Proud to be an American

Declaration of Independence - oil painting by John Trumbull

As we prepare to celebrate America’s Independence Day, marking 250 years since the nation’s founding, I have been reflecting on the extraordinary blessings this country has bestowed upon the Jewish people. Chief among them is the freedom to practice our faith without fear of persecution. A right not merely tolerated, but embraced by the nation’s founders and woven into America’s very DNA. It is a right guaranteed to people of every faith and tradition.

Not even during the Golden Age of Spanish Jewry, which lasted nearly five centuries, did Jews enjoy such freedom as a matter of fundamental law. We were often tolerated and, at times, even welcomed. But our rights depended upon the goodwill of rulers and could be revoked at any moment. In America, by contrast, religious liberty has been guaranteed since the nation’s birth and permanently enshrined in the Constitution with the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

Emes Ve-Emunah is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Some Americans argue that because the Founding Fathers were Christians, their vision of religious liberty was intended primarily to protect their own Protestant forebears, many of whom fled religious persecution in England. They contend that America was meant to be a Christian nation and that the First Amendment was never intended to create a secular state. Some activists today invoke this argument in an effort to “make America Christian again,” believing that was the founders’ original intent.

While most of the Founders identified as Christians, many were far from orthodox believers. In fact they have been described as Deists, Believing in God as the Creator – Who grants humankind inalienable rights. But not much more beyond that. Thomas Jefferson famously produced his own edition of the Bible, removing all references to miracles because he rejected their supernatural claims. Several leading founders also questioned traditional Christian doctrines such as the Trinity. What they deeply believed in, however, were the moral principles found in the Bible. Principles drawn largely from the Hebrew Bible, our Torah. They also firmly rejected the idea of an officially Christian nation that favored one religion over another.

Perhaps no Founder articulated that principle more eloquently than George Washington, without whom there likely would have been no United States.

On August 18, 1790, President George Washington responded to a welcome address from the Jewish congregation in Newport, Rhode Island. The congregation’s leader, Moses Seixas, had expressed hope that Jews would enjoy equal citizenship under the new Constitution. Washington’s reply affirmed that hope in words that have become one of the defining statements of American religious liberty.

He declared that the United States “gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.”

Those few words represented a revolutionary idea. Washington did not describe Jews - - r any other religious minority - as merely being tolerated. Instead, he affirmed that all Americans possess equal rights as citizens under the law. Religious freedom was not an act of governmental generosity; it was an inherent right.

That letter became one of the foundational texts of American civic life, even though it was written before the First Amendment was ratified.

For nearly two and a half centuries, that promise has endured. Jews have enjoyed unprecedented freedom to believe, worship, educate our children, build institutions, and contribute fully to American society.

The result has been unprecedented prosperity and opportunity… 

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.

Transformation in the Charedi World

JNS International Policy Summit in Jerusalem (JNS)

I wish it were so. But I'm afraid that reality points in a distinctly different direction.

According to a JNS article by Atara Beck, there is a quiet shift taking place in Israel's Charedi world. One that positively addresses many of the issues that have concerned me and many other religious Jews for years. A shift toward a more proactive role in serving the country through enlistment in the IDF and a greater openness to secular studies throughout one's educational life. All while maintaining their value of Talmud Torah K'neged Kulam—the Mishnah's teaching  (Peah 1:1). Which places the highest value on Torah study.

A panel was convened by JNS consisting of Charedim who have made it their mission to advance what they see as an evolutionary change by actually doing something concrete about it.

As I read the names of the participants, I recognized two of them: Rabbi Yehoshua Pfeffer and Rabbi Menachem Bombach. I consider both of them heroes for their efforts to solve what are among the most divisive issues in Israel.

The arguments they make for the changes they advocate are, in my view, the solution to many of the problems I - and so many others - have with the current direction of the Charedi community. The fact that thousands of Charedim have listened to their arguments and acted upon the options they present is encouraging.

If only their numbers came anywhere close to those who regard these two individuals and their ideas as bordering on heresy with respect to traditional Charedi values and lifestyle.

