Off to Israel

We are flying to Israel today and will be there for Pesach. 

This is the first time I will be back since October 7th when Israel was so brutally attacked. We will be flying EL-AL. Which - it seems - is the only airline that can more or less assure us that the flight will not be canceled.  Tried to fly Swissair last Sukkos only to be canceled right before we left. Not doing that again.

I have 2 new Israeli great-grandchildren there that I haven't met yet: Hillel and Michal. That's in addition to the 3 I have already met. Can't wait to see them all  - as well as the rest of my family there.

There will be no new post today (or tomorrow since I will not be landing at Ben Gurion until late in the afternoon). 

Also internet availability will be severely limited while I'm there  so I'm not sure how many posts I will be able to put out. All I can do is try. 

Stay tuned.

In any case, if I don't get the chance to do so before Pesach, I am taking the opportunity now to wish everyone a Chag Kosher V'Sameach.

The Trump Derangement Syndrome Works Both Ways

One of the most annoying things I’ve experienced about the ‘Trump phenomenon’ is the inability of some very smart people in the Orthodox Jewish world to distinguish between his good policies and his bad ones. It never ceases to amaze me that people who can’t stand Trump see everything he does as bad, while those who love him see everything he does as good. No matter how obvious the relative value of each policy may be.

When discussing his foreign policies - especially regarding Israel, antisemitism, and policies that favor our Biblical values - there should be no question that this polices are almost entirely positive. And yet, those who hate Trump will completely deny that these policies have any real value for Israel or the Jewish people, offering all kinds of twisted explanations to justify their stance.

On the other hand, when it comes to policies that are clearly detrimental to this country, Trump supporters will deny the obvious and insist he is right, no matter how clearly wrong the policy is. It’s as though both camps are blind to reason - refusing to give any credit to someone they see as the devil. Or to find fault with someone they view as so pro-Jewish and pro-American like Trump.

I find myself arguing with people on both sides. The last time I did this was Friday night with an Orthodox Jewish Trump supporter. He was absolutely right about the positive things mentioned above that Trump has done. I couldn’t agree with him more. But when it came to Trump’s domestic economic policies, I was stunned that he defended them. As a businessman who relies on buying foreign goods, he admitted that these tariffs would increase his costs. Yet, his defense was that ‘Trump is a businessman and knows what he’s doing,’ And that it would benefit the American people financially in the long run. I couldn’t believe my ears.

I suppose I should be used to MAGA supporters like this fellow being blinded by their pure loyalty to a man they view as almost infallible.

I have long defended the above-mentioned good Trump policies - even at the risk of being called a MAGA Republican, which I clearly am not. But I now find myself condemning his domestic economic policy, specifically his across-the-board tariffs on all our trading partners.

The reason he has imposed these tariffs is to restore American manufacturing, which is at its lowest point in U.S. history. Many (most?) major manufacturers are no longer producing their goods in the U.S. Instead, they’ve outsourced production to foreign countries. About 50% of the cars purchased in America  are now mostly made in foreign countries like Japan, South Korea, and Germany. Car parts used by GM, Ford, and Stellantis are made in Mexico and Canada. The cars themselves are often assembled there. The automobile industry - once the bedrock of American manufacturing – has ‘left the building’. Many other commodities are manufactured in a foreign country.

Why? Because the nature of business is to make money. Profit is the name of the game. Maximizing profit by reducing manufacturing costs is therefore a top priority. Since it’s cheaper to manufacture almost anywhere else but the U.S…. do I need to finish that sentence?

Tariffs are meant to level the playing field. If it costs more to buy products manufactured in foreign countries, then it's no longer financially beneficial to buy them there. By imposing tariffs these companies might as well manufacture those goods here, thus restoring the U.S. as the manufacturing capital of the world, as it once was.

The problem with this formula lies in the 2 elephants in the room. The first being labor costs. It’s cheaper to produce goods in China, Mexico, and even Canada because labor costs are lower. While there are some other factors involved, it is obvious to me that this is the primary reason American industry has outsourced so much of its production.

How did it get this way? ‘If you can’t win em - join em’ Over time, unions became so powerful they were able to hold corporate employers hostage to their salary demands. Eventually, companies chose to collude with them—more or less giving them what they wanted and passing any increased costs onto the consumer. While unions may not have the same kind of power anymore today, the damage has already been done.

Even if manufacturers bring production back to the U.S., factory workers will still demand compensation packages that far exceed those in other countries. I would guess that U.S. factory workers are paid more – overall - than workers in any other country in the world. And there's no greater contributor to inflation than that.

When so much of what we buy is made in whole or in part in foreign countries, and it now costs more to manufacture, consumers will pay more. Manufacturers may absorb some of the additional cost, but most of it will be passed along to the consumer.

