The YU Paradigm as the Model for Torah Jewry

It makes me so sad that the prevailing view of Judaism being taught in the vast majority of yeshivos is the Lakewood ‘Torah Only’ school of Jewish thought. This view holds that L’chatchila - the primary choice of every Jewish male should be to choose a life of full-time Torah study. Jewish women, in turn, are expected to seek such men as their preference and be willing to support them in that holy task, thus sharing in the heavenly reward their husbands receive for learning full time.

That is the paradigm. And that view has increasingly been perpetuated ever since Rav Aharon Kotler established his yeshiva, Beth Medrash Govoha, in Lakewood. The idea of working for a living - even while establishing regular times for Torah study - is considered to be B’dieved, - pursued only as a last resort. Women raised in this paradigm generally refuse to date men who choose that path.

I have always believed that the truth of Judaism is more closely represented by the Yeshiva University (YU) model, which sees working for a living as much of a L’chatchila as learning full time.

It doesn’t really make much difference to me whether the underlying philosophy of that model is Torah U’Madda, Torah im Derech Eretz, or Torah U’Parnassah. While there are clear ideological differences, the result is largely the same. YU is a yeshiva that produces learned baalei batim and, in some cases, gedolim who devote their lives to Torah study. Much the same as Lakewood students. YU reflects the idea that the God never intended His people to live exclusively in the warm cocoon of a Torah-only lifestyle.

I can hear the howl of laughter from friends to my religious right, who will claim  that the proof they are correct lies in the fact that the Lakewood view is the majority view of observant Jewry. Evidenced by the overwhelming number of religious schools that teach ‘Torah Only’ L’chatchila.. That those schools are the majority and growing exponentially speaks volumes about the primacy of their ‘Torah Only’ paradigm. To the extent that schools with other philosophies exist in relatively small numbers - is seen by them as B’dieved.

That attitude was made clear by one of the most revered talmidei chachamim of the 20^th century, Rav Baruch Ber Leibovitz. He was asked by Rav Shimon Schwab whether his Hirschian philosophy of Torah im Derech Eretz was a L’chatchila. His answer was clear: No, it was not. He claimed that Samson Raphael Hirsch intended it only as a B’dieved for his community and his time. That is still how the Lakewood world tends to see it now, even though it is clear from Rav Hirsch’s writings that he meant it as a L’chatchila.

For me, it is a simple matter... 

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. 

Whose Side Are Democrats On?

Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer

What’s missing in Washington these days is moral clarity. Truth be told, it is missing on both sides of the political aisle. The difference is that one side is doing something about it despite its lack of clarity in articulating the issue.

The issue is the war against Iran being waged by the US. The lack of clarity involves why the US is doing it. That charge is mostly issued by Democrats and a few Republicans in near-universal language. They keep saying that the president has offered no clear reason for the attack and no clear objective. They claim, with some justification, that they are getting mixed messages, or that assertions of an imminent attack from Iran have no basis in fact.

This is where the Trump administration is dropping the ball. 

Instead of trying to justify the war against Iran based on a direct imminent attack - which at best is questionable - they ought to be articulating the real reason for it. A reason that, in fact, anyone with half a brain already knows, and which therefore deserves unequivocal support. A reason articulated by the many supporters of the war.

Which is as follows: Iran’s fanatical religious beliefs include the destruction of the Jewish state, which they consider an affront to Islam — and in the process, the seven million Jews living there. That, my friends, is what is called genocidal intention. As an important ally of the United States, it is in US interests to prevent that from happening...

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. 

Bomb Iran

After the murderous religious Nazis of Islam took over Iran in 1979 (and in the process took 52 U.S. embassy workers hostage for 444 days), the sentiment in much of the civilized world was that Iran had become a rogue nation that needed to be stopped before it spread its murderous theology across the globe.

A parody of the The Beach Boys’ hit song Barbara Ann was released in 1980 that reflected that sentiment. A sentiment few believed would ever translate into reality. Until it did a few days ago on Shabbos, Parshas Zachor.

Parshas Zachor is when we read about the Torah’s requirement to erase the very memory of Amalek, which in our day can be applied to any individual or nation that seeks to destroy the Jewish people. That is why we read this portion of the Torah on the Shabbos before Purim. Which is today.

