Segregation Forever!

Street scene in Bnei Brak (TOI)

I love Bnei Brak. It was my “home away from home” during the 1970s and 1980s, when my parents lived there. They had made aliyah to a city that reminded them very strongly of the lives they had lived in pre-Holocaust Europe. They had grown up in exclusively religious kehillos—large sections of cities that were almost entirely Jewish. Back then, if you were Jewish, you were more than likely religious (by Orthodox standards).

After the Holocaust, my parents immigrated to the United States and lived in a largely mixed environment consisting of secularized Jews and non-Jews. My father believed that the world in which he had been raised had been destroyed forever, never to be rebuilt. Upon his first visit to Israel, he was surprised and amazed to discover that this world still existed in a city called Bnei Brak. Shortly after that visit, he bought a condominium, and a few years later, in 1974, he made aliyah.

My frequent visits to my parents gave me the feeling that their home was my home. I loved the neighborhood and the feeling of being part of a world that was not only entirely Jewish, but entirely religious.

The entire city shut down for Shabbos. The main thoroughfare, Rabbi Akiva Street, became one giant sidewalk. No vehicles of any kind—other than emergency vehicles—were seen there. On Friday nights after the Shabbos meal, it was common for families to take a leisurely walk down Rabbi Akiva.

I had never seen anything like it. There was a sea of people walking on both sides of the street and right down the middle. It was an amazing and exhilarating sight for someone like me, who was accustomed to seeing cars driving on Shabbos down Devon Avenue, one of Chicago’s main thoroughfares running through my West Rogers Park neighborhood, home to an enormous Orthodox Jewish population.

But that was then.

Today, I’m not sure such a scene still exists. And if it does, it may eventually be legislated out of existence by the city’s leaders. As reported by the Times of Israel:

The Bnei Brak municipality is working to establish gender-segregated sidewalks inside the largely ultra-Orthodox city.

In accordance with a decision by the city’s rabbis, Bnei Brak plans to segregate the bustling Shlomo Hamelech and Ezra streets with barriers and signage to prevent men and women from crossing each other’s paths, Channel 13 reported.

The plan has been in development for several years and is likely to be expanded to other busy streets in the city, municipal officials told the channel.

An official message by the city instructed residents of all ages to abide by the new guidelines, the report said.

The municipality told Channel 13 that the rabbis’ instructions are “very clear and speak for themselves. The city’s public, which is committed to obeying the great Torah leaders and heeding their words, will comply with their request.”

I wish I could say I was surprised by this development. But as noted in the article, there are already other cities where similar policies have been implemented. It was only a matter of time before a city like Bnei Brak followed suit.

I understand the concern about violations of tznius. But legislating policies of extreme segregation of the sexes out of fear of incidental contact undermines normal civility between men and women in public. By further isolating the sexes from one another, the city’s leaders are continuing the “Frumkeit chase” that has become increasingly common in recent decades.

This sends the wrong message to young people…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post  - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free. 

The Ro Khanna Incident

Ro Khanna’s car stopped near the West Bank village of Khirbet Zanuta

As lefties in Congress go, Ro Khanna is a moderate. By that I mean he does believe that Israel has the right - not only to exist but to defend itself against terrorist organizations like Hamas. I therefore applaud his willingness to resist the growing trend among progressive Democrats who increasingly embrace the view that Israel never had a right to exist in the first p;ace, that it is a colonial enterprise created to dispossess the indigenous population and subjugate it through a brutal occupation.

But my appreciation ends there.

His professed support for Israel’s right to defend itself amounts to little more than rhetoric, since he has repeatedly characterized Israel’s actual efforts to defend itself after the brutal attack by Hamas on October 7 - as genocide. And while he may not explicitly describe Israel as a colonial entity, he nevertheless portrays it as a brutal occupier of Palestinians on the West Bank, where, according to him, settlers routinely terrorize Palestinians while the Netanyahu government either looks the other way or tacitly encourages it.

And he is far from alone in making these accusations.

Last Sunday, Face the Nation host Margaret Brennan interviewed Israel’s Kipa wearing ambassador to the United States, Dr. Yechiel Leiter. She referred to an incident Congressman Khanna said happened to him during his recent visit to the West Bank:

“There was... an incident with Ro Khanna, the congressman from California, who said the vehicles he was in were stopped by Israeli settlers, and then when the IDF showed up, they were on the side of the settlers, not him.”

