On Hitchazkut and Hozka

Whenever the debate about the "slide to the right" comes up in the Israeli media, one of the most common replies of the "rightists" goes something like this: Jews are being mitchazek! They are being more careful about halacha. How can this be a bad thing? (I will leave aside the question of what is and what isn't halacha proper)

My reply to this is simple: I do not have, nor could I have, any problem in principle with Jews personally strengthening their religiosity. If you feel you have found the necessary courage and strength to move forward in your avodat hashem, well, I salute you. Good luck.

My problem, and the problem of many of those who attack the 'slide', is not with hitchazkut or Jews being more frum in general. It is rather with the attitude of many such Jews toward those who are less observant, less frum than they. Either out of a sense of entitlement or genuine religious zeal, many of these frummer yiddin thumb their noses and hold not-so-observant Jews in utter contempt.

The examples of this are legion. The kid who comes home from yeshiva and disrespects his parents. The use of derogatory terms toward Rabbanim that hold to a different hashkafa (JB being a prominent example of this), or to different branches of Orthodoxy (what greater insult can there be but mizrochnik?). The refusal to eat in other frum Jews' homes simply because it's not "their hechsher" (I'm not talking here about the genuine halachic sefekot, but the "it's not ours" kind). I'm sure all of us have heard or seen these things too many times.

More than this, though, it is the attempt to force halacha, or one's understanding of halacha, down people's throats that has caused such antipathy towards Judaism, even in Orthodox segments. Too many mithazkim and frummer yiddin have come to the conclusion that it is their right, nay their duty, to make their poor benighted brethren see the light through coercion.

The result is evident everywhere. Weddings now adhere to ever stricter standards of hafrada for fear of the zealots. Tombs of the greats, like the Rambam and Shimon hatzadik, have been made practically intolerable for women who pray there because of an extremely stringent view of tzni'ut. Violent demonstrations and assaulting fellow Jews is apparently OK if it's done in the name of Shabbat.

I can not stress enough how destructive attempts at increased halachic coercion are to Jews, both the less observant and the non-observant. They accomplish the exact opposite – seething hatred and contempt for Judaism. There are tens thousands of Jews, here and in the states, who are looking to improve their Jewish identity. The one option they will not explore is Orthodoxy, precisely because of the degree of social coercion and disgusting treatment of people who cross the line. There are thousands of Orthodox Jews who completely leave religion every year because too many Orthodox educators think that bullying and halachic zero-tolerance is the way to go.

It goes that I do not object to hitchazkut, but I am four-square against the means that are employed. These methods are completely illegitimate in my view. I don't think I can come up with better examples of mitzvah haba'a beaveirot (the plural is intentional) than the above stories.

We must actively fight those who do this tooth and nail, at every turn. Not because h"v, we object to the goal, but because accomplishing this by force completely destroys the purpose. It does more than just alienate. Force and violence make the very ma'aseh pasul.

People should do mitzvot meyir'at hashem, not meyir'at thugs who use His name in vain.

Halachic Policy: Decision Making

A commenter on this blog argued that I speak in terms that are too general, and that I don't sufficiently deal with the problems in praxis. To this charge I plead "Kind of Guilty". While I have tried to bring up issues and make some concrete suggestions for issues (see my posts on sex-ed, for instance), it is true that I did not discuss every single problem that could come up in practice.

There are a number of reasons for this: 1) Blogs are a good medium for bringing general ideas or sources, not for detailed discussion. I doubt many people have the energy to read posts the length of a web page. 2) My ideas are still under-developed (this blog is a medium for sharpening them) 3) I don't pretend to have all the answers for every problem.

The purpose of my posts on this blog were to demonstrate that "it's not so simple" is an argument that cuts both ways. The arguments in favor of kula on issues of contention are serious ones that cannot be airily dismissed any more than arguments lechumra. My point was to attack the very idea of "instinctive" policy, either rightward or leftward. It thus follows that I am four-square against the idea of "blanket" rulings. I consider such attitudes to be an abdication of responsibility, a demonstration of contempt for actually grappling with complicated real-life decisions.

While I hope to discuss more specific issues later on, I thought I might in the meantime tentatively suggest guidelines for proper halachic public policy decision making, regardless of the case or the outcome:

1) Deliberation: A Jewish judge must render decisions beyishuv da'at and after careful consideration. All the more so a Rabbi or communal leader; whose policy decision(s) can affect as many as hundreds of thousands of people. Such acts should never be done by "shooting from the hip" or on impulse, but rather after a thorough examination.

2) Informed Decision: People who render decisions should know all the facts before deciding. These are real cases and real people, not theoretical Talmudic abstractions; they should be treated as situations to be investigated, not abstract problems with nothing but sefekot. Most "What If" questions can easily be solved by making inquiries, quiet or otherwise. For instance, doubts as to whether the women soldiers would dress tznius or whether there would be anti-Rabbinic rhetoric at the Lamed-Heh could have easily be resolved with a few phone calls to the event organizers. The rule is simple: no "shemas" allowed in halachic public policy.

3) All Sides: Decisions should be based on a consideration of all the arguments for and against various courses of action. These considerations should include not only strictly formal halacha, but also the broader considerations that inform halacha (takana she'ein hatzibur yachol la'amod ba, hillul hashem &c).

4) Reasoned Explanations: No more "because I say so" decisions. All decisions should be published, explaining what course of action was taken and why.

Don't Just Preach, Practice (Part III: Women's Rights)

[In light of the recent Bnei Akiva "walkout" disgrace, I decided to speed up writing this post. I hope the point gets across. – aiwac]

In one of the comments to My Obiter Dicta's post on MO, the author asked about the connection between the status of women and MO. What has one got to with the other, he wondered? Well, unfortunately, it has everything to do with MO and the difference between it and the Charedi outlook. Simply put, there is an inverse correlation between rightwing religious stringency and the status of women. The higher the former, the lower the latter. Would that this were not so, but it is.