If Trump succeeds in getting U.S. manufacturers to restore all production to this country, prices will not go down because of the increased labor costs in this country. That is simple math.

This brings me to the other elephant in the room. What the president is effectively doing is asking the American people to pay for this restoration. There is no way Trump’s tariff policy will restore the economy to what it once was. If these tariffs remain in place, prices will go up and - one way or another - they will stay up.

This policy is as wrongheaded as it gets. Which is why Wall Street has reacted so negatively. Retirement accounts have lost real value, which hurts retirees with a 401(k) or an IRA  which are often heavily invested in the stock market.

Anyone who supports this policy isn’t thinking clearly. Those defending it are doing so blindly. Permanently ‘taxing’ the American people is not the way to restore manufacturing in this country. It is however, the way to cause inflation.

Tariffs are not really a politically conservative economic policy. It’s more of a progressive policy designed to help the American factory worker at the expense of the rest of the population. This is what Democrats usually do. Theirs is the party that supports labor unions. And labor unions almost always support Democrats. Ironically, it's the Democrats who are now screaming the loudest against these tariffs and labor unions that are strongly supporting them. That should not be lost on anyone.

This is the only logical way to view Trump’s tariff policy. It’s so aggravating that I even have to explain it to people who are otherwise quite intelligent. And I doubt that I have convinced any of them.

Could This Tragedy Have Been Prevented?

Forensic psychologist, Gianni Pirelli (APP)

I can think of few things more tragic than a mother taking the lives of her own children. Unfortunately, things like this do happen, rare though they may be.

It need not be said that a mother who does this is suffering from a mental disorder known as psychosis - commonly called insanity. This is when an individual breaks from reality and lives in an alternate universe of their own making, unaware that it isn’t real.

A common feature of this ailment is hallucinations, including hearing voices that instruct them to do things that would be diabolical and inexplicable to normal people but seem quite positive and logical to the psychotic. They might interpret these voices as coming from God or some sort of religious figure telling them to do the unthinkable. Convincing them that by doing it they are actually doing the world a huge favor.

This was the case with Naomi Elkins. As reported in the Asbury Park Press:

When Naomi Elkins killed her two toddlers last year, she believed their deaths would eradicate all evil in the world and bring about the coming of the Messiah, (forensic psychologist, Gianni Pirelli) testified Tuesday.

On the morning of June 25, Elkins, 27, of Lakewood, was making food in preparation for the Messiah’s coming…

Then, she took her daughters, ages 3 and 22 months, to the preschool where she worked as a teacher and where her children were enrolled... But on the car ride home, she started having dark thoughts…

‘She thought that if she destroyed her children, she would be destroying all the evil in the world,’ the psychologist testified at Elkins' trial for the murders of both of her children.

Pirelli was the only witness at the trial, which lasted about an hour and a half.

At its conclusion, Superior Court Judge Guy P. Ryan found that while Elkins did kill both her children, she was not guilty by reason of insanity.

I don’t think there can be any doubt about the verdict. It was the right call. But I have to wonder - where was everybody else during this woman’s break from reality? Insanity does not generally go unnoticed by others.

Psychosis can be treated with medication so that people with this disorder can lead more or less normal lives. Was Naomi under any psychiatric care? Was she given any medication for her condition? If so, was she being monitored to ensure she was taking it?

Where was her husband during all this? Why did he not ensure that she was being monitored while he was out of town on a business trip? How is it possible that her psychotic delusions went unnoticed by her students, fellow faculty members, or her principal? Did she hide all of these thoughts all the time? Even from her husband?

I can’t answer any of these questions. It’s possible that she somehow masked her insanity and otherwise seemed quite normal. But it’s hard for me to imagine that her husband, with whom she had two children, never noticed any of her psychotic delusions.

At the end of the day, her community failed her. My guess is that someone, somewhere in her life must have known that something was seriously off with this woman and did nothing.

And yet, it’s hard to blame anyone for this tragedy. Even if they saw or heard some odd comments from her, there was probably no way of knowing that it could ever lead to her killing her own children.

But still… it just seems like there is something off about this story. Something untold. As I recently noted, there are a lot of serious issues the community of Lakewood needs to deal with that are seemingly being ignored. I suspect that dealing with mental illness is one of them.

What Exactly Are They Proud Of?

Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz, Dean of RIETS

Can anyone imagine, even in their wildest dreams, a club like Hareni being established in BMG (Lakewood)? I think you’d sooner see them invite the Pope to teach Jewish history than allow a club that defines itself in any way as gay. Even if it were to operate under the strictest Halachic guidelines, the very word gay is indicative of sodomy - behavior the Torah considers an abomination

The people at places like BMG must be having a field day with what just happened at YU, which recently recognized such a club. They are either laughing in ridicule or outright condemning YU for officially recognizing a club that identifies as gay. They may even use this as proof that their philosophy of isolationism is the right way for a Jew to live in a world gone mad with depravity.

