Committing to Lack of Commitment

One of the major differences between Orthodoxy and Reformativism is the emphasis on responsibilities vs rights.  For the Orthodox everything is about responsiblities, all 613 of them.  From the moment we wake up until the moment we sit on the edges of our beds before going to sleep there are duties to perform.  Almost no activity during the day is free of some aspect of a mitzvah or two.
For the Reformatives it much more open.  Choice is the buzz word when it comes to Jewish practice.  Personal feelings and desires decide which mitzvos are relevant or authoritative and when with preferences changing in tune with the ongoing shift of norms within the surrounding secular liberal culture.
In short, for Orthodoxy it's about commitment and for Reformativism it's about a lack of one.  And here's the problem for them: how do you build a strong feeling of commitment to a philosophy based on a lack of one?
Years ago I heard a prominent Conservative speak about how he was jealous of Chasidim, of their passion and dedication to their version of Judaism.  He wanted to develop the same passion in students at the JTS.  He wanted to see "Conservative Chasidim".  It was a joke for those of us paying attention.  Agree with their belief system or not, there is no questioning the strength of attachment Chasidim feel towards Torah and worship of the Ribono shel Olam.  Their fanatical level of practice is a reflection of their desire to put God into everything they do all day long.  You cannot replicate that feeling within Modern Orthodoxy, let along the non-religious Jewish groups because a level of passion that strong demands a sense of duty equally as firm.  One cannot be commited strongly to being non-commited.
So it's no wonder that the Reformatives find themselves drifting as Orthodoxy continues to grow in size and strength around them.  Reform may claim to have 1.5 million members but if one attempts to raise a minyan, what percentage of that horde will show up?  How many are dedicated to the prinicples of Reform and how many are counted because they have a paid membership in a Reform temple somewhere?  Ditto for Conservatism which is fading even faster as people search for authenticity, either on the liberal or traditional sides of practice.
How can they gain strength?  A movement that makes any actual Jewish practice optional can't expect to raise large numbers for a rally.  No one is going to pack a stadium with a crowd shouting "We want to do whatever we want and still be considered good Jews!"  Yes, there will always be candidates for their so-called rabbinic programs but how many dedicated pro-feminist and pro-gay people who also have a liking for Bible studies are there out there?  And how can they connect to congregations that see a lack of connection as part of their Jewish identity?
Ultimately, the most slef-defeating bromide is this belief:

The American Jewish community as a whole cannot survive if there is no non-Orthodox movement to which American Jews can belong; in other words, survival depends on a strong Reform movement

No it doesn't.  Judaism did not need Reform or Conservative for centuries just like it didn't need the Karaites to survive.  The American Jewish community shrinkage in absolute numbers, its growing disconnect from Israel, its unacceptable pathetic level of general Jewish education, is entirely driven by the Reformatives who have replaced Torah values with secular liberal ethics wrapped in a rayon tallis.  Reform needs Orthodoxy (we supply them with all those OTD's) but the American Jewish community does not need inauthenticity.  It needs an open admission that a lack of interest in proper Judaism is not in itself a genuine form of Judaism and to stand up and create real standards that define them.  Until such time, why would anyone take their crisis seriously?

Lunch With Goebels

Liberals in the West are a particularly annoying bunch in many ways but one of the most prominent is their level of naivete.  In a dangerous world full of real enemies they remain blissfully unaware of true threats while focusing their energies on unimportant targets.  For example, the gay lobby seems to not realize that certain growing religions consider homosexuality a capital crime but instead focuses on demonizing Israel as an "apartheid" state.
The recent appointment of Rabbi Asher Lopatin as the new head of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah reminded me how dangerous and idiotic this naivete can be.  Rabbi Lopatin is certainly a genuinely decent person who desire world peace and health, happiness and equal opportunity for all and one certainly cannot criticize him for desiring such things.  But there is a difference between desiring a happy utopia in this world and realizing that such a thing is a pipe dream.  I'm not sure Rabbi Lopatin knows that.
In the past, for example, he has written of his desire to turn Israel into a binational state.  Despite the endless statements on record from our enemies, he seems to believe that turning Israel into "Israstine" will lead to an outbreak of happiness and civility in the MiddleEast.  No need to worry about the Arabs subsequently arranging a mass influx of so-called refugees and turning the Jews into a minority which will quickly become a persecuted one.  Rabbi Lopatin has no hatred in his heart, may God bless him and keep him this way, and he cannot understanding that other people do.  The idea that our enemies would use his idea to initiate a second Holocaust, chalilah, simply does not occur to him.
That's probably why he broke bread with some of the most dedicated enemies our nation as, amongst them one Hanan Ashrawi.
Now for those of you who don't know, Ms. Ashrawi is a fanatical hater of the Jewish people but, unlike the frothing terrorists who scream "God is a mouse!" and wave guns around, she is charming and eloquent.  She could explain the "truth" of how we use non-Jewish children's blood for our matzah every year and the average person would probably be convinced by her style and the reasonable tone of her voice.  She has spent more than two decades going everywhere in the world she can to spread lies about Jews and Israel.  We have few foes more dangerous that her.
And Rabbi Lopatin had no trouble sharing a meal with her and listening to her spew.
For me this is more than just naivete.  This is a dangerous idiocy, the kind that villains like Lenin and Stalin, y"sh (both of 'em) exploited to undermine the efforts of the West to resist the spread of communism.  It speaks of an inability to see evil when it is staring one in the face which is very dangerous in a world where Jew hatred is rapidly becoming fashionable again.  It is certainly not a good quality for a man who would be a leader of a faction of Orthodoxy (for now).

When Only The Mechitzah Is Left

One way to effect change in a system that doesn't want or need to be changed is to assert that there is a problem and that a solution to it is urgently needed.  State this often enough and it seems to take on some fact-based existence.
Such is the case when it comes to women's "rights" within Torah Judaism.  The system, such that it is, openly recognizes a lack of equality between men and women and always has.  Inequality does not denote a superiority/inferiority relationship within Judaism but it does seem to within secular liberalism.  For those Orthodox Jews who are enamoured by secular ethics and wish to practice a Judaism that is both traditional but also in consonance with the latest faddish beliefs in the West there is therefore a problem when it comes to how women are treated within Orthodoxy.
The latest missive in this ongoing attempt to create a tempest where there is not even a teapot comes from Rabbi Zev Farber.  The essay starts off in predictable fashion:

In the average Orthodox synagogue, there is not one thing that women do which is part of synagogue performance. Their presence is not felt and their voices are not heard. The paradigm for women’s ritual participation in the Modern Orthodox world must change.