Hafrada buses, tznius standards that become more insane every year (with more and more RWMO people following suit), obedience brainwashing (esp. in Israeli seminaries) on a level that would not happen in the most stringent boys' yeshiva – these are all the inevitable result of the RW view of women gone haywire. The argument is always the same – avoid nisyonos! Yetser Hara! Having neglected education of women in Europe to the point that a huge number of women assimilated; many are now overcompensating by trying to shove women into an isolation chamber.

Of course, we are told, it is all halacha – woman is erva – her voice, increasingly every inch of her body and more. People who launch this crusade can quote me chapter and verse of all the "right" halachic opinions, no doubt considering the various leniencies to be barely "bedi'eved" and certainly one should aim to hide women as much as possible. The ever-increasing shrinkage of ground for women in the area of the kotel is evidence enough of this. Even in our circles, the aim to separate as many activities as possible grows in strength every year (Recently, they separated psychometric classes!!!!).

In my opinion, the issue of women's ordination and aliyot is entirely secondary and peripheral to this RW crusade to push women out of the public square entirely - out of sight, out of mind. Next to this, the question of "shira chadasha" and Maharat may be interesting from an academic point of view; it may even lead to the breakaway of some of the feminist elite. But the issue of stringent separation and increasing religious misogyny (because that's what it is) outside the shul is something which adversely affects all women, including those who have no interest in changing halachic norms. The main danger for MO women lies not in feminism, but in a renewed chauvinism. Not in the minority of "gender studies" women who make a lot of noise, but in the Rabbis and teachers who consider WOMAN to be the cause of all disaster.

I am not a Blu Greenberg-ite. I know that even when there is a Rabbinic will, there is not always a halachic way. But I refuse to swallow the idea that every last halachic norm of tzniut of the 16^th century is unchanging and untouchable. I refuse to accept that women's singing is always erva, that it is justified to keep covering women up far beyond what is necesarry. I refuse to accept this method of chumra-by-proxy where self-important men make themselves feel holier-than-thou by making the women cover up rather than work on themselves.

If this makes me post-Orthodox, then so be it. I'm not going to watch this abuse any longer and keep silent.

Not Simple, but Necessary: Why NOT Isolation?

I'm pretty sure I know what you're thinking: OK, you've explained the logic of isolation. Why do you think it such a bad thing? Indeed, at first glance, the isolation-only policy seems to work, at least in the short-term. It's quick, easy, and ostensibly doesn't require any hard choices or risks. Anything and everything that is perceived to be "dangerous" is banned or cut off. Halachic decisions are always "lechol hade'ot" (lehumra, of course), thus presumably removing doubt. It would seem this is the "magic cure".

The problem is that this "cure" is an illusion, and a very dangerous one. Short of going to live in the desert as hermits (the Qumran option) or running away to a deserted island, the world outside, both the good and the bad, will get in. All the charamot and pashkvilim in the world cannot stop the Internet, for instance, from infiltrating the overwhelming majority of religious households. These influences are going to increase the more people need to go to work and feed their families. The walls are crumbling, and the result will not be pretty.

I remember reading about a Charedi Jew who complained to a Zionist acquaintance that the latter made the very existence of the Jewish people contingent on the existence of the State of Israel, a very dangerous gamble. Yet people on the RW commit the exact same error, by making the further existence of religious Jewry contingent on the single, brittle line of defense of isolation. Once that line is breached, and it will be breached, tens of thousands of Jews will find themselves without meaningful religious and psychological defenses. I dread to think of the consequences.

Yet the damage can be seen already now, before the deluge. As with every movement that uses only a single method to deal with everything; whenever a problem arises, they just use more of the same. Like a doctor who only prescribes more and more of the same medicine despite the lack of results, the Charedi leadership (re: the Askani middlemen) simply do more charamot and more issurim. The result is an ever-increasing intolerance for anyone who hasn't met that standard.

Two types of populations lose out: those who leave and those who stay. Those who leave will often do so because of the claustrophobic environment and complete lack of freedom. Worse, many if not most will completely leave Judaism, as they have been taught that there are only two options: charedi (or RW) or secular – there is no middle ground. Those who stay will suffer because of the ever-increasing social policing, which creates a situation where many stay not because of fear of God, but fear of the kono'im.

Isolation is one of the tools to deal with modernity, but using it as the only tool is destructive and self-defeating. Effective in the short-term, it causes long-term problems which isolators are not equipped to handle.

So what other options are there? On that and more in the coming posts.

aiwac

Not Simple, but Necessary: Why Isolation?

[If there's one thing I've learned from the brilliant and irreverent Evanston Jew, it is the importance of empathy towards those with whom you disagree, even if virulently. If you truly understand where your rival is coming from, then a genuinely constructive dialogue can potentially commence. The following is an explanation of the RW impulse against integration and interaction with non-Orthodox Jews. I will explain why I believe this impulse does much more harm than good in the following parts of this series. - aiwac]

For decades, liberal and moderate religious Jews have bemoaned and decried the increasing dogmatism and stringencies that have taken root among the rising force of RW Charedim and RWMO Jews. It's a "new/modern phenomenon" they cry, not the "real thing". This debate, sparked by the programmatic essays of Yaacov Katz and Haim Soloveitchik, continues to run round in circles to this day, each side clinging to their positions for dear life.

All of this may be true, but it is ultimately useless, because it ignores the very real psychological and religious forces behind this drive to the right. Put bluntly, the RW Jews may be factually "wrong", but theirs is nevertheless a perfectly natural and understandable human reaction to the infinite challenges of modern life to a life led by Torah and Mitzvot, even if I believe it to be mistaken. Consider, if you will, the fact that pre-modernity, most Jews were Shomer Torah and Mitzvot to some extent, even if many were lax or not knowledgeable on the fine points. By the time of WWII, the situation was completely reversed. As of this writing, roughly 90% of the world's Jews are not actively Orthodox, a statistic which is not likely to change in the near future.