But the truth is, if that is how the people at BMG feel, they are wrong. Their world does not recognize the possibility that there may very well be a significant number of gay people learning in their own Beis HaMedrash. People who would never dream of coming out of the closet. So they live in constant fear of being exposed. Or they may sin on the down-low and hope they never get caught. Either way, they must suffer mental anguish over desires they know are clearly forbidden by the Torah. Acting on those desires is what the Torah calls an abomination.

This kind of struggle can lead to severe depression and even suicide. It was recently revealed that there has been a spate of suicides in Lakewood. It would not surprise me if, in some cases, they were by people struggling with these issues.

It seems to me that if the rabbinic leadership had a better understanding of what people with these kinds of struggles go through, they would not be ridiculing or condemning what YU has done. Instead, they would be more understanding and accepting of it, realizing that YU’s approach to tolerance on this issue is not only acceptable but laudable.

In fact, YU’s Roshei Yeshiva and BMG’s Roshei Yeshiva are on exactly the same page on the issue of homosexuality - the Torah’s page. No one at YU thinks that having pride in being attracted to members of the same sex is in accordance with Torah values.

So how does Hareni fit into this? Did YU compromise on these values? According to LGBTQ advocates who agreed to this new organization, it might seem like they did. But that is false. The only thing that might be true is this sentence uttered by the group’s co-president, Hayley Goldberg, "You are allowed to be a queer Jew on campus at Yeshiva University." That’s because being gay is not the sin. Acting on it is.

Here’s what YU’s leading Roshei Yeshiva had to say in response to what must have surely been the greatest possible misunderstanding of what YU  agreed to:

In a series of public statements since the March 21 settlement, senior rabbis at Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary (YU’s rabbinical school) have repeatedly asserted that the only LGBTQ+ club they would tolerate at the school—and the one they say was approved—is one that encourages celibacy.

Were the school forced to recognize a club that espoused pride in queer identity, one RIETS Rosh Yeshiva (head rabbi) indicated he would quit.

“It would be akin to the Yeshiva being asked to teach the New Testament,” said Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz, RIETS’ director of ordination, in a March 28 episode of Halacha Headlines, a podcast about Orthodox community issues. “You would sooner shut down the Yeshiva than teach the New Testament.”

Rabbi Schachter called Goldberg and her co-presidents “wiseguys” who had lied to The New York Times about the deal’s terms. He described homosexuality as one of the most “egregious and vile” forms of behavior and recommended therapy for Jews attracted to the same sex. He also stated last week that he rejected LGBTQ+ “ideology, lifestyle, and behavior.”

Lebowitz, who became the head of the ordination program last year, described LGBTQ+ people as having “a yetzer hara to do very serious aveiros (sins) of arayos (sexual immorality).”

So why have a group like Hareni at all? That’s because the Roshei Yeshiva at YU recognize that this problem exists and that it can, and often does, lead to suicide. Something that has happened with at least one student at YU. They see Hareni as a legitimate way of dealing with this ‘impossible’ problem. The only solution that aligns with Jewish law, as they see it, is a path of celibacy.

In Rabbi Schachter’s view, the university was helping the plaintiffs by offering a support group that helped them achieve that goal.

Unfortunately, the pride community had an entirely different understanding of what Hareni was supposed to be. Their goal is for gay people to have pride in who they are. Which, by definition, means having pride in behavior that is sinful in the extreme. No rabbi who calls himself Orthodox could ever agree with that. One can be a proud Jew and be gay, but one cannot be proud of being gay.

I pretty much expected that this was the only way in which Hareni could be approved: Love the sinner, hate the sin.  And of course, to strongly discourage every Jew from sinning. A club that does that should be applauded. But pride in being gay? That would be no different than being proud in being a thief. Or of any other sinful behavior.

Not that I haven’t said all of this before. But I’m glad to see YU’s Roshei Yeshiva saying it publicly. And I’m quite happy to remind all YU’s critics on the right about this club - that they might just be on the wrong side of the issue.

My Granddaughter’s Wedding

 I am currently in Lakewood, New Jersey to celebrate the wedding of my beautiful granddaughter, Yaffa. Lots to do here today in preparation for the Simcha tonight. As a result there will be no new post today. Tomorrow is doubtful since I will be traveling all morning and with a prediction of severe storms, there are sure to be delays if not cancellations. 

God willing I will be home Thursday and back to my regular posting schedule until next Monday. More about that in a future post.

