Serving God and Country

IDF Chief of Staff, Eyal Zamir, meets new Charedi officers

It seems so simple. So logical. And yet sometimes so distant from reality. The ideal approach to the Jewish state should incorporate, first, an unwavering commitment to Halacha and, second, an unwavering commitment to the Jewish people. The State of Israel is where the Jewish people live. It is the largest population center of the Jewish people worldwide.

There is a fascinating, albeit very lengthy, article by Amit Segal that discusses how Religious Zionism reflects this principle and how it has fared in its various incarnations since its founding. The title of the article expresses what I believe is the right approach to the State of Israel: Serve the State and Keep It Holy. This is the ethos of the Religious Zionist movement, with which I largely agree.

I do, however, exclude the messianic component of Religious Zionism. I do not believe, as does the author and most Religious Zionists, that the return of Israel to Jewish hands after 2,000 years of exile necessarily marks the beginning of our final redemption. Even after the Six-Day War, when the entire Land of Israel came under Jewish control. That is especially true given the way things stand today.

But aside from that, the land of Israel is our ancestral homeland, promised to us by God several times in the Torah, a promise He never took away. It is our land. Full stop.

At the same time, I am a realist. I do not believe we should act in ways that antagonize the indigenous Palestinians living in certain parts of Israel. Doing so alienates much of the rest of the world, including much of the center-left here in the United States.

Then there is the very real, practical reason to support Israel. Which is the need to provide a home for millions of Jews who have nowhere else to go. This was particularly true in the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, when millions of survivors lived in displaced persons camps because their homes in Europe had either been destroyed or occupied by locals while their rightful owners were being slaughtered in death camps. There is absolutely no alternative to our remaining in our homeland and defending our right to live there in peace. And if necessary, going to war to achieve those aims.

But there is also the religious dimension to the State of Israel. It is what gives us the right to be there in the first place. As such, Israel cannot simply mimic what its closest ally does by separating religion and state. The right way to be a Jew in Israel is to follow Halacha without compromise while serving the physical needs of the state. Not that the state mandate religious observance. But that it accommodates it in its entirety.

Fulfilling this mandate means that religious Jews must contribute to the common good as soldiers and in every other field of endeavor that defines the country. One must be a full participant. One cannot isolate oneself from society and simultaneously claim to be part of it. Nor can one ethically isolate themselves from society while taking advantage of all its blessings, earned through the sacrifices of others.

This is what separates Religious Zionists from the extremes on both the right and the left. The Charedi world, for the most part, seems to care little about the country in which they live and from which they benefit. They seem to focus only on the piece of the pie they believe they are entitled to. The secular left, meanwhile, has no moral claim to a Jewish state if it rejects the very basis of Israel’s existence Which is God’s deeding the land to the Jewish people as described several times in the Torah

If one is secular to that extent, there is no more justification for living there and ruling over an indigenous population than there is for living in any other country and doing 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.  

Paris is Burning

There are violent protests taking place in France right now. And yet there is hardly a word about what or who is behind it. President Macron finally had to address the issue explicitly. In an address to the French people, he blamed the far left for the chaos currently unfolding there. Protests that supposedly began with students protesting conditions have expanded well beyond the original protesters and have turned extremely violent. Where are these protesters coming from?

The following may be controversial. It may be politically incorrect. But I think it is real. And a concern that needs to be articulated.

I don’t think there is any doubt about the broader forces at work. They are the product of a multicultural approach in which traditional values have been pushed aside in favor of progressive ones. Progressive values that favor a one-world approach to the problems of the world. Progressive values that opened France’s national borders to mass immigration from countries whose cultural and religious values often conflict with the traditional values that the French once took pride in.

The idea that the values of Islam, as understood and practiced by many of the immigrants who entered through those open borders, are entirely compatible with the democratic values that built France into a prosperous nation is simply not credible. There are real tensions that cannot be wished away.

But it isn’t only France. The UK is vulnerable to the same mentality. I will not be the least bit surprised if massive, violent protests break out there, too, in the not-too-distant future.

