If You can Beat 'em - join 'em?!

It is almost as though leaders of the Conservative movement read my Substack article yesterday and decided to respond to it. Of course, that isn’t what happened.

What feels like a response is really a development that has actually been in the works for over two years—an effort to address the catastrophic attrition out of their Jewish identity and high  intermarriage rates among non-Orthodox Jews. As reported by JTA:

The Conservative movement, one of the major Jewish denominations, is formally apologizing for decades of discouraging intermarriage and committing itself to a new approach centered on engagement…

In its report, the movement also accepted responsibility for the consequences of that approach.

“We acknowledge that our movement’s historical stance has resulted in hurt, alienation, and disconnection from our community. We deeply apologize,” the report said.

The report does not formally lift the ban on Conservative rabbis officiating at interfaith weddings.

Instead, it asks the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS) to revisit how its rulings are interpreted, while recommending new educational, pastoral, and ritual approaches aimed at intermarried families.

“All discouraging intermarriage did was push people away who really should have been part of our communities,” said Rabbi Jacob Blumenthal, CEO of both the Rabbinical Assembly and United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism.

In other words: If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.

The proposed solution to the tragedy of American Jewry abandoning their heritage through intermarriage is not merely to welcome interfaith couples into the community, but to stop even discouraging interfaith marriage in the first place. This approach is justified by pointing to Pew data showing that ‘fewer than half of Jews raised Conservative still identify with the movement’.

Intermarriage is prohibited by Torah law. That much is clear. Yet once again, the Conservative movement is changing the rules to fit the times. While maintaining plausible deniability by insisting that it isn’t really changing them.

But you cannot have it both ways...

Emes Ve-Emunah will no longer be fully available here. To finish reading this post and all future posts - and comment on them - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe. But it's easy and it's free.

Shifting Jewish Support for Israel

Conservative Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove - exposing a rift (Jewish Journal)

Even though I am not surprised, I am nevertheless taken aback by the numbers. American Jewish youth are shifting away from supporting Israel. This point was made recently by a rising star of heterodoxy, the charismatic Conservative Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove.

Speaking at the American Zionist Movement’s Biennial last week, Rabbi Cosgrove addressed the generational rift in how American Jews relate to Israel. A divide that has been growing for years. He pointed to the recent New York mayoral election, where roughly 33 percent of Jewish voters cast ballots for mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani...

He also cited data from JPPI’s 2025 Annual Assessment, which found that 43 percent of American Jewish millennials say Israel is not important to their Jewish identity—nearly triple the 16 percent found among American Jews overall in Pew’s 2020 survey. That gap has only widened since October 7, with non-Orthodox Jews under 30 reporting the sharpest declines in attachment to Israel.

Rabbi Cosgrove then offered his explanation for why this divide exists. He seems to attribute it to the long-standing assumption that traditional support for Israel requires never criticizing it - or the decisions made by its leaders. Regardless of whether one agrees with those policies or not. Any such criticism feeds the anti-Israel narrative promoted by Israel’s mortal enemies and their supporters in academia - and even in Congress.

According to Rabbi Cosgrove, the erosion of support among young Jews is directly related to their frustration at feeling that their legitimate criticism is being ignored or silenced, motivating them to walk away entirely from any connection to the Jewish state.

To a certain extent, that is true. But I believe there is a deeper underlying cause that Rabbi Cosgrove does not address... 

Emes Ve-Emunah will no longer be fully available here. To finish reading this post and all future posts - and comment on them - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe. But it's easy and it's free. 

Caught Between a Rock and a Hard Place

Young Chasidic Jews

OTD is the oft used acronym for going ‘off the derech’. Derech is the Hebrew word for ‘path’. The path in this case is the path of observant Judaism.

This phenomenon is not new. It is as old as Judaism itself. There are many reasons why someone raised to be observant would choose to stop being so, but they are beyond the scope of this post. What this post addresses is the difficulty of transitioning from a lifestyle of observance that, to one degree or another, conflicts with the cultural milieu in which one finds oneself.