Purim is the story of ancient Persia (today’s Iran), then under the control of Haman - the Amalek of his time. He sought to wipe the Jewish people off the map and prepared to do so swiftly. It was on Purim that the tables were turned on Haman and he himself was destroyed. The Jewish people of ancient Persia had their freedom restored and were once again able to practice Judaism openly.

Modern-day Persia (Iran) had its own Amalek...

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. 

Netanyahu and The US Israel Alliance

He is one of the most hated politicians in Israel. Perhaps the most hated of all time. And for good reason. And yet, Benjamin Netanyahu may very well be the greatest prime minister in Israel’s history.

I say this knowing full well that many people I deeply respect might choke at even the suggestion. They have expressed unmitigated hatred of the man for good reason, blaming him for many of the ills besieging Israel right now. And, by extension, the Jewish people all over the world. I completely understand where they are coming from. In fact, I could probably repeat verbatim all the serious problems they have with him, which they believe have harmed Israel’s reputation almost irredeemably.

To cite just a few:

...aligning with extremist right-wing parties to form a coalition;

...allowing Charedim to avoid conscription in order to keep them in his coalition;

...using ruthless tactics to stay in power;

...alienating colleagues and former supporters for political purposes (he probably has more political enemies than any politician Israel has ever had);

 ...being indicted for corruption, for which he is currently standing trial;

...his unpopular attempt to overhaul Israel’s judicial system;

...insulting a sitting president on more than one occasion, thereby alienating members of that president’s political party and reducing bipartisan support for Israel;

...sharing responsibility for the October 7^th massacre by virtue of a mistaken policy of appeasement toward Hamas;

...his heavy handed prosecution of the war in Gaza which has caused a rise in antisemitism worldwide;

...and being quite arrogant about his own leadership ability. To put it more simply, he is seen as an amoral power-hungry narcissist who would sell his mother to stay in power.

While there is truth to some of these concerns, I remain convinced that Benjamin Netanyahu is the most consequential leader Israel has ever had—in more ways than one.

Netanyahu is also Israel’s longest-serving prime minister. How could a man so reviled by much of the Israeli public, fellow politicians, and by so many people worldwide and about half of congress - be elected prime minister for so long...?

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 Game Changing Moment in History

Iran's mass murderer is dead (IHRS)

The opposition expressed  by Democrats (and some isolationist Republicans) in Congress to the U.S. military action against Iran is disgusting beyond words. It is reminiscent of congressional opposition to U.S. entry into World War II.

In both cases, there was a regime that mass-murdered its own people with a goal of eventual world domination. And in both cases, members of Congress argued that since there was no immediate, direct threat to the U.S. mainland, we should not get involved. In the current conflict, they add that the president violated the Constitution by declaring war. Which is the purview of Congress.

It is truly mind-boggling that there are people in Congress who profess to care about atrocities being perpetrated against innocent civilians yet could not care less about the massacre of tens of thousands of Iranians in very short order by a rogue Iranian nation. I guess the only human lives they care about are the Palestinians in Gaza.

I keep hearing that there was no imminent threat to the U.S. Maybe so, but there was the constant daily threat by Iran to tens of thousands of their own citizens. Who have already experienced the deadly consequences of their regime’s displeasure at their protests. If a powerful nation is in a position to help those people overcome their murderous regime, I think it has a moral obligation to do so. Just as the U.S. did in World War II when it was Germany committing such crimes. Then it was Hitler. Now it is Khamenei.

I could therefore not be more pleased with what happened over Shabbos. In a joint military exercise with Israel - the first of its kind - Khamenei was killed along with his top military commanders and strategists. I believe it was the Israeli Air Force that was responsible for that particular strike.

What a joint mission like this says about Israel’s military and intelligence capability is that Israel is an invaluable asset to the U.S., and that the IDF and U.S. forces are comparable and compatible in their military capabilities. It also helps put the intelligence failures of October 7^th behind us and restores Israel to its former glory. Furthermore it makes a mockery of claims by antisemites like Tucker Carlson and his fellow travelers, who keep insisting that Israel has no value to the U.S. - and is only a liability.

