Hakaras HaTov to the State of Israel

I am not a Religious Zionist. In fact in matters of government policy with respect to issues of “land for peace” I generally side with the Charedi view. I am a strong advocate for protecting the lives of Israelis over retention of land and if giving up land saves lives... I am all for it. Religious Zionists by and large want to hold on to land at all costs.

This being said there is an aspect of Charedi behavior which is very troubling and which is, in my opinion causing much harm to the fabric of Israeli society.

The story is told that when a member of Mizrachi (Religious Zionists) asked Rabbi Kahaneman if he said Hallel on Yom HaAtzmaut his reply was, “My Minhag is to do what (Former Prime Minister) David Ben Gurion does. I don’t say Hallel… I don’t say Tachnun. And… on Yom HaAtzmaut, back in the 1960s (when Rav Kahaneman was the Rosh Yeshiva) the Israeli flag flew from Ponovitch's roof on Yom HaAtzmaut. There were detractors then who did not agree. One was Rabbi Menachem Man Schach, Rabbi Kahaneman’s successor who sat down and said Tachnun by himself.

One of the problems I have with Charedi leadership is their penchant for selective truth. Their Bnei Torah are influenced to believe that present day thinking on various controversial subjects is monolithic. Charedi Hashkafa is anti Medina. The founding Zionists are considered anti Torah whose agenda was to make the State of Israel free of its bonds. Of course, that was never completely true but it was truer back in the pioneer days than it is now. Now, only a few groups of people in government want to completely route out the Torah from the state and certainly not most secular Israelis. Most of them just want to be left alone and do not have anti Torah agendas.

Back in the founding days, there were Charedi leaders that understood the importance of Hakaras HaTov to the Medina and no less a figure than the Chazon Ish made accommodations with them. And the famed founder of Ponevitch Yeshiva in Israel, Rav Kahaneman thought enough of the Medina to not say Tachanun on Yom HaAtzmaut and fly the Israeli flag. But you would be hard pressed to find a Ben Torah of a Charedi yeshiva that knows this.

The myth of uniformity should be exploded. It does not bode well for a Torah society to follow only one narrow Shittah. Besides stifling intellectual honesty there is great sociological damage in denying facts of history. That some of Charedi leadership is anti Medina is well known and cannot be avoided. They will never be convinced otherwise. But for them to insist that their way is the only way is wrong. Historically, religious figures greater than they have proven otherwise.

Absolutist rejectionist attitudes are wrong and create unnecessary hostilities between the secular and religious populations. Displaying an Israeli flag is anathema to Charedim today. But it wasn’t for Rav Kahaneman. Displaying the Israeli flag which shows at least a modicum of support for the State, would dispel the notion of complete disdain by Bnei Torah for anything even remotely connected with the State. There should also be a sense of HaKaras HaTov even for the early pioneers (irreligious though most of them were) for the physical development of the land and the creation of a modern civilization, which paved the way for the virtual explosion of learning Torah that takes place in Israel today. There is no greater Makom Torah. This would not be the case without the efforts of those early pioneers. Yet... most yeshivalite have virtually no understanding or recognition of that fact. Charedi efforts are to the contrary. Most Bnei Torah that I speak to, have nothing but evil to say about Medinat Yisroel.

It is true that the present leadership does deserve criticism or even condemnation sometimes. And when deserved it should be offered freely. But it shouldn't be... all criticism all the time. And where they deserve it, the praise should flow as freely as the condemnation does when they deserve that. A little praise would go a long way towards improving relations between the secular Israelis and the religious. Much of the anti-Charedi rhetoric is based on complete ignorance of Torah Hashkafa by Tinokos SheNishbu and have little if anything to do with "agendas".

I will end with this anecdote. Yeshivas Mir was attacked during the six day war. No one was hurt. After the war Rav Chaim Shmulevitz gave a Sicha (talk or speech) to the Mir Bnei Yeshiva. Rav Chaim was one of the Gedolei HaDor, so a lot of Bnei Torah outside of Mir attended that Sicha. The point he wanted to drive home was his Hakaras HaTov to the Bnei Torah, the spiritual army whose Torah learning contributed to the safety of the Yeshiva during the six day war, and to the Israeli Defense Forces for the physical protection they provided. He said both were necessary.

The reaction of Briskers who attended was total rejection of this point of view. They could not countenance any HaKaras HaTov to the Medina and disparaged Rav Shmulevitz because of it. In other words their contempt for the Medina was so great that disparaging a Gadol was justified.

Unfortunately the Brisker attitude of yesterday has become the attitude of most Charedi Bnei Torah today.

It is an outrage and it must change.

Chumra, Minhag, and Hidur

A Chumra is the incorporation of a legitimate stringency that is not the Halachic ruling into one's behavior . By legitimate stringency I mean that there often exists in Psak Halacha differing Shitos as to what the appropriate performance of a Mitzva should take. The Shulchan Aruch’s ruling will usually be lenient in Halacha based on the majority of Rishonim who are lenient (Mekil) vs. the minority who are stringent (Machmir). But there still remains the possibility that the more stringent ruling by other Rishonim might be the correct one. So adopting the more stringent view would be adopting a Chumra.