The degree of conflict depends on one’s approach to that culture. Modern Orthodoxy’s conflict centers on Halacha. When a popular cultural practice or event contradicts halacha, modern Orthodox Jews stay away from it. Otherwise, they tend to engage. That engagement covers a broad area of commonality with the prevailing culture. So that our uniqueness as Halachic Jews does not impede social interaction in a general way. We tend to dress similarly, root for the same sports teams, and enjoy the same kinds of secular music and entertainment as non-Jewish members of American society.

In other words, there is a certain degree of integration with the culture - an assimilation of sorts - that is both acceptable and even laudable in the sense of good citizenship and camaraderie with our neighbors, coworkers, and acquaintances. At the same time, it remains critically important for us to be a people apart. But only in the sense of our relationship with God, by following His laws as dictated in the Torah and interpreted by the sages throughout the generations.

The further to the right one goes religiously, however, the less this is the case. The prevailing view on the right is that the less one involves oneself with the surrounding culture, the better. Ideally not at all. The most extreme example of this is the world of Chasidim...

Emes Ve-Emunah will no longer be fully available here. To finish reading this post and all future posts - and comment on them - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe. But it's easy and it's free. 

The Globalization of the Intifada

I don’t think I have ever heard a clearer explanation of the kind of antisemitic violence that occurred in Sydney, Australia last Sunday than the one offered by Rabbi Warren Goldstein, the Chief Rabbi of South Africa. (Whose own government is among the most antisemitic in the world.)

What stood out most to me was the phrase “Globalize the Intifada.” If anyone wants to understand what that slogan truly means, all they need to do is look at what happened in Sydney, Australia last Sunday - and at every similar event that has taken place around the world.

Intifada is Arabic for ‘uprising’ - a word that can theoretically refer to anything from peaceful protest to outright violence. In its current usage it refers to two distinct periods in which Palestinians carried out waves of mass murder suicide bombings against Jews in Israel. On buses, in pizza shops, and in wedding halls. That history matters. It means that when pro-Palestinian protesters chant ‘Globalize the Intifada’, they are not calling for peaceful marches holding placards that read “Support BDS.” They are invoking - and endorsing - violent uprising in pursuit of their goal of a ‘Palestine - from the river to the sea’.

With that in mind, it should be obvious that the ultimate expression of a globalized intifada looks very much like what happened in Australia last Sunday.

Which brings me once again to New York Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani... 

Emes Ve-Emunah will no longer be fully available here. To finish reading this post and all future posts - and comment on them - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe. But it's easy and it's free. 

“If I Forget Thee, O Jerusalem”

Reform Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch (JTA)

‘If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its cunning’.

This verse from Tehillim (137:5) is among the most frequently quoted passages in all of Jewish life. In its original Hebrew, it is also sung at many weddings immediately following the ceremony, just before the breaking of the glass - a universal custom meant to remind us, even at our moments of greatest joy, of the tragedy of losing the Beis Hamikdash

For the Jewish people, severing Jerusalem from Judaism is virtually impossible. Almost by definition, one cannot be a Jew without believing that the Land of Israel - where Jerusalem is located - is as essential to Jewish identity as one’s right hand is to their body. You cannot separate Judaism from the belief that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people by Divine decree as was Jerusalem the location of His Holy sanctuary here on earth.

It is precisely this belief that makes it so difficult for many Jews to believe that a mayor that is anti-Zionist isn’t also antisemitic. Regardless of how hard he tries to separate the two, they go hand on hand. The claim that one can support the Jewish people while opposing Israel as a Jewish state is akin to saying, ‘I support you, but I oppose your right hand - and will do everything I can to sever it from your body’.

Complicating matters further is religion. For many devout Muslims, the Land of Israel (which they call Palestine) belongs to them. By Divine right, given -  according to their faith tradition - to Yishmael rather than to Yitzchak. I believe this theological claim lies at the core of the religious conflict between Jews and Muslims. The more devout one is in holding these beliefs, the more militant one may become in attempting to enforce them.

This is why many religious Jews view Mamdani’s overtures to the Jewish community as insincere. They fear that, given the opportunity, he would seek to undermine or even hurt those of us who believe the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people.