See?  There's a problem and it needs a solution.
Now, when it comes to Conservatism and Reform I can appreciate such a statement.  The very vast majority of those two groups have no religion outside of their temples.  When one removes Shabbos, kashrus, taharas misphachah and in-depth learning from one's life there is aught left except for public worship.  If a Reform or Conservative synagogue insist on being non-egalitarian then it is quite clear that they are excluding women from pretty much all of what they define as Jewish practice.  For them it makes sense to be egalitarian.
But within Orthodoxy?  Let us remember the proper role of the shul in our lives.  It's a place to pray.  Stop,  End paragraph.  Finito.  It is not the centre of our social lives.  It is not the centre of our practice.  Both of those centres are found within the Jewish home which is where Torah lives are most fully lived.  Do women participate in shuli rituals?  Well no, they don't because al pi halacha they have no obligations there.  They do not have to show up for minyan and they don't have to hear krias haTorah (most of the time).  Judaism recognizes that there are some public rituals we perform but these are incumbent on men only.  By starting his essay with a demand to change the paradigm for women's ritual participation, Rabbi Farber seems to be stating his position in a very Reformative fashion: the shul is the centre of our lives.  The home does not seem to matter to him.
Then there is the obvious question to the last statement in the paragraph: Why?  Why must it change?  Why must we look at the secular world and say "Well, they're egalitarian so we need to be to!"?  Since when has that ever been the impetus for a change in our moral and ritual values?
He then goes on to raise another non-issue:

Why is it that the synagogue automatically assumes that the baseline should be no participation and that women need to put themselves out there, at a real risk of humiliation and disappointment, before even the smallest action will be taken on her/their behalf?

This one is easy to answer, as I already noted above.  The synagogue automatically assumes non-participation because it functions al pi halacha, not al pi feminist egalitarianism.  By ignoring this point and presenting the current situation as one of inertia or baseless tradition, Rabbi Farber almost dishonestly presents his point in order to better make it.  In fact, Rabbi Farber's next point is not that he is ignoring halacha but rather, that he finds some parts of it irrelevant.

I would argue that the reason the impetus for change has fallen so squarely on the shoulders of women stems from the fact that we are still living under an antiquated and obsolete paradigm. Although there are a number of Talmudic pericopae (sugyot) that discuss technical questions surrounding differences between men’s and women’s obligations in prayer and related halakhot, this does not really explain the stark difference between the place of men and women in the synagogue. The larger issue, I believe, is sociological in nature.

This is so completely wrong I don't know where to begin.  Is Rabbi Farber not aware of the large corpus of halacha that has developed since the closing of the Talmud that deals with these issues?  Is he not aware of the vast investigations by the poskim over the centuriese into the various roles of men and women in public worship?  Ultimately, Rabbi Farber shows his hand.  It isn't Torah values that guide his traditionalism but modern feminist values.

The sociological realities nowadays are entirely different.

Yes, a society in which women are treated as objects useful only for sex and having babies.  A society in which the killing of unborn babies is treated as a "right" and men and women procreate without creating a stable family unit within which to raise the children.  A society that is debating whether or not mind-altering drugs should be legal because apparently reality is too boring for too many people.  It is those socialogical realities that guide Rabbi Farber's moral compass, not halacha.

To break out of this vicious cycle, we need to shift the paradigm 180 degrees. Instead of saying that since women have never historically participated in public ritual, so each shul and each rabbi will—upon request—think about creative ways to allow women to participate ritually in things that are permitted, we should be saying that all Jews, men and women, can do or participate in any meaningful ritual unless it is clear that halakha expressly forbids this. How to define what halakha forbids will be a question every shul and rabbi will need to answer, but the inertia factor and the women-don’t-do-these-kinds-of-things factor will have to be taken off the table.

A vicious cycle?  Yes, following the tradition and the halacha as developed by our poskim is just that, a vicious cycle because it offends secular sensibilities, just like telling young women to pay for their own birth control if they're going to work for a Catholic institution does.  The difference between secularism and Judaism is one of rights vs responsibilities.  Rabbi Farber is very concerned about the rights of women but when it comes to responsibilities he's somewhat more silent.
.

Women do not want to read from the Torah because men do; women and men both want to be called to the Torah because participating in the reading of the Torah is considered an honor (kavod) due to the great respect all Jews have for the Torah and the Torah scroll.

Sorry but this is not something I'm buying.  I recall years ago the Conservative synagogue in my hometown held a rancorous vote on whether or not to go egalitarian.  After the feminists carried the vote many of them were asked what days they'd be coming out for the early morning davening.  They all snorted and said that they had no interest in actually coming out to daven, they just wanted to know that they had the same rights as the men in case they did decide to come out.  Feminism was initially about equality and dignity for women, true, but the movement long ago morphed into a philosophy based on socialist bovine feces and endless jealousy of imagined "male privilege". 

It is totally unfair to create a society in which access to the Torah is considered the greatest honor, bar women from it, and then turn around and ask what their problem is.

Myself, I live in a society where access to the Torah is through learning and daily practice.  It is no further away than the nearest sefer.  The greatest honour is raising a Jewish family faithful to the teachings of that Torah.  Should I not be suspicious when someone says that they will only feel a connection to their culture if if is altered to meet their personal specification? 
Ultimately, Rabbi Farber's essay reads like something someone from the JTS or HUC could have written after a visit to an Orthodox shul and an exposure to authentic Orthodox tradition.  The "Judaism" he is looking for is more consonant with the UTJ than it is with Orthodoxy.  Perhaps he should stop trying to straddle the fence and, having admitted his preferences, join the group that meets his secular aspirations instead of continuing to pretend that he is contributing to genuine Orthodoxy.

How Old Was Rivkah?