You cannot open your borders to a massive influx of immigrants whose values may be fundamentally at odds with those of your country and expect everything to remain calm. At some point, some Muslims will insist that their values become part of the national ethos. The far left, whose goal is to tear down existing democratic and capitalist institutions and replace them with a socialist society, sees Muslims who share its opposition to the existing order as natural allies. It will therefore embrace them and join them in protesting whatever causes they share. All one has to see to understand this is all the leftist protesters joining Palestinians screaming, ‘Palestine – from the river to the sea’ being screamed on university campuses all over the country!

Is there a single Muslim or far left progressive candidate that doesn’t think Israel has committed genocide? Or believes that Israel has a right to exist at all as a Jewish state?

And yet Europe seems oblivious to this flaw in its national policy. It continues to insist that its borders remain open to newcomers and that everyone be free to express their views. That principle is important, but what happens when some of those views undermine the very fabric of the nation and seek to destroy everything that made the country great, dismissing its history and traditions as inherently evil?

This is happening to a certain extent in the United States, too…

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 Are They Leaving?

I am not surprised by the phenomenon. But I am surprised by the numbers. The Times of Israel reports the following:

Young ultra-Orthodox people are leaving Haredi society at a faster rate than expected, according to data published by the research and strategy division of the nonprofit Yotzim L’shinui.

An estimated 15.3 percent of young Haredi men and 11.9% of young Haredi women leave ultra-Orthodox society by the age of 30, according to figures based on Israel’s latest population census.

One estimate I heard is that approximately 100,000 students study Torah full-time in Israel. And that’s not even counting young women. That would mean that there are over 15,000 Charedi men and nearly 12,000 women that are OTD!

Why are so many young Charedim rejecting the religious way of life in which they were raised?

I can’t begin to imagine the anguish parents experience when a child departs so radically from their family’s way of life. In most cases, the child is leaving not only the family’s religious practices but also the entire community. It is virtually impossible to live a nonreligious lifestyle in a community whose way of life revolves almost entirely around mitzvah observance.

Why does this happen?

I have addressed this phenomenon many times in the American context. The truth is that there are as many reasons for leaving religious observance as there are people who leave. Nevertheless, certain common factors deserve attention. Understanding them might help reduce the number of people who abandon their religious upbringing.

One reason often cited is questioning matters of faith. That is a difficult subject, well beyond the scope of this post. My guess is that intellectual doubts are not the most common reason people leave.

More common, I believe, is an abusive parental relationship. A child who is constantly and severely punished for minor infractions by an overly strict parent can suffer considerable damage to his self-image. He may eventually seek to escape that relationship by rejecting the religion associated with it.

Sometimes, a child cannot keep up with classmates for reasons beyond his control. An undiagnosed learning disability, such as ADHD, may prevent him from concentrating in class. Teachers often teach to the majority, leaving children who struggle to fall through the cracks. That experience can be deeply discouraging.

Bullying is another possibility. Classmates may recognize a child’s social vulnerability and exploit it, making him the butt of jokes and subjecting him to humiliation.

These problems can be addressed if parents and teachers recognize them. Unfortunately, sometimes they go unnoticed until the damage is done.

And sometimes, a child simply does not fit in. He may feel uncomfortable doing the things other children seem perfectly happy doing.

Whatever the reason, one can only imagine the pain that might lead a young person to reject not only his religious upbringing but also the community in which he was raised.

The article describes Yotzim L’shinui, an organization that provides resources for Haredim seeking to integrate into broader society. It sounds much like Footsteps, its American equivalent.

Organizations like these are have been accused of discouraging people from returning to religious life. They deny doing so. Hard to know how accurate those accusations are. But clearly their primary focus, appears to be helping people adjust to life outside their former communities – paying little attention to religious observance of their ‘clients’ which is irrelevant to them.

Once someone leaves, returning can be difficult if not impossible…

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.  

‘Religious’ Jewish Violence

Photojournalist Heidi Levine after an attack by extremist Jewish settlers (Forward)

I don’t think I have ever been as angry about what supposedly religious Jews are doing as I am right now. What angers me most is the rabbinic backing these Jews have for even existing as a movement. A movement that has become increasingly violent with each passing day. I am also angry at those who defend them. Calling them heroes, no less. Claiming they are actually defending the Jewish people and fulfilling an important Mitzvah.

The Forward reported that last Friday, Heidi Levine, a Washington Post photographer, was attacked by masked settlers.

“I got jumped and I saw in the very beginning at least 25, maybe 50 of them, and I was on the ground and they were kicking me for like 10 minutes,” she said.