Sadly, most Israeli Charedim look to Rabbi Moshe Hillel Hirsch and Rabbi Dov Lando as their sole spiritual guides. And they vastly outnumber those who have opened their minds to a more rational approach while remaining loyal to the essential values of the Charedi world.

When Bombach's name comes up, he is viewed by many as an outcast for the "audacity" of opening a yeshiva high school that teaches both Torah and secular subjects. They consider it an affront to the traditional ‘no secular studies at all’ approach to the Yeshiva world -  chutzpah akin to  ‘spitting in the face of the Gedolim’ who forboid it!  

Charedi Gedloim see no value in  preparing students to pursue higher education. since it takes away valuable time that would have been used for Torah study. The goal of earning a respectable living to better support their typically large families cannot come at the expense of sacrificing any time that could have been spent learning Torah...

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.

Heterodox Jewish Education

The headline of a recent eJewish Philanthropy column reads:

New Study Finds Jewish Day School Enrollment Ticking Up

The survey was conducted by Prizmah - a network of Jewish day schools and yeshivas in North America whose mission, in its own words, is to “invest in talent, advance the financial vitality of schools, and enhance educational excellence so schools can thrive.”

As part of that effort, Prizmah surveys enrollment trends in Jewish day schools. Breaking it down by denomination. As one might expect, Orthodox schools (Charedi school were not included in the survey) experienced the largest percentage increase. But enrollment increased across all denominations last year.

Why? The article notes, however, that the initial growth began during the pandemic. My own view is that what has primarily sustained that growth has been the dramatic rise in antisemitism since then.

That raises several questions, one of which is whether increased enrollment in heterodox Jewish schools is necessarily a good thing.

I have mixed feelings about it.

On the positive side, an education that fosters pride in one’s Jewish heritage and teaches the essential values of the Torah is obviously beneficial. Jewish ignorance is one of the primary reasons so many Jews have abandoned their Jewish identity, viewing Judaism as having little or no relevance to their everyday lives. Any education that instills pride in one’s heritage makes it far less likely they will abandon it as an adult.

There is also the benefit of learning the basics, such as reading Hebrew studying Torah texts, and reciting daily prayers. Even if those prayers are inappropriately abridged, students will have a much easier time adapting to the world of Orthodoxy should they eventually choose that path.

But then there is also a downside…

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 New Face of the Democratic Party

New York’s progressive anti-Israel mayor, Zohran Mamdani

Sometimes it seems that the worst antisemites among us are some of our own people. That may sound like an exaggeration, but it reflects a disturbing reality. It also makes the claim that antisemitism has dramatically increased since October 7 seem more complicated than it first appears.

Please do not misunderstand.. Antisemitism has unquestionably surged since October 7^th. Much of it is disguised as anti-Israel activism - a fig leaf for deep-seated hatred of Jews that has finally emerged from the shadows. Whether one distinguishes between hatred of Jews and accusations that Israel is committing genocide hardly matters when the result is the same: Israelis are portrayed as “baby killers,” and by extension, so are those of us (Jews) who support them.

People who use the term “New York liberal” are sometimes accused of using “liberal” as a euphemism for “Jew.” Since New York has America’s largest Jewish population, some argue that the phrase is an antisemitic dog whistle.

There is some logic behind that claim. Although New York is overwhelmingly liberal regardless of religion, a disproportionately large share of its Jewish population also identifies as politically liberal. Whether the phrase is antisemitic therefore depends largely on who is using it and in what context.

I recall when Senator Ted Cruz used the expression. He was immediately accused of antisemitism. That accusation was absurd. Cruz has consistently been one of Israel’s strongest supporters and one of the Senate’s most outspoken opponents of antisemitism. Still, because so many New York Jews identify as liberals, it is understandable why some heard the phrase differently.

The extent to which progressive politics has become intertwined with the identity of many New York Jews was made abundantly clear by the city’s recent elections. The most anti-Israel mayoral candidate in New York City’s history won decisively, receiving support from the many progressive Jewish voters. These are Jews whose political ideology defines their Judaism. Thereby making Israel an easy target.