One of the less talked about parts of Chumash is child marriage.  For example, an unmarried Kohen Gadol must take a young virgin in marriage.  Imagine the optics - a 60 something year old man in full priestly regalia under the chuppah with a 10 year old.  Not something I'd want to see on CNN.
Another one comes up in this parsha.  At the beginning of Toldos we are told that Yitchak Avinu, a"h, was 40 years old when he married Rivkah Imeinu, a"h.  Rashi, based on Seder Olam, does the math for us.  Yitchak Avinu was 37 at the time of the Akeidah, based on the assumption that Sarah Imeinu died right after from the shock of hearing about it.  At that point, Avraham Avinu, a"h, learns that his cousin Rivkah has been born.  Therefore, concludes Rashi, Rivkah is three when she marries Yitzchak.  The Torah then tells us that Yitzchak Avinu was 60 when the twins were born which means he and Rivkah tried for 20 years.  Rashi, in order to remain consistent with the halacha that a man should divorce his wife if she hasn't gotten pregnant after 10 years of trying, tells us that from age 3-13 we wouldn't have expected Rivkah to get pregnant and therefore it was only 10 years of real infertility that counted until Eisav HaRasha and Yaakov Avinu, a"h, were born.
Bottom line: 40 year old Yitzchak Avinu married 3 year old Rivkah Imeinu.  It sounds creepy until you factor in that this 3 year old could draw water for camels and ride them all by herself.
Although there is no debating Rashi's central importance in understanding Chumash, it is sometimes forgotten that while he is the first voice, there are many others to be heard after his.  This is an example of where that's important. 
There are, in fact, many commentators who don't accept Rashi's version of the chronology.  Amongst the reasons brought are (1) there's no reason to believe that Avraham Avinu received the news of Rivkah's birth immediately.  She could have been much older by the time the family telegram reached him. (2) Yes, people matured faster back in the days before permanent adolescence meant not growing up until you turned 35 but three year olds have always been three years olds.  They can't go out and draw water by themselves, they're not strong enough to fill a trough for camels and there certainly can't ride them by themselves.  Rivkah Imeinu could not have been 3 years old for this story to have happened the way the Torah tells us.
Rav Michael Hattin, formerly of Yeshivat Har Etzion, notes his and brings a great explanation of what led Rashi to comment on the story and I would like to share it with you.
He starts by noting that Rashi was no fool.  He knew that taking Seder Olam literally meant insisting that a three year old could perform all sorts of tasks that were clearly beyond her.  He goes a step further and asks about Yitzchak Avinu's age at the Akeidah.  Although again Rashi uses traditional sources to determine that he was 37, Rav Hattin again shows that this was not likely.  After all, if Yitzchak Avinu was an adult at the height of his strength, then the Akeidah wasn't just a test for Avraham Avinu but for him as well.  The Torah, however, never portrays the Akeidah as a big test for Yitzchak Avinu, just his father.  In all likelihood he was much younger, probably still just a child.
If that's the case, why does Rashi insist that Yitzchak Avinu was 37 and Rivkah Imeinu was only 3?  This can be tied into Rashi's comment from the Midrash about the wording around Sarah Imeinu's age at the time of her death. Famously, Rashi notes the importance of each appearance of the word "year" in that verse.  This concept gets extended further.  Yitchak Avinu, despite being a young boy, acted with the maturity of a 37 year old when it came time to lie on the altar for his father and submit to being sacrified.  A normal boy would have run screaming into the woods or called the Canaan Child Protection Services on his cell phone.  Not Yitzchak Avinu.  Despite his age, he understood the importance of what was going on and acted appropriately.
Similarly for Rivkah Imeinu, one needs to note that the marriages of our forebears were not simple shidduchim but a joining of mammoth spiritual personalities.  A normal girl of marriageable age might have been influenced to marry Yitzchak Avinu for the promise of the wealth he possessed.  Instead, Rivkah Imeinu looked at the situation with a level of honesty found only in young children.  For her, it was Yitzchak Avinu's godlus that sealed the deal, not a sense of personal interest. 
Thus Rashi, by bringing these midrashim and making statements that superficially seem untenable was actually giving us a deep insight into the greatness of both Yitchak Avinu and Rivkah Imeinu.

Avraham Avinu's Torah

One of the more controversial statements made by Chazal is "Our holy fathers all kept the entire Torah".  We are told, for example, that Avraham Avinu kept the entire Torah and all rabbinic enactments right down to eruv tavshilin.  Many people take these statements literally.  Far too many.
The objections to the statement range from the obvious to the subtle.  For the obvious, how could the Avos observe the Torah when it hadn't been given yet?  How could they celebrate going out of Egypt from slavery to freedom if they were never slaves?  How could Avraham Avinu, a"h, serve the angels who visited him milk and meat?  How could Yaakov Avinu, a"h, marry two sisters?  It's a mitzvah in the Torah to put a parapet around one's roof.  Our Avos lived in tents.  Did they build sukkos every autumn?
I believe that to best understand Chazal's statement one must understand what "Torah" is.  We are so used to using Hebrew words as labels in English that we forget they have real meanings.  For example, Torah means "teaching" or "instruction".  It is God's communication to us as to His expectations for us in this world. It is not simply the scroll we read from three times a week or the collected knowledge in all the seforim in the world.  As Chazal note, it is indescribably huge, greater than we can ever understand being the produce of the Divine intelligence.
Another support for this position can be found in the words of Chazal where they note that Torah preceded the Creation of the world.  As Chazal say, God looked into the Torah to create the world.  Now, unless one is simplistic enough to think that there was this one original scroll floating out there from the ether before the universe came into being, one must conclude that Torah is the blueprint for Creation, the framework for all existence, the answer to the question of Life, The Universe and Everything.
This helps to explain how our Avos "kept" the whole Torah.  The "whole Torah" doesn't mean performing the Taryag mitzvos but rather it means participating in the progression of history in total consonance with God's plans.  The Talmud tells us that history moves forward towards a purpose.  There will be a completion of the Final Redemption, there will be a Moshiach and there will be an Olam Haba in this reality.  For us, participating in this progression is accomplished by the performance of the mitzvos.  Through limud Torah and engaging in activities that sanctify God's name and fulfill His will we move reality forward towards its ultimate destination.
Our Avos worked on the same goal but it is important to remember that they were on a level so much higher than us that we cannot comprehend how they interacted with reality.  Every autumn, as the Torah reading cycle returns to their histories I see articles getting published about them that attempt to humanize them to a ridiculous degree, commenting on whether or not they existed, criticizing their parenting techniques, wondering about their connection to religions that have no real connection to them.  Take a step back and think about it: these men spoke with God.  They didn't just worship Him.  They weren't just highly aware of Him.  They had communication with Him.  How can we hope to understand men like that?
The Nefesh HaChaim notes that because of this heightened spirituality they were therefore able to guide all their actions in harmony with the will of God.  Avraham Avinu didn't simply feed the angels who visited him what he did because that's what was in the pantry that day.  Yaakov Avinu didn't marry two sisters because he had no Torah.  In all their actions they recognized what the right course was to take to move history forward and they took it.  These decisions, for whatever the reason was to the Divine will, were those that were necessary even if later on the halacha would forbid them.  For us, marrying two sisters is an abomination.  For Yaakov Avinu it was the step he had to take to bring forth the founders of our nation.
With this understanding we can now see how our Avos kept "the whole Torah" and it serves as a reminder to us that there is a purpose to our practice.  We are not simply to perform mitzvos out of rote or habit but to keep our minds on the bigger picture, on the grand purpose behind all our actions.  We must bring meaning into our actions and understanding how our Avos did it helps to serve as a guide.

Be A Man!