Doing What's Necessary

Yarden Bibas on 60 Minutes last night (JTA)

Netanyahu must make any deal necessary to secure the release of all hostages from Hamas captivity. Whatever it takes. Anyone who watched the 60 Minutes report last night featuring Yarden Bibas had to come to that conclusion. Recall that his wife and two very young children were slaughtered by Hamas while in captivity. Mr. Bibas demanded that President Trump stop the war and make a deal with Hamas to release the rest of the hostages. I agree with him.

This is not to say that I trust this ultra-liberal news source for any kind of balanced reporting. They lost their credibility on that score long ago. That being said, it’s hard to dispute what was reported directly by Mr. Bibas and other recently freed hostages about the way they were treated during their captivity.

The savagery of Hamas is subhuman. The physical and mental torture of hostages for well over a year was beyond brutal. This segment of 60 Minutes was one of the most riveting things I have ever watched on TV - even in fictional drama. It is beyond description. I defy anyone to watch and listen to these recently released former hostages and not be as outraged as I am.

Which is why I have no misgivings advocating doing whatever is necessary to secure their release. But Israel’s mission should not end there. These subhuman pieces of garbage, parading around as if they were human, ought to be utterly destroyed. Hamas must be wiped off the face of the earth. Once the hostages are released, Israel must do whatever is necessary to obliterate them, including violating any agreement made with Hamas to secure their release - if that is what it takes.

I have absolutely no ethical or moral compunctions about that. These ‘people’ do not deserve to have any agreement honored. On the contrary, if obliterating them means violating the terms of an agreement, I consider it a Mitzvah Min  Hamuvchar - the choicest of Mitzvos to do that. Nor does it matter to me how many civilians Hamas throws in Israel’s way to prevent her from accomplishing that goal. Justice demands their end. The death or dismemberment of any number of Palestinians (men, women or children) thrown in Israel’s way is entirely at the hands of Hamas themselves.  

What about world opinion? Foremost on my mind is pursuing justice. The only justice with respect to Hamas is erasing them from the face of the earth. Along with anyone who tries to help them, including (and perhaps especially) Iran.

(On that score, it would not surprise me in the least if the president were on board with a plan designed to bring the Iranian mullahs to their knees with the help of Israel in some sort of coordinated attack. Which would destroy their nuclear capabilities. But I digress.)

The world opinion about Israel that comes out of the UN is so antisemitic, that I have long ago discounted anything they say about the Jewish state. Europe’s uber progressive approach to justice – most recently expressed by the International Court of Justice (ICC) is only the most recent manifestation of that. Their pronouncements are unalterably skewed against Israel. So any additional condemnation that might result from Israel’s holy goal could not concern me less. As long as Israel has US support, I am not worried. Under this president, I think they will.

Europe may not like it, but they need us a lot more than we need them. If the U.S. backs Israel, that’s all that really matters.

But even if there were international repercussions for Israel by violating the terms of an agreement with Hamas, the bottom line for me is the absolute justice of destroying these monsters - and every other jihadist group. All of whom rival Nazi Germany in terms of man's inhumanity to man.

If, after watching that 60 Minutes piece, anyone still feels that this course of action is immoral, I’d love to hear their justification. Because I don’t think any rational being can make that case.

If anyone thinks this is just an angry post – let me assure them that - that is exactly what it is. Only I would leave out the word ‘just’. Yes. I am angry. Sometimes it takes a bit of anger to break out of the complacency of conventional wisdom - and with the help of God - do right thing.

Leaving the Fold

Leaving the Fold (Jewish Action)

I have addressed this issue before. More than once. But now that the OU has initiated a study on why people raised as Orthodox Jews leave Orthodoxy, it is worth revisiting the issue. The problem is not going away. As the observant Jewish community grows, so too does the issue of attrition. It certainly deserves to be studied to better understand the underlying causes and to develop more effective ways to address them.

This is a subject I have always been interested in. The idea of someone radically changing the lifestyle in which they were raised is something I find very difficult to understand. I have always wondered, ‘What causes someone to do that?’ Similarly, I find it just as perplexing - perhaps even more so - when someone embraces an observant lifestyle after being raised in a non-observant home. However, that is beyond the scope of this post.

Dr. Moshe Krakowski is the lead researcher for the OU study, which he describes in the latest issue of Jewish Action magazine. I found his insights to be quite illuminating, some of which align with my own, albeit very limited, observations.

There were several key findings in Dr. Krakowski’s study that stood out. One of them echoes a concern I have had since my children were first enrolled in a religious day school. At the time, it seemed like a no-brainer that parents who identified as centrists - like me - would naturally choose a centrist school for their children.

