No, Rav Sternbuch, We Love Our Religion

Rav Moshe Sternbuch, leader of the staunchly anti-Israel Eidah Charedit, recently added his sagacious voice to the growing number of Chareidi leaders protesting the imminent implementation of the universal draft in Israel.  Some of what he said was predictable and repetitive, such as the boring comments about how Israel is trying to uproot Torah, the army is evil, we are all the tribe of Levi, etc. etc.
And some of it was just plain insulting.  Not insulting to the intelligence but insults not worthy of a man of his stature.  Let's look at the opening statement, for starters:

Concerning the terrible decree to conscript yeshiva students [bnai hayeshivos], it calls for Da’as Torah about the severity of the matter.

Now, whenever someone says "Daas Torah" these days it's a code for "My arguments wouldn't hold up in an open discussion on the subject so I'll prevent that by declaring 'Daas Torah" which means 'How dare you disagree with me?'"  On the Chareidi side it's impressive.  Outside that community it just contributes to rolling of the eyes.
But then he went a step further and if Koheles is correct that the words of the wise are heard when said gently then Rav Sternbuch either disagrees with Koheles or...

The Ra'avad [Rosh Av Beis Din] of the Eidah HaChareidis, the Gaon Rav Moshe Shternbuch, chose to speak out against the entire Religious Zionist [Mizrachi] sector: "The Mizrachnikim are haters of Judaism [sonei das]. Today they revealed their true faces." By way of distancing from the [Religious Zionist] entity he did not [even] agree to mention the name of [Naftali] Bennett [head of the HaBayit HaYehudi party]: "In holy places one does not mention such names."The Ra'avad did not leave it at that, but he [Rav Moshe Shternbuch] also chose to attack the entire Religious Zionist community: "For years we knew that the Mizrachnikim were haters of [our] faith [sonei das], but they were always careful to display themselves as "lovers" of [our Jewish] faith and that they themselves are "religious" [dati'im] and they came to preach [lidrosh] in synagogues, today they revealed their true [hypocritical double] faces because they have joined with the haters of the [Jewish] religion [sonei hadas].

Whenever there is an incident in Israel involving Chareidim attacking people who are mechalel Shabbos the usual apologists explain that the reason for the violence is because the passionate love these particular Chareidim have for Torah and Shabbos drives them crazy when they see a sinner desecrating the holy day.
Goose and gander, Rav Sternbuch.  You are wrong, sir.  We do not hate our religion.  We are not sonei das.  It is because we love our religion, because we love the Torah that we are so passionately angry at those who have twisted it almost beyond recognition into a fossilized remnant of itself and then announced that this remnant is the only true Torah Judaism there is.  We are angry at people like you.
I've seen it written that the Torah acts like a mirror, that what a person is like inside is what he thinks he sees in the Torah.  What kind of Torah does the Eidah Chareidit see?  An uncompromising one full of anger and punishment, written by a deity who has nothing better to do all day than try to trip us up and then chuckle gleefully as our sins get written up in the Heavenly register?  That's not our Torah.  That's not our Ribono shel Olam.
Once upon a time the task of a religious Jew was to make the name of Heaven beloved by all.  Tell me, sir, how many non-Eidah Chareidit types have you accomplished that with?  And how many have you turned off from any interest in Torah observance through your strident declarations that your way, the way of the xenophobic shtetl where every outsider was an evil demon waiting to rape and murder, is the only true way of Torah?
Once upon a time a religious Jew was a functioning member of society.  He stood up to the temptations of the outside world and insisted on bringing holiness into it.  His faith cowered before no outside philosophy.  He could learn math, science and history and bring it into the service of Torah to accomplish a more complete worship of the Ribono shel Olam.  Tell me, sir, when did the Torah become such a flimsy vessel that it has to be hidden behind ghetto walls for fear that its adherents will defect from it en masse?  When did even speaking a language with proper grammar become goyish?
We are angry because every time we try to make a suggestion to your community to improve relations between us we are insulted, belittled and patronized.  We are told that only your "gedolim" are real Torah scholars and only your way of practice is real Torah observance.  You insult us and then tell us we should be privileged that we have a chance to support your community.  Should we not be angry about that?
We are angry because everywhere we look we see the hand of God working to move history forward towards the final redemption and you disagree, refusing to give the Ribono shel Olam any credit for the miracles and kindness He has performed for us.  The Satmar once said that any time something bad happens to the Jews it's God punishing us but when some thing good happens it's just the Satan trying to trick us.  You've turned God into a dysfunction, abusive parent.  Should we not be angry about that?
We want to bring forward history to its Divine conclusion.  We want to increase the presence of God in the world.  We want to worship Him by living complete lives in his service, harnessing all we can of the world to bring us closer to Him.  You want to hide behind closed doors and high walls and pretend the Cossacks are at the gate while you debate who's ox is liable for that pit in the public domain.  Who really loves God and Torah?  Who really doesn't?
We are angry but we do not hate.  Unlike you we know we are all one big family.  We know that God's plan for history includes all of us.  We want to embrace you but when we try you shove us away and call us dirty and inferior.  We are angry like a brother is angry at a brother.  The language of hatred comes from your side, not ours.  Do you not understand that or has your self-righteousness completed clouded your faculties?
We want one nation, prospering and sanctified, engaging the real world and showing God's plans for it.  We want you to join us.  But if you don't, if you want to wallow in your hatred while calling it "Torah true" we can't stop that.
You are wrong but we don't hate you.  Pity?  Maybe, but hatred is not acceptable.

Doing It Without Hatred

As plans slowly move forward to implement a universal army draft in Israel it's interesting to watch two definitive sides form in response.
One side is that of the Chareidi leadership and its PR folks.  Their response has been vigorous, viscious and self-righteous in the extreme.  We are repeatedly reminded by them that it is the Torah study of the tens of thousands of kolleleit that is the true defense of the State and that we, their spiritual inferiors, should be grateful instead of sitting around in our dank and dark basements all day scheming on how to destroy the Torah world.  For this group there is one answer: no draft, no service, no acknowledgement of the importance of contributing to the State.
On the other side is an equally irrational group, one that would like to see Israeli police and soldiers transformed into Imperial storm troopers and tasked with the mission of dragging Chareidi men from their shtenders by their peyos and throwing them into a dungeon somewhere for daring to not want to be drafted.  For this group there is only one answer as well: a total, immediately draft of all eligible Chareidim and long prison sentences for those that resist.
These two extreme positions have come to dominate the public debate and this is a terrible shame since there is an obvious path of compromise, one which the government has been working on.  But, as is often the case when someone tries to accommodate a middle path, the folks attempting to solve the problem in this fashion are either ignored or set upon by both sides.
If one dares to suggest that setting up the universal draft will take time, maybe a few years, one is attacked by the Chareidi leadership for daring to suggest there should be a universal draft at all.  One is also attacked by the extreme secularists for choosing a plan that does not involve immediately implementation.  How dare we give those lazy bums any further time off?
Let us consider what is at stake.  First, there is the practical.  The Israeli army, far from intending to use a draft to wipe out the Jewishness of its Chareidi conscripts, is bending over backwards to help those Chareidim who have already enlisted, maintain an observant lifestyle when it comes to food, learning and mixed gender environments.  There is no question that, should the universal draft be implemented, they will continue to want to make these accommodations.  It will be hard enough to absorb the increased numbers of recruits without doing things that will bring their passive-aggressive nature to the fore.
But changes like this require time.  A large number of Chareidim, angry and resentful, entering the army at the same time and finding inadequate facilities appropriate to their spiritual needs, will create a disaster for the army.  Tzahal needs time to build the infrastructure it will need.  An immediate universal draft denies them this opportunity.
There is also Chareidi psychology to consider.  The Chareidi leadership, stuck as it is mentally in the 1920's, still really does see the secular Zionist community as consumed with hatred of Torah and nothing better to do with its time than attack Chareidim and try to spiritually destroy them.  This is the message that has been passed on to students within the Chareidi educational system for three generations now.  Is it any wonder that Chareidi kolleleit ignore the "share the burden" message and instead see a scheme to destroy their Yiddishkeit?  And since this is the case, is it any wonder that they vehemently resist the universal draft?
Now it should be acknowledged that there is a glimmer of hope, at least from the Chareidi side.  Rav Yonasan Rosenblum, one of the more eloquent Chareidi PR folks who also possesses a measure of insight lacking in many others in that group, has even recently written the unthinkable:

we might be approaching the end of a miraculous period in which the secular Israeli government became the prime supporter of Torah learning on a scale unprecedented in Jewish history