That small portion of Jewry that held fast to Orthodoxy literally saw the religious world around them collapse. Suddenly everything they held dear – from the existence of God to the authorship of the Chumash, the morality of halacha and the relevance of Torah to the modern world – was increasingly dismissed not just by non-Jews but also fellow tribesmen. Even Jews who grew up in a religious atmosphere or went to a religious school had the unpleasant experience of seeing most of his or her classmates "leave the faith". David Ben-Gurion's famous quip that "everyone who grew up in Plonsk, became a kofer" may not be strictly correct, but it certainly speaks of the atmosphere of the time.

We can thus begin to understand the isolation impulse. Having often seen this collapse for themselves, or their parents having seen it, they want to ensure their own children do not have to endure such tests and possibly go "off the derech". We can thus understand that the problem that sparked this ever-increasing impulse of isolation is very real.

Nevertheless, I think the solution is dangerously flawed, for reasons I will go into another time.

Shabbat Shalom

aiwac

Ich Bin Ein Realist

Benjamin Kerstein has been one of my favorite authors on the web ever since his days on the Anti-Chomskyite blog. His essays, whether on film or current affairs, are always a joy to read. So my decision to disagree with him completely is not one that was taken lightly.

Recently, Kerstein reviewed a book by the well-known radical Barbara Ehrenreich, in which the latter conducts a full-scale assault on the American "feel-good" industry. Kerstein bemoans the fact that Ehrenreich simply replaces one kind of rose-colored fantasy to a more left-wing one. Instead, Kerstein suggests an attitude of "healthy pessimism", one fully attuned to the horrors of reality.

Excuse my French, but I think this idea is complete bullshit. As one who has struggled with the demons of depression for half his life, I find the idea of a "healthy" approach to life which mainly sees the bad stuff to be a contradiction. There is nothing healthy about pessimism. Indeed, pessimism, with its constant searching for the flaws, its refusal to see the good or to discount it, does not admit of a "healthy" disposition. Much like boundless optimism, it is a monster that feeds on itself, until all obstacles have been removed and the victim descends into a fantasy land, or hell, of his own making.

I think a much better cure for the "feel-good" industry is my own version of realism. Realism, according to my understanding, understands that there is both good and bad in the world, and that no amount of one cancels out the other. We realists work to increase the good and bemoan the bad, but we do not let ourselves get carried away by either. We are not God.

Realists, moreover, have a sense of humility about their ability to perceive the world and its direction. Optimists think things are great and getting better; pessimists think the opposite. Realists aren't sure; we hope things will get better, but we prepare for the worst. We do not pretend to take on the role of angry prophet or revolutionary, preferring instead the more mundane but satisfying task of the good, normal human being.

The only way to see the world "as it is" is to take off both the rose-colored and the black-colored glasses and use our own, limited eyes to see all the colors.

Not Simple, but Necessary: Introduction

A way back, I began a series of posts on how to actually practice Modern Orthodoxy in Israel, rather than just talk about it. The first post, on the necessity for integration and social interaction with "traditional" Jews, sparked a veritable firestorm. Comments, both positive and negative, taught me a great deal about the various positions in this fight. I even tried to "get into the head" of RWMO Jewish parents' objections to integration a few posts back.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the sense that interaction and integration with non-Orthodox Jews, in all its various forms, is THE hot-button issue of the day. More than "religion and state" or the Greater Land of Israel; how we regard the Jewish world outside us – both its ideas and its people, promises to be the main ideological battleground in the coming years.

In light of this, I intend to try and explain why I think the approach of controlled exposure to the "outside world" is preferable (notice I didn't say "right", this issue not being black-and white) to the current attitude of self-isolation. What will follow is a thorough, point-by-point, post-by-post discussion of the issue from my own perspective.

I will ask that those who comment read posts carefully and patiently before writing. Also, I would ask that if you disagree, that you provide viable, reasoned alternatives. Constructive dialogue is eminently preferable to a shouting match.

Translate! (On YU and Israel)

YU recently declared a "cross-pollination" program whereby students from the states will visit specially-tailored programs in Israel and implement lessons form there back in the US. All well and good, but this seems to me to be investing far too much energy in the wrong direction. A far more effective method for cultural "cross-pollination" is that time-honored method of translation.

It is translation that has made that Rav's works (and others such as Eliezer Berkowitz) increasingly accessible and read in Israel. It is translation that allowed for greater connection to tefila via Artscroll and Koren. Famous Israeli authors like Amos Oz, AB Yehoshua and Rav Chaim Sabbato are all readable in the US thanks to translation. There are few greater and more effective ways of spreading ideas and conducting dialogue than breaking down language barriers.

There are huge cultural and religious treasure troves that are desperately needed on both sides of the pond, yet continue to founder at the docks for lack of a translation boat. I can not begin to describe how much the Orthodox Forum book series, for instance, would help provide for a much more informed discussion in Israel on issues such as family life, spirituality and modernity. Conversely, thinkers such as Rav Shagar, Rav Yuval Sherlo, Eliezer Goldman, Rav Dr. Michael Avraham and others could surely do the same if only we could let them.

I disagree that money is a barrier. If we can find the money to send thousands of people to Israel and vice versa, we can certainly find the money to ensure translation. If we can translate the Rav's works, there's no reason we can't do that with others as well. (This might even help to provide parnassa for the many educated talmidei chachcmim here, who will no doubt charge less than what it would cost in the states...) Perhaps we should even establish a fund for the translation of important thinkers and book series (Any suggestions on a name?).

We have plenty of people - we need to work harder on the spread of ideas. So pick up the gauntlet, YU, and let the translations begin!

Some Thoughts on Critique And Ideological Rigidity

One of the problems of being a Centrist MO Jew in academia is that the overhwelming majority of professors (esp. philosophy) who deal with Jewish subjects are doctrinally LWMO and beyond. My problem is not with the positions per se, but with the ideological monotony that results. Academia claims to be a place for the free flow of ideas, but I have difficulty taking this seriously when most walk in lockstep with liberalism to the exclusion of all else. Anyone who holds different positions (i.e. to the right) on issues of religion immediately feels the need to hide them and follow the herd.