So is that the case here? Is Mamdani merely playing a long game - biding his time until until something terrible befalls us – which he will claim he had no  control over while secretly being quite satisfied with such an outcome?

Emes Ve-Emunah will no longer be fully available here. To finish reading this post and all future posts - and comment on them - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe. But it's easy and it's free.

When Life Hands You Lemons, You Make Lemonade

Making lemonade out of a lemon?

I am sorry to report about yet another deadly attack against the Jewish people. It happened yesterday in Australia. Because of the international dateline it was the first night of Chanukah. As of now 11 Jewish souls were snuffed out  in the virtual blink of an eye in what authorities there are calling a targeted terrorist attack specifically against the Jewish people. 

Once again heart goes out to the families of the victims who are suddenly in an unexpected state of morning. As I have said too many times when incidents like this occur, I cannot imagine the kind of deep pain these families suddenly now experience. 

It never ends Sadly I’m not even sure what can be done to prevent something like this from happening again anywhere in the world where the Jewish people can be found. This makes what I am about to say more difficult. But it does not change my views.

In a recent post I presented my perspective on how the Mamdani mayoralty will affect the Jewish community. Which essentially agreed with Rabbi Michael Broyde’s perspective. My freind Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein took issue with both of us. The following is my response to that. 

I completely understand Rabbi Adlerstein’s perspective and why he is so upset with Rabbi Broyde and my disagreement with him about the dangers of the incoming city administration.

Nor do I even disagree with his warning that we can “expect more frequent, and more lethal, violence directed their way.” I essentially said as much in the Substack article he references. Indeed we have to be vigilant about that. 

However...

Emes Ve-Emunah will no longer be fully available here. To finish reading this post and all future posts - and comment on them - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe. But it's easy and it's free.

An Orthodox Perspective on Antisemitism

I have to admit that I am a bit more apprehensive these days about displaying my Jewish identity in public. Ever since the pro-Palestinian protests that erupted after Israel’s defensive war against Hamas in Gaza, there has been a precipitous rise in antisemitic attacks.

While I do feel safe walking the streets in my Chicago neighborhood of West Rogers Park - home to a large concentration of Orthodox Jews - it is also home to a sizeable Muslim population, many likely of Palestinian origin. We cross paths constantly. The anger many Palestinians may feel toward Israel, and by association toward the Jewish people, concerns me each time we pass each other on the street.

I often walk with these thoughts in mind, even as those brief encounters usually pass without comment.

So how bad is it really? Should it worry me as much as it does? Or even more? Or am I simply being paranoid? My own answer is that it’s prudent to be aware of the possibility of danger - as long as it doesn’t paralyze me or alter my daily routine. I continue living my life as I always have, but with my eyes open.

That leads to a broader question: How prevalent is antisemitism in America? What percentage of Americans harbor antisemitic views to any degree? Does it come more from the left or the right? And how dangerous is it for a Jew walking alone at night?

A recent poll by Mark Trencher (available in the print edition of the Jewish Press) attempts to answer these questions. To me, the results were unsurprising. Antisemitism exists on both sides of the political aisle. Trencher cites data from a newly released poll by the conservative Manhattan Institute finding that:

17% of Republican voters hold “anti-Jewish” views (defined as believing the Holocaust was exaggerated and/or that Israel is a “settler-colonial state”).

12% of Republicans explicitly describe themselves as having “hostility to, or prejudice against, Jewish people.”

Slightly higher levels - 20% - are found among Democratic voters, compared to the Republicans’ 17%.

I agree with Trencher that this 3% difference isn’t particularly meaningful. There is more or less the same level of antisemitism on both sides, though the reasons for it differ significantly between the left and right.

A follow-up overnight mini-survey gives us an insight into what Orthodox Jews are thinking. Some of the comments  are exaggerated, but they do resonate to a degree. The survey began with the following question?

Several recent surveys have found levels of antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment to be about the same among Democratic voters as compared to Republican voters. What tis your reaction to this?

Among the reactions were these:

“Since October 7th there has been an almost total focus on left-wing antisemitism while ignoring the obvious, virulent, and dangerous antisemitism from the right. It’s a dangerous problem on both sides.”