An example would be the use of an Eruv in a metropolitan area.

To explain this Halacha briefly, a Reshus HaRabim D’Oraisa (a biblically defined public area) cannot in any way be turned into a Reshus HaYachid (private domain). A Reshus HaRabim D’Oraisa is defined as any area that has streets sixteen Amos (Cubits) wide and a population of at least 600,000 people. If, however, an area contains less then 600,000 people making it a biblical Reshus HaYachid (Karmelis) then carrying is prohibited only rabbinically. Our sages mandated that since it is similar looking to a Reshus HaRabim D’Oraisa it is then deemed a Reshus HaRabim D’Rabbanan and they did not allow carrying in it. A Karmelis can be adjusted to become a rabbinical Reshus HaYachid that would allow carrying.

This is done by means of an Eruv. An Eruv is in essence an enclosure surrounding a Karmelis on all four sides. The exact parameters of an Eruv are beyond the scope of this essay. But, clearly, mainstream Jewish law allows the use of the Eruv so that one can carry objects in public areas.

So, getting back to the subject at hand, the Chumra would be, for those whose view follows that of the Rambam, a minority view that a Reshus HaRabim D’Oraisa requires only that streets to 16 Amos wide and does not require 600,000 residents. According to the Rambam a Karmelis is a Reshus HaRabim D’Oraisa and cannot be made into Reshus HaYachid by means of an Eruv. Carrying would be prohibited biblically. So, in any given city where there are typical streets, no Eruv would help no matter how small the population.

So not using an Eruv in metropolitan areas, no matter how many stringencies are built into it is indeed a legitimate Chumra ...and this is the position of The House of Brisk. They consider all metropolitan Eruvin to be useless.

However, if there is no legitimate view that is stringent on specific performance of a Mitzvah, then being stringent is an unnecessary exercise that is self defined and has no purpose.

Minhag or custom, though sometimes very nice, should not fall into the category of Chumra unless it has a source in Rishonim. For example, wearing a black hat during prayer or eating Matza Balls in one's is not a Chumra.

Levels of observance also do not fall into the category of Chumra. If the sages mandate three forms of observance of a particular mitzvah, than there are three levels of Hidur, meaning preferable or higher form of observance, not three levels ranging from Kula to Chumra. Lighting the Hanukkah Menorah with an additional candle every night is a Hidur over lighting one candle per night. It is not a Chumra.

It is interesting to note that one man's Kula is another man's Chumra. Rabbi Eliahu Soloveichik told me that Brisk is very stringent on Brachos (blessings). They do NOT make the Shehechyanu blessing on purchases of new clothes. The Chumra is...not to make an unnecessary Bracha which if said violates the prohibition of saying God’s name in vein.

Lubavitch Messianism: How Far Does It Go?

Rabbi David Berger author of “The Rebbe, the Messiah, and the Scandal of Orthodox Indifference” forwarded an e-mail correspondence from “the Rabbis’ Forum”. It was a discussion on the issue of how far Lubavitch, specifically their flagship Yeshiva at 770 Eastern Parkway has gone in its Rebbe worship. There is a video of a Mincha at 770 which is quite frightening. It apparently shows that at the beginning of Mincha, the Lubavitch Mispallelim leave a big opening for the Rebbe to come to his chair, and they do the same thing at the end, when the Rebbe leaves... exactly as it was in the Rebbe's lifetime. Furthermore, to quote Rabbi Berger:

“...there is independent evidence that the phrase "Avinu malkenu ein lanu melekh ella attah" is said by these chevre with the Rebbe in mind as "atzmut u-mahut placed in a body" understood in an utterly literal fashion.

I find it disingenuous of those in positions of leadership in Lubavitch who claim to be anti-Meshichist to say that the Lubavitchers there are an insignificant but vocal minority. That would be like saying that what the Yeshivaleit and Yungeleit in Lakewood believe represents an insignificant minority of what Charedim actually believe. Or to say that JTS activities are not representative of the Conservative Movements beliefs. You cannot claim that your home base institution ...which has been glorified by many (if not most) Lubavitchers as the virtual Beis Hamikdash in our time... is not in any way representative of their mainstream beliefs. If, as some of them claim, 770 is in captive Meshichist hands then they ought to disavow it in its entirety. But instead they still go on pilgrimages there and consider many of these people only misguided. Well misguided implies that they are not so wrong.

This adds fuel to my beliefs that calling a Lubavitcher an Anti Meshichist is a misnomer. The vast majority believe at some level that the Rebbe is at least possibly the Christos (Greek, for the Messiah). And those who are overt Meshichists might as well say Yechi... the Rebbe, Christ!