An excellent confession but one that sadly is decades overdue given the extensive time over which generations of Chareidi youth and baalei teshuvah have been taught that the secular Israeli government is the greatest threat to Torah learning since the Czar.  Rav Rosenblum may have realized that reality is the opposite of that Chareidi doctrine but he will have difficulty convinced his comrades.
In summary we must hope and pray that the folks in the government managing this transition in Israeli society and Tzahal have the patience and wisdom to ignore the extremists on both sides and create an environment in which Chareidi men can now contribute to Israeli society's security without having to compromise their level of observance.

Pesach And The National Imperative

Although we tend to focus on yetzias Mitzrayim during the Pesach celebrations it is important to remember that one of the underlying features of the entire narrative is the transformation of our ancestors from an ethnic group within the larger Egyptian society into a separate nation with its own identity.
Rav Steinsaltz, shlit"a, both note this important facet in their writings on the holiday.  He asks the question of why we have to remove chametz from our possession.  If we are trying to remember the exodus then it should be enough to have a Seder and eat matzah.  The folks at that first Seder didn't remove chametz from their homes.  Why is it not Pesach for us unless we do?
The Rav then notes an obvious point, one that is repeated throughout the classic Jewish writings.  It's not enough, he writes, to engage in positive expressions of Judaism.  One must also remove the negative from one's life.  One can have the Seder, one can have the positive spritual experience that brings dviekus closer but if one still has chametz, the materialistic gashmiyus, in one's life then this interferes with the full appreciation positive worship of the Ribono shel Olam provides.
This also relaets to the national experience.  It's not enough for a nation to siomply develop some customs and idiosyncracies that define it.  What it stands for and against are equally important.  The Jewish nation must reject much of what the rest of the world considers normal and standard in its quest for holiness.  Matzah balls without perishus from the materialism that surrounds us is not the norm.
On behalf of the staff here at this blog (and that would be pretty much just me) I would like to wish all of you a happy, healthy and filling Pesach and end with this reminder: flavourless Metamucil is kosher for Pesach.  I'm just saying.

Them And Only Them

You have to feel sorry for the Chareidi community some days.  Wave after wave of assaults against them are leaving them publicly frustrated and annoyed.  Whether it's yet another outrage from the Morethodox against their mesorah or the Israeli government's recent chutzpah to think it can govern the State without their Daas Torah, Chareidism has not been taken very seriously by outsiders recently and this has them mad.
Part of it, to be fair, is their fault.  One problem Chareidism has always had is its assumption that the rest of the world sees them they way they seem themselves.  They see themselves as the superior and only really authentic form of Torah observance and assume the rest of the world thinks that as well.  It's like a person who insists there are four lights instead of the three that he's supposed to say.  Why, oh why, don't people see it their way?
The other difficulty is an assumption, based on a little bit too much literalism when learning Talmud, that the outside world also knows everything the Chareidi world does including those values that are "right" and "wrong" and agrees with their basic validity.  This is often why Chareidim in Israel go apopleptic over immodestly dressed secular women on the street.  In their minds it's not that this woman is just dressed inappropriately but that she knows she's dressed wrong and insists on doing it anyway.  The idea that it's hot and she's dressing for comfort and doesn't know or care about the laws of modest clothing simply isn't in their paradigm.
That's why every government move that isn't pro-Chareidi is automatically an assault on the Torah and an attempt to destroy Torah observance in Israel.  From the secular side it may be a budget consideration or something with a broader social necessity but in the mind of Chareidism the government is only thinking "How can we oppress the Chareidim and attack the Torah?"  Chareidi leaders don't see politicians concerned with a global picture.  There is them and only them.
But perhaps they are most frustrated when it comes to a perceived lack of appreciation for their claim that the only real learning occurs in the Chareidi world and that which occurs elsewhere is at best second rate.  This belief fits into the general package, of course, alongside the "All real 'Gedolim' are Chareidi because any non-Chareidi 'gadol' isn't a real 'gadol'".
What's more, some Chareidi PR flacks aren't content to allow a mistaken belief like "There's real learning outside the Chareidi world" to go without contesting.  Thus we have Rav Yitzchok Adlerstein's latest piece in Cross Currents where he takes a comment allowed through the censors to task for daring to suggest that not only is there real learning in the non-Chareidi observant community but that Chareidi learning, for all its perceived self-importance, isn't as amazing as its propagandists would like us to believe.
The interesting thing to note in Rav Adlerstein's response is how he subtly revises history while using insincere flattery to deflect the objection.  Consider this little statement halfway through:

With all the considerable learning outside of haredi circles, they have not produced a critical mass of depth learners adequate to address complex new questions. In contradistinction to the term “morei hora’ah” that I used above, those who can creatively address new questions are true “poskim.”

Really?  Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l, was only a real posek because he was part of the larger "team"?  Paskening is now a group activity?  What's more, the next statement that Rav J. David Bleich, a major halachic authority and extremely intelligent man, is more authoritative than the contributors to Tradition journal en masse is ridiculous in its oozing of contempt.  Rav Bleich is an important figure but he is hardly the only one in the YU ecosystem.
Then there is this gem:

Incisive depth learning is the common thread you will see in the Rashba, the Terumas HaDeshen, the Maharik, the Nodah BeYehudah, Rav Akiva Eiger, R Yitzchok Elchonon, R Moshe Feinstein and the Chazon Ish

The implication is clear: these are all Chareidi authorities throughout the ages thus proving that it's Chareidi learning that is the most important and influential around.  Never mind that the first half of that list predated the invention - yes, the invention, of Chareidism as a Jewish religious philosophy.  Just like Muslims claim that Avraham Avinu, a"h, and David HaMelech, a"h, were Muslim prophet so too the Chareidim now assume that any important religious figure predated the Chasam Sofer's innovation of forbidding innovation was also Chareidi.  Are we really supposed to take that seriously?
Finally there is the aspect of self-promotion.  When any well-known Charedi authority dies nowadays we are treated, usually within weeks, to a shining hagiography that tells us that he was the greatest thing since sliced bread (an innovation! Ban it!) and that the entire Torah world basked in his glow.  Without meaning any disrespect, how many "gedolim" who have recently passed away truly fit that bill?  How many were simply major political figures in that community who were granted an eternal bill of importance based on that standing?
As Rav Natan Slifkin himself noted in the comments section (note how, after calling Adlerstein "rabbi" he is referred to by his first name):

“New conditions, new technologies bring a host of questions that must be addressed creatively only after thorough mastery of a sugya, especially after analysis of the impact different shitos in rishonim have on a topic.” However, in the charedi world of today, that is not what takes place. Questions are not addressed “creatively.” Rather, the eventual psak is a foregone conclusion; it’s the one that satisfies the socio-religious mores of charedi society. The only creativity is in getting there. I’m not sure that producing legions of such poskim is such a great achievement. What difference if you have one charedi posek prohibiting organ donation from the brain-dead, or a hundred such poskim? The end result is obvious from the outset, given their socio-religious orientation.
For those who would dispute this – please name a recent psak from a well-known posek that goes against the socio-religious mores of charedi society. The most recent one that I can remember is Rav Shlomo Zalman’s psak regarding electricity on Shabbos, which has been all but buried.

