine what kind of education their children should get - as ell as an infringement of their religious rights (neither of which I actually concede). I would still be upset at the Agudah for refusing to admit or recognize the harm caused by the lack of such an education to fellow Jews. They are not doing anything about it. As though it doesn’t matter how igorant some of our fellow Jews are - as long as this is what they want. 

They might argue that this segment of Jewry does quite well financially without such an education. And that in any case even if they cannot do as well financially as those who are better educated, they are generally happy with their lot. Agudah might say that one can be a Jew in good standing without such an education. 

But I could not disagree more. One can be a good Jew even if he doesn’t know how to read Alef Beis (the Hebrew alphabet). Furthermore I think that maybe deep down in their heart of hearts, Agudah’s leadership might even agree that they would be better off in schools that have an independent secular studies curriculum since they attended schools like that and probably sent their own children to schools like that. 

I have had private conversions with some Agudah officials that say they would never educate their own children that way. If they feel a secular education is beneficial to their own children why don’t they feel the same about all Jewish children? It’s almost as if they don’t really care about them. ‘Let them live as they choose!’ ‘It is their right and besides no one else is being forced to live that way.’

Do they feel the same way about the homeless? For a variety of reasons (including but not exclusively serious mental health issues)  some of them choose to live that way. Should we just allow them to live that way because that is what they choose?

This is why I am so upset at Agudah’s current campaign for signatures in opposition to NYSED’s new guidelines. As I said, even granting that they are right about parental and religious rights, why is there no parallel campaign to rectify the poor educational situation in those schools? I do not agree with the idea that one can believe an education is vital for one’s own children and not worth fighting for it for the children of others.  

As I said, I care about them. I do not want them to live a life of ignorance just because they have been indocrtrinated to do so. This is not about live and let live. They can live anyway they choose with any customs they choose. But living in ignorance is not a custom. It is what it is. Just plain ignorance. As a fellow Jew, I to have an obligation to try and eliminate ignorance among us to whatever extent I can. It won’t solve every problem. But it sure will help. If Agudah was pushing as hard for that as they are in opposition to NYSED, I would have an entirely different attitude about this. But at the end of the day Agudah fighting for the right for Jews to remain ignorant if they so choose.  

One thing that really gets to me is how they characterize this is the only Torah True approach. As does their triumphalist attitude about  the record breaking over 250,000 signatures from people from all walks of life expressing disapproval of NYSED’s new guidelines. Implying that those that signed on are from all segments of Orthodoxy. Well I was not one of them. I suspect that there might be more than few Orthodox Jews that feel the way I do. Some of them might even be parents in those schools

The Agudah Convention, an Insider's View

Guest Contributor

Dr. Jerry Lob addressing the Agudah convention (YWN)

Those who read this blog regularly know that I have my issues with the Agudah. But they will also know that I still consider Agudath Israel of America to be an asset to the Jewish people. My issues are usually in the form of disagreeing with the opinions of their rabbinic leadership on various issues - mostly based on our differing Hashkafos. And they will know that I nevertheless have great respect for them as rabbinic leaders. Disagreement does not equal disrespect.  

It is with this in mind that I offered a self described ‘active card carrying member’ of Agudah who attended their recent annual convention to report on what he saw. This should not be seen as any endorsement of what they said, nor should it be seen as disagreement with it. It should only be seen as an insider’s honest perspective. He submitted the following guest post yesterday which I present in full. Needless to say, if there is any disagreement or criticism offered in the commentary, it should be done in a respectful manner. I will not tolerate any mean spirited comments. His words follow.

I am a regular reader of Rabbi Maryles’s blog, and although we do not always agree, I do appreciate his insights and very thoughtful essays.

Full disclosure, although for various reasons I am remaining anonymous, Rabbi Maryles knows who I am. I am what one would describe as a card carrying active member of Agudath Israel, and I attended the convention held this past weekend in Stamford CT.

As two of the topics discussed at length by the convention were topics that have garnered much discussion on this blog recently, namely kids going OTD and Open Orthodoxy, Rabbi Maryles was gracious to allow me to share some thoughts heard at the convention

When the convention program was first released to the public, and it was revealed that there would be a major session on kids going off the Derech (OTD), Rabbi Maryles lamented the fact that a personality such as Rabbi Yaakov Horowitz was not part of that panel. While I have no idea if he was invited or not and was not present at the conclave, Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel, the Agudah CEO, in his keynote address  did reference Rabbi Horowitz and said that it was from that very podium of the convention some years back, where Rabbi Horowitz first mentioned the problem of "kids at risk".

