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.

Why American Support for Israel is Down

2024 DNC convention at the United Center in Chicago (JI)

A few short years ago, I could not have imagined the reality the Jewish world faces today.

The October 7th Hamas attack changed everything. To be sure, support for Israel had already been eroding on the liberal left—driven in part by the growing influence of pro-Palestinian activism in academia and a media increasingly sympathetic to that narrative. Still, Israel and the Jewish people retained broad mainstream support. That included not only conservative Republicans, but most Democrats as well.

Israel’s forceful response to Hamas, however - aimed at eliminating the threat once and for all - accelerated an already growing hostility. On campuses especially, where progressive faculty and activists had long been moving in this direction, support for Israel began to collapse more rapidly. This shift was reinforced by an underlying ideological critique: that Israel itself had moved away from their original socially progressive ideals toward a more market-oriented, nationalist posture.

And almost immediately after the war against Hamas began, progressive Democrats in congress and the largely left leaning mainstream media amplified Palestinian and UN narratives portraying Israel’s actions as disproportionate, even genocidal. The impact of that constant narrative on public opinion - especially among younger and more progressive audiences - has been profound.

Prime Minister Netanyahu’s close alignment with President Trump, and the broader geopolitical framing of Israel alongside U.S. policy toward Iran, has only deepened partisan divides over Israel.

The result is a reality that would have been hard to imagine not long ago: antisemitism rising to levels not seen in among mainstream Americans since pre-Holocaust times, and support for Israel becoming increasingly polarized. Though it is highly unlikely to pass, that the DNC is even considering a resolution condemning both Israel and AIPAC is something I never dreamed could happen. Meanwhile, a small but notable number of Republicans have begun questioning continued U.S. support—sometimes echoing rhetoric once confined to the far left.

In some quarters, the line between criticism of Israel and hostility toward Jews has become blurred, if not erased altogether.

It is deeply distressing to witness what was once near-universal support for Israel and the Jewish people give way to something far more fragmented—and, at times, openly hostile. When influential voices like that of the vice-president frame extreme rhetoric as merely protected speech, it only accelerates that trend.

And yet, while all of this saddens me, it does not shock me...

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.

 

A Non-Denominational Jewish School

The exterior of the forthcoming Davis School in Chicago.

I’m not sure what to make of a new Jewish high school in Chicago. The Davis School is still under construction in a pricey area of downtown Chicago. The stated purpose of this school, according to its board of trustees, is the following:

“Davis Chicago is committed to creating an academically rigorous, values-driven Jewish high school that prepares students for top universities, meaningful Jewish engagement, and leadership in the broader world.”

Added by the newly hired head of school, Richard H. Cuenca is the following:

“It’s going to be an unbelievable opportunity for the Jewish community and the greater Chicago community to be able to add another asset to this amazing city,” and it “will feature a mix of mandatory secular and Jewish curriculum with the goal of instilling ‘Jewish pride, support for the State of Israel, [and a] strong connection to their Jewish identity’ in its students.”

This new school will be the only non-Orthodox high school within city limits.

It appears from the description that this is a non-denominational school, which I suppose means that there will not be any doctrinaire denominational theology being taught there. From an Orthodox perspective, that is a lot better than what a Conservative or Reform school might teach their students about Jewish belief and practice. On the other hand, they will not be teaching Orthodox theology either, leaving a very important part of Judaism a mystery to students seeking to understand the theological basis of their faith.

This school is obviously designed for secular Jews who are not necessarily affiliated with any denomination. Or even if they are, they may simply be seeking a strong college preparatory school that will give them some knowledge about – and pride in their religion. And by extension, the State of Israel.

This is why I am conflicted. On the one hand, I’m not sure that teaching secular Jewish youth to have pride in Judaism without understanding the essential beliefs and practices that define it amounts to pride in anything substantive. If, for example, the curriculum teaches them to take pride in Jewish culture; or defines Judaism primarily as a set of progressive values - are they really learning how to be Jews...

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. 

The No Kings Protest and Iran

Sometimes I wonder about the intelligence of the kind of people who marched yesterday in what they called the “No Kings Protest.” That very name tells you all you need to know what’s really behind it. A visceral hatred of the president.

This is not to say that some of their grievances aren’t legitimate. It is only to say that what they were really protesting was the man that most of the American people voted for just over a year ago. (None of the polls indicating how unpopular he now is, really matters. What matters is that he is the democratically elected president of the United States.)

Had the protest been about the heavy-handed way that ICE operated over the last year, or the rising cost of living, or the chaos at TSA security checkpoints at airports, I would understand. Although clearly there is enough blame to go around on both sides of the political aisle.

But the fact that they included opposition to the war in Iran is what makes me believe that these protesters were, at best, insufficiently informed about the moral justification for this war. That ignorance, combined with the war’s effect on the economy, the talking points of their favored politicians, sympathetic media, and assorted celebrities, is clearly why they feel this way.

With all of these negative things happening in their lives, ‘the hated man at the top’ becomes the favored target for everything that is wrong in their world. It doesn’t take much to lead ordinary citizens with good intentions to oppose a war under those circumstances.

The comments of protesters being interviewed are almost verbatim the same as the talking points of Democrats in Congress and their cheering section in the mainstream media.

There is no reasoning with an angry person who sees his pocketbook affected by a war he believes is either unjust or none of our business. A war they have been convinced by the above-mentioned influencers is unwinnable; we had no business entering; and will only make things worse.

Their failure to understand what is really at stake is why good people can end up supporting bad decisions.

(That is in fact my only criticism of the president with respect to this war. The failure to articulate exactly why we are are there. For which there are clear and unambiguous moral reasons. And for which there are clear and unambiguous strategic reasons as well - having to do with our security and the security of one of our most important allies, the state of Israel.)

Let us look at some of the anti-war talking points. Is the war really unwinnable? The argument might be that you cannot destroy an idea. Especially one rooted in a theology that compels Iran to behave as it does. No matter how much we devastate them, they will never give up. Their very survival - even it becomes under “stone age” conditions - would be seen by them as a victory. And if the war ends and the U.S. leaves, they will begin to rebuild and eventually restore themselves to what they were before the war. And beyond.

It’s true that you can’t kill an idea. But ...

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.