One of the common criticisms of Chareidi society nowadays is the emphasis on the "learn, don't earn" lifestyle expected of many of its adherents, especially in Israel.  It seems that their entire theology revolves around the idea that the only good use of time is learning Torah and that therefore every able bodied person with a functioning brain should be doing this exclusively.  Work is seen as, at best, an undesirable b'dieved to be performed by the unwashed masses who can't make it in the holy confines of their local yeshiva.
This attitude has spread amongst the womenfolk of the community as well with the ongoing efforts of seminaries to convince impressionable girls fresh out of high school that the only good man to marry is a kollel candidate.  Chas v'shalom should she hook up with a working stiff.  It would be a betrayal of the sacrifices of Jewish women from time immemorial.
So deep does this attitude run that I once read a story about a kollel guy who went off to work and was quizzed by his buddies: "So who gave you a heter to work?"  Recently I've noticed a trend in articles where kollel folk are now called k'lei kodesh.  Really?
I want to turn this on its head.  From my position, a man working for a living is not a last resort situation or one for losers but for the vast majority of Jewish men it is the ideal.
Now before I go on I will be clear.  This approach is not for every single Jewish man.  There are always those gifted and saintly individuals whose destiny is to ensure that the Torah is well understood and interpreted for our nation, who benefit us the most when they sit and learn full-time.  Most people who sit in yeshivah are not those people and I don't think it's hard to figure that out.  Once again, the ideal position for all but the select few is to work.
Don't believe me?  Take a look through Tanach.  Find me a prominent figure from Avraham Avinu, a"h, on down who eschewed work and lived off charity or his wife's family's money.  Who said "I'll sit and learn and she can work for a living while also looking after the kids"?
Scroll through the Talmud.  How many of our holy Sages deliberately threw off the yoke of labour to sit and learn all day?  And opposite them how many somehow managed to engage in various trades and professions to support themselves while they learned?
We also have the many statements of Chazal on the subject.  People in the kollel world love to quote the statement about the Tanna who announced that he would only teach his son Torah but again, opposite it how many statements extolling the value of labour, work and financial independence are there?  Does the Talmud emphasize living off tzedakah or contributing to it?
If the performance of mitzvos is the key to life in this and the Next world, then is sitting all day and learning Torah alone the best way to be or out there in the world engaging in the performance of mitzvos?  How many rules do we have about work and business?  How else can we perform them if not through engaging in trades and professions?  When it comes to bein adam l'makom we run to the slightest chumrah to show our love of the Ribono shel Olam and not running in such a fashion is seen as a lack of enthusiasm or faith.  How many opportunities to we have to fulfill His will when it comes to bein adam l'makom when we engage in practical business?  Why is running to perform them considered demeaning or less desirable?
Is there any greater activity than learning Torah?  Absolutely not and no one should question this but just because talmud Torah is the most important mitzvah it cannot be the only mitzvah.  The Ribono shel Olam gave us 613 mitzvos and I'm willing to bet it wasn't simply for theoretical study purposes but to live a complete life in this world according to His dictates and will.  How can we say that we want to live a lifestyle where we make the performance of those mitzvos impossible because we're focusing on a single one?
If one wants to be living the ideal life the Torah demands of us, then the highest level one can reach is one that balances Torah study and work.  Only in that way do we maximize both the obligations of lilmod and la'asot. There is no question that this is what our ancestors in Biblical times did.  There is no question that the vast majority of Chazal and most of the subsequent authorites prior to 1948 held this way as well.  By engaging in a life of Torah study and work we emulate them and show our desire to strive to reach spiritual heights in this world and the Next.
In our Temple (may it be speedily rebuilt) the k'lei kodesh didn't sit on the shelves looking pretty.  Their existence wasn't all that matters.  They had a job to do and they did it every day.  We who work, we have a claim to the title and it's time we demanded it.

Was He A Good Yishmael Or A Bad Yishmael?

"And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, who she had borne unto Avraham, making sport.  Wherefore she said unto Avraham: 'Cast out this bondwoman and her son for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Yitchak". (Bereshis 21:9-10)

Rashi on this verse brings a couple of midrashim to explain what Sarah Imeinu saw and what "making sport" means.  Briefly, the first midrash connects the word "sport" (metzachek) with the three cardinal sins in Judaism: idolatry, illicit nookie and murder and accuses Yishmael of being guilty of each.  The second midrash says that Yishmael took Yitzchak out on a play date but then tried to shoot him through with arrows while pretending that he was just playing a game with him.  In either case it's clear that Sarah Imeinu saw a clear and present danger to Yitzchak Avinu and felt she had to take definitive action to prevent future problems.
There is a difficult with this understanding.  While lost in the desert and dying of thirst, God gives a revelation to Hagar and promises to save Yishmael.  "And God heard the voice of the lad and the angel of God called out of Heaven and said unto her: 'What aileth thee, Hagar? Fear not for God has heard the voice of the law where he is." (Bereshis 21:17)
On this verse Rashi once again brings a midrash in which the angels contest God's decision to save Yishmael from thirst by bringing up a well for him.  They note that in the future his descendants would mistreat our ancestors through thirst.  God is noted to reply that while this might be the case, in the here and now (or, I guess, the there and then) Yishmael was righteous and could not be punished for sins yet uncommitted.
It doesn't take much to see the contradiction here.  God declared Yishmael righteous even though the whole reason he was in the desert dying of thirst in the first place was because Sarah Imeinu was worried about how wicked he was.  Which is it?
Further, if Yishmael was guilty of murder, incest and idolatry, why did the angels not accuse him of them instead of going after the future sins of his descendants?
Rav Chaim Pinchas Sheinberg, zt"l, takes issue with the use of the word "tzadik" in the midrash.  According to the standard understanding of the word God asks the angels: "Is he righteous right now or not?"  The angels are compelled to answer "Righteous".  However, Rav Sheinberg translates "tzadik" not as "righteous" but as "innocent", a less frequent but not rare use of the word.  Thus God was asking the angels "Has he actually killed anyone yet?  Is he guilty or innocent?" and the angels had to answer "Innocent".
Rav Chaim Kanievsky, shlit"a, brings a different answer from a legal perspective.  He reminds us that while a man becomes an adult under halacha at the age of 13 he is only answerable to the court from the age of 20. Yishmael, depending on who you ask, was 15 or 17 at the time of this incident.  Therefore, despite being guilty of the three cardinal sins of Judaism he could not yet be punished for them.  That's why the angels didn't accuse him of those sin but instead mentioned future events.