The same trend appeared in New York’s Democratic congressional primaries. Progressive candidates who harshly condemned Israel defeated more moderate Democrats. Longtime Congressman Dan Goldman, among the party’s pro-Israel voices, lost his primary, while candidates aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America or at least their agenda enjoyed major victories.

These victories were enthusiastically supported by mayor Zohran Mamdani, himself a democratic socialist. Recently, Democrtatic Senator Elissa Slotkin (who is Jewish) warned that the Democratic Party is changing rapidly and that its traditional political formula may no longer be enough to win elections. Whether one agrees with her assessment or not, the party is clearly moving to what seems like the hard left.

Ironically, many of these same politicians insist they oppose antisemitism while relentlessly condemning Israel and attacking AIPAC, America’s leading pro-Israel advocacy organization. It is difficult to reconcile those positions. Constantly portraying Israel as uniquely evil inevitably fuels the growing hostility toward Jews, whether intended or not.

Meanwhile 13 moderate Democrats issued a “Promise to America” manifesto rejecting socialism. The document champions capitalism, strong borders, and patriotism, Ironically, these principles sound remarkably similar to positions that today’s conservative Republicans would readily endorse.

All of this raises an important question: what will become of the Democratic Party…

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.

A Chilling Description of Reality

One of the many massive Charedi protests against the draft in Israel

It doesn’t really change much. But at least it demonstrates a measure of common sense and consistency in Hashkafa on the part of one of the two Roshei Yeshiva of Slabodka in Bnei Brak. Both of whom are considered Gedolei HaDor in the non-Chasidic Charedi world.

Rav Dov Lando opposes participation in the Charedi protests against the draft—and the arrests of draft dodgers—that have become increasingly common in Israel. He argues (correctly, in my view) that these demonstrations accomplish nothing except further inflame an already angry public. They are counterproductive. Instead, yeshiva students should spend their time learning Torah, which he believes is the greatest merit for the Jewish people.

While I strongly disagree with the Charedi position on the draft, at least Rav Lando understands how destructive these protests are. His directive that students remain in the beis medrash is entirely consistent with his belief that the best way to protect Torah is through Torah study itself.

Not so Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch.

He supports the protests and has even described them as a Kiddush Hashem. According to that view, one must interrupt Torah study in order to publicly demonstrate opposition to the draft. In the process, however, these protests add to the misery of a nation already burdened by an extended war and the prolonged reserve duty made necessary, in part, by the lack of Charedi participation in military service.

The irony of these positions is not lost on me.

Rav Moshe Hillel (Milton) Hirsch was born in Brooklyn and raised in an American yeshiva culture that, in those days, was considerably less rigid than it is today. As a student of Rav Aharon Kotler during Beth Medrash Govoha’s early years, he would have been part of a generation in which students often wore baseball caps instead of black fedoras. One might therefore have expected his approach to be more measured and less confrontational.

Rav Lando, by contrast, was born in Poland. His family escaped to Mandatory Palestine before the Holocaust. Needless to say, life there was anything but relaxed.

One might have expected Rav Hirsch to oppose these demonstrations and Rav Lando to support them. Instead, the exact opposite occurred.

Why? I don’t know. Perhaps because of his American background Rav Hirsch felt the need to reinforce his Charedi credentials. But I digress.

Viewed in isolation, Rav Lando’s position is sensible. If Torah study is the solution, then students should remain in the beis medrash instead of marching in the streets.

But when viewed in the broader context of a country at war and suffering from a severe manpower shortage, it continues to trouble me greatly: Why do neither of these great Roshei Yeshiva ever address that reality? Even more troubling is their apparent lack of public empathy for the enormous sacrifices being made by the rest of Israeli society.

Those sacrifices include soldiers killed or permanently wounded in battle, lifelong PTSD, families separated for months at a time, careers interrupted, businesses damaged, and hundreds of thousands of reservists repeatedly called away from home because there simply are not enough soldiers.