Yes there are more Chareidi sifrei shu"t coming out that non-Chareidi ones but there are good reasons for that.  Rav Alderstein is correct when he notes that the numbers of high level scholars in the Chareidi world vastly exceeds those on the non-Chareidi side.  But then the number of Chareidi shnorrers who show up at my door looking for money for yet another obscure kollel engage in this high-intensity learning vastly exceeds those on the non-Chareidi side.  Actually, I never get non-Chareidi shnorrers but maybe that's because there is a balance in the non-Chareidi community in which both learning and earning are valued.  Non-Chareidi institutions produce dayanim and volumes of responsa.  The folks at Eretz Chemda and the Kollel MiTzion network are an important example.  Is their lack of importance due to Chareidi refusal to stock their books in their yeshivos based on political consideration and snobbery?
One can have high esteem for learning without engaging in it full time despite what you might have heard.  That's why Zevulun was never asked to stop being Zevulun and merge into Issachar.  The former also had his role, God-approved and all.
All Rav Alderstein seems to have done is confirmed that Chareidism is trapped by the "No good Scotsman" agruement.

Don't Count Your Chareidim Until They've Been Drafted

And now the news from Israel is bleak if you only own white shirts and black suits.  According to the news reports the imminently incoming government in Israel will, for the first time in decades, have no Chareidi parties in it. (I dislike those who say it will be a secular government.  There will be plenty of observant Jews in it and in positions of influence, no less)  As a result the government can finally discuss something which is of great concern to the secular population: the drafting of the Chareidi population in the name of equality.
On the surface this is an easy issue.  Seen simply, the Chareidim have been living off the State for decades without contributing anything back.  Their boys sit and learn claiming to be the real protectors of the State while non-Chareidi boys go out and do the actual protecting.  There has been no gratitude and only minimal recognition of this from the Chareidi side and it's time the burden was shared equally.
Unfortunately life is not that simple.  First of all, the depiction in the above paragraph in no way reflects the entire Chareidi population, just a significant portion of it.  Since 1947 there has been not a small number of Chareidim who have equally shared the burdens with the secular population, working, building and dying for the State.  They have had the further difficulty of having to deal with the other part of the community, the part that sees the State as evil incarnate (except when the welfare cheques arrive).
Yes, equal sharing of the national burden of defence is an important goal.  Yes, Chareidi 18 year olds should feel the same pressure to contribute to the wellbeing of the State as 18 year old non-chareidim.  But as anyone who follows life in Israel knows this isn't going to happen.
To be an observant Jew there are certain obligations one must accept.  One must accept that the only edible food out there is kosher food.  One must accept that one cannot watch television on Shabbos.  And so on.
The Chareidim in Israel have added to that list as a condition for membership in their community.  To be a good Chareidi, it seems, one must disparage the State, see serving in the army as a sure path to personal damnation and consider the idea of working for a living anathema.
Again, this is not true of the entire Chareidi population, just a significant proportion that loves to portray itself as the superior part of that community.
Imagine the State of Israel were to make it a national obligation to eat bacon for breakfast on alternating Tuesdays in the winter.  What if they were to make the attending of pornographic live plays compulsory? Could you imagine the response from not just the Chareidim but from the rest of the Torah-observant population?  There would be outrage and resistance and why not?   Acquiescence to such laws is unthinkable to a Torah observant Jew because it strikes at the very identity of that Torah observance.
Well for the proportion of the Chareidi community we're discussing the idea of serving in the army is pretty much on the same level.  With their characteristic black and white thinking they can see no difference between being soldiers and being forced to eat bacon or drive on Shabbos.  They all threaten what are defining features of Chareidi society.
Now, we can argue as to whether it's normal or functional for a community to have lack of gratitude to the State it lives in or refusal to serve in its army as ikkari haemunah in the first place but we cannot argue that these ikkarim are there and will serve as an obstacle to the draft.
Not that this draft will ever happen, mind you.
Yes, the quietly funny party of this controversy is that it will never happen.  Consider the details leaked so far.  No initiation of the draft until 2017.  No jail time for refusal to serve. 
The year 2017 is far off.  There is a good chance that there will be a new government in place by then and unlike today it is quite possible that the Chareidi parties will once again be in a controlling position.  And when they are one can be quite sure this draft plan will be quietly shelved.
Yair Lapid can congratulate himself.  He has satisfied his voters by delivering "the draft".  He has also set it up in such a way so that when it fails he won't be held responsible.
So my advice to my Chareidi friends in Israel (yes, I have a few) is: don't pack your bags.  Your sons aren't going to any army.  Just relax and stop making such a fuss.  It just makes you look that much more parasitic.

From Tanach To Talmud

One of the biggest maiden speeches in the Knesset ever was Prof. Ruth Calderon's speech as a newly elected MK.  Outside of the Chareidi community people both religious and secular were excited.  Here was a non-religious but proudly Jewish woman give a relevant lecture in Talmud to the nation's elected representatives.  It was hailed as a new era and a chance for Israelis to reconnect to the Talmud. One would have to be a spoilsport of epic proportions to challenge that assumption, the kind of guy never invited to parties because the negative gloom he brings cancels out any joy the others are feeling.
Hi guys.  Here I am.
Let me being by pointing out the obvious.  I mean absolutely no disrespect to Prof. Calderon.  I also want to give no impression that her learning and knowledge base are in any way defective.  From her background it is quite clear that she can run circles around many experienced Talmidei Chachamim when it comes to knowledge of the Talmud.  She has dedicated her life to its study in a way many religious folks would do well to emulate.
Furthermore I don't begrudge her the right to learn Talmud at all and if she serves as an inspiration for more secular Jews to pick up a volume of Gemara and go through it, kol hakavod.  For too long a small portion of the Jewish nation has treated the Talmud as its private property.  According to them you are only learning if you learn like they do, using the formatted text they use and understand it using their methodology.  If the learning of Torah is meant to be a universal Jewish practice then the method one learns with and comes closer to God's truth is valid.
I also don't dismiss Prof. Calderon because she is a woman.  One of the most important books on understanding the parshiyos of the Torah is written by a woman, Nechama Leibowitz, zt"l.  Years ago I was sitting in shul and reading one of her books when the Rosh Kollel of the day (long since moved away) came over and asked what I was learning.  When I showed him the book he rolled his eyes dismissively.  His response only served to reinforce the idea that his version of learning was limited.  It avoided truth when that truth didn't come in the expected pre-packaged form he recognized.  I don't doubt, therefore, that Prof. Calderon has a lot to teach about Talmud.
Here's where I don't get excited: this isn't the first time an important Jewish book has been touted by someone in a position of secular leadership.  We've seen this all before with the Bible.
Do not forget that early Secular Zionism, seeking to create a connection with the Land of Israel amongst the early chalutzim, used the Bible to create that tie.  For them the Bible was Jewish history and a prequel to the great Zionist enterprise.  For many decades, until Shulamit Aloni came along with her hatred of Judaism and Jewish education, Bible education was standard in the secular school system in Israel.  Talk with any Israeli over a certain age and they can still quote various parts from memory in ways that make religious Jews feel embarrassed.  Now an unacceptably high proportion of average Israelis can't even recite Shema Yisrael from memory.
But something was missing in all that.  These non-religious Jews may have read the Bible but they didn't connect to it religiously.  For them it was a history book, not a guide to moral instruction and if you don't read the Bible as a guide to moral instruction then you aren't really learning it in a uniquely Jewish way.  That's why after decades of having it in the school system it could be quickly expunged, to be replaced with revisionist textbooks blaming Israel for the so-called occupation.
Prof. Calderon's approach to Talmud reminds me of this.  Once upon a time David Ben Gurion, a"h, could stand up with a Bible and lecture people on it.  Now Prof. Calderon invokes the Talmud.  But both have the same approach: it's a book. It's a field of knowledge.  It might be inspiring and fascinating, a great exercise in learning and analysis but it's a book.  It's external.  If a secular Israeli gets into the car on Shabbos and drives to the beach and on the way he thinks about the Talmud sugya he learned the day before, did he really learn Talmud?
Try this exercise: go through at least the first half of Prof. Calderon's speech and do a word switch. Instead of references to being Jewish and Israeli change them to English and British.  Change Talmud to Shakespeare and the story from the Gemara to a particularly moving scene from Julius Caeser or Romeo and Juliet.  Here, I'll help you along:

By telling you this I'm trying to say that I grew up in a very English home, a very British home, secular, traditional and normal, that combined both being English and Scottish, Labour and Conservative, in the accepted English surroundings, the main-stream of the 60s and 70s, and was educated like all of my generation in the government education system, in the spirit of the "English Literature for the People". And I encounter neither Shakespeare and the Sonnets, nor Bacon and Milton. By the time I was a teenager I felt something was missing, something about the new, liberal British identity,... was all well and good but something was missing. It lacked depth, for me more words were needed in the vocabulary, it lacked a past, epics, heroes, places, drama, stories. The "New English", educated by the founders of the nation, fulfilled their dreams, and he became a citizen of the word, brave, practical and civilized. But for me, he (me) had a void, I didn't know how to fill this void, but when I encountered Shakespear for the first time, and fell in love with it, its language, its humor, its profound wisdom, its methods of debate, its practicality, its humanity, its maturity, which comes through with every line, I felt that I had found peace of mind and what I was missing.
Since then I have studied, at Oxford and at Canterbury, academic studies, and I have earned a Doctorate in English Liberature, from Cambridge, in Shakespeare and Medieval English Poetry for my own personal enrichment and for years I've been lucky enough to study the Sonnets which have helped me become who I am.

Do you see my point?  Prof. Calderon loves the Talmud.  She's passionate about it and does want to learn from it to enrich herself and her culture but how different is it from a professor of English literature with a love of Shakespeare and Bacon?
Is it so far-fetched to wonder if the new secular love of the Talmud will wind up like the former love of Tanach?  That for a few years or maybe even decades the Talmud will infiltrate the secular school system producing students who can quote various sugyas and engage in a form of pilpul only to be followed by an abandonment of a book that didn't enter the souls of its learners because it was never presented in that way?
Prof. Calderon's love of Talmud is a start but for the same reason Prof. Marc Shapiro, a brilliant man with an extensive knowledge of Torah, isn't a posek, it is not the path back to religious study that many believe it is.  for that the religious leadership in Israel now has to take up the banner and show people how to learn Talmud in such a way as to connect them back to Judaism and the Creator.

The Great Reassertion

Around 110 years ago or so something should have happened to the Torah-observant community.  Zionism was spreading its wings, a return to Israel by our nation was no longer a far-flung dream but an emerging reality.  Judaism was poised to evolve from a diaspora-based religion back into the national faith it has once been.
And then it didn't.  The leadership of the part of the community that couldn't handle change fought a pitched battle to keep the ghetto walls high and strong and more the most part they won.  Secular Zionism marched off to build a country and, with only a small exception, Torah Jewry stayed behind in Europe awaiting the personal intervention of God on its terms and understanding.
Around 70 years ago something should have happened to theTorah-observant community.  The leaders that had announced their intention to remain in Europe come hell or high water got both and most of the followers they had kept around perished from their decision.  Suddenly the Religious Zionist component of the Torah world was the dominant one and poised for success.  However, history had other plans.  The remnants of the Chareidi community, unwittingly aided by the Secular Zionist leadership which thought they would remain an obscure museum piece for display, reorganized, manipulated and grew until it again became the dominant part of the Torah community.
This is the situation that has persisted until today.  Two opportunities for Religious Zionism to take its place as the defining form of Torah Judaism.  Two misses.  And now comes the third try.
At this point the situation in Israel seems to be like this: Bibi Netanyahu, along with Tzipi Livni and Avigdor Leiberman, will bring Yesh Atid and Bayit Yehudi into the government.  For the first time in a long time there will be no Chareidim sitting around the cabinet table.  There will, however, be plenty of non-Chareidi Torah observant Jews.  This is where things get interesting.
It is well understood that for a long time Chareidism has worked to define itself as the authentic highest form of Torah observant Judaism.  Everything else has come to be seen as a lower level or less frum variation on a theme.  To this end history has been revised, publishing houses have churned out propaganda pieces and extensive kiruv work has been done to cement this impression in the general Jewish public's mind.
Think about it: if someone says frum Jew what do you see in your mind's eye?  A soldier or businessman wearing a knitted kippah or a Chareidi with a shtreiml?
Now without the Chareidim in the government Bayit Yehudi has a chance to remake this image.  Without Chareidi interference the Rabbanut can start shifting back towards a more nationalistic position.  Without Chareidim in the government more rational policies can be developed in terms of universal army service and enforcing basic education standards in all schools that receive government money.  Progress that has been held back in the name of narrow-minded parochialism for decades can finally occur.
Ironically it seems that the Chareidi leadership might actually encourage this trend as well.  It is no secret that the chumra-of-the-week attitude that has exemplified Chareidi society over the last several decades has not endeared Judaism to the masses.  It has instead served to alienate them from it.  It's hard enough for a secular Israeli to feel some connection with people dressed like 15th century Polish nobles.  It's impossible to empathize with folks who think the Taliban were on to something when they made the burka a mainstream garment in Afghanistan.
If the recent trends in Israel have shown anything it is that the general population is getting more nationalistic. They are tired of always being told that Israel has to make sacrifices for peace and that whatever those sacrifices are they will always be preludes to more demands without any concessions from the other side.  There may be a few idealistic dreamers left but most Israelis now realize there is no interest in a final peace agreement with the Arab leadership in Yesha and have gotten on with their lives.  A Chareidi call to boycott settlements and show sympathy for the Arab enemy over the Green Line in retaliation for being left out of government will not gain much traction with the general public, nor will it be as successful even within the Chareidi community considering how many of them live in Yehuda and Shomron now.
And how exactly does the Chareidi leadership justify aligning itself with the Labour party, one of the leading influences in the diminishing movement to make Israel a Judaism-free secular "state of all its citizens"?  Labour has spent 70 years working actively against what most Chareidim consider priorities for Israel and suddenly they're natural allies?
Finally the public calls for revenge, the claims that the Religion Zionists are treasonous for not capitulating to the natural "leadership" position of the Chareidim, will only strengthen Religious Zionism as a valid Torah-observant alternative.  People are already sick and tired of the cry-baby tactics of the Chareidi PR machine. Chareidim can claim many things but when they say they are discriminated against and don't receive a fair share of the national revenue, well pause for canned laughter.
This is, as I noted, Religious Zionism's third opportunity.  Played right, the religious leadership of the Dati Leumi community could retake the Rabbanut and make it more relevant for average Israelis.  It could position Religious Zionism back in the heart of Israeli religious life.
Or it could, pardon the baseball reference, be strike three and out.
Let us hope that the Dati Leumi leadership has wisdom granted to them by the Ribono shel Olam to make the right decisions for now and the future of our nation.

What Morethodoxy Misses

Orthodoxy has often been accused of being the kind of religion that focuses not just on the trees instead of the forest but on the little lines on the leaves instead of the forest.  We become so obsessed with the little details in some areas that we forget the big picture and the importance of other areas.

A classic example of this is brought by Rav Shimon Eider, z"l, in his seminal book on hilchos Niddah.  In noting the importance of asking shailos when it comes to deciphering bedikah clothes he lamented that many  people don't ask but instead assume that it's okay to be machmir and delay the tevilah date.  But this leads to an unwanted kullah, Rav Eider noted, because it treated the woman's onah with unneeded leniency.  In fact, if one looks at all the new chumros that keep cropping up nowadays one rarely finds one that doesn't result in another area of halacha being unintentionally observed with leniency.  