There are, unfortunately, a small number of extremist settlers who have engaged in exactly the kind of conduct of which they are accused. So Khanna’s account is not beyond the realm of possibility. Whenever such incidents occur, they lend credence to the nefarious accustions of Israel’s harshest critics in media. Outlets like the BBC and CNN. Those organizations eagerly seize upon these incidents because they reinforce the narrative they consistently promote.

But it is far too easy to blame a sitting prime minister who supports the peaceful settlement movement for every criminal act committed by a tiny minority of vigilantes. I am convinced that Prime Minister Netanyahu would not approve of what allegedly happened to Congressman Khanna if it occurred as described. That some members of his cabinet have expressed sympathy for extremist settlers is a separate issue. One that deserves serious discussion, but is beyond the scope of this post.

The real question is whether the incident happened as Khanna described it and what the facts really are.

The media, however, largely accepted Khanna’s version without question, consistent with its eagerness to portray Israel in the worst possible light.

So what is Israel’s response…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post  - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.

The Church of England and Israel

The Archbishop of Canterbury addressing a recent synod

I used to think that nothing shocks me anymore. But this shocked me.

European antisemitism has rarely been made clearer than it has now by the Church of Engla As noted by Melanie Phillips, at a recent synod, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dame Sarah Mulally, read from a document entitled A Moment of Truth: Faith in a Time of Genocide. It can best be described as one of the most antisemitic pieces of propaganda ever uttered by a prominent public figure since Joseph Goebbels served as Hitler’s propaganda minister in Nazi Germany.

On the other hand, Is it possible that she has a point? Some of my more liberal friends would say that the truth is the truth. Even when it isn’t flattering and spoken by your worst enemy. There is some validity to that. I have always argued that there is nothing wrong with asking challenging—even difficult—questions. But there is a profound difference between asking honest questions and parroting the talking points of Israel’s enemies, many of which are demonstrably false, taken completely out of context, or wildly exaggerated.

Still, using that logic, let’s see just how true the observations of the respected head of the Anglican Church are about Israel. Maybe she’s right. Maybe we should consider what she says and change our ways accordingly.

The following are excerpts from Melanie Phillips’s article:

The document brands Israel a “colonial, settler, and exclusionary entity” (note the term “entity”—the language of genocidal Islamists—rather than “state,” “nation,” or “country”).

It describes the Palestinian Arabs falsely as the “indigenous people of this land” (it is the Jews who are the actual indigenous people of the land).

It claims that “the genocidal war on Gaza is the continuation of the Zionist project to seize all of Palestine, emptied of its Palestinian people” (a demonstrable lie that demonizes Zionism—and therefore Judaism, whose connection with the land of Israel is existential). It also demands a boycott of dialogue with “Zionists,” which in practice means treating the overwhelming majority of Jews as pariahs.

It asserts that the Hamas atrocities of October 7, 2023, were “born out of decades of injustice, oppression and displacement since the Nakba of 1948”—that is, the Arab war of extermination launched to destroy Israel at its rebirth in the Jewish people’s ancestral homeland, now falsely recast as a Jewish war of colonial aggression.

Referring to Israel’s war of self-defense in Gaza, the document continues:

The claim of “self-defence” cannot stand. How can a coloniser defend itself against those it has colonised and expelled from their land?

It then explicitly justifies Palestinian Arab violence against Jews:

At a time when Palestinian resistance and global solidarity movements are criminalised, we reaffirm the right of all colonised peoples to resist their colonisers.

The document portrays Zionists—not only Jews but also Christian Zionists—as inherently evil, driven by violence and bloodlust. It echoes the medieval blood libels that incited the mass slaughter of Jews throughout Europe for centuries. Yet it presents accusations of antisemitism primarily as a cynical tool of political manipulation...

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post  - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.

Agreeing to Disagree Agreeably

Rabbi Pesach Lerner (Arutz Sheva)

The ever-elusive unity of the Jewish people was on display recently at a meeting of the Jewish Agency for Israel—and not in a positive way.

As much as I long for genuine Jewish unity, I don’t believe complete unity is attainable when the theological and ideological divide between Orthodox Judaism and heterodox movements is as profound as it is today. Nevertheless, that does not mean unity is impossible. We should still be able to stand together in those areas where we share common interests and a common destiny as Jews.

The challenge is identifying where those areas begin—and where they end.

When it comes to matters of Halacha, I see little room for compromise. Orthodox Judaism regards Halachic observance as binding, just as it has been throughout Jewish history until the Enlightenment gave rise to movements that rejected its authority. That is a divide that cannot simply be wished away.