“I don’t believe the Democratic Party actually exists anymore. It has been taken over by an antisemitic socialist movement with funding from who knows where.”

“Don’t underestimate the hate from the right; people are spouting vile anti-Jewish and anti-Israel views, and social media has created antisemitism on steroids.”

When asked which group of antisemites is more dangerous:

57% said both are equally dangerous.

29% said Democrats are more dangerous.

14% said Republicans are more dangerous.

Sample responses:

“Extreme Democrats reject Israel’s legitimacy and frame it as an aggressor; extreme Republicans think Israel has too much influence on U.S. politics. The former is ultimately more problematic.”

“Antisemitic beliefs are now central to the Democratic platform, whereas antisemitism among Republicans is mostly confined to the fringes.”

“The rise of Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes, and Candace Owens is pushing far-right Republicans to reconsider support for Israel.”

“I work in academia and see huge amounts of antisemitism from progressives. I’ve never experienced it firsthand from conservatives. Maybe a stray online comment here or there, but nothing compared to the constant stream of Jew-hatred in higher education.”

“It’s not the left or the right; both wings belong to the same screwed-up bird.”

These responses, while anecdotal, offer a snapshot of how Orthodox Jews perceive antisemitism today. In my view these perceptions are not that far from reality.

Emes Ve-Emunah is now available at substack. To receive posts and comment you must subscribe. It's free.

Mamadani and Jewish New York

Rabbi Moishe Indig and Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani

I have been saying all along that Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani will not be the disaster for the New York Jewish community that many people think he will be. What I have said—and still believe—is that his virulent anti-Zionist rhetoric may be the real danger. Because it may encourage antisemites to come out of the closet and harass us in numbers never seen in New York before. Acts of violence may very well increase too, fueled by a mayor whose anti-Zionist rhetoric aligns with much of the pro-Hamas community.

That said, I am equally convinced (as I’ve said in the past) that Mamdani will nevertheless do everything in his power to protect Jewish communities in New York from the very harassment his rhetoric may unintentionally incite.

Many have noted that one can criticize Israel without being an antisemite. But antisemitism is often disguised as anti-Zionism, and it can sometimes be hard to tell the difference.

It helps to consider the source.

In the mayor-elect’s case, his anti-Zionism is rooted in two foundational principles. One is his identification with progressive socialism, which sees nations and peoples as either oppressors or the oppressed. Regardless of context or nuance. In Mamdani’s eyes, it is clear who is who in the Middle East: Israelis are the oppressors and Palestinians the oppressed - who must be ‘liberated’.

The other principle is his Muslim faith, which entirely rejects any Jewish claim to the land. That is why Mamdani does not believe Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state, labels it an apartheid state, supports BDS, believes Israel is guilty of genocide, considers its prime minister a war criminal he would like to arrest if he visits New York, and enthusiastically supports pro-Palestinian demonstrators.

And that is why the overwhelming majority of the mainstream Jewish community—lay and rabbinic, across all denominations urged people to vote against him on election day.

None of this is new. But does it mean he is an antisemite? I think that depends on how one defines the term. There are those who argue that denying the Jewish people the right to a state is, by definition, antisemitic. And yet, there are more than a few Jews who agree with Mamdani on all the above-mentioned points. Jews you might see joining pro-Palestinian protests, shouting about Israel’s Apartheid, genocide and calling Netanyahu a war criminal that should be arrested.

There are, however, indications that Mamdani means what he says about Jewish New Yorkers. Even though he vehemently disagree with their views on Israel. He has repeatedly said that they have as much right to express their views as he does his. He has repeatedly and emphatically insisted that he will fight antisemitism in the city and use every resource available to protect Jewish New Yorkers. Some would cynically say that these are just meaningless words. That it’s all political theater, designed to assuage the fears about the rising tide of antisemitism.

But, I disagree. Socialism, by definition, does not discriminate. Every human being is to be treated equally and deserves protection from harm. I believe that Mamdani wholeheartedly buys into that philosophy. I would not be surprised if socialism is more a religion to him than Islam.