How many chumros when it come to bein adam l'Makom result in leniency in bein adam l'chaveiro?  How many people are raised in the Jewish educational system and taught by strong implication that the former is far more important than the latter?  

This results from people forgetting some of the overarching principles of Judaism.  There are ikkarim that should filter down into all our actions and influence them but we get lost in the particulars and forget about them on a regular basis.

This often happens on the Chareidi side, as I've (and others) noted frequently in the past.  What's interesting to note is that it happens on the left-wing Modern Orthodox side as well but as a mirror image.  In the Morethodox world bein adam l'chaveiro often assumes a superior position to bein adam l'Makom with the resultant twisted paskening, just like on the Chareidi side of things.

Thus the latest piece on their blog by Rabbi Hyim Shafner, resurrecting the concept of the female rabbi, the Mahara"t.  The blog has recently focused on partnership minyan arrangements only to get slapped down repeatedly in the comments section by folks who note that the halacha doesn't support such things and that in the absence of a posek (they have a whole one book by Rav Daniel Sperber to rely on, not so very encouraging) Morethodoxy is hardly in a position to enact such a significant change in our liturgical worship.  

So they've moved on, or rather: back to an earlier position.

Unfortunately Rabbi Shafner's article is quite confusing.  At the beginning he writes something which sounds quite Orthodox:

Orthodox Jews believe that men and women are fundamentally different.  They have different characteristics, different strengths, different obligations and different ways of seeing the world and approaching life.

But within the same paragraph he makes a complete U-turn:

Thus, it follows that especially for us, (as opposed perhaps to more liberal Jewish movements in which the boundaries between the genders might be more blurred), it is vital that we have both genders leading our people.  

He then supports his contradictory position at the end of the article.  First he notes:

I would like to caution us against seeing women spiritual leaders in the way that  liberal Jewish movements have in the past, that of expecting women to be rabbis just like their male counterparts.

But then he says:

The Maharat will be no less powerful, no less influential, no less important, no less respected than the Rabbi

In fact what he's proposing is, other than the title being Mahara"t instead of Rabbi, is exactly what liberal Jewish movements are doing.  If he was, for example, proposing female leaders for the women in a congregation and male leaders for the men he might be onto a genuine idea.  But in practice the Mahara"t isn't a rabbi figure for women.  She's a rabbi figure for the congregation and Morthodoxy is being dishonest when it refuses to come straight out and say this.

But going back to the start of this post one can see what the guiding feature is behind this move.  The guiding passion in Modern Orthodoxy is bein adam l'chaveiro.  This is why Morethodoxy's various initiatives have all involved interpersonal relations, the role of women and the wistful dreaming of legitimizing gay marriage within halacha.  While the Chareidim overemphasize bein adam l'chaveiro by saying "no" to everyone Morethodoxy does the opposite by trying to say "yes" even when it's extremely questionable if they can within halacha.

Here's what Morthodoxy is missing, however.  Two of the distinct features of Orthodox are (1) definite distinction in the roles of men and women and (2) definite distinction in values and beliefs when compared with surrounding society.  Morethodoxy, on the other hand, seems bent on blurring these two as much as possible. For example its writers have demanded the removal of the beracha of shelo asani ishah from the morning prayers because it offends feminist sensibilities. As noted above, they have opined that they wish gay marriage could be Jewish acceptable. Now they're saying we should have women rabbis, albeit with a different name.
No, they're not suggesting we stop waiting 6 hours after meat or allow driving to shul on Shabbos but (1) and (2) are very much fundamental principles of Torah society and Morethodoxy seems to not understand that working against them means working against being Orthodox.

Goose and Gander

Having discussed insight recently I want to return to the topic, especially with how it comes to play in the current negotiations for a new government in Israel.
The one thing people following the issue cannot have missed is that Bibi Netanyahu has been presented with a choice.  He can either cobble together a government with secular Yesh Atid and Dati Leumi Bayit Yehudi or with the Chareidi parties.  The clashing platforms of the former preclude forming any kind of functioning government containing both sides.
It's not an easy choice for Bibi.  At first glance it makes obvious sense for him to go with Yesh Atid and Bayit Yehudi for two reasons. The first is that they represent important segments of the Israeli population with long-standing grievances and if these are not addressed he will continue to lose votes to the new parties.  Yair Lapid has already boasted publicly about becoming prime minister in the next election (assuming he's not a flash in the pan like his father was).  The second reason is forward thinking.  By bringing Yesh Atid and Bayit Yehudi into the government Bibi can steal some of their momentum.  Nothing muddies up today's golden boy like the mud of governing.  Remember that what killed Shinui, the party of Lapid's father, was being in the government of Ariel Sharon's Likud and being exposed as a political party as corrupt and incompetent as all others.
But it is the forward thinking part that must worry Bibi.  He might be able to form a government without any Chareidi parties today but the next election is a wild card.  Yesh Atid and Bayit Yehudi might soar to 25 seats or more.  They might also completely disappear.  The only real certainty is that the Chareidi parties will accumulate 18-20 seats.  They will definitely be around and a possible candidate for government after the next election, the new upstarts might not and Bibi knows this.  If he builds a non-Chareidi government he would be successful today but then be relegated to the sidelines after the next election.
Why?  Isn't the natural home of the Chareidi parties on the right?  After all they've been part of every Israeli government since 1977 when Menachem Begin first brought them into his new coalition.  Where else would they go?
To quote Madonna from the old Dick Tracy movie when asked the question: "Whose side are you on?"
"Mine!"
As soon as the election results came out and the possibility of a government without any Chareidi parties emerged the Chareidi leadership began to scream and shout in a predictable fashion.  Like the spoiled child who has gotten whatever he wants for years by stamping his feet they were incredulous at the thought that they might not have the blackmailing power they've come to expect as their natural inheritance this time around.
As this article in Ynet notes, the Chareidi leadership and, by extension, its general cultural awareness, has come to expect a double standard in all its dealings with the outside world.

If there is one thing the haredim cannot be accused of, it is having respect for the other's worldview, beliefs and needs. They demand everyone else's respect as the (sole) representatives of the Torah, but they do not have to respect anyone else in return. They have a right to meddle in every affair under the sun, while others are forbidden from intervening in their affairs.
This isolationist and condescending outlook of haredi society in Israel could have been its own business had it not chosen to run our affairs as well. The Amish in the US are just as isolated, but at least they do not ask to head Congress' Budget Committee in order to transfer huge sums of money to their communities.
The ultra-Orthodox in Israel chose the political arena because they want to enjoy the best of both worlds. Now that there is a possibility that they will be treated like any other player, they yell "Gevalt! A community in Israel is being boycotted!" But this is not true. No one is boycotting the haredi community. The ultra-Orthodox public enjoys many rights, and even those who do not want them in the coalition are not trying to marginalize them, but rather to drag them towards the center. Opposing a political agenda is not akin to a boycott.