I was genuinely shocked by how many centrist parents instead chose right-wing schools. Their reasoning was invariably that they could always make their children less frum at home. I tried to convince these parents that this was a mistake, but they were convinced they were making the right decision. Only to regret it in some cases later on. The study confirms that this type of thinking can be problematic:

"In the OU study of people who have left Orthodoxy, twenty-two out of the twenty-nine participants reported experiencing a ‘misalignment’ between themselves or their families and the schools they attended. They described having to ‘constantly negotiate their religious identities,’ performing for an audience of teachers and peers at school while adopting a different lifestyle at home. The feeling of hypocrisy this engendered—and ‘secondary consequences’ such as bullying from peers—eventually became a factor in their decision to leave the community."

Misalignment, as defined by the study, can manifest in many ways. Dr. Krakowski explains:

"Even if your family is more religious than the school, there’s a sense of disruption. My family is saying I have to do this or that, but my school doesn’t require it. So does all of this really matter?"

The study also found that misalignment at home is an even greater factor in attrition. If one parent is observant and the other is not, that certainly raises concerns about which path a child will choose. But even when both parents are observant, if one is significantly more stringent than the other - causing conflict between them - it can also create confusion and tension that may lead a child away from observance.

Another striking finding was the impact of rabbinic figures on individuals' religious trajectories:

"Another finding we had not anticipated was the enormous emphasis our subjects placed on the impact religious authority figures, particularly rabbis, had had on their life trajectories - both for good and for bad. In a cohort of twenty-nine people who left Orthodoxy, it was amazing how often, completely unprompted, we heard the refrain, ‘There was this one rabbi who . . .’ The end of that sentence was inevitably something horrible or something wonderful - never in between."

Another, more obvious reason some people abandon observance is experiencing physical or sexual abuse at the hands of a loved one or a teacher, as well as the poor response from teachers and rabbis when they reported it. This is completely understandable.

One factor the study did not address is those who leave observance for intellectual reasons. There are some highly intelligent people who seem to have left not due to emotional trauma but because of philosophical or theological doubts. Interestingly, none of the twenty-nine people interviewed in this study cited that as their reason for leaving.

As I have said in the past, there are as many reasons for leaving observance as there are individuals who leave. However, the fact that the vast majority of this admittedly small sample cited their educational experiences as a backdrop to their decision cannot be ignored. 

Dr. Krakowski acknowledges that the sample size was too small to draw definitive conclusions about which factors are the most significant contributors to this phenomenon. This is why this is only the first phase of his study, which he describes as qualitative. The second phase will be quantitative, involving a much larger and more representative sample that can be subjected to statistical analysis.

This OU study is an important read for anyone who cares about the continuity of the Jewish people. While Jewish education has never been more widespread or more effective in perpetuating Torah values to the next generation, there are nonetheless some serious flaws that need to be addressed. I am glad to see the OU tackling this issue in such a methodical and scientific way.

Does the WZO Controversy Spell the End of 'Daas Torah'?

Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah of Agudah (Matzav)

Is the world of ‘Daas Torah’ falling apart? Though this question may seem shocking, the answer is not entirely clear. However, to someone like me who does not derive their Torah wisdom from the Kol Korei (decree) of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah of Agudah, it is beginning to seem that way.

I say this with no malice in my heart toward any of the great Torah leaders who comprise this esteemed body from which ‘Daas Torah’ emanates. I have only the utmost respect for these great Talmidei Chachamim.

So, what is this thing called Daas Torah that is so sacred in the Charedi world? Anyone who has paid the slightest attention to what has been said by numerous Torah luminaries and personalities at Agudah conventions over the years would realize that Daas Torah equals whatever their Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah says. The term is used liberally throughout speeches at those conventions. As noted by Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein in his latest contribution to Cross-Currents:

“It is forbidden to agree to matters that the Torah leadership of Klal Yisroel has explicitly forbidden.”

The implication is that by not following Daas Torah, one risks losing their Olam HaBah - their place in the World to Come.

The problem with this kind of thinking arises when other Gedolim of comparable or even greater stature disagree with the Moetzes. Or worse, when there is dissent within the Moetzes itself. Who should be followed in such a case?

Agudah, whose Moetzes members are selected from among the most knowledgeable senior rabbis of the generation, asserts that they alone represent Daas Torah. Disobeying their edict, they claim, is tantamount to disobeying God, as they are deemed best positioned to understand His will.

This debate is currently playing out over whether to participate in the World Zionist Organization (WZO) elections. The disagreement is not merely about whether one should or should not vote. It is whether voting is outright forbidden and constitutes a Chilul Hashem (desecration of God’s name). That is the publicly stated belief of Ner Israel Rosh HaYeshiva and Moetzes member Rav Aharon Feldman. Apparently, he has convinced the entire Moetzes to adopt this view and publicize it in absolute terms. As reported by various publications, here is an excerpt from VIN:

The Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah of America, the rabbinic leadership council of Agudath Israel of America, has released a formal declaration opposing participation in the upcoming World Zionist Organization (WZO) elections.

