A Conservative Rabbinical Student Speaks Up

American Jewish University president Jay Sanderson

Conservative Judaism is dead or dying. And The state of American Jewry is dire, with only a generation to fix it.

I don’t like beating a dead horse. But whenever a serious publication like Commentary revisits this issue, it’s hard to stay silent.

The above sentiments were not expressed by me, but they certainly could have been. They are two of the three sentiments expressed by American Jewish University president Jay Sanderson. AJU is the parent organization of the Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies - one of only two schools that ordain Conservative rabbis.

None of this is new. The Conservative movement has been in decline for quite some time. Nor is it news that its leadership recognizes it. What is different about this particular article by S.A. Weiss is his personal reaction to it. Weiss identifies as a third-year rabbinical student at Ziegler pursuing semicha - ordination as a Conservative rabbi two years from now.

What is not surprising is what Conservative leadership is trying to do to fix the problem. Which is almost certain to put the Makah B’Potish – the ‘final blow’ on its demise. Their plan is…

to shift away from traditional rabbinical-school subjects such as Mishnah and Talmud toward more “timely” and “relevant” topics like conflict resolution, AI, and social media.

This is not a course correction. It is an acceleration of the very trend that brought the movement to this point. For decades, Conservative leadership has treated classical Torah study as increasingly irrelevant, replacing it with contemporary concerns. Now, even the pretense of Torah as the central organizing force appears to be fading. The idea that Torah should inform all of their decisions and practices will effectively be excised from their program.

Please do not misunderstand…

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.  

  

Are Heterodox Jews Increasingly Being Alienated?

I admit to being conflicted. On the one hand, I have no doubt that heterodox departures from millennia-old interpretations of Torah, Talmud, and halacha are mistaken. The original changes were called Reform and were heavily influenced by the culture in which they arose, with the hope that adaptation would ease integration and reduce antisemitism.

That hope proved tragically misguided. German Jews totally assimilated and integrated at the highest levels of society. And yet that did not save them from Hitler’s extermination camps.

The reality is, though, that the horse has left the barn. Generations of Jews were raised with little meaningful connection to traditional observance, while those who resisted change - labeled Orthodox by the Reform camp - remained faithful under difficult conditions.

In the early 20th century, another approach emerged - primarily in America called Conservative Judaism. They sought what they believed was a middle ground. Preserving tradition while allowing limited compromise to help Jews survive in America’s ‘melting pot’ culture. Some of those compromises, like permitting driving to synagogue on Shabbos, were meant to keep Jews connected. In hindsight, that approach has failed. The once-thriving Conservative movement is now in steep decline.

Meanwhile, Orthodox Jews - once predicted to disappear - held firm, even when Shabbos observance threatened their livelihoods. Today, their numbers are growing, while heterodox movements are shrinking. But they still represent the largest proportion of American Jewry.

I remain firmly convinced of the exclusive legitimacy of Orthodox Judaism, grounded in an unbroken chain of halachic interpretation by the sages of each generation. There is consensus on this point across the entire spectrum of Orthodoxy.

And yet, many heterodox Jews sincerely look to their own rabbis as religious authorities.

Therein lies my problem. Rejecting their legitimacy outright undermines any sense of Jewish unity and is understandably experienced by them as dismissive or insulting. This tension has increasingly spilled over into public disputes, particularly in Israel.

An op-ed by Tom Sudow that I saw today argues that non-Orthodox interpretations of Judaism deserve equal standing at Israel’s holy sites. He was particularly angered by proposed legislation that would restrict egalitarian prayer at the Kotel. As he put it: his wife, daughter, and granddaughter can read from a Torah anywhere in the United States. But not at the Western Wall.

I understand his frustration. But I cannot, in good conscience, accept his egalitarian premise. And that creates an inherent conflict between us.

Sudow went further - calling upon all Jewish philanthropies to withhold financial support from Israel until pluralistic practices are recognized. I doubt such efforts will succeed, but the sentiment reflects a deep and growing rift.

Does this mean that Israel - or Orthodox leadership - should compromise on core halachic principles…

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.  

Using a Private Residence as a Shul

Normally, I am not a fan of setting up makeshift Shuls in private homes - at least not in mixed neighborhoods. By which I mean neighborhoods consisting of a variety of ethnicities and religions.

I do wonder: Is there no synagogue in that neighborhood for its Jewish residents to attend? If not - why not? If there is no Shul in the neighborhood, one ought to be built.