Now one can certainly not place all the blame on the Chareidi leadership.  Since the State was founded they have enjoyed certain inequitable rights like endless deferral of army service and government funding of their educational institutions regardless of their refusal to abide by the conditions the funding comes with.  They have never been held accountable for what they receive and it is no wonder they are shocked when they are suddenly told they will be.  This is a community, after all, for which change is farbotten.
But their response will not win them any points either.  Threatening to boycott the settlements and work with the ultra-left to delegitimize Israelis in Yehudah and Shomron is hollow. Too many Chareidim live across the Green Line.  Will they all be ordered to move into pre-1967 Israel al pi Daas Torah?
The real danger of the internet for the Chareidim is how it has exposed the hollowness of its claims to superiority.  It has exposed the shenanigans of its prominent members, the extent of child abuse, pedophilia and other crimes committed by these supposed representatives of "true Torah Judaism" and put a lie to its revisionist claims of Jewish history.  Once upon a time things which were said in Yiddish in Bene Beraq stayed in Bene Beraq.  Now they get spilled over the airwaves in Hebrew and English.
Once upon a time folks like Rav Avi Shafran could smile and tell us the official line about how Chareidim love all Jews and that Chareidi communities are models of tolerance and religious perfection.   Now we on the outside know that they are just like anyone else, even worse sometimes because whereas other communities have bad traits Chareidi leaders often take those traits and elevate them to the status of halacha l'Moshe miSinai.  If a Frenchman is arrogant, well he's just being French and doesn't know better.  When a Chareidi is arrogant he insists he is performing a mitzvah!  It sometimes seems like it is the official Chareidi position to be dismissive and insulting when interacting with the outside world while being outraged when the tables are turned.  Some of them seem to believe they have a right from Heaven to do whatever they want combined with an immunity to reciprocity and they cannot comprehend why the outside world doesn't get it.
Consider Rav Yonasan Rosenblum's latest piece for Cross Currents.  Now one must admit Rav Rosenblum is called on to perform many thankless tasks.  No matter how outrageous a Chareidi action might have been he has to defend it in some ways.  His latest task, naturally, is justifying why Chareidim are entitled to not serve in Israel's army while receiving benefits from the State.  And if you think he's starting out by defusing one of the most idiotic arguments Chareidim make:

“More and more Israelis are asking themselves whether it’s fair that young men like Yochanan Plessner [who served in an elite combat division] should go off at the age of eighteen, risk their lives, endure great hardship, in order to defend us – all of us – while at the same time eighteen year old yeshiva students are exempted from that burden. Rabbi Rosenblum, is that fair?”
I have heard chareidi debaters counter this argument: Well, is it fair that we have to do all the Torah learning for the country?

well, he's not.  Instead of admitting what we all know, that the claim that Chareidim do all the Torah learning for Israel is incorrect and outrageously arrogant he goes in a different tack.  Yes, it's true but it's not what the Chareidi leadership should be telling people because, poor benighted am ha'aretzim that we are, we simply wouldn't get it.
As radical as it sounds one wonders if there is any further point to discussion with the Chareidi leadership.  Perhaps Yair Lapid is feared and villified not because he represents a secular attack on Torah but because his first major speech post-election was to educated Chareidi professionals, that segment of the community that has tasted what the outside world has to offer without compromising on their lifestyle and beliefs, the very segment that would respond to their leaderships clarion call to return to the ghetto with a resounding "No thank you".  Perhaps it's time to talk to the Chareidim themselves and remind them that their leadership is condemning many of them to lives of poverty and ignorance and that they can do better while remaining stalwart in their observance of Torah.

Rare Insight

When I was taking psychiatry in school I always wondered about schizophrenia.  If I developed it would my knowing about it change the course of the illness?  It sounds dumb in retrospect but I thought: if I know that there's a disease out there that makes you hear voices telling you to do terrible things and then you started hearing voices telling you to do terrible things, would there be a chance I'd be able to say, "Oh, this must be schizophrenia and the voices are just a symptom of it"?
And that's how I learned about the concept of insight.  One of the problems with schizophrenia is a lack of it.  A person might know all about the disease and be completely comfortable dismissing the other guy's complaints of psychotic symptoms but then turn around and decide that his own voices were, on the other hand, completely real.
A lack of insight isn't unique to schizophrenia, however, or even individuals.  An entire society or culture can have one.  The French don't know they're snobs or that they smell of body odour.  Americans don't know they talk loud and dress obnoxiously when they're on vacation.  If you criticize them for these traits they will generally look at you with a lack of understanding.  No insight.
And then there's Chareidi society.
As the venerable Rav Eidensohn notes, the famous lack of insight that defines Chareidism might just have been broken by a recent article in The Jewish Press:

1. We've chosen, for understandable educational reasons, to withdraw and live in exclusively Haredi cities and neighborhoods, avoiding as much as possible any social contact with the secular.
This is legitimate and understandable, but as a result they don't really know us, amd so they naturally view us as bizarre, in our manner of dress, our behavior, and our language. This creates aversion and alienation. Why, then, we are angry at them for treating us this way?
2. We chose, for educational reasons—although some of us really believe it—to teach our children that all secular Israelis are sinners, vacuous, with no values, and corrupt.
This could possibly be a legitimate view, but, then, why are we shocked when the secular, in return, teach their own children that the Haredim are all primitive, with outdated and despicable values?
3. We have chosen, for the sake of the preservation of Torah in Israel, to prevent our sons from participating in carrying the heavy burden of security, and instead tasked them with learning Torah.
Of course we could not give that up, but why are we outraged and offended when the secular, who do not recognize nor understand this need—or rather most of them are familiar with the issue, but argue that there should be quotas—see us as immoral, and some despise us as a result?
4. We chose for our sons who do not belong, by their personal inclination or learning skills to the group of Torah scholars (Yeshiva bums and worse), to also evade enlistment—including into perfectly kosher army units. And when it comes to the individuals who have joined the Haredi Nahal, we do not praise them, but despise them instead, and we certainly show them no gratitude, while the Haredi press ignores them—in the best case.
Why, then, are we outraged when the secular don't believe our argument, that the purpose of keeping yeshiva students from enlisting, is to maintain Torah study and not simply the Haredim's unwillingness to bear the burden?
5. We chose to teach our children not to work for a living, and to devote all their time to Torah study. Clear enough, but, then, why are we shocked when the secular—who do not consider Torah study an all encompassing value—feel that we are an economic burden on their necks, as a mere 38% of us take part in the labor force, and they hate us for it.
6. We chose not to teach our children any labor skills, and we condemn those who do pursue a profession. As a result our kolelim include all of those who do not belong among the scholars and still prefer not to work for a living.
Why, then, do we complain when the secular feel, and say so with an increasing volume, that we are parasites, living off of their efforts?
7. We chose (for educational considerations?) not to educate our children to show gratitude to the soldiers who risked their lives and were killed or injured for our sake, too. So we do not mention them in any way by any special day or prayer or special Mishna learning that's dedicated to their memory. Moreover, not a single Mashgiach or Rosh Yeshiva ever talks about it in a Mussar Schmooze, and you'll find no mention of it in the Haredi press.
Why, then, are we surprised that the secular feel that we are ungrateful and despicable, and that the reason for our not enlisting is simply because we are parasites, living off the sacrifices of others in society?
8. When extremist, delusional groups behave in ways that besmirch the name of God—e.g. the spitting in Beit Shemesh, dancing during the memorial siren, burning the national flag—our rabbis chose not to condemn them, clearly and consistently ( except for a few faint statements here and there). Why, then, are we explaining away the fact that the secular believe we all support those terrible acts? Why do we insist that their hostility stems from their hatred of the scholars?
9. We've opted to allow our public officials and pundits to curse out all the secular all the time. Why, then, when the secular media treat us the same way, are we offended and cry out that they're persecuting us?
10. The Haredi press will never offer any praise of or express support for secular Israelis who perform good deeds. Why, then, do we jump up and down when we are rewarded equally? And, in fact, while Haredi spokespersons rarely point anything positive about secular society, the secular media often gives positive coverage to Haredi organizations like Yad Sara, Hatzala, Zaka, etc.
11. We would not agree, under any condition, that secular Israelis turn up in our schools to teach our children heresy, and we would have kept them from putting up stands with books of heresy in our areas. Why, then, do we not understand when the secular do not agree that we seduce her children into denying their parents' heresy?
12. We do not agree—in my view, rightfully so—that secular people move into Haredi neighborhoods. So where do we get the arrogance and audacity to call anti-Semites those secular who don't agree that Haredim move near their homes, in secular neighborhoods?