The declaration, titled “Kol Korei Regarding the Elections for the WZO,” emphasizes the organization’s position that it is “forbidden to vote for any party in the election for the WZO,” listing several religious concerns, including what it terms “issurim” (prohibitions) involved.

However, as Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein pointed out:

People who have followed the story know that the psak does not reflect the positions of many, many Torah figures. That includes members of the Moetzes itself, some of whom have aligned themselves in recent weeks with the opinion of zekan hagedolim, R. Shmuel Kamenetsky…

They know that even in Israel, there are large numbers of roshei yeshiva who have endless kavod, as they should, for Rav Dov Lando… and know that he has positioned himself against the stated position of R. Chaim Kanievsky, who instructed people to vote in the past.

So, who represents the real Daas Torah? The Moetzes, which has long been regarded as the de facto—if not de jure - infallible word of God? Or those to whom the Moetzes themselves look up to?

One may ask: if Rav Kamenetsky is the head of the Moetzes and disagrees with their Kol Korei, how can they sign it as though it were a unanimous decision - especially when his position is well known?

This is due to a policy in which, if the majority decides public policy one way, dissenting opinions are not listed, as that would lead to people picking sides. This way, there is no ambiguity about what Daas Torah truly is.

Except, in this case, there clearly is.

For the first time (at least to my knowledge), people who value Daas Torah and fear the implied consequences of not following it are in a dilemma. They do not want to lose their Olam HaBah, which violating the Kol Korei suggests. Yet by not listening to Gedolim who hold otherwise, they may lose it as well.

I, for one, am grateful that my Daas Torah has nothing to do with either of these opinions. Their debate is over whether they should vote for Eretz HaKodesh, a Charedi party that would ultimately benefit their own community through a larger Charedi turnout at the polls.

My Daas Torah is my Rebbe, Rav Ahron Soloveichik, ZTL, a Gadol recognized as such even by peers in the Agudah Moetzes. A Gadol who supported the Jewish state. A Gadol whose Yeshiva (Brisk) sang Hatikvah (with slight modifications) at every banquet. A Gadol who recited Hallel (without a blessing) on Yom Ha’atzmaut. A Gadol who was the titular head of the Religious Zionists of Chicago. A Gadol who taught the late Rav Yaakov Perlow, ZTL (the Novominsker Rebbe and Yoshev Rosh of the Moetzes), how to learn a Rambam - as Rav Perlow himself testified at Rav Ahron’s Hesped Shloshim.

Rav Ahron is no longer with us, but I have no doubt that he would have encouraged voting in the WZO elections - and that the vote should go to the Religious Zionist party. That is exactly what I did, and I encouraged other Orthodox (even Charedi) Jews to do.

What will happen to Agudah now? Is this the beginning of the end of their influence over the Charedi world? Will they still be regarded as the exclusive voice of Daas Torah?

At the end of the day, I am sure they will. The next convention will hardly differ from the last in this respect. It will surely feature the same slate of Torah luminaries and personalities as before. This episode will likely be forgotten.

Or will it?

Rabbi Adlerstein raises an important point:

Since October 7, Anglo Charedim have seen past the headlines about protests and civil war and witnessed a renaissance of interest in Jewish roots among those “pesky” secular Zionists. They have stood in awe of their mesiras nefesh for Am Yisrael. And they have stood shamefaced, realizing that the Charedi community (as a whole; I am not speaking about thousands of individuals acting as individuals) has lived apart from the rest of the country. They are going to be wary of positions and pronouncements that affirm the isolation of Charedi Jews from everyone else and will seek the leadership of those with a tad more openness…

Some Anglo Charedim have had enough of this kind of thinking. It is infantilizing and humiliating to thinking people. Backed into a corner, they will continue to accept instruction from Torah leaders rather than follow their own instincts—that is part of what makes them Charedi. But if given a legitimate choice, the outcome may no longer be as predictable.

We shall see.

A Letter from a Charedi

R' Dov Landau - a leading opponent of Charedim serving in the IDF

A couple of days ago, I received the following letter (lightly edited for clarity) in response to a recent post:

Hi, my name is Moshe Cohen, and I'm a card-carrying Charedi. My kids learn in Ponovez.

For many of us here, the issue is clear: if our kids could remain frum in the army, we would send them. Not all, of course—a boy who is deeply immersed in Torah learning does not belong in the army. But enough are eligible to solve the manpower problem. However, the army does not want us. They refuse to change the ethos and values baked into the system and have expelled frum officers.

This may be untrue. But this is what we believe.