I believe that if such gatherings are held on a regular basis, they can alter the character of the neighborhood. I’m not sure, for example, how comfortable I would be if my next-door neighbor held a weekly Mass every Sunday led by a Catholic priest in his home, or if my next door neighbor held weekly Islamic services in his home every Friday led by a Muslim Imam.

This isn’t about whether they have the right to do so. I believe they absolutely do. What people do behind closed doors in terms of religious practice is nobody else’s business - as long as it is not disruptive. They are entitled to worship as they wish - a constitutionally guaranteed right.

However even though they have that right - it would not entirely eliminate my discomfort—minor though it may be.

So, I understand why some residents in a neighborhood in University Heights, Ohio object to a weekly Shabbos minyan in the home of one of their Jewish neighbors. I would therefore suggest that - as a matter of principle - just because someone has a right to do something doesn’t always mean they should do it.

While neighborhood objections may reflect a degree of antisemitism (latent or otherwise) it may simply be discomfort with the idea of a private home being turned into a makeshift house of worship. Which is incongruous with the harmony of block.

That said, there is little doubt in my mind about the antisemitic nature of the city ordinance that blocked Daniel Grand, an Orthodox Jewish homeowner in University Heights, Ohio - from holding a weekly minyan in his home...

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.  

Torah Without Humanity

A recent comment by Joel Rich on Gil Student’s Torah Musings noted an ‘updated’ version of a story about Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer. One tailored, apparently, for a contemporary yeshiva audience.

In the original version, Rav Meltzer walks around the block rather than enter his apartment, so as not to cause the widow cleaning his home to stop singing. Knowing that her singing brings her comfort and joy.

In the revised version, however, he stays out because of kol isha - the Halacha forbidding males to listen the singing voice of a woman

Joel Rich found this change saddening. So did I. But I can’t say I was surprised.

No one doubts that Rav Meltzer took kol isha seriously. That was indeed the halachic component. But to reduce the story to that alone is to strip it of what made it meaningful in the first place - his sensitivity, his empathy, his humanity. It recasts a Gadol not as a compassionate human being guided by Torah, but as a kind of halachic machine, oblivious to the emotional world around him.

And that, frankly, says a great deal about what is being valued and taught in the world of the right wing Yeshiva world.

This kind of revision is not incidental. It reflects a broader shift in that world: a move toward defining greatness in exclusively halachic terms, as though human feeling were secondary. Or worse, irrelevant. Being holy, in this framework, risks becoming detached from being human.

But Torah without humanity is not a higher form of religiosity. It is a diminished one.

When religious life is reduced to technical compliance alone, something essential is lost. Basic decency - care for others, sensitivity to their dignity - can become optional, invoked only when explicitly mandated. And when that happens, even well-intentioned people can rationalize behavior that undermines the very values Torah is meant to uphold.

We see echoes of this in the realm of Kiddush Hashem. When Halacha is misunderstood or narrowly applied, it can lead to outcomes that create a Chilul Hashem. Even when no violation of Halacha was intended. At times, this has manifested in unethical conduct justified, however mistakenly, by a narrow reading of obligation - particularly in dealings with non-Jews. When the human and moral dimension is stripped away, distortion follows.

That is why the original story of Rav Meltzer mattered It didn’t just inform; It formed. It shaped how greatness is imagined...

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 Pope and the President

Forgive him, for he knows not what he does. This is pretty much how I (as a Cubs fan) feel about any White Sox fan. Bob Prevost, being no exception. For those who don’t recognize the name, Bob, who was born and raised in Chicago, is now Pope Leo.

Although my feelings about his support for the White Sox are tongue-in-cheek, I feel a similar way about Leo’s comments on the U.S./Israel war with Iran: He knows not what he does.

Not that I am surprised. Popes have always sought peaceful negotiations over war. Regardless of the context. And the truth is, who wouldn’t prefer peace? You’d have to be completely insane to prefer the hell of war over peaceful negotiations. I am first in line with that desire.

But where the Pope goes wrong is that it takes two to tango. And that some issues are too important to compromise on. Important in the sense that compromise would result in more death and destruction than a war forcing surrender.