Going through this list it's not hard to realize that several of the items aren't just flaws in Chareidism but considered by its adherents to be articles of faith.  It's not just that some of them are obnoxious but that those particular folks see it as their religious duty to be obnoxious.
Here's an example to ponder.  A couple of years ago a group of Dati Leumi rabbonim issued a psak about not selling homes in Israel to Arabs.  The psak was widely denounced by secular Israeli society but also by HaRav Shteinman, now the de facto leader of the Yeshivish part of the Chareidi community.  But here's the problem.  In the same pronouncement where he declared the psak to be wrong he also noted that when it came to Chareidim and their desire for exclusive neighbourhoods things were different because of the special and unique needs of the Chareidi population.
Good for the goose, good for the gander?  Not according to him.
Something like five or six years ago Rav Yonasan Rosenblum wrote an essay describing a trip by secular Israeli students to Auschwitz that had gone wrong.  The students had acted out like wild animals disgracing themselves and their country in the eyes of the locals.  Rav Rosenblum noted that you never hear about that kind of thing happening when Chareidim go out on tours.  Tsk, tsk.
Except that a few weeks later the story broke about a Chareidi boys groups at Auschwitz who did the same thing.
As anyone who has ever attempted marriage counselling knows, the effort is doomed the minute one of the spouses announces that only his/her grievances are legitimate, that only he/she is right and that only the other person has to change.  With insight a person can make tremendous changes but I don't know of any magical techniques to create that insight in the first place.  (If you do, e-mail immediately)
Secular and Chareidi society in Israel are pretty much like that, like two warring spouses.  I saw a grat demonstration of that during a trip there in 1998.  One evening I sat down with some Chiloni friends who, through the course of the evening, explained everything that was wrong with the Chareidim.  The next evening I was sitting in Bene Beraq with Chareidi friends who also took the time to tell me about society's illness.  Secular society, that is.
The sad part about those two nights is that each group had the other pegged perfectly.  Chilonim are very aware of what's wrong with the Chareidim and vice versa.  Yes, there are hate mongers on both sides who will create new grievances just for the sake of a fight but the average guy on each side doesn't do that.  They look over the fence and see what's out in the open.
The problem is that they're so busy looking over at the other side of the fence that they forget to look at their side.  "Is it possible," each side could be asking itself, " that they're right about us?"
Perhaps I am just sensitive to this because, growing up in Canada, I've spent a lifetime listening to the French in Quebec whinging about how they want to be independent but who then announce that Quebec is indivisible when the natives there announce their intention to leave Quebec if there is separation.  The hypocrisy rankles.
And it rankles here as well.  For a Chareidi to announce "I hate Israel, the government is trying to destroy the Torah, has my kollel stipend cheque arrived in the mail yet?" and not see why the average non-Chareidi bristles is exactly the problem we as a nation are dealing with.
But how does one build insight into a philosophy that shuns the concepts as a matter of faith?

The Point Of Davening

(Hat tip: JewishIdeas)

I love davening.  I absolutely love it.  Every since I got a decent Hebrew education in my teens and found I could understand most of the prayers I have very much gotten into praying with purpose and meaning.  Yes there are days when I'm rushed, tired or distracted by a headache but in general whenever I can I do my best to immerse myself in tefillah at the set times.  Whether davening alone or by myself I don't feel the time dragging when I'm speaking with God.
But there is something to be said about settings.  At home I have a specific room in which I daven.  I have everything arranged and set up so there is instant familiarity and comfort.  In shul I have my makom kavua as well which helps.
But there is more to a setting than a specific seat and this is where shul leaves me disappointed.
Many, many years ago the non-Orthodox synagogue I worked in (did their Junior Congregation) had a congregational meeting and the topic of how to make services more interesting came up.  More dynamic speakers, muscial instruments to accompany the singing, more activities to engage congregants, all sorts of ideas got thrown out from the floor until one guy on the board, not the most traditional in Jewish practice but still an intelligent guy with his head screwed on straight shouted out "Wait!  I come to shul to pray to God.  I'm not looking for a show or entertainment, I'm looking to commune and daven!"
The other board members just rolled their eyes.  Prayer.  What a quaint concept.
Unfortunately this lack of interest in the dignity and importance of proper prayer is getting increasingly lost in parts of the Orthodox world as well.  I think, for instance, of the Carlebach-type service my shul runs on Friday nights.  For me the service is a nightmare, a 90 minute affair that should only take 45 minutes tops in a real shul.  Song after song during Kabbalas Shabbos, two or three breaks where kids go up and dance around the bimah, and then a quick zip through Maariv so we can get to more singing for Kiddush.  I haven't attended Friday night services since I realized this format wasn't an occasional "treat" but rather the standard format.
Now I can understand why the Rav of the shul does this.  He's very much into outreach.  He runs an expensive shul and day school, he needs the money, ergo he needs members and how better to increase membership than to appeal to the non-religious?  After all, we frummers are stuck going to the shul whether we like it or not; it's the only one in town.  This means catering to the non-religious and how better to do so than to make shul fun?
It works too.  The little side chapel we use other than on Shabbos mornings is packed by folks who drive up conveniently right after Minchah has ended and who jump in their cars to go home after the last Aleinu.  In between there's the singing and dancing.  But when we hit Maariv everything changes.  Our Rav hasn't figured out how to turn saying the Shema into a loud, interactive experience (yet) so at that point people either daven (the few religious folks) or close the siddurim and stare blankly into space until V'Shamru, the next tune.
And I wonder: when did shul stop being shul?  I mean a place where there is a sense of dignity and propriety, a place where people stand in some sort of awe before our Creator and who recite the worlds from the prayer book as if they're interacting not with the shaliach tzibur and his happy tune but with God Himself?
Shouldn't there be a sense of majesty?  If not unending chazanus then at least tunes that carry some weight?  Shouldn't people be there to make a connection with the Divine instead of having the rabbinical equivalent of Krusty the Klown calling out "Hey kids!  Now for our next special song and dance..."?
The article that triggered my interest in making this post makes a similar point.  His most powerful paragraph for me was:
 A hazzan is not merely a precenter of the liturgy. He is a teacher of prayer. He interprets the mahzor or the siddur and renders it relevant and meaningful to his congregation. The prayer modes are the hermeneutics he employs. If all a hazzan does is sing some popular tunes for the entertainment of the congregation, or if all he does is sing big pieces to impress the congregation with his vocal abilities and musicianship, he is an abject failure, much like the rabbi who fills his sermons with jokes and teaches little about Jewish life and values. Leading prayer is not about timing the service so it ends before the cholent burns, nor is it about entertainment. It's not even about artistry for its own sake. It is about teaching the congregation what the prayers are, and what they mean. To do that a hazzan must wrestle with the text of the siddur. He has to ponder the depths of his soul and make the liturgy meaningful and relevant to himself. He must lead and teach both by exposition and by example (thus the halakhic requirement that a communal cantor must be known for his personal piety). If the cantor is unclear as to what prayer means to him, his message to the congregants will likewise be unclear. Once a cantor understands what the liturgy means to him, he must then go about presenting it, teaching that meaning to his students within the confines of accepted exposition of the text (with the liturgical hermeneutics, the nusah). Sometimes that meaning will be challenging to the congregation. It may make them tremble or weep. Sometimes it may be whimsical or entertaining. But the message notwithstanding, the cantor MUST always be interpreting the text of the siddur and teaching the interpretation to his students (i.e. the congregation). That is what the unconquerable Cantor Moshe Koussevitzky meant when he stated "I daven with the peirush,", I pray according to the meaning of the words.


We need to do something to reclaim the sanctity of shul, the kedushah of prayer.  Running in and runsing through the davening is unacceptable.  Why is it so hard to handle the middle ground, a decent service with the appropriate tunes that demands that the congregants focus on the real reason to be in shul?