For the first time in 47 years, since the terrorist regime seized power in Iran and took 53 American hostages for 444 days, the U.S. has finally done something about it. I don’t think it is an exaggeration to say that Iran is one of the greatest dangers to world peace since Nazi Germany. And for the first time since America’s victory over Nazi Germany and Japan, the U.S. military has shown itself worthy of being called the most powerful nation on earth.

Iran, on the other hand, has proven itself to be the danger to the world it has long been accused of. Not just to Israel. Not just to the U.S. by attacking its military bases in the region. But even to its own Arab neighbors.

Not only did Iran fire ballistic missiles at Israel, it fired missiles at Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE, Kuwait, and Qatar. Arab nations that wanted to remain neutral and refused to allow their airspace to be used by U.S. and Israeli air forces. By firing on those countries, Iran united them against itself and effectively opened their airspace.

If one wants to see the moral justification for this attack, all they need do is...

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 Consequences of Illiteracy

Tyler Oliveira (VIN)

There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that Tyler Oliveira is an, amoral, opportunist who has no problem exploiting and advancing antisemitic tropes to gain attention.

Rabbi Yair Hoffman does a wonderful job describing this fellow’s modus operandi in his VIN piece:

He built his YouTube channel on a simple formula: find a community that looks different, show up with a camera, and let the algorithm do the rest. He filmed addicts overdosing in Vancouver without consent. He amplified the debunked pet-eating hoax about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, splicing in unrelated arrest footage to manufacture fear. The subjects change. The method never does.

Then Tyler came for the Jews.

In January 2026, he drove to Kiryas Joel, a Satmar Hasidic village of 44,000 in Orange County, and produced a forty-minute video titled “Inside the New York Town Invaded by Welfare-Addicted Jews.”

(Oliveira also did a hit piece on Lakewood which deserves its own commentary but is beyond the scope of this post.)

I think the title speaks for itself. Based on the massive media coverage given to the Hasidic community—much of it negative—Oliveira appears to have come to his conclusions about that community first and then went about filming and editing to fit that predetermined narrative.

Rabbi Hoffman rightly exposes this fellow for the publicity-seeking charlatan that he really is—a fellow who cares little about the truth and purposely avoids or edits out anything that would contradict his preconceived conclusions. To call him a lowlife would almost be a compliment compared to how disgustingly amoral he is—especially when he tries to come off as someone exposing wrongdoing for the betterment of society.

Truly disgusting.

That being said, I happened to see some of that footage a while back. In particular, I recall one young Hasidic fellow from Kiryas Joel being interviewed who could not have been more embarrassing to the Jewish community. Every negative stereotype one has ever imagined about that community seemed embodied in this one individual. He could barely speak English, and his responses played right into the narrative Oliveira suggested in the title of his video.

Now, I’m sure not every Hasid in that village is as illiterate or relies on the welfare system to help support his family. I’m equally sure that if Oliveira did find a Hasid who was articulate, he may well have edited him out of the video.

But I have to ask...

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 Support for Israel Has Been Diminished

California governor, Gavin Newsom

I have to admit that it is disheartening to see mainstream politicians reject donations from AIPAC. Not all that long ago, support from AIPAC — a pro-Israel advocacy group — was seen as an important cog in the wheel of mainstream endorsements. Politicians from both parties would attend AIPAC conferences and practically trip all over themselves to demonstrate who supported Israel the most.

Presidents and party chairmen, senators and key members of the House all considered it a plus to address that body. The only people who rejected AIPAC were the usual anti-Israel politicians of the type that supported BDS. But they were always considered to be on the fringe of the American political landscape.

That has changed. It seems the opposite is now happening — mostly (and unsurprisingly) in the Democratic Party. It is almost toxic to be associated in any way with AIPAC. The most recent candidate to eschew their support is Gavin Newsom, who is widely considered to be running for the Democratic nomination for president in 2028. He has said he never took money from AIPAC and never will.

It isn’t only Democrats. Sadly, what was once near-universal Republican support for Israel has now become a matter of debate. Even though I still believe the vast majority of Republicans support the Jewish state and would easily accept AIPAC support, there is a serious attempt by some Republicans to disabuse their party entirely of that support.

That effort is led in part by  a number of popular ‘conservative’ podcasters, Tucker Carlson chief among them. With millions of followers who lap up every word he says. So - even though the majority of Republican politicians still strongly support Israel, for the first time in a long while there is anti-Israel pressure from among their ranks. I am, however, gratified to see most of them resisting that pressure.