Sure. It sounds good to say that the U.S. and Iran should negotiate rather than fight a war. But when one side (Iran) has a record of brutality against its own people, a stated ideological hostility toward Israel that threatens their very existence, and refuses to halt enrichment of uranium to weapons-grade levels, that cannot be compromised. It would be like the FBI making a deal with the Mafia that ends the bloodshed of raids while allowing them to continue their violent methods of settling internal disputes.

The president was outraged by Pope Leo’s comments criticizing his war policy on Iran. (As though some acceptable compromise were realistically possible.) The hard fact is that negotiations are going on right now. But Iran will surely reject U.S. demands to halt its nuclear weapons program. When that happens, the war will resume, with the U.S. and Israel returning to bombing targets inside Iran. Iranian expatriates around the world support such efforts, having firsthand knowledge of life under that regime. Something the Pope and many Western leaders do not share.

It’s true that the war is causing worldwide pain, including in the United States. The energy crisis brought about by Iran’s closing of the Strait of Hormuz has driven up prices globally. The U.S. blockade of Iranian shipping has added to that strain. The president has all but acknowledged that prices may remain high through the midterm elections, potentially costing his party control of Congress. Still, he appears to prioritize national security and support for Israel over political consequences…

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.

Insulation is Not Education

One of the most challenging aspects of education today is the explosion of technology, now ubiquitous among our youth. This is not just an Orthodox Jewish issue. It is a global one. Educators everywhere are struggling with it.

When I was a teenager, the challenge was TV. It often promoted values at odds with traditional Jewish life and, even at its best, was little more than “bubble gum” for the mind - wasting time and distracting from studies.

About 30 years ago, TV became secondary to the internet. The ease of accessing inappropriate content led some religious leaders to call for an outright ban. Remember the “Asifa”? But porn was not the only concern. Heretical ideas became just as accessible, leading many to question the fundamentals of Judaism and even belief in God.

Then came smartphones, making any meaningful ban nearly impossible. Despite ongoing efforts, they are simply too useful to eliminate. Filters became the fallback.

Now we face AI - an even more powerful tool. It is already being used productively, even by prominent Talmidei Chachomim. Banning something so useful is unrealistic.

The broader world recognizes these dangers. Not only are Orthodox schools banning smartphones during school hours, public schools are also increasingly banning them too. Some policymakers are considering age restrictions.

But the real challenge begins after school. And that’s where the problem lies. Choosing the right school then becomes critical.

Studies show that heavy social media use harms both learning and social development, not to mention related issues like online gambling. Which is increasingly being found among young school age people. These are serious concerns.

In response, many parents let fear guide their decisions...

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.

We Are Our Own Worst Enemy

Antisemitism is up in this country. No question about it. But what makes its current incarnation different from antisemitism of the past is that, in some ways, there are Jews contributing to it. Though not in the way one might think.

In the past, it didn’t help matters when a few of our people - some of whom were outwardly very devout - were caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Cases of government fraud by seemingly devout Orthodox Jews have surely contributed to antisemitism, making it easier for antisemites to generalize a supposed propensity for fraud to all Jews, especially the most devout among us. While incidents of that kind of fraud seem to have decreased, antisemitism has nevertheless increased.

Much of that increase is due to closet antisemites who have long lived among us but were relatively quiet about expressing their views. Since the war in Gaza and accusations of genocide, however, they seem to feel they have been given ‘permission’ to voice their true feelings. Often disguised as anti-Zionist or anti-Israel sentiment.

The problem is that a growing number of Jews are now saying many of the same things. Accusations of genocide are no longer uncommon. These are often framed as criticism of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rather than of Israel as a whole. But that framing ignores the reality that, with few exceptions on Israel’s far left, Netanyahu’s conduct of the war has been broadly supported in the Israeli Knesset. That distinction is therefore invalid.

Making matters worse, prominent self-identifying Jews in high office have joined the chorus of Israel-bashing by proxy - using AIPAC as their primary target.

AIPAC is a lobbying group that advocates support for Israel regardless of which political party is in power, both in the United States and in Israel. Yet it has now become increasingly toxic within the Democratic Party…

To continue reading - 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 Media, and Confirmation Bias

Kushner, Vance, and Witkoff - US negotiators sent to negotiate with Iran (ABC)

It’s breathtaking to watch the spin from the left (in both the U.S. and Israel), and even from some on the right, on the war with Iran. What passes for analysis is, in reality, a textbook case of confirmation bias.