The actual speakers at the session were Rabbi Dr. Yitzchok (Jerry) Lob, a psychologist from Chicago, Rabbi Mordechai Becher a senior lecturer for gateways and Rabbi Moshe Tuvia Lieff, Rav of the Agudath Israel Bais Binyomin Shul in Flatbush., formerly a Rav in Minneapolos, MN.

 All three speakers at the session stressed in one form or another importance of giving time and attention to kids as one of the main ways to prevent kids from going OTD. Surprisingly there was very little talk of kids going off for emotional or intellectual reasons.

Rabbi Lob told a poignant story about Rabbi Zev Cohen who on his way to shul one Shabbos crossed a street to stop into a park where kids were hanging out. None of the boys were wearing yarmulkes and many of the girls were dressed in a manner that a person like Rabbi Cohen would not want to see. Nevertheless he walked over to a boy without a yarmulke smoking a cigarette, told him Good Shabbos, it’s great to see you and gave him a hug all while the kid still had a cigarette in his hand. He then gave the same greeting (sans the hug) to many of the girls as well. Dr. Lob said that one of the kids was his client and lamented to him that if only every Rabbi would show the love of Rabbi Cohen he would have turned out differently.

Dr. Lob also shared his own experience as a fifth grader where he had a Rebbi that was so cruel to him, he actually wished this rebbe would die. In a similar vein, Rabbi Zecharia Wallerstein, in another session over Shabbos, recounted how he was beaten in the third grade, Both Rabbis Lob and Wallerstein felt that it was actions like those that turn kids OTD, and how fortunate we are that both of them were able to rise above it and become the accomplished people that they are.

Rabbi Mordechai Becher from Gateways stresse three important points. 1) to allow kids to ask questions 2) to not put down others 3) to teach basic emunah from an early age.

It was a much inspiring program and can be seen on video here. 

In the keynote session on Motzei Shabbos the Sadigura Rebbe from Israel Rabbi Yisroel Moshe Friedman ( who grew up in the US and speaks perfect English) touched on the same theme. He related how he was once sent to test a class of 13 and 14 year olds on maseches kiddushin. Before he asked them the questions he had prepared he asked a few basic ones. 

He asked one boy why do you wear tefillin and the boy said because my father bought them for me. Another boy said he keeps Shabbos because that's how they do it in his house.  He realized how so many boys are not aware of the basic elements of yiddishkeit and felt that is a reason why they go OTD.The rebbe related how the Sefer HaChinuch, written about 800 years ago, writes in his introduction that he is teaching taamei hamitzvoth so children should not go astray

There was also discussion on open orthodoxy. The Novominsker Rebbe in his address (delivered via video, as he was in Israel for the wedding of a grandchild) referred to the “apikursus of that new malignancy called open orthodoxy".

There was even a special session devoted to it Friday night with Rav Aaron Feldman, Rosh Yeshiva of Ner Yisroel of Baltimore and Rabbi Aaron Lopiansky Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva Gedola of Greater Washington in Silver Springs. Rav Feldman explained some of the rationale behind the recent psak of the Moetzes which does not recognize OO rabbis as a need to draw a line in light of the many questionable rulings and thoughts that have emanated from this movement.  Rav Lopinasky related that seven shuls in the Greater Washington area already have OO rabbis.

Someone asked Rav Feldman why if there are perhaps 100 students at YCT, why should we even care. After all there are probably 100 kids born in Lakewood each week. The Rosh Yeshiva answered that those in the Brooklyn, Lakewood, Monsey corridor are often unaware of what goes on out of town, but  that many shuls are looking to hire YCT graduates, as they subsidize their salary for the first year and it is becoming a real threat.

He gave an example by using their approach to Akeidas Yitzchok which he says has become a favorite Rosh Hashonoh drasha with many expressing the sentiment that Avrohom went to far. In an article in Hamodia he quotes Sara Hurwitz (first Rabbah) as saying 'Avraham's willingness to sacrifice Yitzchok went too far... and is unrecognizable from the Avrohom we encountered up to this point". 

Said  Rav Feldman “Consider that based on this test Hashem called him a "yirei elokim (fearer of God) and promised great things for his descendants, how can we even begin to question Avrohom’s actions in the Akeida, which plays such  a central role in Yidishkeit, It is one of the reasons we blow Shofar on Rosh Hashonoh, and  indeed Avrohom’s willingness to sacrifice his son plays such a central role in our Tefillos on Yomin Noraim especially the bracha of Zichronos on Mussaf  of Rosh Hashonoh which is primarily based on the akeida.