This results in a glaring academic double standard. Rav Kook, for instance, is often the subject of withering critique. Even Rav Soloveitchik can be treated with fresh eyes. In the meantime, however, LWMO heroes like Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Rav Hayimm Hershinzon and Eliezer Goldman are treated too often with fawning adoration that borders on sycophancy. I've lost count of "academic" books on HaKibbutz HaDati that felt like they were written by the Kibbutz HaDati academic fan club. To read some of the pieces on Leibowitz, you'd think the author of the piece was a chossid writing about their Rebbe. If the work done on Goldman so far is to be believed, he was the most brilliant, flawless thinker since the Rambam. Religious academics rightly decry fawning hagiography of "gedolim" in right-wing circles, yet they seem blissfully unaware when they do the exact same thing to their own people.

My point in all this is that there may be diversity in MO, but it is of an increasingly sectarian nature. RWMOs and LWMOs mostly talk amongst themselves, make arguments that could only convince the convinced and in general do not really try to seriously engage other ideological or religious camps. They each have their own institutional strongholds - for RWMO it is usually yeshiva, for LWMO it is university. The seperation is so thorough that there isn't even a "dialogue of the deaf". I don't think anyone benefits from this intellectual and ideological stagnation. Surely it would be better if more public debates and discussions, face-to-face and in print, took place than the present territorialism.

[While I'm wishing for the impossible, i'm looking for a job in translation/indexing/editing. I have substantial experience in these fields on an academic level. Feel free to leave information in the comments section]

Empathy for an Opponent (On RWMO)

[The following letter is fictional, but I believe the sentiments are real. I intend to try and deal myself with the issues here in a later posting - aiwac]

Dear Dr. Aviad Hacohen,

I read with some interest your article against the phenomenon of self-segregation in our circles. You complain of our establishing "committees" for screening potential candidates, our sending kids to religiously selective schools, our intolerance for more lenient standards of religiosity. You wax poetic over the non-democratic, perhaps even illegal nature of many of these activities, citing the undoubted value of democracy and equality in our fair state of Israel. Yours is but the latest in many an argument presented by Ne'emanei Torah Ve'Avodah against our behavior. What is missing from your critique, indeed, from all the critiques, is any real empathy with our situation or allaying of our fears.

We live in a world dominated with kefira and te'avon, Dr. Hacohen. You are asking us to risk ourselves and the religious well-being of our children to this atmosphere. Waxing lyrical about Achdut, the necessity of everyone having "different opinions" and so forth doesn't cut it and never will. It would be one thing if you and your LWMO colleagues worked on ways for us to deal with the various challenges to faith and halacha; if you genuinely believed in your program of "religious innoculation" enough to give us more than slogans. Instead you ask us to expose ourselves to the same ill wind that turned halachic Jewry into an insignificant minority in the space of a few generations, and you give us nothing to defend ourselves except snide contempt along the lines of "other people managed" or "I'm still religious, you should be able to deal also".

This perhaps is the worst part of your and your colleague's critiques - your snide elitism and complete lack of empathy for people who struggle. You will offer all the sympathy in the world to people who have fallen out of faith or who don't believe. For us, you have nothing but hatred and contempt, perhaps ocassional pity; but never compassion. You apparently neither understand nor care what it is like to see a third of your class year "take off the kipa" in school or in the army, except perhaps to dismiss it or even praise the "plurality of opinions". Exponentially more energy is invested in your circles to proving the connection between "Judaism and pluralism" and "Judaism and democracy" than formulating anything resembling a convincing argument for remaining an Orthodox, halacha-abiding Jew.

If your purpose is merely to "preach to the converted", then fire away. But if you and your associates wish to convince me, or indeed anyone else who wishes to retain the ember of Torah, then you will have to do more than show us a few bumper-sticker slogans with your nose stuck in the air. Until then, Dr. Hacohen, I ain't buying.

An RW Parent

Between Halacha and Halachic policy

Hirhurim has caused quite a stir with a list defining "post-Orthodox" Jews. Others have already pointed out the problematic nature of this list, and I will not retread this ground at present, though I might deal with some of the specific points at a later date. I am concerned with something else - what should be the social and halachic policy towards those who have ostensibly "crossed the lines", wherever those lines may be. Do we not let them come to our home? Daven at our shul? Teach our children or run our towns? This is not a simple question, and it is one of critical import when it comes to our relationship to Jews outside "our circles". All of us need to decide if and when "crossing lines" necessitates social shunning and when it calls for a different approach.

Anyone familiar with the world of law will tell you that there is a big difference between the laws on the books and how, and when they are enforced. The same is true of halacha - there are sins which are not considered to be beyond the pale and those that are. More importantly, there are differences of opinion between Ashkenazim and Sefaradim on how to treat sinners, especially today when 90% of World Jewry is not shomer Torah U'Mitzvot.

Ashkenazi Orthodoxy for the most part simply seperates itself from line-crossers as beyond the pale. People who cross the lines in any way are thrown out or kept out of schools, towns and shuls. The attitude is simple: "my way or the highway". Sefardim take a different approach. They keep the bridges open, letting them come to shul and say kiddush even if they might drive there or perform a marraige even if they might not keep family purity laws.

Many in the Ashkenazi (academic) camp have mistaken this openness towards sinners for tacit acceptance of the sin. Nothing could be further from the truth. No Sefardi Rabbi will ever say that Chillul Shabat is anything other than a grevious sin. What they do have is a lenient policy of open bridges towards the sinners. Making the best of a bad situation, they prefer "my door is always open" to "my way or the highway". In this manner, errant Jews might keep at least some of the Mitzvot, rather than be forced to choose between being 100% religious and 100% secular (i.e. what happens in Ashkenazic communities). Said Jew might be much more willing to conduct lifestyle ceremonies with an Orthodox Rabbi or send their kids to get a religious or at least traditional education. At minimum there will be much less animosity towards the house s/he has left.