Yet the public statements of these Roshei Yeshiva rarely, if ever, acknowledge those hardships…

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 Art of the Deal?

This AI generated images was once thought unimaginable. Now… who knows?!

With every passing day, it becomes increasingly clear that the memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the United States and Iran represents far more of a victory for Iran than for America. I don’t understand how anyone looking at the facts objectively could conclude otherwise.

What began as a courageous joint effort by the United States and Israel to confront a regime openly committed to the destruction of both countries—beginning with Israel and acting through terrorist proxies like Hamas—has been turned on its head.

In the opening days of the war, Iran’s military was devastated. Much of its leadership was eliminated, its military infrastructure severely damaged, and it appeared to have been brought to its knees. That was certainly the impression many observers had, and I suspect both Washington and Jerusalem believed the same.

But appearances can be deceiving.

Iran responded by playing its strongest card: seizing control of the Strait of Hormuz. That single move sent shockwaves through the global economy. Oil shipments slowed dramatically, shipping traffic was disrupted, fuel prices soared, and the cost of countless consumer goods increased. What had been an American economy poised for remarkable growth was suddenly facing serious headwinds.

To make matters worse, Iran retained enough military capability to continue attacking Israel and other regional countries hosting American bases. Despite the destruction it had suffered, Tehran remained as belligerent as ever, boasting of its defiance while continuing to threaten its enemies.

The United States had concluded its military campaign, but the conflict had reached an uneasy stalemate.

Then, almost overnight, the President began insisting that Iran was “begging” for a deal. That claim never seemed plausible given Iran’s leverage over the Strait of Hormuz and the damage it was inflicting on the world economy. Nevertheless, the President repeatedly argued that America’s military success had placed him in a position of overwhelming strength from which he could negotiate.

Soon afterward, a memorandum of understanding was signed. The President hailed it as a tremendous victory, promising that after sixty days of negotiations America would achieve all of its original objectives.

Since then, however, events have suggested something quite different.

Even by the President’s own description, the emerging agreement falls short of the goals he originally declared non-negotiable. Perhaps the most striking reversal concerns Iran’s ballistic missile program. Initially, the objective was to eliminate it entirely. Now the President says Iran may retain some missiles because, in his words, “it’s only fair” if other countries have them.

There has also been far less emphasis on ending Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism throughout the Middle East. Although the issue is occasionally mentioned, it no longer appears central to the negotiations.

There is even discussion of allowing Iran to retain enriched uranium buried beneath the ruins of facilities destroyed in earlier American strikes. Reports have also suggested that uranium enrichment could eventually resume after a waiting period—perhaps twenty years instead of the ten years permitted under President Obama’s nuclear agreement, the JCPOA.

President Trump was right when he called the JCPOA a terrible deal. What is remarkable is that the agreement now being discussed does not appear dramatically different in substance. The President argues that this deal is being negotiated from a position of strength rather than weakness, but if the end result is largely the same, that distinction may prove meaningless.

Worse still, Iran has now demonstrated that it possesses enormous leverage over the international community. By threatening the Strait of Hormuz, it has shown that it can inflict worldwide economic pain whenever it chooses…

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.  

Why I Hate Labels and Why We Need Them

I hate labels.

That might surprise people, since I use them frequently. But using labels does not mean I have a love affair with them. Quite the contrary. As they apply to the Jewish people, labels are a reflection of the divisiveness that exists among us. For someone like me, who craves unity, it’s easy to see why I dislike them. I love unity. Labels tend to highlight the very opposite.

That said, I reject the oft-repeated claim that labels cause - or even contribute to - our divisions. They do not. The divisions came first, making labels necessary as a way to identify differing Hashkafos or philosophies that often contradict one another. Those differences lead to different worldviews, different ideas about right and wrong, good and evil, and ultimately different visions of what Judaism demands of us.

Divisiveness is the enemy of unity. The unity of the Jewish people is something I have longed for as far back as I can remember. Yet whenever I use labels to define our differences, I am occasionally accused of adding to that divisiveness.