So when politicians wax indignant about "sharing the burden," we are little moved by their fine talk. We are the first to contribute—if we can remain frum, on our terms. Spare us the pious speeches. To us, the army is run by wicked missionaries who want to claim the souls of our children. Change needs to start with the army itself.

Oh, you say, but the army has changed. They even opened a special brigade for Charedim. Yes, and then punished soldiers who wanted to use the mikvah, throwing them in the brig for insubordination, and forced them to have female instructors. So we distrust the army completely.

Again, this may or may not be true. But this is how it seems to me and my peers. And that is why my sons do not go to the army. It’s not because we are afraid of dying, and it’s not because we seek comfort or feel entitled. It’s out of concern for the religious life of our families.

To a frum person, the choice between "sharing the burden" and "keeping Shabbos" is a non-starter. Even the mere possibility that army service will ruin a soldier religiously is enough to say no. By the same token, a secular person has no question—certainly, sharing the burden comes before keeping Shabbos. (As one secular man asked me: "And is it so terrible to be secular?") So I accept that they don’t understand me. So be it.

I also understand that Modern Orthodox people may have a system in place to protect their religiosity within the secular framework of the army. Perhaps that works for them. I know that for the Charedim, it does not.

First, let me say that I do not dismiss his concerns, some of which are quite valid. But it is revealing that he wrote: ‘This may be untrue. But this is what we think.’

The truth is that the very nature of army service requires a soldier to never question a direct order. If a superior officer demands that a soldier violate Halacha in a non-combat situation, that is a non-starter for any religious Jew. Does that happen? I’m sure it does.

The question then arises: How can any religious Jew agree to serve in an army that either ignores or deliberately sabotages a recruit’s desire to follow Halacha?

This used to be a much bigger problem than it is now but it was not insurmountable. Now, since the advent of special Charedi units it has become far less of a problem. Even though it probably still exists in some cases.

It’s not only about being forced to violate Halacha. It’s also about an environment that has led many young men from devoutly observant homes to abandon their religious practices due to the influence of secular environment and their secular IDF peers. I personally know a few families where this happened.

It’s hard to argue against an argument backed up with anecdotal evidence. At the same time, I do not believe this happens in most cases. I believe it mostly happens to those who were already weak in their observance before they ever set foot into the army.

The way an observant soldier should deal with this dilemma is to follow the guidance of the devout Religious Zionist Poskim who are as serious about Mitzvah observance as Charedi Poskim. Their view is that every Jew has an obligation to serve if called upon. Some of the most devoutly observant young men from the Religious Zionist community serve with honor and have learned how to navigate these challenges by relying on their halachic guidance. And this was all before special units for Charedim were created. Units designed specifically to accommodate Charedi needs.

Moshe believes that these units have failed to live up to their promises. That is likely true in some cases. However, although I’m sure there are exceptions, it is my understanding that these units are trying their best. When they fail, it is mostly due to the ignorance of their unit leaders. Who have asked that mistakes be pointed out and they will rectify them. There are in fact some Charedi rabbis that have suggested that Charedim should serve and that new and better Charedi units have been created for them.

Moshe’s argument that a Charedi Jew will not compromise Halacha for the sake of sharing the burden is understandable. While he agrees that contributing is important, violating Halacha in service of that contribution is not an option.

Thing is, that is true for Religious Zionists as well. And yet, as noted, they are told by their Poskim they have a halachic obligation to serve. There is no way those devout Religious Zionist Poskim would obligate observant Jews to violate Halacha for purposes of army service unless mandated by Halacha (e.g. Pikuach Nefesh). Which is exactly the job of army Poskim.

Interestingly, Moshe agrees with my own view that there are enough Charedim who could serve in the IDF. Those who are deeply immersed in Torah study could, in theory be exempt. But that still leaves more than enough Charedim to serve. Moshe’s sole objection is the fear of being forced to violate Halacha.

At the end of the day, this letter is more positive than one might assume, given its antagonistic stance on army service. If the army could guarantee that Charedi recruits would not be hindered in their mode of religious observance, his community would be willing to serve. Opposition is not due to fear of injury or death, but purely out of concern for maintaining their religious standards.

What seems to be missing is any sense of sacrifice on the part of his community. It isn’t enough to feel bad  or even to empathize with families who have lost loved ones or seen them return permanently disabled. He doesn’t seem to grasp the gravity letting others to do the sacrificing for them – while his entire community goes on with life as usual, without parents having to worry about whether their sons or daughters will return home without an arm or a leg… or at all!

That is the 300 pound gorilla in the room that his concerns do not address.  No matter how much one empathizes with a bereaved family that lost a child in battle, that is nowhere near the experience of losing one that way. If one avoids that possibility by design, the resentment and even anger from the rest of society is more than palpable and quite understandable. Even if all of Moshe’s concerns were legitimate, it would not matter to the grieving mother who lost a beloved child in Gaza while his sons sit in a Beis HaMedrash in Ponevezh.