Regardless of where the boundaries should be placed, we need to stop being so trigger-happy towards those who have transgressed them. Educators, parents, communities and Rabbis should think long and hard about what is genuinely considered beyond the pale, and even then at least dispense with the "one strike and you're out" policy. We've already lost too many good Jews to complete alienation with our "no-tolerance" methods. Perhaps it's time we took a different approach.

Achdut is not Achidut

There is no area in which MO/RZ Rabbis feel a greater sense of inferiority towards Charedim than in the field of halakha and halakhic public policy. Ever since we established our own yeshiva system in the US and especially in Israel, there was always this feeling that we were playing second fiddle to the great "black-hat" world.

This feeling expresses itself mostly in the constant need for approval on the part of the non-Zionist/non-Modern Rabbinic elite. We jump and quote every authority who supported or honored Rav Kook, who supported secular studies or dabbled in philosophy. More than that, we do not dare take halakhic positions without achieving Charedi consent in the name of "Achdus", that mythical white elephant according to which halacha is perfectly uniform and unchanging, no disagreements involved.

It is a white elephant for two reasons:

First, the idea of a perfectly exact halacha is a myth made of whole cloth. There may have been (and to some extent, there still is) tentative agreement on the essentials and the ground rules, but as long as Toshba has existed, so have severe and powerful disagreements, big and small. These run from halachic minutae to issues of belief. Differences of geography (Ashkenaz and Sefarad and everything in between), temprament (rationality vs mysticism and so on), and culture (minhag vs written law) have always foiled any and all attempts to "unify" Jewish practice and belief beyond the basic ground rules.

The second reason, a corollary really, is that halachic achdut between MO/RZ Jews and Charedim on issues of contention is impossible. It can never happen, not now and not in a hundred years. It can not happen even if both camps were staffed with ge'onim on the level of Rav Moshe Feinstein and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach. We differ irreconcilably on too many issues, to the point that we are pretty much two seperate edot.

The only way to ensure halachic "achdut" is to submit to the most virulent, extremist halachic positions. Unanimity, and even near-unanimity, can only be achieved by submitting to the dictates of Reb Nachum the zealot. One need only witness the rewriting of the positions of Rav Moshe Feinstein, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik to understand the absurdity of hoping for a unifying posek or godol hador.

Nowhere has this need for achdut caused more damage than conversion, both in the US and especially in Israel. The intentions are pure, but the result is an ever-increasing war against anyone to the left of the Rev Nachums of the world as invalid to the point of conversion invalidation.

So what's the solution? Simple. Return to the diffuse model of old, where each kehila decided its own parameters (within halacha, broadly defined). This will include issues of kashrut, conversion and so on.

You will reply that this will lead to machloket, of people not marrying each other, of not eating in people's houses. Too late, they already do so. The game of frum one-upsmanship has long since killed the idea of any kind of unity. The seperations are over and done with, and I, for one, am sick of kow-towing to Reb Nachum in the name of a false and useless Achdut.

Do you believe in Hakadosh Baruch Hu?

Ostensibly, this is a silly question. If you're a religious Jew, then by definition you believe in God, even if you have doubts from time to time. You might even find the title of this post offensive. All good, except that you misunderstood my question.

I didn't ask if you believe God exists, I asked whether you believe in God. As in the same way one believes, lehavdil, in one's parents, one's friends. I mean the kind of deep, abiding, intimate trust and confidence that cements our important human relationships. You may answer that you believe in the ikarei emunah, sachar va'onesh and the like; that expecting a "human"-like relationship with God is childish and even heresy, much like this cartoonist's experience.

I see by your pensive expression that you're starting to understand my problem, and the problem of many in my generation. We see many of our parents who strictly adhere to all the practices and halachot. They go through all the right motions, say all the right answers. But the fire, the deep feeling of God's presence that permeates, say, the life of the authors of the Psalms, this is nowhere to be seen. They will object that it is enough, just "doing halakha". It's enough to go through the motions.

I respectfully but firmly dissent. Yirat Shamayim and Ahavat Shamayim are the cornerstones of Judaism, the fuel that helps give us the energy to hold fast and improve, to keep faith in times good and bad. Halakha is practice; it cannot last without the underlying emotional-spiritual bond with Hamakom. It's not enough to believe that he "is"; you have to want to want to believe "in" him. For the relationship to not slide into "just doing the motions" (Orthopraxy), you must change from the third person to the second person.

This is a dangerous and scary prospect to be sure. It would mean letting him in to a degree that will often feel uncomfortable; He will move from the corner of your mind to the center. It will also mean more painful confrontation, as must happen towards one we believe "in". Where were you during the Holocaust? Why have you not shown yourself and ended the assault on your sovereignty?

You retort that the older generation didn't have this problem, they simply did what their parents did. I think they're in denial about the truth. As Prof. Chayim Soloveitchik pointed out 15 years ago - the grandparents (or the great-grandparents) still possessed a natural and healthy amount of God presence to fuel their religiosity. Too many of the older generation - in America and in Israel - simply repeated the actions; the presence, the belief "in", the "spark" was completely gone.

Now that you seem to understand my problem, I ask again: do you believe in God?

In Defense of the Old "Burgeouis" Mafdal

The secular establishment pitied them. Everyone to their religious left and right - the Brisker Rav, the Religious Kibbutz, Yeshayahu Leibowitz and various major Rabannim - despised them. People like Ben Chorin hold them in contempt. They were too sanguine, too naive. They kow-towed to the secular establishment on virtually anything not related to religion, and even then they often backed down. One would think that there were no grounds to defend them or praise them, except for a few old-timers who still think pre-'67 was paradise.