These thoughts came to mind after reading an Arutz Sheva op-ed by Rabbi Pesach Lerner about a deeply disappointing incident at a meeting of the Jewish Agency’s Unity of the Jewish People Committee.

Rabbi Lerner serves on that committee by virtue of his leadership of the Eretz HaKodesh faction within the World Zionist Organization. As a member of the Jewish Agency’s Board of Governors, he is entitled to participate fully in deliberations on policy issues and vote on them.

Instead, this is what he encountered:

“I walked into the meeting room of the Jewish Agency’s Unity of the Jewish People Committee—a committee on which I sit—and was handed an official statement, already written, already finalized, ready to be voted on. I had never seen it. I was never asked for input. There had been no discussion, no draft circulated, no deliberation of any kind. A committee whose very name invokes the unity of the Jewish people had prepared a statement on that unity while excluding a member of the committee who represents a different voice.

“That statement committed the Jewish Agency for Israel to actively work in support of pluralism, to enhance the egalitarian platform at the Kotel, to oppose any change in the Law of Return, and to oppose anything ‘that undermines Jewish pluralism and weakens the Jewish People.’”

Rabbi Lerner objected - not to the substance of the statement, at least initially - but to the process. How could any committee committed to “unity” produce a policy statement without circulating a draft to all of its members or even inviting discussion?

His objection was entirely justified.

What makes the episode even more telling is that even some of the non-Orthodox committee members supported his procedural objection after realizing they had been led to believe that everyone had been consulted when, in fact, they had not.

This episode illustrates precisely why authentic unity remains so difficult to achieve. It is impossible to build unity while simultaneously marginalizing those who hold a different worldview.

At its core, the dispute reflects a much larger debate. Not only within Israel, but throughout the Jewish world.

Should Judaism adapt itself to contemporary cultural norms whenever they conflict with biblical values? Or should biblical values continue to define the moral framework by which Jews live…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post  - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free. 

Lindsay Graham - A True Friend of Israel

 

The Three Amigos - Joe Lieberman, John McCain, and Lindsay Graham

What a loss for the cause of freedom.

Senator Lindsey Graham was arguably one of the most knowledgeable foreign policy experts in Congress. That description did not come only from like-minded conservative Republicans. It also came from Democrats I heard interviewed this morning. That was a bit surprising, considering that their views on foreign policy were often the polar opposite of Senator Graham’s.

Acharei Mos - Kedoshim. It does not surprise me to hear politicians on the left praise an opponent immediately after his death. Once someone dies, there is no longer any need to contend with the force of his arguments, which often demolished those of his critics. Now that he is gone, they can speak frankly about what they always knew but were unwilling to acknowledge publicly.

There are not too many Jews living in North Carolina, Nevertheless the principled Senator Lindsay Graham was second to none when it came to supporting Israel. He believed, as I do, that Israel is an indispensable ally of the United States and deserves maximum military support. Indeed, he often argued for providing even more support than Israel itself requested. In doing so, he effectively refuted those with far less foreign policy expertise who claimed that Israel was somehow a liability to America.

One of the most out-of-character interviews I have ever seen with Prime Minister Netanyahu took place this morning on Meet the Press. Moderator Kristen Welker asked for his reaction to Graham’s death in perhaps the most respectful manner I have ever heard a mainstream media interviewer address him. The result was Netanyahu at his eloquent best, delivering a heartfelt and moving tribute that was both loving and honest. Their decades-long friendship was evident in every word of Netanyahu’s tribute. Netanyahu’s condolences reflected not only personal grief but profound appreciation for Graham’s lifelong, unwavering support of the Jewish state.

Graham’s expertise in foreign affairs was especially evident in his views on Iran. He frequently described Iran’s leaders as “religious Nazis” and believed the regime had to be brought down. He consistently advocated much stronger military action to achieve that goal, knowing full well that any agreement Iran reached with the United States would amount to little more than a stalling tactic that would eventually be violated - as Iran did under the JCPOA, proven to be the case long before President Trump withdrew from it…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post  - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.

When Orthodox Jews Trash Israel

‘Civilians killed in Gaza equivalent to 6,000,000 Americans killed.’

‘IDF has been accused of not caring at all about civilian deaths. Note IDF Spokesman’s Office… has not let Western press report from Gaza unaccompanied.’