As unfortunate as labels may be, they are a necessary evil. They expose incompatibilities that are irreconcilable. It is important to know where one is coming from when interacting with people that have these differences. Thus, the need to ‘label’ Jewish denominations. Orthodox Judaism is theologically and philosophically incompatible with any of the heterodox denominations. While there can be unity in matters of public concern to the Jewish people as a whole (For example fighting antisemitism) unifying beyond that asks for compromise that is not possible from the perspective of Orthodoxy.

Labels merely provide a convenient way to identify differing understandings of Judaism and to recognize that they are fundamentally irreconcilable.

When it comes to Orthodox Judaism, however, I have always maintained that there should ideally be no labels among us. I have always felt that what unites us is far greater than what divides us. Which is our shared belief system and commitment to observing Halacha. Our shared observance of Halacha occupies far more of our daily lives than does our Hashkafa and philosophical disagreements.

And yet Orthodoxy seems to have more labels than any other segment of Judaism.

Why?

Sadly, because those differences always seem to override our similarities. Despite the fact that our common observance of Halacha binds us together in so many ways, our differing worldviews keep us apart. Thus, preventing the kind of unity that one would think is a no-brainer.

Some of those labels include: Sephardim, Chasidim, Charedim, Moderate Charedim, Left-Wing Modern Orthodox, Centrist Modern Orthodoxy, and Hirschian Orthodoxy. Many of these can be subdivided even further—especially Chasidim.

All of these groups share is a common belief system and commitment to Halacha. There is even some cross-fertilization among them. Yet our philosophical differences have become so pronounced that, in some cases, they have bred genuine hostility…

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 Daas Torah Speaks...

Why are there not more heroes like Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein in the Charedi world?

He spoke valiantly about his frustration he has with the way a Charedi magazine (Mishpacha) sympathized with the “plight” of Charedim now being harassed by the Israeli government, as though they were the only ones suffering in Israel right now. While completely ignoring the exponentially greater suffering of the rest of Israel during a time of war, whose citizens are subject to the draft while Charedim remain exempt.

Sadly, I think I know the answer to that question. It is the fear that expressing a view contrary to “Daas Torah” is tantamount to defying God. For which they fear they will have to pay for dearly in the world to come. That fear is an essential component of what motivates the Charedi world. It is, in fact, why they use the term “Charedi” as their identity. The word is based on a phrase taken from Tanach of being Chareid L’Dvar HaShem - trembling at the word of God. It reflects the belief that Divine justice will ultimately prevail over those who defy His will.

They see their Gedolim as the final authority on any subject about which they express an opinion. Even though they know those leaders are human and, in theory, can make mistakes, they consider those views to be a far more accurate expression of God’s will because of their vast Torah knowledge and great piety.

When their own consciences lead them in a different direction, they do something truly remarkable. It is called being mevatel daas—subordinating their own judgment. They simply deny the validity of their own rational conclusions on subjects where the Gedolim have expressed a unified contrary opinion, considering their own carefully thought-out views to be mistaken. How could they not be, in the face of a unified rabbinic view that disagrees with them? Being Chareid L’dvar Hashem requires them to take that approach.

It doesn’t help that this mindset is reinforced by Charedi social sanctions. Those who openly disagree with the Gedolim on matters deemed vital to the Jewish people risk being ostracized from the community and viewed as being Chutz LaMachaneh - outside the camp of Torah.

I can’t tell you how many times I have heard members of the Agudah’s Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah described that way by speaker after speaker at Agudah conventions. No matter how prominent the speaker, they all proclaim that they are mevatel daas to the Gedolim. Why? Because they are Chareid L’dvar Hashem.

This phenomenon was vividly illustrated by what happened to Rabbi Natan (Nosson) Slifkin, who at the time was a Charedi author of several popular books reconciling science and Torah…

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.  

Does Israel Consider Torah Study a Crime?

Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch (TOI)

Just when you think (or at least hope) that things can’t get any worse, they do. The Jerusalem Post reports that there was a massive protest today that blocked major thoroughfares in many cities throughout Israel.