All well and good, except that we owe Mafdal a great debt, one we can probably never repay. Put as bluntly as possible, the Mafdal saved moderate religious Jewry in Israel. Mosad HaRav Kook, the Mamlachti-Dati system and previous "religious stream" schools, the yeshivot tichoniyot and the yeshivot hesder - NONE of these would have been possible if it weren't for the Mizrachi's partnership with the secular Jewish Agency from the '30s onward.

It was the Mafdal that fought tooth and nail to ensure Mamad education across the country, and as flawed as the system was - there was no real alternative (Charedi education then being miniscule and anti-parnassa), except losing hundreds of thousands of religious or at least traditional Jews to total secularization. This system, which slowly improved over time, helped stem and turn back the massive tide of horadat kipa at the beginning of the state that made even Beni Akiva consider disbanding itself out of despair.

We live in a generation where it is possible to proudly display a kipa anywhere; a generation where it is possible to stop being afraid that religious Jewry will not survive another generation. It behooves us to show gratitude to our forbearers who insured this at a time when it wasn't so certain. For all their flaws, the old Mafdal did a great deal of good, and we should never forget that.

Don't Just Preach, Practice. Part II: Principled Halachic Kulas

I though I might delve into a very touchy subject that is often the bane of discussions of MO - halachic laxity and what is perceived to be laxity. Who hasn't heard the accusation that MO Jews follow "Rav Noach" (roughly: Rav whatever's comfortable) or that Mizrochnikim don't take halacha seriously? That we don't really learn Torah or have yirat shamayim?

Like any accusation, this one has a (small) grain of truth. As Rabbi Harry Maryles points out, many MO Jews, and RZ Jews as well, are MO-lite or at least not makpid on what they consider to be non-essential. Some of us don't make it to davening during the week, or even on Shabbat morning. Others may not always manage to keep the "lesser" fast days or learn Torah all that often. These and other cases are indeed usually due of laxness born of convenience.

However, many on the right mistakenly then make the logical leap that all or nearly all of the halachic kulas emanating from MO or RZ circles are due to laxness, rather than principled halachic hachra'ot. This is a false assumption. There are many psakim and positions which I believe principled MO Jews should keep even if and when they are mitchazek. These include the attitude towards secular studies, the attitude towards women (no excessive tzni'ut witch hunts, positive attitude towards women learning) and a welcoming attitude towards non-Orthodox Jews. Allow me give a small example from my own experience:

I work at a legal firm that is populated mostly by secular Jews. Every year at Chanukah time, they light candles in the lobby, and I have participated as the madlik. Now, if I were to consider this act from a strictly formal halachic viewpoint (i.e. the best way to do the mitzva), I would ostensibly be standing on shaky ground. The mitzva of hadlakat nerot is at home - even lighting in the shul was a dicey proposition, as it first appeared as an issue during the time of the Rishonim.

Rav Re'em HaCohen of Otniel Yeshiva was asked a similiar question, and decided based on the position of the Ritva and others, that since the main purpose of the mitzva is pisumei nisa, then lighting in a public place is a kiyum that requires a bracha. Granted, im kvar, it's preferable to do so in a shul, but one can rely on this shitta to be yotze. This is a clear-cut case of a principled halachic ruling, grounded in sources, to enable what is nothing less than a massive Kiddush Hashem among many Jews who might otherwise not participate at all in the mitzva. I am sure other people could point to other examples of this.

This is not "laxity" or "finding favor", but a principled stand in favor of kula in the name of a higher Jewish ideal. The time has long since past that we stop apologizing for these positions, and understand the "laxity" charge for the insidious half-truth that it is. If we are called on such a position, we should stand tall and say, "Yes, I am mekel in this because I am machmir in [fill in the principle]".

Addendum to My Post on Sex

Well, my post was intended to provoke response, and it certainly succeeded. Now that the dust has settled (a little) I will now take this opportunity to take stock of some of the main arguments placed against my attempt at a wake-up call.

One commenter by My Obiter Dicta complained about the post being coarse and that I should have gone about in a more "tsniusdig" fashion. My response in this case: forget it. For me, the message "say things in a more tsniusdig fashion" is a code term for either "shut up" or speak in tones so vague and sacharrine so as to be worthless. I cannot, in all honesty, do so. The hafrada and anti-sex craze has gotten to the point where I felt, and still feel, that only rattling the cages will get people to face uncomfortable facts. I very much feel like Peter Finch in the movie Network: "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!". I most certainly will not dumb down the problem so you can feel better.

A second argument that came up was that "the problem isn't so bad because I didn't personally see it". Apparently people who live in a society where sex, masturbation etc are issurim nevertheless discuss the issue openly and freely instead of hide it and feel irredeemable and worthless. The idea that becuase we don't see a problem in our community only works if we close our eyes to the truth. Consider the following story (available in the middle of this article):

Rav Yuval Sherlo has spent much time helping religious homosexuals deal with their problems of being such. Needless to say, this caused an outpouring of anger from the more right-wing elements. A prominent Rosh Yeshiva attacked him when he met him. Rav Sherlo then asked him if he has homosexuals in his yeshiva. The RY, of course vehemently denied the possibility - he didn't see it (sound familiar?). After obtaining their permission, Rav Sherlo revealed the names of four individuals learning in the yeshiva who are gay. The RY, shocked, now gives his full support to R. Sherlo for his efforts. If this is the case regarding a relatively rare phenomenon - homosexuality - how much more so when it comes to heterosexual intercourse and masturbation, the latter being very easy to hide?