And now, to have an actual video recording of the type of behavior Rabbi Berger describes makes the problem even greater than I feared.

The only thing that makes me a bit cautious on the matter is Rabbi Michael Broyde’s observations and comments. He is a respected Dayan on the RCA Bet Din. He saw the video twice and concluded that it was not a manifestation of Avodah Zara. I have a good deal of respect for his integrity and judgment on these matters. OTOH he is also a man who is quite often Dan L’Kaf Zechus. Did he go too far in judging 770 so favorably in this way? I don’t know, but the description of that video provided by Dr. Berger makes it very difficult to believe anything less than what he (Dr. Berger) has concluded: that Lubavitchers should be far more suspect of their beliefs than here-to-fore believed.

Of course the problem becomes immense when one considers how deeply they are involved in all aspect of our lives without our even being aware of it. The Rubashkin organization that provides a huge proportion of kosher meats to the market is populated by many Shochtim who are both Lubavitchers and non-Lubavitchers. None of the Hechsher organization that give their own Hechsherim on Rubashkin products (such as the OU and KAJ) are Makpid whether their Shochtim are Lubavitch or not. That means anyone who uses these products is in danger of eating meat that was slaughtered by a very pious looking Jew who happens to believe in Apikursus. Lubavitcher Shochtim are all over the place. This would make it almost impossible to eat any kosher meat because of the very strong possibility it being Shechted by a Lubavitcher who has deified the Rebbe even if he hasn’t done so publicly. How can we know what in the heart of a Lubavitcher Shochet? ...and with the type of things taking place at 770, Lubavitch World Headquarters, it seems to me that the danger is more than remote.

If Rabbi Berger is accurate in his observations and conclusions we have a big problem and it isn’t being addressed properly at all and the scandal of indifference in the Orthodox community is growing ever greater!

If Lubavitch wants to re-claim any credibility with the rest of the Orthodox world it needs to do a lot more then they are doing now. They need to remove all vestiges of Moshichism from 770, renounce any claim that the Rebbe is Moshiach and join the rest of Klal Yisroel in some tangible way such as becoming members of Agudath Israel of America. At this point, only something like this would convince the rest of Orthodoxy of the sincerity of their claims that they are anti-Meshichists.

Words are no longer enough.

The Ten Most Influential Jews of the Last Millennium

At the end of the last millennium many publications and other media were putting out lists of various different kinds reflective of that millennium. One such list published by Jerusalem Report Magazine consisted of the 100 most influential Jews. They then invited readers to list their top 10 and perhaps the reasons for the choices. I though it would be fun to do so at the time so I came up with a list of my own. These are my choices not in somewhat of chronological order order. I based them on their over-all impact on us today rather than how they impacted their own time. Over five years have passed since I compiled this list and I don’t think I would change any name on the list. For those who read my blog and haven’t seen my list before, here it is followed by my reasons for choosing them:

1. The Rambam, Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon
2. Rashi, Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki
3. The Beis Yosef, Rabbi Yosef Caro
4. The Rama, Rabbi Moses Isserles
5. The Vilna Gaon, Rabbi Elijah Kramer
6. The Baal Shem Tov
7. Rabbi Chaim Volozhiner
8. Rabbi Chaim Soloveichik
9. Rabbi Aharon Kotler
10. Rabbi Dr. Joseph B. Soloveitchik

Of course, there are a great many more people who might qualify to be on the top ten and indeed many could make legitimate arguments for any of such names that do not make my top ten. The list could have easily included names like the Ramban, R. Shraga Fievel Medelowitz, Dr. Bernard Revel, The Chofetz Chaim, R. Shnayer Zalman of Liadi, The Mezritcher Magid, R. AY Kook, R. Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, The Nodeh B’Yehudah, and Rabbi Akiva Eiger. These are just some of the names that come to mind. All of them are great figures of the last millennium and many would argue that I could easily replace one or more of my choices with one or more of these names. And they might even be right. Indeed there are many more names that I haven’t mentioned that might easily qualify. But in order to keep the list down to ten I had to make choices.

Here are the reasons for my choices.

I chose the Rambam because of his Magnum Opus, the Yad HaChazaka, extracting all Halacha from the Talmud and organizing it by subject matter, a feat which has never been duplicated. Add to that his treatise on Jewish Philosophy: the Moreh Nevuchim, his mastery of Medicine, and his general level of genius... choosing him is a no brainer.

Rashi... because he opened up the Talmud for all of subsequent generations. Without Rashi's commentary, the Talmud would be a closed book. And the Talmud is where our Torah SheBal Peh was discussed, debated and written down for posterity so that the Oral law would not be forgotten. Without it Judaism would be lost as we would have not way of knowing Torah SheBal Peh since over time there were too many new developments requiring Psak which would have made impossible to transmit orally through the generations.

R. Yosef Caro who codified in his Shulchan Aruch all practical Halacha taken from the Talmud as discussed by the major Rishonim for all subsequent generations in a simple and straight forward manner.