Even though he knows the Jewish community did not support him (to put it mildly), he has nonetheless promised to treat Jews no differently from any other New Yorker, whether they voted for him or not. I believe him.

Which brings me to what Satmar did. I am no fan of Satmar. My issues with them are serious but beyond the scope of this post. They endorsed Mamdani for mayor.

Their endorsement did not surprise me at all. Not because they agree with him about Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state (in pre-messianic times). That is not what motivated them. A controversial interview with Satmar political leader Moishe Indig by Mishpacha Magazine spelled out plainly  why. It was purely transactional. They endorsed the candidate they believed would surely win in order to get in his good graces. They have succeeded.

Understandably, the entire Jewish establishment was furious, including Agudah. But Satmar believed they would gain nothing by endorsing a losing candidate, and instead chose to endorse the one they knew would win.

Now Satmar will be first in line to receive favors from the Mamdani administration. An administration eager to prove, as Mamdani repeated again and again during the campaign, that he is not antisemitic.

In fact, he has already demonstrated this by joining Satmar at one of their celebrations - after his election. He had no political need to do so. The video shows he loved every minute of it. That image of him does not look like the face of an antisemite.

True, he also criticized a Nefesh B’Nefesh event after the election. But criticizing an organization that facilitates Aliyah to Israe should not surprise anyone, given that he does not believe Israel has the right to exist. At the same time, I am sure he will deal swiftly with any violence perpetrated against any Jewish New Yorker.

And now after the election, Agudah recently announced that they will engage with Mamdani and seek cooperation with City Hall as needed. My guess is that they will get it.

Mishpacha was heavily criticized for interviewing Satmar about their endorsement. But I don’t understand why knowledge is bad. It helps to know why a major religious community did something so counterintuitive, when everyone else did the opposite. Maybe we can learn something.

Bottom line: I agree with Rabbi Michael Broyde, who wrote the following in Cross-Currents:

Navigating complex times in a world full of people with ideas and ideals at tension with Jewish tradition is complex. We, “the community of the faithful,” face difficult headwinds. Moral clarity and complete resistance—“even if it produce horrible death and complete destruction”—sometimes seem easier religiously than a policy of accommodation. Indeed, even successful accommodation still incurs attack by those who bemoan our failure to stand tall (ignoring the consequences we would have then suffered). We all know accommodation isn’t popular. It lacks the cachet of moral purity and absolutism, of defiant declarations. But life is usually lived in a grayer place, unattractive as that is. It is no surprise that political accommodation works best, particularly when it is combined with internal moral and halachic clarity.

This is not to say that Satmar was necessarily right. It is only to say that they were not necessarily wrong, either. In the end, they may come out winners - first in line to get everything they want out of City Hall.

With respect to the safety of Jewish New Yorkers I believe they will get the protection they need when they need it. Even if only because it is in Mamdani’s political interest to make sure that happen.

Emes Ve-Emunah is now available at substack. To receive posts and comment you must subscribe. It's free.

A Sea Change in the Mainstream Media

Newly announced CBS news anchor, Tony Dukoupil (CBS)

I had always respected the mainstream media for its professionalism and what I believed was fair and balanced reporting. On a subject that I was acutely attuned to, one could occasionally detect bias on the part of a reporter or an anchor. But I usually chalked it up to ignorance of the facts of a particular issue or an awkward presentation that was unintentionally misleading.

Although some media outlets like the BBC - were clearly and blatantly biased against Israel, I never attributed that kind of animus to the three major evening network newscasts. I always gave them the benefit of the doubt.

That changed drastically over the last two years. In their reporting about the war in Gaza, just about every mainstream media outlet expressed so much obvious bias against Israel that it could hardly be attributed to ignorance of the facts or an awkward presentations.

Without belaboring the point, suffice it to say that the typical narrative focused on Israel  as the aggressor - targeting suspected Hamas strongholds in sensitive and densely populated areas like hospitals or schools. Killing disproportionate numbers of civilians with daily airstrikes. Every night, casualty figures provided by Hamas officials were repeated as fact, with no serious attempt to present Israel’s side of the story. Israel’s explanations – if mentioned at all - were framed as dubious. While Palestinian reporters inside Gaza were treated as paragons of truth, narrating those same Hamas-supplied numbers as bloody images of dead and injured Palestinian women and children flashed on the screen.