In the past, these protests were organized and encouraged by the extremist faction of the Charedi world, consisting primarily of the Eidah HaChareidis and the Jerusalem Faction of yeshiva students founded by the late Rav Shmuel Auerbach.

While the entire Charedi world agrees with the position that full-time Charedi students should not serve in the army, there was once a more moderate faction led by the late Rav Aharon Leib Steinman. He believed that confrontation was counterproductive and strongly opposed such protests. He found a way for Charedi students to continue learning Torah full-time while honoring the government’s requirement that they register for the draft, thereby making them eligible for service should they choose to stop learning full-time.

The aforementioned extremists would have none of that. They believed that even registering for the draft was forbidden. This resulted in some arrests, which in turn led to massive demonstrations that disrupted traffic in Jerusalem, even preventing emergency vehicles from getting through. The protests also became violent, resulting in damaged property and injuries to both protesters and bystanders, some of them serious.

Rav Steinman strenuously objected to these protests, as did Rav Chaim Kanievsky. While both agreed that yeshiva students should not serve in the army, they understood that public demonstrations of this magnitude were not only counterproductive but endangered the lives of innocent bystanders and the protesters themselves. Rav Kanievsky was so upset with Rav Auerbach’s extremist position that he reportedly referred to him as a Zaken Mamre (a rebellious sage) for rebelling against Rav Steinman, whom most of the yeshiva world considered the Gadol HaDor at that time.

Sadly, it increasingly appears that Rav Steinman took his sober analysis and wise counsel to the grave with him…

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.  

Feminisim, Religion, and the IDF

Women of the IDF (Reuters)

No one is more upset about the Charedi refusal to join the IDF than I am. I think I’ve spilled more (virtual) ink on the subject than just about anyone. The reasons for that are well known. I have spelled them out many times and am not going to do so again here. But there is one impediment to their service that gives them just cause to object.

Not that the requirement for service during an existential war doesn’t override it. It does. Nevertheless, it presents a legitimate concern for religious soldiers in the abstract. One that, in theory, should not exist, but has become a reality in service to a 21^st century version of feminism that does not recognize gender differences.

This version of feminism sees equality between the sexes as the ultimate cultural good. One that overrides everything else, including - and of late, especially - religious sensitivities.

If there is one institutional aspect of Israeli society that looks at religious sensitivities with disdain, if not outright contempt, it is the judiciary. It views those sensitivities as an impediment to social progress as defined by progressive movements such as modern day feminism.

So that when a conflict arises between the two, there is no question about which values are deemed to have the moral high ground. Equality of the sexes wins every time. That is what drives the courts to require compliance with policies that further that goal. Regardless of religious concerns, about which they care very little.

So when the Charedi world accuses Israel’s judiciary of being anti-Torah, they are not entirely off base. The most recent example is the Israeli Supreme Court’s requirement that men and women be integrated into the IDF’s armored corps units, placing them together in the confined quarters of tanks and other armored vehicles. All in service to equality between the sexes.

If one does not value religious sensitivities, this policy makes perfect sense. But if one is sensitive to issues of modesty between men and women and wishes to avoid situations where they may be confined together in close quarters for extended periods of time, it is an outrageous demand. One that the IDF absolutely does not require for military purposes. The only reason the judiciary insists upon its implementation is in service to an ideological ideal that many religious servicemen view as anathema.

Nor are religious soldiers Primadonnas seeking easy assignments. Quite the contrary. Some of the bravest and most elite soldiers in the IDF come from the Religious Zionist community. Particularly from Hesder yeshivas, whose students often volunteer in groups for the most dangerous combat missions. These are the very soldiers upon whom the judiciary wishes to impose its feminist values. It is almost as though they care more about feminism than they do about protecting their country from its mortal enemies!

Even if one can devise ways to technically avoid violations of the halachos of modesty, doing so becomes extremely difficult if not impossible during the long stretches of time male and female soldiers must so often spend together.

For the judiciary to place soldiers in uncomfortable and potentially compromising situations for no purpose other than social engineering is the height of arrogance…

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.