I have no words.

One of the typical defenses of events like this is that we don’t know what precipitated them. The argument typically is that what really happened was that Jews were attacked, and civil minded local residents came in to protect them. Had they not intervened, the consequences for the Jews might have been even worse, possibly even deadly.

That may or may not be true. Sometimes. But it doesn’t matter to me anymore. The very fact that these people exist as a movement with a stated mission to evict Palestinians from any part of Eretz Yisroel, by peaceful means or, if necessary, through violence, makes them the guilty party. They are the instigators of violence, not the Palestinians residents who resist being evicted from land upon which they and their ancestors have lived for decades, if not longer.

It doesn’t matter how much violence is perpetrated against us by Palestinian terrorists that live in Judea and Samaria (The West Bank). Nor does it matter that the resident Palestinians being terrorized - hate us, celebrate any attack against us - and would like us OUT! They did not hurt us. Not once.

The reality is that these violent Jewish extremists are not simply a team of citizen police there to protect Jewish residents there from terrorist attacks. Although that is what they would like the public to believe and they do sometimes act in that capacity. The real reason they are there is to retake all the land of Israel for the Jewish people. By any and all means necessary.

The idea of using our right to all the land of Israel as a justification to terrorize Palestinians is abhorrent in the extreme. And their sympathizers and apologists don’t help matters. That some of these Jewish extremists may have served in the army does not in any way excuse the terrorism they inflict on Palestinians.

And yet these people seem oblivious to the increasing condemnations directed at them, no matter where they come from or who issues them. The most pro-Israel US ambassador in history, Mike Huckabee, has once again condemned Jewish extremists. This time calling it a despicable act of terror!

The last thing any Israeli should be doing now is alienating a supporter like this. They are not exactly growing on trees. And yet these extremist Jews could not care less! In fact, they consider such condemnations a badge of honor because they believe they are fulfilling the word of God.

President Herzog condemned the attack and called for justice. But Prime Minister Netanyahu stopped short of fully condemning it, saying that although he condemns the violence - the circumstances of the attack were unclear.

I’m sorry, but that doesn’t matter to me anymore. Circumstances that might provide a more understandable context for an attack like this don’t matter These people shouldn’t be there in the first place.

Now is not the time to be “settling” all the land of Israel. It is costing us too much blood and too much goodwill on the part of our closest ally, the United States. It gives our enemies more excuses to condemn Israel - and exacerbates violent antisemitic attacks all over the world.

Retaining all the land won’t mean much if Israel loses the support of the entire world including the US. Which these ‘religious’ Jewish extremists are clearly accelerating!

The problem is that they actually have prominent rabbis who guide them…

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.  

Making America Great Again

The Frist Amendment to the constitution reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Is it a violation of the Establishment clause for the government to fund a school that teaches religious doctrine to its students?

The quick answer is, of course it is. Nothing, it seems, could be a greater violation than that. Except that maybe it isn’t.

Recently, there have been a number of states that have approved programs whereby taxpayers could earmark some of their tax dollars toward a scholarship fund that would be distributed to parents. Who could then apply the funds toward their financial obligations to the schools they choose to send their children to. These states do not look at what kind of schools those tax dollars go, as long as they comply with the educational requirements of the state. Religious schools are deemed equally eligible for those funds, since barring them would be a violation of the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment.

To me, this seems like a no-brainer. Why should any parent be deprived of the same public funding that public school parents get simply because they choose a school for their children whose religious teachings align with their beliefs and practices? Would that not amount to religious discrimination? The idea that religious values are taught in these schools is not at the behest of the government. The government is “out of the loop,” so to speak, on those matters. All it cares about - or should care about - is that the mandatory core curriculum is taught.

Unfortunately, there are First Amendment “warriors” who believe that even the most remote connection to any religious teaching at all violates the Establishment clause.

The near universal celebration of Christmas in public schools is something they have never adequately explained, although they seem to accept it in the warmest and fuzziest of ways. But I digress. The point here is that most of these warriors tend not to value religious teaching much at all in their personal lives and would probably be happier if religion were abolished entirely.

Or perhaps they somehow feel that the public school system will suffer financially if any tax dollars are diverted to schools outside the traditional public school system. What that has to do with the First Amendment is a mystery to me. But they certainly use that argument in their opposition to any legislation that would help parochial school parents with their overwhelming financial burden.