Every nefarious accusation by Hamas (and their UN sympathizers) against Israel was treated as gospel. While Israel’s denials or explanations were treated as suspect. The bias was unmistakable even though the network anchors avoided explicitly calling Israel a liar.

The worst offender was CBS. They hired Imtiaz Tiab, a former Al Jazeera reporter as their primary correspondent in Gaza. His coverage amounted to an almost daily bashing of Israel with hardly any mention of Israel’s perspective.

I never realized just how biased the mainstream media had become until I witnessed how this war was covered. But after two years of non stop Israel bashing by the mainstream media, I have been duly chastised. I don’t trust a word they say anymore.  No matter how carefully they try to disguise it, their bias shines through quite brightly.

But… There’s a new sheriff in town. And it appears that things are abut to change.

CBS’s parent company, Paramount, was recently purchased by Skydance. Its CEO, David Ellison, is not inclined to tolerate the kind of blatant anti-Israel bias demonstrated by CBS News. He has already replaced the head of the news division with former New York Times opinion columnist Bari Weiss, who famously resigned from the Times after harassment from colleagues over her more balanced perspective on Israel.

Weiss’s commitment to fairness is reflected in the latest shakeup at CBS. She has replaced the two current evening news anchors with Tony Dokoupil—someone who had the courage to challenge the network’s anti-Israel orthodoxy. That courage was visible in an incident just over a year ago, as reported in The New York Times:

During a 2024 interview, Dokoupil challenged author Ta-Nehisi Coates about a new book he had written on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Dokoupil told Coates that some of the material “would not be out of place in the backpack of an extremist,” and asked: “What is it that so particularly offends you about the existence of a Jewish state that is a Jewish safe place?”

Coates replied: “There’s nothing that offends me about a Jewish state; I am offended by the idea of states built on ethnocracy, no matter where they are.”

Some CBS journalists objected to how Dokoupil handled the interview, and newsroom leadership rebuked him on a conference call, saying the interview fell short of editorial standards. That prompted Shari Redstone, then-owner of Paramount, to defend Dokoupil and reprimand her own executives, saying “they made a mistake” in questioning him.

Weiss—then publisher of The Free Press—was all over the story, voicing her outrage at how this award winning veteran journalist had been treated by his bosses at  CBS news. She wrote, “It is journalists like Tony Dokoupil who are an endangered species in legacy news organizations.”

Tony Dokoupil is a highly respected journalist, and it is unlikely that he will be accused of bias. His commitment to fairness and balanced has surely not changed that. And it doesn’t hurt that he has a son serving in the IDF.

I could not be more pleased by this turn of events. With Dokoupil at the helm, he will not only report the news but also have full editorial control over the content and  how it is presented. That means that, for the first time in a long time, the mainstream media will have at least one respected major news network, CBS, presenting the  nightly news which will not reflexively cast Israel in a negative light.

It remains to be seen what will happen to Margaret Brennan, host of CBS’s Face the Nation. She is easily the most anti-Israel host of any Sunday morning interview news  program. My guess is that she, too, will have to change her tone. Or she may find herself being replaced too. And out of a job. 

Emes Ve-Emunah is now available at substack. To receive posts and comment you must subscribe. It's free.

Unity, Yes. But Not at Any Price

Conservative Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove addressing a AZM event

I have never met the man. But I truly like Elliot Cosgrove, the Conservative rabbi of the Park Avenue Synagogue. I really do. Although I doubt he will think much of me after reading this post - should he somehow come across it.

He is what I would call a religiously right-wing Conservative rabbi whose observant lifestyle differs little from that of Modern Orthodox Jews. I doubt, for example, that he relies on the Conservative ‘heter’ (rabbinic permit) to drive to shul on Shabbos. He is probably as observant as many Orthodox Jews. And perhaps more importantly is among those in his movement who urge their congregants to become more observant - realizing that the future of Judaism depends on that.