OTOH, Shlomo did make a valid point when he pointed out that I didn't really make many suggestions for how to solve the problem. In my eagerness to raise questions, I didn't really think out the answers. Even the suggestion regarding the "post-Niddah" marital bliss is far from flawless. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but here are some tentative suggestions (commenters are more than invited to share their own):

1. Continue the trend begun at Yeshivot Bnei Akiva - giving a basic sex-ed course. People should know these things are not other-worldly and foreign but a natural part of life and calm the hell down. Anxiety will go down and so will the disgust. Students will learn that we are all just human begins not disease-carrying space alien devil creatures aiming to ensnare one another. Maybe people will also learn that there can be contact between genders without it immediately leading to sex.
2. The "zero-tolerance" Orthodox social policy for sexual sins has got to go. No more rants on the horrific evils of masturbation or treating women like the devil. No more seperating women unnecesarily or treating those who put on make-up or wear skirts a little too high as harlots. These will no more prevent sins than the constant diatribes said against Lashon Hara every second. All they will do is alienate those who struggle.
3. Corrolary (and the most important part): Take, and teach teshuva seriously. All too often I get the feeling that many Orthodox Jews belive teshuva is for halachic misdemeanors like forgetting to say ya'aleh veyavo or not having proper kavanah during Shofar blowing. More serious sins, meantime, are completely and irrevocably beyond the pale.

   Many young Jews who falter in these areas end up throwing everything out the window because their teachers become so shrill about how horrible their acts were. They then decide that it's hopeless and chuck the whole thing. Educators should instead spend time with their students, either individually or in class, and take a calmer approach. They should make it crystal clear that sins, even sexual ones, are not the end of the world; God himself waits even for the teshuva of (lehavdil) a rasha till his dying day.

   I recently read a beautiful example of such an attitude from a (gasp!) Charedi RM. A student of his confessed to having erred in this area (don't remember what exactly). The RM said that he will bear his burden and serve his sentence in Hell as long as he continues to learn (for us, this could mean continue to strive to be a good Jew). We would be remiss if we didn't have similiar loving attitudes towards our younger generation...

An answer to Hirhurim

Hirhurim, the closest thing the Orthodox Jewish world has to Instapundit, recently discussed the question of who has the theoretical halakhic authority to decide big isssues. While very nice in the abstract, this isn't how it works nowadays. Actual halakhic public policy increasingly resembles the following joke, several variations of which exist in these parts:

Halachic policy is decided by Rav Ovadia, whose people are afraid of

Rav Elyashiv, whose people are afraid of

the Rabbis of the Edah Hacharedit, all of whom are afraid of

Reb Nachum the zealot, who fears no Rabbinic authority and who screams from the rooftops against any minimal movement from the most extreme religious positions. Halachic policy is thus decided by the lunatics, not any actual gedolim.

Rational halachic policy will thus not emerge until both Rabbinic authorities and their entourage stop quivering in fear of people to their right. Until then, the lunatics will continue to run the asylum.

The Ultimate Taboo

Let's talk about sex. You heard me, sex. S-E-X. As in the physical and intimate connection between a man and a woman. Screwing. F&%^ing. Oral, Anal, Missionary style, it doesn't matter. The unspoken word, the great taboo, this is the most hated word in the Orthodox community (doesn't matter what part). Worse than kefira. Worse than avoda zara. The ultimate taboo that must never be spoken of, let alone crossed.

Anyone who wants to understand the hafrada craze that has been plaguing our communities for over thirty years must understand that it is considered part of a milhemet mitzva declared against…wait for it…sex. There, I said it. I guess I won't get maftir Yonah, but it was worth it.

In girl's schools, the main emphasis is on sex – God forbid girls should ever look half –way attractive so as to tempt the dreaded yetzer. Cover your sleeves, your calfs, your face. Don't put on make-up, or God forbid have a fashion sense more developed than an ant. Boys and girls should never meet, touch, converse. Girls may as well be from Venus the way we treat them as an other-wordly species. Tzeniyut? A code-word for protecting men from the evil girls, nothing more.

Our bodies (boys and girls)? Feh, disgusting, gashmiyut, hevlei ha'olam hazeh and yetzer hara (whatever happened to tzelem elokim?). We are all apparently wild beasts at once completely unable to control our urges and horrible, filthy things to be caged. Women in particular are taught extreme self-loathing, as though it was their fault that the human race needs to procreate through sex.

I've heard before that Judaism is not Christianity, with its emphasis on chastity and its extreme misogyny (Women=Devil and all that). I'm not convinced. At all. There is a huge and ever-expanding literature on covering women up, as well as declaring things like hotza'at zera lebatala to be the worst sin ever committed. The way we learn now, you'd think that holding a girl's hand was the equivalent of a wild night on the town. There is correspondingly very little about the positive aspects of sex when conducted be'heter (i.e. in wedlock).

Yes, yes, I know that the Torah and the Toshba have a much healthier attitude towards sex. They treated it, as, well, just a part of life, kind of like eating and sleeping. It was something that could be used for bad, as well as good purposes. Sex scenes and physical expressions of love abound in the Tanakh, and there are implicit and explicit discussions in Toshba, Gemara included.

Except that it's not what's in the sources, but how they are taught that counts. You want an example? Show of hands – how many people have learned Ketubot? Good. OK, how many people have ever wondered about the abundance of sexual references, discussions of sex frequency etc? Confusion. How many actually know what the Petach Patuach is referring to or shelo cedarka? Yeah, that's what I thought (no-one). Much more important to get bogged down in the minutiae of the R. Gamliel + R. Eliezer Vs. R. Yehoshua debates at the end of Perek Rishon (Spoiler: the former win, by rule of majority psak). Shi'urim discussing how sex is important as a tool of non-verbal intimacy in a couple or the other issues that come up in Ketubot? Not on your life.

And don't give me the peru u'rbu song and dance. Even the chumash never accepted the idea that sex is a purely functional act. I don't think anyone will seriously argue that the Avot, who are described as loving their wives very deeply, simply saw them as physical baby-making machines (e.g. the Duda'ei Re'uven story, Yitzhak taking Rivka back to her tent and being comforted for the death of his mother etc).