But still, it is disheartening to see any erosion of support at all. The question is why? Why is this happening?

I think it is safe to say that Israel’s war in Gaza was the tripwire. Media coverage was relentless in depicting images of Palestinian suffering in Gaza. Israeli airstrikes were followed by images of death and destruction, and a media narrative — often shaped by anti-Israel Palestinian reporters — had its impact.

After two years of images like that and the accompanying narrative broadcast on the nightly news, made it seem as though Israel was indiscriminately killing Palestinians. Which anti-Israel progressives started calling genocide. Two years of those daily images like that made it almost impossible to refute that charge.

That caused a huge drop in American support and helps explain why political support has changed. Many (perhaps most) politicians stick their fingers in the air to see which way the wind is blowing - and that’s how they decide what their political positions will be.

It takes a lot of courage to examine the veracity of what’s being reported and to understand the context of those images. Courage is something most politicians do not have in abundance...

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 Need for Regime Change in Iran

Radical Islam was once outlawed in Iran. Before the 1979 Iranian revolution fanatic religious leaders were jailed or exiled despite their popularity with many of the devout in that country. A monarchy led by a Shah that was racing quickly into the 20^th century. Embracing western culture and moving away from its primitive roots. To the delight of most of its freedom loving citizens.

It was also a nation at peace with the State of Israel; an exchange of ambassadors; and well-established air travel between the two.

But the Shah had been accused by human rights activists of jailing, torturing, and otherwise mistreating dissidents, particularly religious dissidents like the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, an icon of the devout Shia Muslims in Iran. Khomeini was exiled and ended up in France. Preaching to the devout from there via recordings. Religious lectures sent to the devout surreptitiously.

The year was 1979. Then President Jimmy Carter expressed his concern to his Iranian ally, the Shah, about the human rights violations. The Shah was forced to loosen the reins, and the stage was set for revolution.

That is exactly what happened.

The Shah fled the country, and after a feeble attempt at democracy, Radical Islamists took over. 

Resenting America’s support for the Shah, they took Americans working at the U.S. embassy there hostage and held them for over a year!

Khomeini returned to Iran as the conquering hero of the fledgling regime, now known as the Islamic Republic of Iran. After 444 days in captivity, the hostages were finally released. By then, the new Iran had been firmly established, with a new elite military group, the IRGC, consisting of devout Shia Muslims who were highly trained and motivated to fight for the radical version of Islam their new country now adhered to.

Iran had gone from a pro-West monarchy and friendly relations with Israel to an anti-American, anti-Israel nation that makes the Shah’s intolerance of dissidents look mild by comparison.

Iran is now feared by much of the civilized world. Its devotion to radical Islam includes an IRGC motivated by martyrdom as a religious obligation. Fueled by belief in be great heavenly reward. 

Feared also is Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons; the development of a ballistic missile system that can deliver them to Europe; (and given enough time will surely develop the capability to reach the U.S. mainland) and their spread of terrorism around the globe.

Iran’s religious fanaticism has not hesitated to express continued hatred for the U.S. and its values - as well as hatred of the Jewish state, whose very existence contradicts their religious doctrine. They view Israel an illegitimate colonial entity and Judaism as a false religion. Both of which impede Islam of its religious destiny to rule the entire region. Which is why they have been  arming proxy militias surrounding Israel.

Thankfully, Israel has been able to demolish or degrade - either directly or indirectly - many of those proxies to the point of near impotence...

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 Unifying Proposal

The riots at the Western Wall  - Western Wall Heritage Foundation  (A7)

My views about heterodox movements in Judaism are well known to my readers. I do not believe they are a legitimate representation of Judaism. (Why that is the case is beyond the scope of this post.) I just wanted to make clear where I am coming from on the issue of the egalitarian space at the Kotel.

The truth is that the Kotel did not have separate sections pre-state under the British Mandate. Men and women can be seen praying together in pre-state archival pictures of the Kotel. Men and women do not need a mechitza to pray - even with a minyan - unless they are in a shul.

So why separate them at the Kotel?