‘if (Hamas) violates IHL (International Humanitarian Law) it does not give (Israel) right to violate it. Hamas is not asking for US and Western support and arms...’

‘Many organizations have all agreed that there have been tremendous losses of civilian life in Gaza and on a per capita basis extremely high. Repeating discredited talking points that the whole world is making up their data and tremendous civilian deaths are not happening is even worse for Israel.’

‘Warning whole civilian areas of bombing in advance could be construed as an attempt to cause the civilian population to leave an area which could be prohibited.’

‘Israel essentially destroying majority of civilian residences in Gaza-Hamas still there. Hamas still controls Gaza and strategically Gaza War cost Israel US support which it needs to survive yet defend IDF policy in Gaza of Bombs Away’

‘Using bombing warnings to get civilians to leave a whole area could be construed as an attempt to get civilians out of their homes-may at times be an independent war crime. Even if civilians gone need very rare exceptions to justify bombing their home.’

‘the ridiculous attempt that Israel at the beginning tried to do doubting deaths by saying Hamas Ministry of Health. After a few months of war Hamas gave a list to Western press of address and name and ID no of all deaths they claimed-it was proven accurate. Western media has come jp by their anslysis higher deaths combining estimates from bombing when bodies not recovered and victims no record of for months and years’

‘(Isreali propaganda) nonsense: war correspondents go everywhere else in line of fire, some die, some get injured badly, but Israel refusing to let them take their own risk is interpreted that Israel does not impact of the war reported.

(IDF spokesman) Hagari used to give frequent briefings himself until Western press showed his answers were not credible.’

‘Bibi and Gallant announced in the first days of the war that they intend to blockade Gaza from food and water.’ coming from one of those anti-Israel sources.’

These recent comments (lightly edited for clarity) were not made by the Hamas Health Ministry, a Hamas supporter, a UN official, a BBC reporter, Tucker Carlson, or an anti-Israel Democratic Socialist.

They were all made by a Jew. Not a progressive secular Jew, but a religious Orthodox Jew who comments here frequently.

And he is not the only Orthodox Jew making comments like this. In the mistaken belief that he is offering Mussar (an admonition) to blind supporters of Israel who refuse to acknowledge the “truth” about the ‘bad’ things Israel is doing.

Instead, however, he is giving aid and comfort to Israel’s enemies. By repeating the accusations routinely made against Israel by its adversaries, he lends credibility to their narrative. Adversarial accusations are amplified by a mainstream media whose values often align with those of Israel’s harshest progressive critics, who portray the Jewish state as a decades long monstrous oppressor of helpless Palestinians.

I sometimes wonder how these critics fail to realize how much damage condemnations like those quoted above do. Condemnations based largely on biased media coverage of the war in Gaza. Condemnations that advance the Palestinian cause of liberating ‘Palestine’ form the Jews. When one makes comments like those - they may as well be a spokesperson for them. One would think that an Orthodox Jew would realize that...

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post  - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.

Rahm Emanuel's Anti Israel Speech

Rahm Emanuel addressing an audience at Tel Aviv University

Rahm Emanuel delivered a speech at Tel Aviv University yesterday that was both surprising and disappointing. To say the least. It did however receive extensive mainstream media coverage because it reinforced the narrative many media outlets already promote about Israel and its prime minister. But I shouldn’t have been surprised.

Emanuel has made no secret of his apparent ambition to seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028. Unlikely though that is to happen, to have any chance of winning that nomination, he must align himself with a Democratic Party whose increasingly influential progressive wing views Israel as an international pariah led by ‘war criminal’ Benjamin Netanyahu, whom they portray as beholden to extremist coalition partners and settler violence.

Much of the anger, disgust, and venom directed at Israel by the far left is expressed through the demonization of Netanyahu. They treat the war in Gaza as “Netanyahu’s war,” making him personally responsible for every civilian casualty. Their narrative assumes that had any other Israeli leader been in power, the war would have been conducted differently and the civilian death toll dramatically reduced.

That claim ignores reality. Israel’s political opposition overwhelmingly supported the war’s objectives and the IDF’s military tactics and strategy. They understood that Hamas had embedded its military infrastructure within civilian neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, and mosques precisely because civilian casualties would become propaganda victories. Israel repeatedly warned civilians to evacuate targeted areas, saving countless lives. Tragically, many civilians still died, but much of the world ignores Hamas’s deliberate strategy of maximizing those deaths for political gain. Not to mention exaggerating the number of civilian casualties

Israel’s opposition also understood that after October 7^th, eliminating Hamas’s military capability was essential to preventing future massacres. Yet critics reduce the conflict to the simplistic claim that Netanyahu intentionally targeted innocent civilians.