No less bad is seeing it simply as Mitzvat Onah. Again, a functional, legal obligation that can no doubt be circumvented by zealous Yeshiva bahurim more interested in solving a sugiya than making their wife happy (e.g. poresh before Rosh Hashanah). Said bahurim have apparently never learned the mitzvah in context, where it is clear that onah is merely a minimum requirement for Amot Ivriot, certainly not the maximum for fully married couples. I see no reason why it shouldn't be taught in the same context as tzedaka or chesed – there's a minimum requirement, but kol hamarbeh harei zeh meshubach (again, when permitted).

You want to change this problem? Start treating sex – sex, attraction, physical desire, not the euphemisms of "beino lebeina" or "bayit ne'eman beyisra'el" - as a natural phenomenon that needs to be channeled, not despised. Write about the joys of love and love-making – maybe learn about the Rabbis who wrote love poems from Making of a Godol. Maybe discuss how post-Niddah period should be a kind of anniversary, where both partners invest heavily in making it like their wedding night. Talk about how that two-week period should be a time of joy equivalent or greater than the previous two-week hell. You've got other ideas, please share.

You want to call it something else besides the s-word? Fine. Yedi'at ish et ishto should do. Ah, but won't this open a slippery slope where kids go out and have sex? I've got news for you – many of them already are. Many of them will continue to do so regardless of how many ridiculous humrot, giduffim and hafradot you idiots come up with. The difference is that with my suggested method, those who abstain, and those who err but come back will be part of a Judaism that teaches love of life and creation itself rather than its hatred, that seeks to temper and soften yetzarim as beautiful and delicate things rather than the debased animalism you keep seeing this as.

What happened to Choshem Mishpat?!

Sometimes I wonder whether some religious Jews (obviously not the majority) consider mitzvot bein adam lechavero to be helpful suggestions rather than commandments. Such people make me shake my head in wonder at how one could learn Torah, and forget basics like "Lo Tignov" and "Lo Tonu Ish et Re'ehu".

Allow me to start from the beginning: My Obiter Dicta posted about a tefilin store in Meah Shearim that sells "cheap" tefilin in more ways than one - including barely kosher parshiyot. This story itself was bad enough, but it turns out it was only the warm-up for the clincher. In the comments on this post, Rabbi Mordechai Scher of Santa Fe described a reality of endemic fraud among many of the stores in that area.

Apparently, at one of the places, they had no problem directing fluent Hebrew and Yiddish speakers to average mezuzot. "Tourists" on the other hand (i.e. people who don't speak Hebrew/or Yiddish fluently), were shown barely kosher mezuzot at the same or higher prices?! To add insult to injury, apparently there is a phenomenon of people stealing other people's tefillin and re-selling them!!!!!!! God only knows what else goes on?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?!!?!?!

We're not talking about a case of the rule of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware and check). This isn't even an issue of the attitude towards medinat yisra'el (i.e. paying taxes). These are clear cut, unequivocal examples of theft and fraud. The fact that Rabbi Scher was told that he would be risking his life if he publicized the issue is simply jaw-dropping. Imagine, a frum God-fearing Jew publicizing about Torah violations risks being killed by other God-fearing Jews for publicizing the fact.

Forgive my french, but....WTF?!

Houston, we have a BIG problem (Racism against Arabs)

I'm sure by now you've all heard of the scumbag known as Yaacov Teitel on the news. He who murdered two Arabs and attempted murder on several occassions has been caught. Good riddance, you SOB, I hope you rot. Many a representative of the DL community has rightly disavowed this guy, though some haven't.

In any event, it is not of him I wish to speak. There is an elephant in the room in our community which we have been ignoring for far too long: racism, more specifically racism against Arabs. Now, before you all gang up on me, I am in NO WAY saying we created this guy. Every society has its fringes - the Charedim have their Neturei Karta, the secular their anarchists and so on. We do not possess, nor do we wish to posess, the kind of social policing capabilites that would allow us to "handle" such things in house. We are a big tent group, and that tent unfortunately has its share of uninvited guests who won't leave.

So why do I bring this up? Because for too long we have allowed covertly and overtly racist ideas about Arabs to infiltrate much of our society. The line between considering one to be an enemy and considering that enemy to be subhuman is a fine one, and far too many in our circles have crossed it. Terms like "Arabush", "Aravim Masrichim (dirty Arabs)" are far too common in daily discourse. I was horrified when my younger siblings told me of open Arab hatred and racist attitudes in their schools (outside of the classroom, mind you).

Now, I am not and probably never will be a member of the "let's all just be friends" humanist lovy-dovey croud. I know full well that the overwhelming majority of Arabs wish the state of Israel would cease to exist. So I am not one to advocate parents teaching kids with fatuous, naive rhetoric about "Kavod ha'adam" and the importance of unconditionally loving the Other. Such teachings will only convince the convinced and will not be taken seriously by those of us who live on Planet Earth. I would like to suggest, instead, that we learn that Arabs are just regular people with whom we have a serious fight. They too have to pay the bills and raise families. Just because we are enemies doesn't mean we can't have mutual respect.

Ah, but how can one do that with those who send suicide bombers and spew the most hateful rhetoric about us? To this I reply, I'm not asking that you love them, just act correctly and politely. Say Hi when you pass them on the street. Don't jeer at or assault them. Maybe wish them the appropriate Chag Sameach when Ramadan or Eid El-Pitr comes round. Maybe, especially in the case of Israeli Arabs, hire some for a job you need. Show that you're capable of not stooping to the level of base hatred shown on Palestinian TV.

Small gestures like this can help calm tensions and let adults and children learn to treat Arabs as something other than "Arabushim" you pass on the highway. Best of all, they don't require selling the proverbial store. There is no need to give up your belief in the rightness of our cause, regardless of where you are on the political spectrum.

The tolerance of racist attitudes in our community has got to stop - NOW. No ifs, no ands and no buts. No more turning a blind eye to this stuff. Racism needs to become a complete, unbreakable taboo at least on the level of Chilul Shabbat. For our own sake if nothing else, we need to be mekayem the Mitzva of Ubiarta Hara Mikirbecha (roughly: and you shall remove the Evil form your midst).