Because It's A Duty

One of the things I don't like about kiruv is how it tries to emphasize the "fun" and "rewarding" parts of Judaism as reasons to become religious.  Look at the programs Aish and Ohr put on, the assurances they make about the benefits of a religious lifestyle.  Look at the parties Chabad loves to put on with alcohol flowing like water and endless singing and eating.  The assurance is all there: become a religious Jew and life gets better.  You connect with your heritage!  You get more spiritual!  And that's why you want to become religious!
Except that it's not true.  Life doesn't get better.  You don't necessarily connect with your heritage and spiritualism is hit and miss depending on what kind of a person you are.
Now the opposite isn't true either.  Life doesn't get worse, for example, when you're religious.  Maybe once upon a time it did but considering how well Jews have become integrated into modern society and the abundance of kosher food and other necessities for religious life it's really not that much of a burden to be frum nowadays, at least until the tuition bill for your child's cheder arrives.
So then why do it?  Why do I do it?
Because it's a duty and a sense of duty is what makes a person's life more meaningful.
I don't like modern kiruv tactics because they play into exactly what's wrong with Western civilization and why it's on the decline.  When it comes to rights and responsibilities the West has indulged itself in the former since the Enlightenment and tried to rub away any traces of the latter at the same time.  The United States has a Bill of Rights but no Bill of Responsibilities.  Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms but no corresponding document detailing Responsibilities and Obligations.
Why does this matter?  I would suggest that the emphasis on rights over responsibilities is one factor is why so much of Orthodoxy seems to be going in either no direction or the wrong one.
On the surface of it, that sounds absurd.  After all, isn't an Orthodox lifestyle one duty after another from dawn to night?  Don't we spend the entire day doing one routine or ritual after another?  From Modeh Ani to krias Shema at night, it's one thing after another.  How could I suggest we don't take duty seriously?
I think the answer is because we don't really see it as a duty.  We give lip service to the idea, of course, with every Baruch Hashem! we shout but how much of what we do is because we like the idea of what we're doing?  We show up in shul because we like the social aspect.  We wear big, fancy talleisim and $1500 sets of tefillin because we like how it looks.  We grab every last chumra we can find not because we're so worried about what God will think.  We're worried about the neighbours.  Will they think us deficient?  Do we want to outfrum the Jonesbergs? 
In a strange way, our affluence has negatively affected our Judaism.  It's one thing to live a happy, kosher life in a community where there's plenty of restaurants and well-stocked supermarkets, surrounded by people who don't particularly care about one's religious affiliation and in a society where one's religious rights are protected by law.  We start to take things for granted.  We start to assume we're entitled to certain things that previous generations saw as luxuries or unattainable.  And it spoils us.
There is a different reason to keep the mitzvos but it doesn't sound sexy like the Aish approach.  It's word which is dirty in our society: duty.  It's not fun and games that makes me walk to shul in the pouring rain on a cold November morning.  It's not the calorie content that makes me walk past the Pizza Pizza display in the mall without stopping.  And it's not a fear of gallstones that keeps me from having some ice cream a couple of hours after a steak dinner.
It sounds joyless and really, duty is joyless because it's not about personal satisfaction.  It's about maturity.  It's about saying that one's personal needs and desires need to be put aside because of more important responsibilities.  It's about saying "I want it but I can't have it right now and I accept that", not something society around us gives much value to.
Look around at our frum society and you'll see too much of it.  On the right, we have every increasing stringencies in all areas of life made possible only by our affluence.  Honestly, would the kollel culture be 1% of what it is without the generosity of the Israeli treasury or the welfare system here in North America?  How many people would insist on only cholov Yisroel and super-triple-mehadrin meat if it cost ten times the price it currently does?  And how many people would say you need a fluorescent light bug checker from Artscroll as a minimum for checking your vegetables if such a device was prohibitively expensive?  We have taken the really good times life has afforded us and used them to make a Torah lifestyle more and more difficult.  And why?  So we can pat ourselves on the back and say "Look how frum we are".
This is wrong.  This is not being frum.
Frum is wondering if one has given enough to charity each month.  It's showing up early at shul on the night of the blizzard because you want to be sure they got a minyan not because you need it but because the old guy who sits down the bench from you is saying kaddish and you know he'll make the effort.  Frum is looking around shul for someone who looks lonely and inviting him for Shabbos dinner.  It's taking the $30 000 you were going to spend on your kid's simcha and spending 2/3 of it on something your community needs so that the kid learns that giving to others is the best present to ask for.  Frum is being polite and modest and modest isn't about sleeve length.  It's about knowing one's true significance in the grand scheme of things and not trying to act like one is higher up than that.
None of that is sexy or spectacular and much of them it's not that personally satisfying.  But it is what Judaism demands of us.  The Prophets didn't rebuke our ancestors over their lack of black hats or not-quite-elbow length sleeves.  They reminded us of our responsibility to our fellows.  Being machmir in anticipating and meeting the needs of others without a concern of "what's in it for me" is the only really chumra we should be worrying about.
We need to step back and see the forest beyond the leaves and twigs we're all so conscientiously focused on.  We need to see the grander purpose and do a real chesbon hanefesh on how close to that purpose our daily activities bring us?  Are we living a live of faux-kedushah by rote or a real life of holiness through determined actions?
When we begin to do this, all the other stuff we learn and do will come to have meaning.  Until then, we are no different than the nations around us no matter how much we pretend to be.

Consumed By Work

I know, I know, I haven't posted in a while.
There's a few reasons.  One is that it's Elul.  I have lots of ideas but it seems this is just the wrong time of year to whinge and complain about things.  I wanted to write a piece on how metzizah b'peh is driving me crazy what with the hysterical response by the Agudah community to a minor suggestion by the city of New York to require signed consent before performing it.  I had some ideas for a piece on how the appointment of Rabbi Asher Lopatin to run Yeshivat Chovevei Torah is just another step in that community's eventual exit from Orthodoxy and into right-wing Conservatism.  And there's always stuff to comment on about what's going in Israel and the Middle East.
But it just doesn't seem to be the right time for it.
Maybe I've been overwhelmed with work and home responsiblities.  Maybe I'm just tired.  Maybe I'm just more worried about the next few days what with my neshamah about to be judged by the King of the Universe at all.  It's just that blogging doesn't seem to be a huge priority for me right now.
So keep checking once in a while and I will be back.