R. Moses Isserles whose glosses appended to Rabbi Caro’s Sefardi orientaion in the Shulchan Aruch, are the Halacha for Ashkenazi (European) Jews.

The Vilna Gaon, because of his great piety and genius which is acknowledged by all segments of Jewry, and because of innovative elimination of excessive pilpul in learning Talmud, and because of his meticulous and courageous corrections of Shas.

The Baal Shem Tov whose creation of Chasidus has had one of the most profound impacts on Judaism since the destruction of the second Temple. Chasidus can be credited with the salvation of Judaism during the turmoil created by the combined effects of: enlightenment, the opening of general society to the Jews, and the subsequent threat of Haskalah to a population ill equipped to handle it.

R. Chaim Volozhiner, who created the Yeshiva as we know it today. Without the Yeshiva, knowledge of the Torah would have been even more severely limited than it was. It was through the yeshiva that the elite minds of the day were able to absorb Torah knowledge and spread it to the masses. And because of that, ultimately the Yeshiva system itself has spread to the masses so that today all of Jewry has opportunity for Torah knowledge.

R. Chaim Soloveitchik because of his revolutionary approach (of clarity and definition) to learning Talmud and commentaries (especially the Rambam), which has been adopted as the standard form of learning invirtually all Yeshivos today.

R. Aharon Kotler, whose transplantation of the classic yeshiva of Europe (i.e. the Volozhinist model) to American soil and subsequently established almost singlehandedly the wide system of Yeshiva Chinuch, in all of it's facets: elementary, high school, post high school Beis HaMedrash, and Kollelim we have in the US today. Even though Yeshiva Education existed prior to this time in all facets it was meager and in danger of extinction.

R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik because of his immense intellect, and knowledge of Torah. His knowledge and intellect is not disputed even by his biggest detractors. His influence on thousands of Talmidim that he personally taught is probably greater than any other single individual, and those students are influencing thousands more. His profound influence on society was felt far beyond the borders of YU and impacted not only the MO but even the RW. His Philosophic thought transcends even the Yeshiva world into and is studied in universities. He was considered the greatest living Orthodox Jewish philosopher of the twentieth century. His 2 great works, "Halachic Man" and “Lonely Man of Faith" are even studied in Conservative JTS and Reform HUC. I personally believe that his approach as expressed in the above mentioned books is the quintessential essence of Judaism and requires that Man not only know all of Torah that he can but also all of Mada that he can.

Covering a Woman’s Hair - Is it required by Halacha?

For those of us who live in the world of Orthodox Judaism, there is a practice that divides many in the Modern Orthodox world from those in the Charedi world: the act of a married woman covering her hair. While many women in Modern Orthodoxy do cover their hair, (primarily those who take their observance more seriously, whom I call Centrists), there still exists a great number of married Orthodox Jewish women who do not. And many of these women are indeed serious about their commitment to Judaism. Hair covering for a married Jewish woman is a matter of Halacha. So the question arises, how can an observant Jewish woman claim to be serious about her observance while still refusing to cover her hair? Is there any Halachic basis? Is it a matter of ignorance? Or is it just plain refusal to do so?

Let us first examine the nature of the Erva that is a woman’s hair. The traditional translation of the word Erva is nakedness. Is hair Erva as the Gemarah tells us? The answer is... it depends. Not all women must cover their hair. That is clear Psak Halacha. It is only married women who must do so. Single women who have never been married do not. What that tells me is that there is no intrinsic Erva in hair itself (at least the way we normally understand the term Erva). For if that were so then even unmarried women would be required to do it.

Yet, the fact is that the hair of a married woman ...IS... considered Erva. I’m not sure if I understand the difference between married and unmarried women in this regard. Hair is hair. So when the Gemarah uses the term Erva it is obviously not being used in its usual meaning.

Let us now look at how Halacha treats hair covering.

There are two terms identified in Halacha that refer to sexually modest behavior:

Daas Moshe is the term used in Halacha to connote that which is the immutable Halacha transmitted to us via Moshe Rabbeinu. That is inviolable.

Daas Yehudis is the term that refers to a custom of modesty for women that is accepted by a predominance of them in a given society. If a woman transgresses one of these customs, she is liable for the transgression of Daas Yehudis, a Halacha that is relative to community standards.

The Shulchan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law) Siman 21 of the fourth section entitled Even HaEzer (dealing mostly with the laws governing intimacy between men and women) deals with the issue of hair covering. While it doesn’t specifically say that hair covering is relativistic, it cannot be ruled out that in fact, it might just be.

The activities mentioned in 21 are not categorized as either Daas Yehudis or Daas Moshe. It is, therefore, not possible to determine what is relativistic and what is not. The Shulchan Aruch is just informing us how to behave, in a "lump sum" fashion, without reference as to the level of prohibition. The tone of the Siman is more in the area of "run away from temptation" and states the extent to which one should go (or does not have to go) in order to accomplish it.