And now comes Ben Gamla in Oklahoma, where something almost happened that would surely seem to make the case for a violation of the Establishment clause…

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 (Biased) Look at the Next Israeli Election

The issues are real, and his concerns are legitimate. But Dan Perry’s concern over the possibility of the President endorsing Netanyahu, thus giving him an edge in the upcoming election, is unwarranted. Not because he may be wrong. He may be right. But being right won’t really matter much with respect to the legitimate issues he’s worried about. Not only that, but even if some of those things get rectified by new leadership, Israel may be trading in one set of problems for another.

I understand Netanyahu’s negatives. They are well known and substantial. They have of late been regurgitated with a passion by his political opponents. Some of which are the following.

His dependence on the far-right parties of Ben-Gvir and the Charedi parties is a sore subject with most mainstream voters.

His refusal to take any responsibility for the October 7th massacre is another legitimate complaint.

There are also accusations by many that his motives in prolonging the war in Gaza are entirely political, as well as accusations that political considerations delayed the release of hostages, some of whom were killed because of those delays.

Then there is the corruption trial and other accusations of corruption, his alienation of former political allies, all in pursuit of retaining power.

There are accusations that he has alienated Democrats in Congress, thus destroying the once-bipartisan congressional support for Israel.

There is also his tacit support - or at least his willingness to look the other way - when violent, “Hilltop” type Jewish settlers terrorize Palestinians.

All really bad stuff, to be sure. And I’m sure there are many more issues that don’t come to mind at the moment. Netanyahu is probably at the lowest point in his popularity at this stage of his political career. My guess is that his chances of pulling off another victory and retaining power as prime minister by virtue of another far-right/Charedi coalition - are pretty slim.

And yet Perry seems to be worried about a Trump endorsement. Maybe Netanyahu’s chances aren’t as slim as many think. There is a reason for this. First as Perry noted, Trump is very popular in Israel. His endorsement of Netanyahu could sway the election

Then there’s this. October 7th did one thing for Netanyahu that no one else could: It moved many Israeli voters to the right, including many right-wing voters toward the extremist right. Someone recently mentioned a poll they had seen not long ago showing a substantial increase in support for Ben-Gvir’s extremist party, Otzma Yehudit. That could make a governing coalition with him even more likely, giving Ben-Gvir even more power.

That would be a terrible outcome. But would it be the worst outcome? I’m not sure.

That’s because the anti-Bibi opinion pieces completely disregard what Netanyahu has done for the country. Or they discount his accomplishments as either worthless or even damaging to Israel.

It’s amazing how differently one can view a set of accomplishments – as either very positive or very negative - based on one’s positive or negative opinions of the individual responsible for them. It’s hard to be objective when one has such strong biases…

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 Price of Ignorance

Satmar Chasidim of Kiryas Joel (5 Towns)

A few years ago, advocacy groups like Agudah mounted a concerted effort to defend the rights of certain segments of Chasidic Jewry to remain ignorant of secular studies. Legal experts were hired to argue the case in court that such rights fall under the religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment.

The truth is, they’re right. If people choose to remain ignorant based on a religious principle that holds that religious studies supersede secular studies - and are far more important to their spiritual welfare than, say, learning about American democracy or even speaking English properly - that should be their right.

But what about preparing young people to function in society and qualify for jobs requiring more than a second-grade reading level? That does not seem to concern the defenders of this educational philosophy. Extremist Chasidim in isolated communities like Kiryas Joel (Satmar) believe that full-time religious study, to the complete exclusion of secular studies, is vital to their spiritual well-being. Requiring them to dilute any of their religious studies, they argue, violates their fundamental rights as American citizens.

I have always felt, however, that emphasizing the spiritual at the expense of material well-being harms them not only materially but spiritually as well.

To be fair, many Chasidim who subscribe to this mentality function quite well in life. They marry, have large families, and manage to live relatively happy lives despite their modest circumstances. Their lives revolve around their Chasidic Rebbes. They may be impoverished by society’s standards, but they are happy in the orbit of their Rebbe, who somehow ensures that no one starves, everyone has a place to live, and everyone has some sort of job

Furthermore, Chasidic entrepreneurs often do remarkably well without much secular education. There are many wealthy Chasidim worth millions, even billions, of dollars. But it is equally true that many live below the poverty line and cannot escape it, largely because they lack the basic communication skills needed to obtain meaningful employment.