Knowledge Does Not Equal Piety

One of the common fallacies that most frum Jews believe in is that intense learning and deep knowledge of Torah are equivalent to piety.  One looks at many great Jewish leaders whose personal behaviour might have been less than exemplary in some fashion but concludes that they must have been pious because they are so learned.  This is some notion that has to be disabused.
For one thing, learning in and of itself is not a final value.  The purpose of learning is twofold.  First there is the need to know how to practically behave within the parameters of halacha.  The second is to develop a relationship with God.  We are told by the Torah that we must be kadosh because God Himself is kadosh.  Chazal tell us that the best way to engage in imitatio dei is to copy those things we call His middos.  He clothes the poor so we do.  He visits the sick so we do but the best way to come to any understanding of who He is, as if that were possible, is to learn His Torah.  Ultimately God is the most positive moral force in existence and therefore it is our duty to emulate Him and become positive moral forces ourselves.  The learning is to help us get there. Learning without progression in that direction would therefore seem to have far less value.
As a result, it should be obvious that there is no necessary connection between learning and piety.  The former is necessary for the latter to be developed in its fullness but the latter does not necessarily appear even after copious amounts of the former if the learning is not done to that end.
For another thing, consider that the word "pious" is quite malleable.  One example I like to recall appears in Solomon Grayzel's A History of the Jews in which he comments that for many centuries a Pope's piety was measured by how much he persecute the Jews of Chrisendom.
Take, for example, the Satmar Rebbe.  Here was a man who was undoubtedly a genius and one of the defining halachic authorities of his generation.  He was obsessed with reaching a level of perfection in his performance of mitzvos.  His attention to even the most minute details in a given situation is legendary.
He also abandoned all his followers in Hungary, running away to safety while leaving them to die with empty words of encouragement about how their learning and tefillos would protect them.  He saved his neck by using Zionist help and spent the rest of his life condemning those Zionists while building up a philosophy in which God never helps us but only sends us punishment which means that anything good that happens is a trick of the Satan, not a sign of His mercy.  His followers today openly side with enemies that seek to wipe out our State and even when signs of division will result in damage to the Jewish nation they continue to protest to show they're separate from us kofrim.
He was learned but was he really pious?  And if you say he was pious, what exactly is your definition?  Does he boil down to "Well he learned a lot and he was medakdek about all the mitzvos"?  Does the phrase "And he was a genuinely nice and loving guy to everyone" fit in there somewhere?
Learning must be done for a simple reason: to become a better person.  Not a more medakdek person, not a more obsessively precise about minutiae person, but to become a better, more decent and loving person.  All the learning in the world that does not lead to that end would seem to mean little since it failed to accomplished what it was meant to.

What Learning Has Value

With the recent completion of the Daf Yomi cycle we have all heard the expected shouts of "Kol hakavod!" which is not surprising considering the herculean task that completing the Talmud Bavli in seven and a half years.  Indeed, kol hakavod to everyone who has persisted through, many for the third and fourth times in their lives.
But mixed in with all the praise are some grumpy refrains. Statements like "Well learning the daf isn't really learning because it's too superficial" or "There's no real benefit to going through the English in the Artscroll" get bandied about here and there.  Is there any merit to these statements?
I would suggest that there is not.  I think people who state things like this have no clue what real learning is.  Let me enlighten you.
In his comments on the first mishnah in Avos, Rav Shimshon Rafael Hirsch, zt"l, states that the goal of Jewish behaviour is the maximum dissemination of Torah.  The more Torah Jews know, the better.  Not the more Vilna Shas pages, not the more Rishonim in particular, but the more Torah.  This is in consonance with various statements from the Chazal about the obligation to learn Torah based on the pasuk in Yehoshua stating that we should be learning it day and night.  Someone who simply recites qrias Shema can, in the right circumstance, be said to have learned Torah; how much more so someone who sits and goes through a daf of Gemara every day.
I think one reason this idea is often forgotten is because of the access to information people have nowadays when it comes to learning.  Remember that this was before Artscroll and Feldheim made the English-Hebrew learning experience we have today so commonplace.  Go back only thirty years and what resources were available to a person who couldn't spend all day learning with an experienced Rav?  Or to someone who became chozer b'teshuvah?  When it came to Talmud there was only the Soncino edition which, while a huge accomplishment, isn't the most user-friendly way to start learning.  When it came to halacha there was the English translation of the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch.  And there was a venerable English-Hebrew Chumash with Rashi.  Not much more.
As a result, those people who learned Talmud could proudly look around at the high level they were accomplishing.  Even just doing the daf yomi was an exceptional achievement in that environment.  But things have changed.  When it comes to English and Hebrew speakers there are multiple options available for the new learner.  New commentaries in Chumash, Talmud and halacha make once elite sources now accessible to everyone.  Is this perhaps why the bar has been raised?
Keep in mind the following: yes, we are all of us obliged to learn Torah to the best of our ability.  More than kashrus and other Jewish behaviours, a fixed routine of learning Torah is what defines us as frum Jews.  However, we are not all of us obliged to become poskim and sometimes I think people forget this especially as a result of the ease of access of important learning materials.
An average shlub like me, for example, does not need to know if the Rashba didn't like the Ritva's take on the Ramban's analysis of the Rif on an obscure subject in the back of Bava Metzia somewhere.  An average shlub like me needs to know how to behave properly al pi halacha on any given day and something about why we behave in that kind of way.  This is not meant to depreciate the importances of deeper learning, chas v'shalom.  The more the better, the more depth the greater, it goes without saying but the idea that one is not learning Gemara unless one spends three months on a single sugya is ludicrous.  For some folks, yes, anything less is not really learning but for many of us it doesn't enhance our limud Torah experience.
What do I recommend as a "real" learning schedule for the average shlub?  Do an aliyah of Chumash a day, starting with the first aliyah on Shabbos afternoon so you finish on Friday afternoon.  Do a daf a day of Mishnah Berurah or Aruch HaShulchan (I'm preferable to the latter but Feldheim has a Hebrew-English version out) and a daf of Gemara in any format that makes sense, either in Hebrew, Hebrew-English or even just plain English.
Don't let people think that you're not really learning because you don't do it the way "they" did it in the alte heim.  The goal is a person learning as much as he can in the short time he has in This World.  All that matters in that we give it our most honest effort.

Even Thought I Want To Cheer For Them

Organized Jewish athleticism has always been a bit controversial for me.  From a nationalist perspective I can appreciate and take pride in the sporting accomplishments of my fellow Jews.  There's an instinctive feeling of joy in seeing one of "ours" standing on the podium and knowing that "we" can compete with "them" and win.

From a religious perspective, however, there is a rejection of that feeling of one of insecurity.  If the purpose of the Jewish nation is to be a moral light unto the world then why does winning a gold at the Olympics or an international basketball tournament matter?  In fact, isn't the desire to fit in, to compete with the gentile world and beat them at their own games a negative turn away from that divinely appointed mission?

That why, when Israeli basketball teams come to North America to play NBA teams I don't necessarily jump for joy or seek out tickets.  Jews running around in tank tops and shorts isn't my idea of a Jewish social activity.  I don't identify with young girls dressed in little more than beach apparel skating or jumping around to the beat of some horrid new-wave music or classical piece I've never heard before.  And a soccer team playing in a European tournament and insisting on playing its game on Rosh HaShanah even after the Gentile organizers offered to change the date out of religious sensitivity is a surefire way to make me feel a disconnect.

Now I accept that I am imposing my standards on these athletes.  For many Jewish athletes the idea that they're in the game as identifiable Jews is a testament to their religion and nationality.  I just don't see it that way, especially at this year's Olympics.