That said, I am glad that at least he feels Charedim could in theory serve in enough numbers to relieve the excessive burden placed on the rest of Israel. Hopefully, that reflects the sentiment of most Charedim.

If that is indeed the case, then I truly believe this problem can be solved. But I have to wonder whether the current Charedi leadership in Israel would ever agree to it. My gut feeling is that they never would ever agree under any circumstances. I’d love to be proven wrong. But I doubt that I ever will.

Yeshiva University Responds

Yeshiva University Beis HaMedrash (RIETS Press)

I am pleased to say that Rav Hershel Schachter has responded.

A few days ago, I, along with many other Orthodox Jews, was perplexed by what appeared to be Yeshiva University’s recognition of an LGBTQ student club. As I noted at the time, I was perplexed but not shocked. Based on my ‘theory of the case’ I reserved judgment until I heard from their Roshei Yeshiva. 

That has now happened - in the person of Rav Schachter, who responded almost exactly as I expected he would. Which is, of course, the Torah way to respond.

I speculated that there might be a rationale allowing YU to recognize this club without it being an endorsement of sexual behavior that makes such recognition so problematic. Here is the pertinent part of Rav Schachter’s statement as reported at YWN:

"Two and a half years ago, when I was last consulted, I gave my blessing to a Yeshiva University initiative to help students struggling with problems of same-sex attraction and gender identity. My position, then as now, emphatically rejects the ideology, lifestyle, and behaviors that the LGBTQ term represents.

My position, then as now, is that all relevant prohibitions (homosexual behavior, same-sex marriage, castration, etc.) must obviously be uncompromisingly upheld. Simultaneously, all halachically legitimate means of support should be provided to struggling students to foster and sustain their unwavering commitment to Torah and mitzvot.

I gave my blessing to providing guidance and support in maintaining full, uncompromising shemiras ha-mitzvos—toward this sacred goal and nothing more.

Helping Jews keep the Mitzvos they struggle with is not only permissible; it is an obligation upon all of us. This is what 'Kol Yisrael Areivim Zeh BaZeh' is all about. If there is a club specifically designed for that purpose, it should be lauded, not criticized.

Adding to this, YU President and Rosh Yeshiva, Rabbi Dr. Ari Berman, stated the following:

"The Yeshiva has always conveyed that what a Pride club represents is antithetical to the undergraduate program, in which the traditional view of marriage and gender as determined at birth is transmitted. The Yeshiva never could and never would sanction such an undergraduate club, and it is due to this that we entered litigation," Berman wrote.

He then introduced the Hareini club, which he says was created to support students who 'are striving to live authentic, uncompromising halakhic lives.' The club, he said, was 'agreed to by all of the parties to be in accordance with halacha, consistent with the rabbinic guidelines of the senior Roshei Yeshiva.'"

The last thing Hareini seems to be about is pride in a sinful lifestyle. It appears to be the exact opposite. I am quite pleased that both sides have agreed to those terms and that the litigation is being dropped.

All’s well that ends well, I guess. But I would be remiss if I didn’t express my deep (albeit unsurprising) disappointment at the knee-jerk response of the Charedi world when the news of YU’s recognition of Hareni first broke. Which is exemplified in the very title of a YWN hit piece:

NAIL IN THE COFFIN: Yeshiva University Caves, Recognizes Toeiva Club In Landmark Surrender

That was followed by this:

"In a stunning capitulation, Yeshiva University (YU) has officially recognized an LGBTQ+ student club, bringing an end to a protracted legal battle but solidifying its descent into a Torah-compromised institution. The newly sanctioned club, now called 'Hareini,' will operate under the university’s banner - an unthinkable development for an institution that once prided itself on maintaining a Torah-observant identity."

It’s almost as if they couldn’t wait to condemn YU, as if they were salivating - waiting for the day  when YU would surely capitulate. And when they perceived that it had, they pounced with some pretty incendiary language.

The idea of being Dan L’Kaf Zechus - judging YU favorably - never occurred to them. They decided to condemn the school - and, by implication, its Roshei Yeshiva. They didn’t even attempt to understand what was meant by YU doing this with the approval of senior rabbis. Nope. They just couldn’t wait to drive the final nail into YU’s coffin.

Well, they backpedaled somewhat by releasing Rav Schachter’s and Rabbi Berman’s comments. But as of yet, they have not apologized for their original harsh, knee-jerk reaction. Here is a little Mussar for them from the Gemara (Bava Basra 60b):

K’shot Atzmecha V’Achar Kach K’Shot Acherim - Correct yourself (first) and afterwards correct others. If they don’t know what to correct, they might want to start by checking out the list mentioned in this post.