Many years ago, a group of young former Chasidim established an organization called Yaffed to address this problem. Their goal was to compel the New York State Education Department (NYSED) to enforce state educational requirements in private and parochial schools. While mainstream Orthodox schools generally observe these requirements, sects like Satmar have largely ignored them, with NYSED long having turned a blind eye.

Following a legal battle, a compromise was reached under which these Chasidic schools agreed to offer some form of secular education.

Fast-forward to today. eJewish Philanthropy published an article by Yaffed Executive Director Adina Mermelstein Konikoff arguing that little has changed. She writes:

“In New York, thousands of children complete Hasidic and Haredi schools without receiving the education required under state law. Many leave school without basic proficiency in English, mathematics, science, or civics. Some struggle to find meaningful employment.”

She also points out that civic participation requires education. Citizens must be able to read a ballot, understand a contract, earn a living, serve on a jury, and support themselves and their families.

Konikoff’s point is that while people criticize the lack of secular education in Israel’s Charedi schools, they ignore the same problem here in America. The addresses may be Brooklyn, Kiryas Joel, Monsey, or New Square rather than B’nei Brak or Jerusalem, but the underlying issues are strikingly similar.

I could not agree more.

Agudah and other advocates have vilified Yaffed, accusing it of harboring an anti-religious agenda. They claim its founders are disgruntled former Chasidim seeking to tear down their former communities. Perhaps there is some truth to their suspicions. I have no idea.

But don’t kill the messenger…

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.  

Jewish Education for All

Just when you think all hope is lost, something happens to change all that. Although, what I am about to discuss in this vein was one of the worst terrorist attacks in Jewish history: the October 7^th massacre, in which Hamas terrorists brutally raped, tortured, and/or murdered over 1,200 innocent Jews in Israel and kidnapped several hundred more - it did change things.

Obviously, this is not the kind of event one would ever hope to use as a recruiting tool for outreach to uncommitted Jews. But sadly, it has been one of the most effective recruiting tools of my lifetime.

This has been aided even further by the antisemitism sparked by Israel’s military response to that massacre. I of course would rather not have had this event happen at all, regardless of how many otherwise unconnected Jews it inspired to explore what it means to be Jewish. But tragedies of this magnitude do have this kind of effect. When Jews are singled out for attack, many Jews want to learn what it means to be a Jew.

I wish this were a more or less universal response among uncommitted Jews. Sadly, some Jews have gone in the opposite direction rejecting everything Jewish because of its association with the State of Israel, which they now see as genocidal and wish to see destroyed. But I do not believe this represents the mainstream secular Jew, who is mostly clueless about his religion and whose curiosity about it has now been awakened. This has apparently sparked the following developments, as described by eJewishPhilanthropy:

After Oct. 7, 2023, Jewish parents started asking different questions — not only whether their children are safe, but what does it mean to raise a Jewish child in this moment? What do I want my children to know about who they are? And what will ensure there is a next generation that not only knows it is Jewish, but wants to be?

For many families, those questions led somewhere very concrete: a Jewish school…

Oct. 7 did not only awaken alarm. It awakened a determination to hold tighter to the people, traditions and identity that suddenly felt more fragile than ever. We saw families put on Stars of David they had not worn in years and walk into synagogues they had rarely attended.

And we saw parents choose Jewish education.

This phenomenon may help reverse the trend of so many secular Jews opting out of Judaism entirely, with intermarriage rates among non-Orthodox Jews exceeding 70%.

I had just about given up hope that these Jews could ever be reached and convinced to value their Jewish heritage instead of abandoning it as though it were the plague. And with antisemitism at one of its highest levels in decades, it is no small wonder that many secular Jews do not want to identify as Jewish at all.

But with the increase in enrollment numbers cited in this article, there is hope that not all is lost. Children of families that never previously considered a Jewish education for their children are now seriously considering it.

That is despite the cost of tuition, which in most cases is unaffordable for parents to pay in full - and, in some cases, even in part.

So there is the conundrum: How do we educate the children of Jewish parents who cannot afford the tuition for the education they now want for their children?