As we all well know this year is the 40th anniversary of the Munich massacre during which a dozen Israeli athletes were killed by Arab terrorists for the crime of being Jewish.  Since that time the International Olympic Committee has done everything it can to minimize the event in history.  And I mean literally from the moment it happened consider the Games didn't miss a bit but kept on going.  Since then every attempt to make the IOC recognize the event in some way other than a cursory acknowledgement that it happened has been rebuffed.  Because it's the fortieth anniversary efforts to encourage a moment of silence at the opening ceremonies in London (the one in England) were especially strong but to no avail.  Other than a meaningless moment of silence held in the athletes' village well before the Games began and attended by almost no one, the IOC has been unwilling to budge on its insistence that it will not "politicize" the games despite ample precedents to show that they have done similar things for far lesser tragedies before.

In a way I can understand the IOC's decision.  Murphy's Law teaches us that he who shouts louder has the floor.  The Arab world has a lot louder voice than the Jewish one in the international forum.  If we are denied a moment of silence there will be some awkward squawking about it.  If the moment was granted, one could only imagine the screaming that would have ensued about validating the "racist Zionist regime".  Perhaps the IOC had the nightmare vision that during the moment of silence many of the Arab teams would start shouting "Free Palestine!" or "God is a mouse!" (Hamevin yavin) much to the embarrassment of the international community.

It is also fitting that London should be the site of this reject.  Britain has a long and deep history of Jew-hatred.  After all, this is the Allied country that did the most to help ensure no Jews would escape from the Holocaust and still has accepted no responsibility for its vile behaviour until this day.  No, the combination of England and the IOC assured that no moment of silence would happen.

But this is where my discomfort with the current Israeli Olympic team comes in.  That they participated in the Opening Ceremonies on Shabbos, well I'm pretty sure none of them is shomer mitzvos and to expect them to decline the opportunity to march because of religious requirements would be unreasonable.  That they participated in sports on Tisha B'Av is also understandable.  Most of them probably have no idea about the special nature of the day.  It's not like it's Yom HaZikaron or anything like that.

No, my discomfort comes from the Israeli team marching on Friday night for a different reason.  By refusing to acknowledge the tragedy that occured in 1972, by refusing to admit that they were completely dismissive and insensitive by not cancelling the Games at the time or at least delaying them for a few days and by their continued refusal to grant a moment of silence for the victims when they have done so for others, the IOC is sending a clear message to the Jewish world: we don't care about you.  We can't outright ban you for participating but we can tell you straight out we don't think your lives or your honour matter.

That's why I think the Israeli team should have announced that they would not participate in the Opening Ceremonies.  By marching in on schedule, by smiling and waving to the crowds and the IOC executive that think their blood is not as red as Gentile blood, by acting like they are a member of the family of nations that is convinced that we are the adopted bastard child, they implied that their desire to be accepted by "the Goyim" is stronger than their desire to stand by the memory of the slaughtered Munich athletes, is stronger than their sense of honour at being repeated insulted by the assembled crowd.  

By participating, the Israeli team sent out a message about its opinion of its Jewishness while groveling for acceptance before its enemies.  There is nothing to take pride in that.

There's The Forest And Then There's The Leaves

One of the valid complaints some OTD's have about Torah Judaism is our tendency to obsess over the little things and forget the big picture.  We are so worried about being on time for davening that we'll push people out of our way and into the mud in order to get to shul on time.  We're so worried about developing the right kavannah during prayers that we'll sway and mumble loudly, distracting the guy next to us so he won't have a change to concentrate on his prayers.  We step over the beggar in the street while thinking about a sugya in the Gemara and it never occurs to us to see if the guy needs any help.  Forget the trees.  We can't see the forest for the leaves.
And the latest winner of an award in this area would seem to go to the Vishnitzer Rebbe, if this report is accurate.

According to a Kikar Shabbat report, the Vishnitzer Rebbe from Monsey Shlita may boycott the main Siyum HaShas because “Zionist rabbis” are expected to address the tzibur. This apparently may also lead to other prominent rabbonim and admorim shlita to boycott the event.

Until this announcement, residents of Eretz Yisroel were envious of Jews in North America which was holding one major siyum for all as opposed to in Eretz Yisrael there are siyumim for Ashkenazim, Sephardim, litvish and dati leumi. The rebbe’s announcement however changes all of this.

Invited to address that forum is Tel Aviv Chief Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau Shlita as well as Rosh Yeshivas HaMekubalim Ahavas Shalom HaRav HaGaon Yaakov Hillel Shlita.

Now let's look at the context.  We are here in the middle of the Three Weeks, the bein hametzarim.  We hear over and over again about the causes of the destruction of our holy Temple (may it be speedily rebuilt) and list loshon horo, sinas chinam and bizui talmidei chachamim prominently as reasons as to why the Har HaBayis is still in the hands of our enemies.
Now I am certain that in matters of personal practice the Vishnitzer Rebbe is an extremely scrupulous inidividual.  I am sure he eats no food that is not mehadrin min mehadrin min mehadrin and that his Shabbos behaviour is 180 degrees different from the rest of the week.  He probably has the finest tefillin around (both Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam) and immerses himself in Torah study from the crack of dawn until late into the night if not longer.
And while he can identify every leaf, he seems to have no clue about the forest that is the totality of Judaism.
Let me focus on Rav Yisrael Meir Lau, shlit"a.  Here is a true Gadol, a man who lived through the lowest and highest points of Jewish history since the destruction of our Temple.  He served as a distinguished Rav and Chief Rav in Israel without compromising his Torah practice or standards despite the criticism it brought him from some in the secular world.  He worked tireless to close  the gaps between different parts of the Orthodox world and unite Torah Jews.  To this day he continues to build bridges and encourage cooperation in our community.  He is a true example of what a Rav should be and can accomplish.
And the Vishnitzer?  How does he dare to criticize such a man?  Exactly what has he accomplished that he can raise his voice in criticism of Rav Lau?  Has he suffered like him?  Has he helped build Eretz Yisrael like him?  Has he opened his heart to all Jews regardless of their backgrounds as long as they approach Torah sincerely?
I have no doubt that the Vishnitzer Rebbe, if he really did release this statement, thinks that he is increasing holiness in the world by refusing to contaminate his heiliger presence with "Zionist rabbis".  But for those of us on the outside, he has done a different valuable service.  He has reminded us that we have to spend less time examine the fine patterns on the edge of the leaves and instead step back and look at the whole forest.  Only in this way can we restore any sense of purpose to Torah Judaism and move our redemption forward.
Of course, he probably doesn't see it that way because there's a really interesting piece of moss on that bark over there...