The prevailing narrative is familiar: a U.S. war with Iran could only make things worse. The mainstream media - their cheering section - reinforces this view with selectively curated “evidence,” filtered through selective attention, selective interpretation, and selective memory.

Consider the ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran. It did not include Israel’s war with Hezbollah. A distinction largely ignored by media pundits. Hezbollah is routinely described as a “militia,” a term that subtly legitimizes it, implying a weaker force merely fighting back against a regional superpower. Missing from that framing is that Hezbollah actually is a heavily armed Iranian proxy committed to Israel’s destruction.

When rockets are fired into Israel and Israel responds, the narrative flips: Israel ‘escalates’, Iran ‘reacts’. The facts matter less than the storyline. And that storyline - sometimes implied, sometimes explicit - casts Israel as the aggressor, led by a prime minister driven by extremists in his governing coalition. Meanwhile, segments of Israel’s own left appear more focused on removing Netanyahu than confronting the very real threats posed by Iran and its proxies.

In this telling, Iran was never the problem. Its regional aggression, its proxy network, even the atrocities committed by those proxies are downplayed or ignored. So too is the regime’s brutal repression of its own people. These inconvenient facts simply don’t fit the narrative.

Instead, we are shown rising gas prices and economic strain. Real issues, to be sure. But presented as proof that the war was misguided from the start. The ceasefire becomes evidence of weakness. The war itself becomes ‘unnecessary’, its costs emphasized, its outcomes dismissed.

But that conclusion requires ignoring a great deal...

To continue reading - 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 President's Iron Resolve

One of the accusations often leveled at the president is that he is an immoral, unprincipled narcissist who leads the country based on what’s best for him. Meaning whatever will line his pockets the most. That he will dog whistle to bigots and antisemites to gain votes or approval. And that he tolerates bigots and antisemites for populist purposes, not wishing to alienate them which would diminish his base. In other words, he has no principles, no morals, no ethics, and could not care less about humanity beyond himself.

There is, of course, a reason that so many people feel that way about him. He does his level best to give that impression. If you get on his wrong side, he will take revenge and try to ruin your life. Even if you are a loyal follower of his policies and praise his every word and deed.

That has been made evident by his recent firing of two of his most loyal Cabinet members, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Attorney General Pam Bondi. He saw them as liabilities.

Loyalty, shmoyalty—out they go. And let’s not even mention Cabinet members whose conservative policies matched his own but who dared to disagree with his decisions. They have paid a very heavy price for being honest with him.

In short, when it comes to running the country the way he thinks it should be run, you are either with him or ‘agin’ him. And even if you’re with him, if public opinion shifts against you to a significant degree, you are toast.

While all of this is apparently true, I totally reject the notion that he has no morals or principles, and that everything he does is only for his own (usually financial) benefit. I actually think he does have a moral compass. And that is what is driving his prosecution of the war against Iran. Regardless of how unpopular it is among many Americans, and despite the increasing concerns expressed even by some of his most loyal supporters and some conservative Republicans in Congress.

Is it possible for such a reprobate to have morals and principles…

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

Mamdani, Pesach, Israel, and Iran

I would find it quite humorous if it weren’t so sad. Humorous because I think that the mayor of New York actually means it when he wishes Jewish prisoners at Rikers Island a “Chag Pesach Sameach.”

In fact, I wish the so-called progressives who support Mamdani felt the same way. But the truth is more likely that much of their anti-Zionism is deeply rooted in antisemitism. Certainly, many Palestinians among them seem to feel that way, as one often hears them slip up and say “the Jews” instead of “the Zionists” in their many condemnations. Whether anti-Zionist Jewish progressives feel that way about their co-religionist Israelis is less clear.

What is clear is that their identity as Jews is, at most, nominal. In most cases, they have little understanding of what Judaism is really about. Their Jewish identity appears to be about as meaningful to them as the gender they were born with. But I digress.

Mamdani’s obsession with Rikers Island is a function of his extremist progressive values, which include the belief that prisons like Rikers ought to be shut down, and that most prisoners there are either unjustly convicted or, if guilty, would be better served by rehabilitation and job opportunities rather than the cruelty they experience—cruelty which, in many cases, turns them into hardened criminals.

While there may be some truth to that line of thinking, the idea of closing down a prison that houses violent criminals is among the most misguided proposals a leader could make. It runs counter to the primary duty of a mayor, which is to protect the city’s residents from violent crime.

But let us examine his actual comments...

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