First, because one could argue that sections of the Kotel have essentially become shuls, with an Aron Kodesh and a bimah in several places there permanently.

Second, because of the huge crowds that can often congregate there, rabbinic authorities thought it wise to separate the sexes for purposes of simple modesty. That is the status quo, and it has been that way for almost 60 years.

Heterodoxy never requires separation of the sexes during prayer. They allow men and women to pray together in their synagogues and temples. They demanded that their traditions be honored at the Kotel when they pray there. A demand fought vigorously by Orthodoxy.

Long story short, in order to preserve the status quo Orthodox nature of the Kotel, an agreement was reached whereby another section could be used by them for purposes of mixed-gender prayer.

That situation has remained the same and had pretty much kept the peace for a while.

The problem was that it was never developed into a user-friendly area. Ultimately the Reform movement brought the issue before Israel’s Supreme Court. And as JTA reports, the following happened:

Israel’s highest court has delivered a unanimous rebuke to state and municipal authorities over long-stalled plans to upgrade the Western Wall’s egalitarian prayer section, intensifying a dispute that has come to symbolize broader tensions over religious pluralism in Israel.

In a decision issued Thursday, an expanded seven-justice panel of the High Court of Justice ordered the national government and the Jerusalem Municipality to move forward with building permits needed for repairs and infrastructure improvements at the Ezrat Israel prayer platform, the area designated for mixed-gender and non-Orthodox worship south of the main Western Wall plaza.

This ruling brought an angry response from Israel’s Heritage Minister, Rabbi Amichai Eliyahu - a far-right member of Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit party. Eliyahu excoriated the justices who ruled in favor of the Reform movement - and the Reform movement itself - for promoting an egalitarian issue during a time of war, when Jewish soldiers were losing life and limb on the battlefield. Instead of expressing sympathy and support, he accused them of expressing scorn and defaming the IDF, reserving sympathy only for Palestinians in Gaza. And now, to put it the way Eliyahu does, demanding a prize for it at the Western Wall.

To say the least, I am no fan of Eliyahu’s party...

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 Erosion of the Torah World

I am not anti-Charedi. Far from it. This might be hard to believe based on my many - one might say copious - posts criticizing them. But I am here to declare that I do not, in any way, harbor animosity toward the Charedi community. My issues are with whom they perceive to be the rabbinic leadership and their acolytes in the Knesset.

Unfortunately, the nature of this community is to treat that leadership with such reverence that disagreeing with them is considered to be derogatory to the Torah itself. So when these leaders speak in absolutist terms, the Charedi world listens silently and follows their lead. Often parroting their arguments.

Now, I fully support the ideal of studying Torah full-time for those capable of doing so—especially those who excel at it. Even though I disagree with the idea of full-time study for everyone regardless of their capabilities, I understand and respect the Charedi ideal that one should sublimate and direct their talents first and foremost into Torah study.

In theory, their opposition to military service is in service of that ideal. At the same time, however, I believe that most Charedim neither believe in nor participate in violent protest in order to achieve that goal. Furthermore, I think many understand that something isn’t quite right about universal Charedi exemption from military service. Even as they publicly support it.

There is some evidence of this. Which can be seen in the increase - albeit small - in Charedi enlistment into the IDF after October 7^th. But that group remains a tiny minority and hardly registers as a percentage of the whole community.

There are additional indicators that are somewhat more significant. Mishpacha Magazine is one example. There have been more than a few editorials and op-eds supporting the Charedi leadership’s position on conscription. But reading between the lines, one can detect occasional but subtle criticism of that stance.

Ironically, a recent letter to Mishpacha written by someone identifying himself as “M.K.” criticized Jonathan’s column from the previous week about the violent protests in Bnei Brak. Yet in doing so, he implicitly acknowledged the truth of its claims, even as he extolled the virtues of MK Pindrus’s op-ed in that same issue about the ‘war’ against Torah via the Charedi draft issue.

But perhaps no one has had his finger on the pulse of the Charedi world more perceptively than Tzarich Iyun editor, Rabbi Yehoshua Pfeffer. Rabbi Pfeffer is a Charedi intellectual who shares the community’s ideals and values. In a lengthy essay, he describes what the Charedi world was like when he studied at the Mir as an Avreich, and he contrasts the religious leadership of that time with today’s...

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.