Hysterical Fear or Accurate Foreshadowing

For as long as I can remember, the demographics of the Israeli population has been a concern to folks who follow trends and want to determine which direction Israeli society is heading in.
Once upon a time it was the Arabs that were going to take over society.  This fear has eased somewhat since the Oslo Discords, in about the only way they helped Israel, created a sort of Palestinian citizenship which means the vast majority of Arabs living in Yesha are unlikely to show up in Israel tomorrow demanding citizenship there.  As for the Arab minority in Israel, despite prodigious fecundity it seems to remain at 20% of the total population over time.
So the real threat nowadays, according to the pundits, is the Chareidi community.  Chareidim, with a proclivity for children that makes Arab women look barren, are exploding in terms of population size.  Given that the average secular Israeli has about 2 kids or less, this means that some time in the next few decades the Chareidi population will reach a percentage of the population that gives them enough votes to control the Knesset and install a Chareidi government.
Personally, I don't think this will happen for a long time for a couple of reasons.  One, the fear of growth of the Chareidi population is probably overstated.  As too many blogs out there are happy to point out the tide of baalei teshuvah is more than amply matched by the opposite current creating chozrei b'she'elah.  What's more, keep in mind that Chareidim are just as Jewish as the rest of us.  The Chareidi community is not some monolithic entity with a tight oligarchal committee of elders controlled their every move.  It is just as fractious as general Jewish society and with size will come more division.  There are already three Chareidi parties in the Knesset and over time it's not hard to believe that the United Torah Judaism merge of the former Chasidic and Misnagdic parties will once again split.  Yes, one might imagine a Chareidi coalition one day but more likely there will be enough infighting to prevent a workable one from arising.
Nevertheless we must consider that one day there will be a Chareidi government.  The next question, then, is: what would such a government look like?  Over on his blog, Professor Marc Shapiro, normally a calm writer, waves very eloquently in an alarmist fashion over the possibility.
Now I would certainly not presume to debate with some of Prof. Shapiro's points.  A future Chareidi government would take its orders from "the Gedolim" and those "Gedolim" are carefully isolated from their own societies and routinely fed misinformation by their handlers who then take their pronouncements (assuming the handlers didn't make those us on their own anyway) and declare them to be "Daas Torah" for the masses.

To begin with, if haredim were ever the majority, funding for non-Orthodox (and perhaps even Religious Zionist/Modern Orthodox) schools would be halted. There would be massive decreases of funding for universities, with the humanities taking the biggest cuts, and money for the arts, culture, and institutions connected to Zionism would dry up. Freedom of the press would be abolished, artistic freedoms would be curbed, and organ transplants would almost entirely vanish. Public Shabbat observance and separate-sex public transportation would likely be required. There would also be restrictions on what forms of public entertainment and media are permissible and on public roles for women. Of course, women’s sporting events would no longer be televised and men would not be permitted to attend them. 

But despite their massive dislike for democracy and their refusal to grant legitimacy in any area other than the Chareidi one they would be unlikely to be successful in many of these endeavors.  For one thing, Israel has a very strong and independent Supreme Court that makes it its business to ensure the State is as secular as possible.  The morning after a Chareidi government came into being, that Supreme Court would still be there.  Any attempts to alter laws that involved infringing on the secular rights already taken as givens in Israel today would be shot down.  Unlike Iran and Saudi Arabia, the ruling "Gedolim" do not also control the justices and they would certainly fight back against attempts to turn Israel into a theologically fascist state.
What's more, Chareidi might be fanatic but they are not stupid.  They would well realize that an attempt to kill the "golden goose" that Israel has become for them would result in the destruction, chas v'shalom, not only of Israel but of the majority of their community.  After all, what kind of shape will Israel be in as hundreds of thousands of chilonim and their money flee the country to avoid living in a kosher Iran?
All in all it's okay to wonder "Hey what would things be like if those guys too over" and the shudder at the thought but I don't think it's going to happen in our lifetimes or the next.

On Conditional Conditions

An important halachic paradigm appears at the end of parshas Mattos this week.  As our ancestors sit on the edge of Eretz Yisrael, ready to make their way across the Yarden river, the leaders of the tribes of Reuven and Gad approach Moshe Rabeinu, a"h, with what initially seems an outrageous request.  Given their large number of livestock and the suitability of the local land for it, they want to stay put.  Everyone else can go across the Israel, they'll stay on the East Bank and do just fine.
What follows is an extended dialogue with Moshe Rabeinu demanding that they abandon their plans for fear of demoralizing the rest of the people and the two tribes replying that they would function as the vanguard of the invasion force, staying to help their brethren conquer the land before returning to settle in their current location.
Quite an extended dialogue and in fact, the Gemara learn from this conversation in which the same thing seems to get repeated over and over about the important rules of giving something to someone else al tanai, on condition.  As Chazal state and as is brought down in Shulchan Aruch Even HaEzer 38:2, if you are giving a conditional gift to someone you must do it in the form that this deal was worked out in.
In short, there are four conditions that must be fulfilled, as derived from the narrative:
1) It must be a double statement: "if, then" and "if not, then" detailing what happens if the condition is or is not fulfilled
2) The positive condition must precede the negative
3) The condition must precede the consequential action in the wording, not the other way around
4) It must be a condition that is possible to accomplish
In the absence of any one of these stipulation the tanai is null and void.
So the question might be asked: if one gives a gift to his fellow he said the following: "I'm giving you this if you do such-and-such" and the recipient agrees to perform the action and promises to but then doesn't, can the giver demand his gift back even though he didn't fulfill all four stipulations?
At first glance the answer, following Even HaEzer above, would be no.  However, there is another relevant spot in Choshen Mishpat 241:9 that brings a different impression:
"Anyone gift given on condition, whether its the donor's condition or the recipients, and the recipient acquired the object, if the condition is fulfilled the gift remains with the recipient and if not, the gift goes back."
In this case there is no detail as to how the condition should be made.  One possible explanation is that Choshen Mishpat is relying on the details given in Even HaEzer.  Another is that the two parties didn't know about the law in Even HaEzer and were making arrangements as they understood it.  In such a case the rule of returning the item in the event of lack of fulfillment of the condition applies even in the absence of the criteria from Even HaEzer being satisfied.  This is because both parties agreed, as it were, to forgo them.
The Rambam and the Rosh hold that these four criteria apply both to cases of issur v'heter like kiddushin and to financial transactions but the Tur disagrees with them and differentiates between land and movables.  In a similar vein, the Netivot HaMishpat brings a similar answer from the Ateres Zvi that the four conditions apply only to gifts of land, not movables.
But if Chazal said that these four conditions are required to enact a truly conditional transaction, why are there so many disagreements on how and whether or not to enforce them?  Some authorities note that demanding all four criteria from everybody all the time is quite burdensome.  The frustration that such enforcement would cause, especially because most people aren't aware of these rules, would lead to widespread abandonment of any conditional rules.  The Tashbetz therefore bring that we don't demand fulfillment of all four rules in financial transactions but we still do when it comes to issur v'heter.