For many liberals, however, Netanyahu himself has become the issue. They see him as arrogant, divisive, and willing to publicly challenge American presidents, particularly Barack Obama over the Iran nuclear agreement. Their hostility toward him has increasingly become hostility toward Israel itself.

Emanuel attempts to strike a middle ground. He condemns Hamas and acknowledges the atrocities of October 7 while simultaneously arguing that Israel has become a pariah because of Netanyahu’s leadership. The implication is clear: remove Netanyahu and Israel will once again regain the respect of Democrats and much of Europe.

That premise is deeply flawed. I am tired of hearing demands that Israel apologize for defending itself. I am tired of hearing that a two-state solution is the only path to peace, despite decades of history suggesting otherwise. I am weary of antisemitism masquerading as anti-Zionism and of claims that Netanyahu somehow manipulated President Trump into confronting Iran.

What disappoints me most is seeing someone like Rahm Emanuel, once regarded as a strong supporter of Israel, now describe it as a pariah state because of its elected leader…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post  - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.

The Case for War

The president declaring the US cease-fire with Iran - over

The cease-fire between the United States and Iran is apparently over. The memorandum of understanding has been broken. So said the president this morning, expressing frustration with trying to deal with people who lie, cheat, and cannot be trusted.

Whether that means a return to full-scale war remains to be seen. I hope it does, although I have my doubts. Public opposition is simply too great.

I don’t get it. I really don’t. Much as I try to understand the opposition to war against Iran, it escapes me. Some objections are certainly legitimate. But they pale in comparison to what I believe is the overriding issue.

It can be summed up with one question: What alternative is there to defeating a regime determined to finish the genocide against the Jewish people that Hitler failed to complete?

Iran’s rulers regard that objective as a religious obligation. They have already begun pursuing it by arming terrorist proxies to commit atrocities against Jews in Israel. Hamas’s October 7 massacre and kidnappings were not an isolated event. They were the opening volley in Iran’s long-declared war against the Jewish state.

Iran’s leaders openly proclaim their devotion to this cause. Their cries of Allahu Akbar after acts of terror reflect their belief that they are carrying out God’s will. Can anyone seriously believe that such a regime can be negotiated out of what it considers a divine mission? Even if it agreed to a deal, deception in pursuit of a higher religious objective is hardly viewed by its leaders as immoral.

If there is an alternative to defeating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)—the military arm responsible for exporting Iran’s revolutionary ideology—I would genuinely like to hear it. But if preventing genocide ultimately requires destroying the IRGC’s ability to wage war, what choice do we have?

Yet much of the American public opposes further military action, as do most Democrats in Congress, a few Republicans, and many governments around the world.

A ground invasion would undoubtedly come at an enormous cost. American lives would be lost. The economic consequences would be significant. Protests could rival those seen during the Vietnam War. The political fallout would likely be severe.

Still, considering the stakes, I find the opposition difficult to understand.

Most of the reasons offered have little to do with Iran itself. They center on higher gasoline prices, rising grocery costs, and fear of another long Middle Eastern war.

Others argue that Congress was not consulted before military action was taken. That is a serious constitutional question. But it does not answer the more fundamental one: What is the alternative?

Negotiations have repeatedly failed. Sanctions have damaged Iran’s economy for years, yet they have not altered the regime’s priorities. Its leaders have consistently demonstrated that their ideological mission outweighs the suffering of their own people. They continue to chant “Death to Israel” and “Death to America” despite the hardship those policies impose on ordinary Iranians.

In my view, much of the opposition stems from a failure to appreciate the nature of the Iranian regime. This is not simply another hostile government pursuing ordinary geopolitical interests. It is a revolutionary theocracy driven by an uncompromising religious ideology that openly embraces Israel’s destruction. Should such a regime ever acquire nuclear weapons, the threat would extend far beyond Israel.

Many Americans seem content with the status quo. They ask why the president disrupted a fragile peace instead of leaving matters alone. Israel’s security, they believe, is Israel’s problem, not America’s…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post  - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.

 

Freedom, Culture, Identity, and Torah

Although a bit late to the party (America’s 250th birthday celebration has come and gone), I would be remiss if I didn’t add a superb series of essays in Mishpacha Magazine about what it means to be a Jew in America at this point in time.