It can be understood from Siman 115 Halacha 4 that Daas Yehudis is a modesty issue which has always been relative to one's environment. It is designed to protect us from violating Issurei Erva, those laws about sexual conduct which are biblically mandated. By definition, Tznius (modesty) in dress is that which is communally perceived as such. Of course Tznius extends the area of Erva which it encompasses.

In certain Muslim cultures for example, women who do not dress in accordance with that community's standards are not acting in accordance with that society's perception of modesty. They would, therefore, be violating the relative Tznius (modesty) standards of Daas Yehudis and not the absolute Erva standards of Daas Moshe.

I believe Daas Yehudis is based on a culturally determined mindset. For example, if one becomes accustomed to rarely if ever seeing anything but the eyes of a woman then exposure to the face may very well be titillating. This is the case in some Muslim cultures. So, even though the face is not normally titillating in western societies dressing that way in a Muslim culture would be considered immodest and a source of temptation.

I think it is a reasonable proposition to say that the phrasing of the Shulchan Aruch, indicates categorizing uncovered hair as a violation of Daas Yehudis and not Daas Moshe. It is then possible to see Daas Yehudis as a Minhag Tznius. This, therefore, concedes at least the possibility that in another time and another place, uncovering hair would not be a violation of Daas Yehudis.

Just to be clear, I am not advocating the abandonment of what is now almost universally accepted Halacha. This indeed probably makes it a violation of Daas Yehudis. I am merely suggesting that an alternative interpretation of Halacha is possible so as to view those women who do not cover their hair in a more favorable Halachic light.

Evangelical Christians and the Jews

In response to my last blog entry on Dennis Prager, a poster made the following comments. These comments reflect a view of Christians that is common amongst many Jews. And there is good reason for it. We Jews have historically been mistreated and persecuted by Christianity for much of the last two millennia. There were pogroms, inquisitions, and the ultimate culminating act of anti-Semitism perpetrated by Christians, the holocaust. But things have changed. I will explain why. Let’s begin with the poster’s comments:

“I too like Dennis Prager, but I strongly disagree with his constant Christian ... kissing. He does not realize that the warm feelings he has toward his evangelical audience are not reciprocated! This group does not like Jews, and it abhors Judaism for its "legalistic" ways that deny God's grace. They despise our adherence to the Shulchan Aruch that you yourself have stated is the defining principle of observant Judaism. – JF”

I do not agree with this assessment. I have been interested in the Evangelicals new take on Jews and Judaism for quite some time... long before the current interest it has recently received from many observant media figures. Just to name a few besides Dennis Prager: Michael Medved, Rabbi Shmuely Boteach, and Rabbi Daniel Lapin ...all have sung the praises of this “new” Christian.

It is my good fortune to know Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, president of “The international fellowship of Christians and Jews”. He is quite intimate with Evangelicals and if anyone knows their current mindset it is him. And what he told me coincides with my own observations over the years.

I can assure you that they indeed have gone 180 degrees in their attitudes about proselytizing us. Of course they would like to see us convert. They believe that their way is the only way to get into heaven. But they realize that their efforts have done more harm than good and instead of trying to convert us they pray for us. Of course there are exceptions and some evangelical zealots are still out there trying to convert us, but it is a very small number and certainly not mainstream Evangelicals.

They see observant Jews as reflecting the same moral values that they have. As such they look to us as allies in the cultural “war” against immorality in this country. They truly believe in the biblical verses repeated several tines in the Torah about “God blessing those who bless the Jewish people”. They see it as a religious obligation to bless us.

They are also the strongest supporters of Israel. In part that is because of a theology that requires us to be “ingathered” and to rebuild our holy Jewish Temple before “the second coming”. But mostly it is because they see a shining democracy amidst a sea of primitive people guided by a primitive and violent religion called Islam. It is Muslims that are the current target of their enmity, especially since 9/11. Evangelicals see Orthodox Jews as Americans who share common values on morality and who have similar views on issues like abortion, vouchers, evolution and many other issues.

They see Israelis as a people with western values who look and act very much like themselves. It is only natural to identify with them. Evangelicals see crazed Islamic suicide bombers attacking innocent people who in many cases are idealistic Americans who moved to the holy land for religious purposes. They strongly identify with the Jewish people that way. Their support and friendship toward Israel and Israelis is real and no matter how much we deny it or try and characterize Evangelicals as having ulterior motives, they continue to heap support both financial and moral to the people and State of Israel. And their donations do not come with strings attached. Most Evangelicals are sincere and religious people who are trying to do the right thing in the eyes of God and have no ulterior motives.

In fact if there is any criticism at all it is usually against the secular Jews who are often at odds with their conservative social values. They believe even more than most Jews do that Israel should retain all the territories and never give in to terrorism. Many call themselves Christian Zionists and were in the forefront of those who opposed the Gaza withdrawal.