His sermon calling for  new York Jews to oppose the election of Zohran Mamdani motivated over 1000 rabbis to sign a letter urging the same thing. It was the right call even though it didn’t help much; Mamdani won with a majority of the vote. The point is though, that Rabbi Cosgrove was on the right side of the issue, and as a leader within his movement he got a lot of other rabbis to join him.

His overall support for the Jewish state and their war in Gaza was the right call as well.

So what’s my problem with him?

He represents a belief system that accepts biblical criticism as a legitimate interpretation of the Torah. Something that is unacceptable in Orthodoxy. Without getting into much detail, biblical criticism allows for the belief that the Torah was written by man and is not the direct word of God as transmitted to Moshe at Sinai. To accept that as legitimate is to accept apikursus (heresy) as legitimate.

People can choose to believe whatever they wish. I have no control over that, nor do I harbor any ill feelings toward people who do. What I cannot accept is the assertion that this belief is a legitimate form of Judaism. That Rabbi Cosgrove teaches it  as acceptable  is primarily what makes his denomination illegitimate in the eyes of Orthodoxy.

To put it simply: If the Torah was written by man, there is no compelling reason to observe its commandments. If one thinks that following the Torah is simply about living an ethical lifestyle, I would argue that there are many other belief systems that also require ethical living.

If you are a believing Jew, you must by definition believe that the Torah is the word of God and was in no way written by man. You must believe that it was dictated to Moshe verbatim by God, who faithfully recorded every word transmitted to him in the Torah. This is what is meant by Moshe kibel Torah miSinai — Moshe received the Torah from Sinai which is where God gave it to him.

This brings me to Rabbi Cosgrove’s lament about one of the reasons there is so little unity among the Jewish people. Especially in Israel. He believes changing that requires tolerance and understanding between the widely disparate views among Jews. Both politically and religiously. Addressing the Biennial National Assembly of the American Zionist Movement in New York City, he made the following lament as JTA reported:

“Israel neither supports, defends nor recognizes Judaism as I teach it and preach it.”

He is of course understandably upset by this inequity. If you are a secular or heterodox Israeli, you will of course agree. But if you are an Orthodox Jew, how can you recognize what he teaches and preaches if you believe any of it to be heretical?

It’s true that Israel is not a theocracy, nor has Orthodoxy been the sole arbiter of what the state chooses to do. But it is also true that Orthodox Jews have the right - even the obligation -  to oppose recognition of movements they believe to be heretical in a Jewish state. That Rabbi Cosgrove obviously disagrees is his right. Just as it is his right to advocate for official Israeli recognition of his and other heterodox movements. Just as it is my right to oppose recognition.

He would certainly not at all appreciate my calling the Conservative movement heretical. To say the least.

The sad part is that he’s right about one thing: the majority of Jews who have historically supported Israel are not Orthodox. And as lovers of democracy, many insist that all Jewish denominations deserve official recognition. And that this is the only path to achdus - unity.

At this point in time, he may be right.  if you reject a movement that so many Jews consider themselves part of, you are not going to get unity. You are only going to increase the divisiveness that already exists.

The problem is that you cannot sacrifice your fundamental belief in the divine authorship of the Torah for the sake of unity. Because what kind of unity can last if it is built on a foundation that is believed to be man-made — and therefore subject to revision according to the cultural winds of the moment? It would be a unity built on a house of cards. A unity at that best would be temporary and ultimately result in the extinction of the Jewish people.

That said, I still like Rabbi Cosgrove. I think he’s an honorable man with great Jewish and secular values that he tries to transmit to his congregation. I just don’t think he will like me much after reading all this.

Still - sad as it is to say - I cannot accept as legitimate what Rabbi Cosgrove teaches and preaches, even though I believe the observance he practices and preaches is admirable. I actually admire him for doing so.  But observance comes only after belief. Without belief in a Torah that was given by God directly through His servant Moshe, and instead written by man – such observance is utterly meaningless.

Emes Ve-Emunah is now available at substack. To receive posts and comment you must subscribe. It's free.