As the session was on Shabbos, there is of course no video of it, but suffice to say it certainly garnered much reaction.

An Unlikely Ally?

Although I do have some reservation about it in this particular instance because I think they still fall short, I nevertheless must give credit when it is due.

Through their spokesman Rabbi Avi Shafran, Agudah has added its own voice in protesting the blanket protection given to the identities of Orthodox sex abusers by the Brooklyn DA’s office.

While Agudah’s view is not exactly the same as mine and does not go quite far enough, I am happy to see this step in the right direction. From the Forward:

Rabbi David Zwiebel, Agudath’s executive vice president and a legal expert, defended the D.A.’s right to evaluate whether to release the names of offenders on a case-by-case basis, according to Agudath spokesman Rabbi Avi Shafran.

Such an evaluation could take into account whether naming the suspect might allow the victim to be identified. But a blanket policy of withholding names of perpetrators should not be “across the board” in any community, he said.

I do not agree (as implied by this statement) that the risk of exposing the identity of the victim outweighs the benefit of knowing the identity of the accused sex offender, when the evidence of abuse is great enough for him to have been arrested and indicted.

I believe that the risk of victim exposure (which is very unfortunate if it is against their wishes) is worth the protection it gives to everyone else. But at least they agree that such protection should not be automatic.

On the plus side for the victim who did not want to be exposed - but was – is the greater probability that they will seek professional help… and get the therapy they often so desperately need.

Interestingly the Forward ends with a question about who exactly does agree with the DA?

My guess is that is is mostly the Chasidic community. Their general distrust of secular values; their antipathy for secular society; the feeling that there decisions are guided by the Torah; with the accompanying attitude that they therefore know better than the secular experts how to handle their own, and their general isolationist tendencies - easily explains why they would advocate such a blanket policy.

And it would not surprise me that it is the Chasidic leaders that are the ones mostly behind the decision of the DA.

A Wake Up Call?

Is Agudah finally waking up? They were silent when the Spinka Rebbe was arrested. But they are silent no more.

A letter was posted on YWN. It is an invitation to a meeting designed to deal with the recent arrests of several rabbis for money laundering. Two rabbis and two attorneys will be participating. I urge the media to attend and report on exactly what happened.

I just hope this is a beginning and not an end. As Rabbi Zweibel says:

It is (vital) that we hear words of mussar and chizuk, and that we learn to distinguish between conduct that conforms with dina d’malchusa and conduct that does not.

What is sad is that this kind of meeting is even needed! ...that people do not understand what conforms with Dina D'Malchusa.

The culture that produced these rabbi/criminals has to change. I’m glad to see Agudah calling this meeting. I think the letter expresses the right attitude. I will reserve any further comment until I find out what happened there.

Here’s the letter:

I am writing to friends and supporters of Agudath Israel to call your attention to an important gathering for the men of our community tomorrow night, Tuesday, 7 Menachem Av/July 28, in the Ohr Hachayim Viznitz Hall, 1824 53rd Street, in Brooklyn.

The asifa, which is being sponsored by community askonim, will be focusing on the timeless (but also all too timely) theme of “Vi’asisa hayashar vi’hatov.” It will feature two distinguished rabbonim - Harav Avrohom Schorr, shlita, and Harav Dovid Ozieri, shlita; as well as two respected legal experts - Benjamin Brafman, Esq. and Jacob Laufer, Esq. I will be serving as the evening’s chairman. We will start with Mincha at 7:15 and then proceed with the program.

Introspection about how to better live our lives in consonance with Torah ideals is always timely. It is particularly timely during the days leading up to Tisha B’Av, when we mourn the fact that we remain in Golus, and the reasons why.

And in the wake of recent headlines and front-page photographs that made every feeling Jewish heart ache, it is even more timely for us to take a good, hard look at our obligations to our fellows, to our society, to our government.

I don’t think I can adequately convey how compelling this gathering should be to us all. But I am confident that you realize how vital it is that we hear words of mussar and chizuk, and that we learn to distinguish between conduct that conforms with dina d’malchusa and conduct that does not. I am also confident that you understand how important it is to demonstrate to the wider world how heartfelt and determined Jews respond to news like the tragic tidings of recent days. Tomorrow night’s symposium and our attendance are an important part of that response.

Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel
Executive Vice President
Agudath Israel of America

Is the New York Times Really Antisemitic?