It should also be noted that there are mainstream liberal Christians like the Presbyterians who are more “liberal” than “Christian” ...and who will side with the social agendas of the left which includes boycotting investment in Israel as long as they “occupy” the West Bank. But this seems to be coming from a lay leadership and not from the vast majority of their membership. Most religious Christians do not support the boycott.

As for Catholics, they too have changed their view on Judaism. They no longer consider Judaism to be a false religion. They consider Judaism a sister religion. They have clearly removed any hint of anti-Semitic doctrine from their Church. Pope Paul did this as a result of Pope John’s’ wishes. And most recently they have acknowledged their own extent of culpability in the holocaust and have apologized for it.

Finally there is President Bush, the most prominent Evangelical on the world stage. There has never been a better relationship with a leader of government than the one we now have with President Bush. And when I say “we”, I mean the Torah world. Last year the vast majority of participants at the White House Chanukah celebrations were Orthodox Jews.

I think it behooves those with views like yours (...and I believe that there are a great number of observant Jews, perhaps a majority, who view things as you do...) to reassess your position with respect to Christianity. They are now on our side. Things may change in the future ...one never knows and we must keep a vigilant eye on things. But right now our relationship is good. Their attitude toward us has never been better. We ought to recognize that, acknowledge it publicly, and appreciate it.

Dennis Prager: Kiddush HaShem or Chilul HaShem?

Several months ago Dennis Prager's nationally syndicated radio program was introduced to the Chicago market. I have been listening to his program in utter amazement as he espouses views that seem to coincide with my own, an Orthodox point of view. That he has a handle on the Torah viewpoint is not surprising considering his background. He was brought up in an observant home of which he speaks warmly. And, he often speaks of his experiences in an Orthodox Jewish day school or high school

In fact as an Orthodox Jew it is a matter of great satisfaction and even pride listening to him talk of things Jewish and things religious in such a positive light. His views on relations with our fellow Christian citizens are almost a carbon copy of my own views. Philosophically his rationality in recognizing the contributions of science in matters of the origins of the universe yet recognizing that there is a Creator behind all scientific fact is totally consistent with an enlightened Orthodoxy. And he constantly refers to himself as observant.

Normally I would consider Dennis Prager a great asset and a very positive development favorable to Orthodox Judaism. But is it? Well, let’s take a look. Based on his descriptions of his own behavior, he cannot possibly be defined as observant. It is matter of great discomfort to me to publicly castigate one who seems so positive an influence on American and Jewish values. But to allow him to continue to say he is a religious man and an observant Jew is simply not true. One cannot claim to be religious and observant while publicly admitting that his observance is at best selective and admitting that he explicitly rejects certain religious obligations. That simply does not work in Judaism.

He has stated that his place of worship is a Reform Temple. One cannot belong to a branch of Judaism which as a matter of doctrine rejects the very thing he claims to have. In fact, to claim observance while belonging to a movement, that has historically advocated non-observance is at best hypocritical. That Reform Judaism is now going through a re-examination of whether or not to advocate ritual observance is not relevant. Because even those within Reform Judaism who advocate it do not consider it in any way binding. It is therefore incorrect to call that, observant Judaism.

So, even while I admire him in many respects and am a fan of the show, Dennis Prager may very well be a danger to observant Judaism. Hypocrisy on such a public scale needs to be clearly identified, even if it hurts us in the short run. It isn’t enough to preach religiosity and claim it for yourself while not actually practicing it as defined by the Code of Jewish Law. One cannot simply define observance the way they sees fit. Judaism does not work that way. Observant Judaism is about obligations to God as redacted in the Shulchan Aruch, the Code of Jewish Law. It is not about one’s own version of which obligations to God one chooses and which not, especially a lay person like Mr. Prager.

How can his claim of observance be a danger to Judaism? It is a danger because it will be interpreted incorrectly by vast amounts of people. Observant Judaism is based entirely on the Shulchan Aruch, consisting of rabbinic and biblical dictates passed on through our forefathers, generation after generation going back to the days of Moses. To claim observance while denying the validity of certain laws in Shulchan Aruch is a denial of that heritage entirely and through it Judaism itself. Ultimately it is a desecration of God’s name which needs to be clearly identified.

What makes it worse is that Dennis Prager knows better. He was raised in an Orthodox home and went to Orthodox religious schools that defined observance as following the Shulchan Aruch,, not the pick and choose form of observance that he does.

So, I am both thrilled and saddened to hear this new voice in Chicago. I am glad to hear such a knowledgeable and articulate radio personality with millions of listeners talk so positively of things religious and things Jewish. Most of the time, I feel pride in what he has to say. But then I cringe when he slips in a fact about himself that belies his claim of observance. And he continually identifies himself that way.

Dennis Prager could be a great asset to observant Judaism, were he to be truly observant. Perhaps he actually is anyway because of his positive approach to Torah preached amost daily... I’m just not sure.