I wish I could say that altruism would prevail over money. If the only way a secular parent will send a child to a Jewish school is if they do not have to pay for it, a way should be found to accommodate them.

This was, in fact, how Jewish elementary schools operated when I attended them in the late 1950s…

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.  

Feeding the Anti-Israel Narrative

West Bank sheep farmer, Mordehai Minster (screenshot)

It’s hard to make the case that Israel is a moral country fighting for its right to exist when you have religious-looking Jews, with large Kipot and Tzitzis flowing out from their clothing, terrorizing Palestinians in the West Bank. On the contrary, those who see Israel as a brutal occupier of indigenous Palestinians can easily point to these people and their actions to make their case. And frankly, I don’t blame them.

As reported on 60 Minutes last night:

In recent months, some militant settlers are ramping up their campaign to violently drive out the Palestinians who live there — often with impunity — the Israeli government showing an unwillingness to crack down on the violence.

Normally, I am skeptical of the media’s practice of showing disturbing images without providing context. That is a legitimate criticism of media bias. Eliminating context from a negative story is unfair and distorts the truth.

But honestly, there is no context in the world that could justify the terrorism of these young Jewish thugs. While they may not be on the same level of evil as Hamas, they are terrorists nonetheless.

To the casual American observer who watched this segment on 60 Minutes, the conclusion might well be that the worldwide calls to boycott Israel are justified. How can anyone of good conscience support a country that appears to look the other way while some of its own citizens terrorize their Palestinian neighbors?

Why do these young Jewish terrorists do it?

The violence is often carried out by these young shepherds known as “Hilltop Youth,” who have flocked here for a sense of adventure, told they’re on a God-given mission to redeem the land.

But it isn’t only these young thugs who are trying to push Palestinians out of their homes. There is a relatively new tactic:

Mordehai Minster cofounded this sheep farm. It’s a new kind of settlement here in the West Bank from where his herd is driven deeper and deeper into the surrounding Palestinian communities…

The sheep have taken over huge swaths of land: 20% of the West Bank. In one Palestinian village after the next, herds from these farms have pressed in, and the village shepherds pushed out…

The settlers even push sheep into people’s homes.

When asked about it, Minster acknowledged that it was unfortunate that violence sometimes took place and things sometimes get ugly. But that, he said, does not diminish what he considers his God-given right to all the land of Israel…

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.   

 

Rabbi Hauer’s Unity Legacy

Rabbi Moshe Hauer and Israeli President Isaac Herzog
I

I never thought I’d be talking about the former head of the OU - a man I have never met – a year after he died on the anniversary of his death. But in the case of the late Rabbi Moshe Hauer, who was the Executive Vice President of the OU, it’s hard not to.

That is in large part because of the outsized impact this humble giant had on just about the entirety of Klal Yisroel. From ultra-Chassidic Rebbes to BMG-type Roshei Yeshiva, from Charedi rabbinic leaders in Israel to Modern Orthodox rabbis, from Religious Zionist rabbis in Israel to the head of Reform Judaism. An impact that was all positive.

I don’t think there is any other individual who could have received the tributes he did from all those segments of the Jewish world. Those tributes came from the powerful as well as the common man, from colleagues who had one-on-one relationships with him that they thought were uniquely theirs, yet later discovered that he was the same with everyone he encountered. A man who spent valuable time with the downtrodden and forgotten even though he was often involved with the powerful and wealthy

This kind of care and dedication to all - regardless of station or how far removed from their religious perspective he was seems unimaginable. And yet that is who he was. Reading last week’s edition of Jonathan Rosenblum’s Mishpacha column reminded me why Rabbi Hauer was such a towering figure.

One of the things Jonathan pointed out was Rabbi Hauer’s desire for unity among the Jewish people, a desire I share. But as I noted recently, and on more than one occasion, the prospects of that happening are about as likely as my becoming president of the United States. We have grown too far apart factionally for any rapprochement to seem possible.

Imagine a meeting between American rabbinic leaders from both the Chassidic and Yeshiva camps and Religious Zionist rabbis in an effort to find common ground. A fool’s errand, one might surmise. But Rabbi Hauer was undeterred. His mission of unity among Klal Yisroel was not limited to mere words or wishful thinking, as mine often are. He acted on those ideals…

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.