One of the negative articles about Chasidim in the New York Times (VIN)

I hate defending the New York Times. Their bias against Israel is frequent, long term, and legendary. Subtle though it may be. But are the really antisemetic? Clearly they are not since many of their reporters and opinion writers are Jewish (Bret Stevens and David Brooks come to mind.) 

Nonetheless there are many voices that have been saying that when it comes to Charedi Jews they are. Some of those voices include non Charedim (Professor Moshe Krakowski) and some that are not even Jewish. Are they all right? I’m not so sure about that. I recall not all that long ago (a couple of years?) a lengthy article in the New York Times about the Charedi world of Lakewood, New Jersey. It was full of praise and admiration for the idealistic way those religious Jews lead their lives. Not one negative word in it.

But that article has long ago been forgotten in light of what is now perceived as hit pieces against religious Jews. For those that have somehow missed it - there have been a series of articles by the Times on the state of Chasidic education. All of it negative.

The reaction of Agudah and quite a few others was to immediately label the Times as antisemitic when it comes to Charedim.  Their claim was that the Times did not say a word about any of the many positive aspects of the lives of the people they ‘vilified’. Nor did they bother to get ‘the other side’ of the story that would prove that the Chasidic educational system is not as bad as the Times painted it. Furthermore articles like those tend to exacerbate the already increased antiemetism (some of it violent) we see today. (They may be right about that.)

This prompted a massive campaign by the Agudah to set the record straight about what the world of Charedim is really like. A website has been developed to show all that and to counter the antisemitism they accused the Times of having.

It appears that another mainstream media source has given Agudah some publicity about this. Two popular Orthodox Jewish news media: The Jewish Press and VIN featured a JNS article that began with the following headline:

Fox News Gives Orthodox Jews the Voice that The New York Times Denies Them 

A new, 6-and-a-half-minute Fox News documentary—which Kassy Dillon, a former JNS news editor, reported—turns the camera on Orthodox leaders and scholars.

“We resent that the Times are engaged in what appears to be a crusade,” Chaim Dovid Zwiebel, an Orthodox rabbi and executive vice president of Agudath Israel of America, told Dillon. “A crusade to get people to consider chassidic Jews in a negative light. 

As I have repeatedly said, the Chasidic community has a lot going for it. It has indeed been mischaracterized by the Times focus on how the Chasidic educational system shortchanges their students in the following ways: Their lack of any formal curriculum of Limudei Chol (secular subjects), their disciplinary methods, the public funding they get (provided by the state to all private and parochial schools) and the ‘creative’ way in which they use those funds. 

I have no clue how accurate - all - of those accusations are. But I assume that they reported what they saw. Or at least what they thought they saw.  How pervasive it might be is another question.  But there one thing I am sure of  which I believe is the main thrust of the Times investigative reporting: The Chasidic sects that were investigated do not offer any kind of formal secular curriculum to their students. 

I assume what spurred the Times investigation was NYSED’s determination to enforce its public school equivalency requirements. The Times simply wanted to know what was actually going on in those schools. They found out and reported it. That was the focus of the article. It was not intended to be an overview of the way Charedi or Chasidic Jews lead their loves. 

It had nothing to say about whether this community is self sustaining. Or whether the typical family income was comparable to that of the general population. 

Although the Times they did report that a higher percentage of Chasidic families rely on government welfare programs  than does the general public. That was defended by Agudah. Government welfare guidelines allow Chasidim to utilize these programs despite incomes comparable to that of the general public. That’s because of their very large families. That makes an income that most people would consider quite adequate to not be adequate enough or their very large families. (10 or more i children in one family is not all that uncommon). 

Be that as it may, the Times investigated one important aspect of the community. And reported what they found. Which – as noted - was all negative. They didn’t report on any of the positive things in that community because none of it was relevant. 

Could they have doe a better job by at least mentioning that the fact that this community should not be judged as a whole because of one failing - serious though it may be? Sure. They could have. Perhaps they even should have? But that is not how investigate reporting works. The reporters did what they were tasked to do and focused entirely on that. Not with anything else.

I therefore do not believe that the New York Times should be judged as antisemitic (with respect to  Charedim) from this series of articles. But at the same time I understand why the Agudah and other defenders felt they are. I’m therefore happy to see a major news organization publicizing the positive side of the Chasidic world. 

What should not be lost in all of this is that their educational system is still badly in need of major repair. And to the extent that NYSED can do anything about it – more power to them.