The Slifkin Affair - Torah, Science, and Chazal

The Slifkin affair has raised its ugly head again.

For those who aren’t aware of the controversy let me briefly bring you up to speed. A brilliant and very young Charedi author has written a series of books that try and reconcile Torah with science. These books state that the Torah does not contradict a belief that universe is 15 billion years old and that our Sages, Chazal, could have been wrong in matters of science. To bolster those views, Rabbi Slifkin quoted sources in Rishonim and Gedolei HaAchronim who have said similar things. A couple of years ago a group of Charedim asked Rav Elyashiv to ban this book claiming that such statements amount to heresy. The books are written in English, a language that Rabbi Elyashiv does not understand. But based on what this group of Charedim told him, Rabbi Slifkin’s books were banned... put in Cherem.

There was much subsequently written both pro and con about the books and whether they actually contained heretical views. There has also been much heated debate about it on internet discussion groups like Avodah/Areivim and on numerous blogs about all the elements of the controversy. While the contrversy gave me tremendous grief... what gave me some solace is that a significant Charedi endorser of the book, Rabbi Shmuel Kaminetsky had not removed his endorsement even though the book was put in Cherem by R. Elyashiv, a man whom many consider to be THE Gadol HaDor. This meant that at least one American Gadol, the Rosh HaYeshiva of the Philadelphia yeshiva (which is in effect, Lakewood’s high school) agreed that Rabbi Slifkin’s views were acceptable Torah views.

To me the issue was never about Rabbi Slifkin, although he was the target and victim of the ban and my sympathies go out to him and his family for all the grief they have had to put up with. To me the issue always was... and still is... whether views about reconciling science with Torah such as those expressed in Rabbi Slifkin’s books and by many others who have written similar books are acceptable Torah views.

A few days ago a letter was published that showed Rabbi Kaminetsky signed on to the ban. It seemed like complete retraction of his acceptance of Rabbi Slifkin’s approach to reconciling science with Torah. Needless to say this depressed me greatly. It was bad enough that Rabbi Elyashiv had banned what until then were acceptable notions of Torah and science... and the terrible way the ban was obtained. But now even Rabbi Kaminetsky seemed to agreeing with it.

Is Klal Yisroel descending into the abyss of ignorance that was here-to-fore reserved for only the most uneducated in third world nations? Were we now required to believe nothing of what science has shown us to be true? Can we exist as a rational people if we are denied the right to use our minds and make the same logical deductions that scientists make when confronted with data telling us that the stars are millions of light years away? When we see the light of an exploding star that exploded 100 million years ago, are we now to believe that such a star never existed and the explosion we are now witnessing never took place? This seems to be what we are being asked to do by those who view Rabbi Slifkin’s books others like it as heresy.

Rabbi Kaminetsky has tried to clear up exactly what he meant by joining in the ban against Rabbi Slifkin. He has said that he found out Rabbi Slifkin’s actual views are far more problematic than those expressed in his book. As such he can no longer endorse his books and joins in banning them. But the fact remains that he did not publish any statement on his own and merely signed on to a pre-existing letter written by Rabbi Aharon Schechter who not only banned Rabbi Slfkin’s books but said specifically that the views in those books are against the Torah (K’neged Torosenu, to use his words). This once again puts a question mark on the acceptability of reconciling science with Torah in the way it has been until now.

It is still unclear to me exactly what Rabbi Kaminetsky's Shitta is Halachically/Hashkafically with respect to the acceptability of belief that the universe is older than 6000 years ...and on whether Chazal could've been wrong in matters of science. It didn't seem to matter to Rabbi Elyashiv that Rishonim and Achronim has made such statements and now Rabbi Kaminesky seems to agree.

Yet... I'm going to go out on a limb and say the following. Based on the way things have developed and the thrust of Rabbi Kaminetsky's words of explanation, I presume that he believes that such views ARE acceptable... NOT that he himself believes them, he may or may not... but, that they are acceptable Torah viewpoints. His focus seems to be on Rabbi Slifkin’s overall views, not on his views as stated in the books that were banned.

That Rabbi Kaminetsky signed onto a letter that seems to be repudiating not only Rabbi Slifkin’s views but even a view that the universe is ancient or that Chazal could be wrong in matters of science... is still a question mark in my mind. But my gut feeling is that he does not hold like R. Elyashiv... or at least what is purported to be R. Elyashiv's view.

The one thing that would be helpful to me is an unequivocal statement by a more or less universally recognized Gadol about the permissibility of holding the two views in question. Something to the effect of the following:

1) Viewing the universe as being older than 6000 years is an acceptable Torah viewpoint.

2) Saying Chazal could have been wrong in matters of science is an acceptable Torah viewpoint.

In my mind, this would end the whole controversy.