The package consists of four essays by what Mishpacha describes as its contributors: Rav Aharon Lopiansky, Rabbi Yisroel Sapirstein, Rav Yisroel Reisman, and Rabbi Avrohom Neuberger. Each article is worth reading for its unique insights.

First, as true as much of what Rav Lopiansky wrote is, his essay left me disappointed.

He begins by expressing profound gratitude…

“to the American people for that freedom, which has indeed allowed us to pursue what we believe to be right,” (adding that the) “ideal of liberty is an extraordinary leap forward for humanity, and speaks volumes about those who established this wonderful country.”

He then proceeds to criticize the American ideal of freedom itself. He describes it as a “negative freedom” because it rejects any authority over one’s personal choices. His point is that Judaism views freedom differently. Not as freedom from authority to do whatever we please, but as the freedom to serve God, what he calls “positive freedom.”

While I understand the distinction he is making, the negative spin he places on the very freedom for which he expresses such gratitude makes American liberty sound more like a vice than a virtue. I found that disappointing.

I had almost the opposite reaction to Rabbi Avrohom Neuberger’s essay. His perspective is much closer to my own. He views the American cultural Jew in a positive light. One can be proud to be an American and use that identity to enhance one’s service of God. His prime example is an icon of the Caredi world:

“That observation finds its fullest expression in the monumental life of Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel ztz”l. Rav Nosson Tzvi arrived in Eretz Yisrael at 14—a middle-American kid, through and through. Throughout his years in Eretz Yisrael, including three decades of near-anonymous toil in Yeshivas Mir, he never shed the personality traits of his upbringing. He remained, unapologetically, middle-American.

“And when he assumed the mantle of rosh yeshivah, he remade Yeshivas Mir in his own image: accepting and tolerant, warm and unguarded, emotionally honest and non-elitist.”

Rav Reisman offers his own observations about how Orthodox Judaism in America evolved from its humble beginnings into what it is today:

American Jewish communities began before the Holocaust…(Early immigrants) came for the modernity and freedoms of America. The new arrivals, to a very large degree, joined the action. Yiddishkeit sank to terrible lows. Culturally, Yiddish was still the spoken language and Jews still wore suits and ties on Shabbos. But the observance was a mile wide and an inch deep…

Eventually, however, halachic observance became much more serious, evolving into the Orthodox community we know today. Rav Reisman says he is not entirely sure how that transformation occurred.

I think the answer is fairly obvious…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post  - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.

 

Observant Queer Jews - Acceptance Versus Celebration

The headline of a recent eJewish Philanthropy article reads as follows:

Aviv Foundation grants $1 million to expand operations of Orthodox LGBTQ inclusion group Eshel

Donation, which will allow the group to work in new areas and hold more events, comes amid both a surge in interest and pushback.

I hate to sound like a broken record. But remaining silent about a development as significant as this - would, in my view, amount to condoning it. I do not. And as an Orthodox Jew, I feel obligated to respond.

The question of accepting LGBTQ Jews - whether gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender - into the Orthodox community is a very complicated one. First, however, it is important to point out that homosexuality and transgender identity are two radically different issues with very different halachic implications. The one thing they have in common is the way society has historically treated them and how societal attitudes toward both have evolved.

For purposes of this essay, I will limit my comments to homosexuality and discuss how observant gay Jews should be treated by the Orthodox community. That has always been a difficult question for me to answer, and it has become increasingly so as society has moved toward greater acceptance - and even celebration of it.

I have expressed my views on this subject many times. Ad nauseam, some would say. But in light of this latest development, I feel compelled to repeat them for the sake of clarity.

The act of male homosexual intercourse is a serious Torah prohibition. By definition, therefore, it cannot be celebrated by an Orthodox Jew. That does not mean that someone who experiences same-sex attraction should be condemned. It is one thing to be attracted to behavior the Torah forbids. That attraction is not itself sinful. Acting upon it is.

A gay individual who refrains from homosexual relations has done nothing wrong. At the same time, celebrating a homosexual identity—even if one never acts upon those desires—is problematic. Whether a gay person succumbs to that temptation in private is not our business. Judaism teaches us not to judge people based on what we suspect they may do, but on what they actually do.

Therefore, if someone says he is attracted to members of the same sex, that alone does not disqualify him from being a full-fledged member of the Orthodox Jewish community in good standing. What is not acceptable is celebrating desires that the Torah explicitly forbids.

Enter Eshel…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post  - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.