The Chumraization of Judaism

One of the biggest issues confronting Jewry today is the unwarranted and unfair chumraization of Klal Israel. This is manifest in almost all areas of life. Whether it is the manner of dress of Yeshiva students, or the color, size and style of their Kipot, or whether it is in the total rejection of mixed seating as the norm for events such as weddings, bar Mitzvos, or banquets, this chumraization has cast a pall on those of us who were brought up in a world where even the Gedolei HaDor went to mixed seating events and sat with their wives. The Talmidim of today have become Kanaim (zealots) for their mentors in certain areas of Judaism. In past generations that was not the case. One of my Rebbeim at HTC, HaGoan R. Mordechai Rogov, ZTL, said that in Lithuania they did not consider such things important. I recently saw some archival footage of Yeshiva student of pre-war Ponovezh. The students were all wearing light colored suits and hats, and they were all clean shaven with no Peyos (Side curls). Can you imagine walking into Lakewood today and seeing even one student wearing a light colored suit?

There seems to be an agenda out by some, to impose unnecessary strictures on Jewry and, it is succeeding. An instance of this occurred to a close friend of mine when he received pressure from the one of the Roshei Yeshiva of Telshe here in Chicago, to have separate seating at the wedding of his daughter a few years ago. Since my friend was not one to create a stir, he succumbed to the pressure. Yet, not many years ago Gedolim such as Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky and R. Moshe Feinstein sat mixed... with their wives at weddings.

Part of the process of Chumraization is due to Halachic manuscripts that are published posthumously, and are not subject to the scrutiny or subtle nuance of the original writer or Posek. No matter how noble the intention of the publishers, they cannot know if the author wanted to even have his writings published w/o further review and corrections. Mistakes cannot be corrected by the author. R. Aaron Soloveichik often said the Sefer (religious book) by his great grandfather, the Beis HaLevi was written by the Beis HaLevi's students and therefore there are many inaccuracies contained therein. It is also, possible that the publishers may have even misunderstood some of the non-manuscript/anecdotal Teshuvos.

Yet just such a posthumous Sefer, what is now the final volume of his magnum opus, “Igros Moshe” by Rabbi Moshe Feinstein was published based on manuscripts containing a virtual retraction of his responsa on Chalav Stam (Chalav Akum or Chalav HaCompanies). I do not impugn the motivation or integrity of the publishers nor anyone involved with bringing it to publication. Nor do I doubt the accuracy of the manuscript it is based upon. I only question the need to publish Rabbi Feinstein’s unfinished work without the benefit of his final revisions or approval.

The Chumraization contiues.

The Role of Women in Orthodox Judaism

Feminism remains a controversy in Orthodoxy and usually finds a more sympathetic ear in Modern Orthodoxy than it does in Ultra-Orthodoxy. Speaking for myself, and hopefully for most Centrists as well, women's issues are irrelevant to the definition of either Centrism or ultra-Orthodoxy.

One of feminism’s great achievements is that has made abuses by men of women a front burner issue. Cruelty to women, whether it be in the form of abuse by husbands or recalcitrant "Get" withholders, or because of corrupt Batei Din (rabbinical courts), is an issue that should cut across all socio-religious lines. We need all be aware of these kinds of issues whenever and where ever they crop up. Prejudice and cruelty know no Hashkafa.

Another great achievement of feminism is the strides it has taken toward leveling the playing field in the workplace. It would seem to me that within Judaism, gender roles are rather well defined. To the extent that women can fulfill what were once traditionally men's roles, whether in the workplace or at home, is to the extent that it is permitted halachicly and is directly proportional to ability. In theory, at least, I don't think anyone would disagree with the premise that there should be equal pay for equal work. Yet there exists still a current inequality in salaries between men and women in society of which Orthodox Judaism is a participant.

As for the feminist search for meaningful ways to serve God (other than those Mitzvos specific to them and in common to both men and women), I have no problem with women doing activities that are permissible by Jewish law as long as they don't mimic cultural values foreign to Jewish thought. For example, I have never understood those who say that they are more spiritually fulfilled by participating in Women’s Teffilah Groups. The concept of a Minyan is not a God mandated modality for women. In my view Women’s Teffilah groups are little more than an attempt to emulate a Minyan.

Theologically, it is not the job of Man to feel more fulfilled by an activity of Man’s own choosing even if it is technically permissible. Gadol HaMetzuvaeh VeOseh. By definition, the way to be the most spiritually fulfilled is to do what G-d mandates of us without regard as to what feeling the act elicits. Anything else is just an illusive and perhaps false or self deceptive feeling. Such feelings are often absorbed from cultural experiences outside the Torah. In any case, Judaism's tenets are not about "feelings". They are about "doing". G-d wants us to "do". If we happen to feel good in the process, all the better and is probably a higher form of understanding the essence of God's will. In order to achieve feelings proportional to the value of the acts in the eyes of God one needs to divorce oneself from external factors which have illegitimately entered our psyche. This attitude should be the same no matter what part of Orthodoxy one is an adherent of, whether Centrist or ultra-Orthodox.