Who's Afraid Of Yair Lapid?

The recent elections in Israel have resulted in what might turn into a society upheaval there.  For the first time in history a significant number of identifiably religious Israelis have become MK's.  What's more these MK's arent' exclusively confined to the Chareidi parties and Bayit Yehuda but spread out amongst several parties.  In fact given how many divrei Torah and religious references were made by MK's in their introductory speeches to the Knesset one can almost hear the sound of the founders of Secular Zionism rolling in their graves.  This was not the Israel they were hoping to build!
And then there's the new wunderkind of the Knesset, Yair Lapid, son of Tommy.  In his first run for office he garnered 19 seats for his Yesh Atid party making it the second largest in the Knesset.  With his charisma and media experience he parlayed that into what will be a commanding position in the next government.  And like his father one of the main planks of his platform concerns the Charaeidim.
Now for those who don't remember, Tommy Lapid also swept into the Knesset with a new party, Shinui, a few elections back.  From nowhere he earned 15 seats and a spot in the governing coalition based on a platform entirely devoted to attacking Chareidim.  There was little about Shinui that was positive save the "We positively hate Chareidim and are out to get them" plank.  Now his son is being viewed by the Chareidi community in the same way and for good reason.
For one thing, unlike Tommy, Yair is far more charismatic.  Lapid the elder always came off as a wide-eyed lunatic when talking about the Chareidim; not so his son.  For another, Lapid the younger's platform is far more comprehensive.  Yesh Atid is not a single issue party but has positions on most of the issues that Israelis find important.  Unlike the rest of the world the average Israeli is far more worried about the country's economic difficulties and income disparity than the so-called Peace Process.  Lapid correctly realizes this, hands people a few meaningless bromides about his thougths regarding the Arabs and then spends more time focused on economics.
For another, Lapid's approach to the Chareidim is not based on a "We hate them, let's get 'em" position but rather on one very similar to his economic position.  His message of sharing the burden, whether it be the wealthy with poor when it comes to economic opportunity or whether it be the Chareidim and the Chilonim when it comes to army service, is not one easily dismissed as hate-mongering despite Chareidi attempts to do so.
Despite what he says there will be no mass Chareidi draft in the next few years.  The Chareidi population is too entrenched and controlled by its leadership to meekly submit to such a drastic change overnight.  Furthermore, despite his importance to any new government coalition Lapid will discover that the Chareidi parties still hold great importance in the Knesset.  Bibi might not need tem today but he might after the next election and he is certainly keeping that in mind.
But what might happen is a gradual change in Chareidi society and this worth keeping an eye on.  Not for nothing did Lapid make an eloquent speech to Chareidi law students at Kiryat Ono recently, stressing the importance of the Chareidi community to Israeli society and its need to be aware of the rest of the country's concerns, not just its own. 
By speaking to these students Lapid tried a radical new approach. Until now most attempts to interact with the Chareidim on any societal basis have taken place through their leader, the "Gedolim" and their handlers.  Since Gedolim generally reject any requests made by "the outside" as a matter of principle this approach has led nowhere.  But Lapid has done something else.  He's gone directly to the people and interacted with them.  This might have quite a different effect.
How many disaffected Chareidim are out there?  Not folks wishing they could go OTD but people who are 95% satisfied with being Chareidi and yearn for a way to improve that final 5%?  By going to the leadership we will never find out. The social pressure and groupthink that pervades the community prevents anyone from finding out.  But by talking directly to Chareidim one might light a spark leading to positive change within the community - a movement towards some interaction with the outside world without a compromise in the religious quality of their lives.
The response from the Chareidi leadership to Lapid's outreach has been downright nasty.  This is not a surprise since an intelligent, think-for-themselves Chareidi is a threat to "Daas Torah" and its "You're stupid so just do what I say" system of leadership.  Instead we should quietly watch for the response from the rank and file and have patience instead of expecting a sea change.
On the other hand one can also invoke history.  Lapid the elder, in his first election, got 15 seats and a place at the cabinet table with the Likud and the Mafdal (National Religious Party).  After all his campaigning he did nothing to change the status quo with the Chareidim.  In his second election support collapsed completely and shortly after Shinui disappeared into history.
In his first election Lapid the younger got 19 seats and will most certainly wind up at the cabinet table with the Likud and Bayit Yehudi, the new Mafdal party.  Lapid might succeed in bringing some change to Israeli society or, like his father, his speeches might come to nothing and Yesh Atid might wind up having no future.

Painting Themselves Into A Corner

(Hat tip: DovBear)
One of the dangers of making blanket statements is having to deal with important exceptions to those statements.  It's a lot easier to say "Most people think..." or "The majority of people say..." than "Everyone thinks..." or "Everyone says..."  The latter statements might land you in an indefensible position and then your argument is lost.
Of course just because that's true it doesn't stop people from doing just that, especially some frum folks who really should know better.
For example, a recent controversy in Toronto illustrates this exact point.  The whole thing started with the publication of yet another Kugel-style book, Torah From Heaven.  Like others that have come before the author has decided to put greater faith in academics than tradition and has written a book to reconcile his desire to believe in the divinity of the Torah with his intellectual inability to do so.  Billed as a book for the skeptical Orthodox it's more another tome for the Orthoprax - those amongst us who talk the talk but don't believe a word of what they're saying.  For those who understand the incredible limitations of the Documentary Hypothesis and the weak positions academics based themselves on it's yet another cry of lack of faith hidden as desire for intellectual truth.  In other words: yawn.
That hasn't stopped those who share this (lack of) belief in the truth of Torah from gushing over it.  Dr. Rabbi Martin Lockshin of Toronto, for example, wrote a glowing review of the book.  He goes over the general contents and, in an open concession to the Orthoprax, announces:

Rabbi Solomon argues further that historical scholarship makes it impossible to believe that Moses was the author of Genesis to Deuteronomy, or that our text of the Torah today is identical to the original one. The Talmud often quotes biblical verses whose wording or spelling differs from our own (as do Rashi and basically every other Bible commentator who lived before the days of the printing press).

Really?  It's impossible to believe that Moshe Rabeinu, a"h, was the author of the Torah?  Impossible?  Or would the author and his followers just like to believe that so they can pursue their erroneous thesis?  Further, the word "often" in "The Talmud often quotes biblical verses" is also erroneous.  It does occur, true, and on a couple of cases this misquotes have halachic implications but it is not often by any serious definition of the word.  Rashi's misquotes also number less than a dozen.  Hardly a resounding basis of support.
The logic the author of the book uses is quite simple: it's a principle of faith that we believe that the Torah we have today is pretty much the one Moshe Rabeinu finished up before his death (with a few notable exceptions).  The Orthoprax can't accept this and so declare it to be impossible because modern secular academics say so.  And since it's impossible it can't still be a principle of faith.  Presto!  You don't have to believe in Torah miSinai to be a good Jew!
As far as that goes it's yet another tempest in a teapot.  Dr. Rabbi Lockshin, for example, is the leader of a small-time partnership minyan slowly moving towards right wing Conservatism.  His views are hardly going to be bandied about mainstream Jewish institutions in Toronto with any seriousness.  Like all the other hard-care Orthopraxers out there who would like to believe that they aren't a small minority he is not a threat to mainstream genuine Orthodoxy.
So what does the Toronto Board of Rabbis do?  It's leading lights, Ravs Shochet, Ochs and Miller, issue a blanket condemnation stating: "Halacha rules unequivocally that the denial of the G-dly origin of "even a single word" in the Torah... contravenes this principle (that our Torah is 100% identical to Moshe Rabeinu's) and constitutes kefirah b'Torah".
There are two problems with this response.  The first is that it's overkill.  Dr. Rabbi Lockshin wasn't suggesting a small part of the Torah, a few verses here and there, have been added, substracted or altered over time.  He is endorsing that the document itself isn't min haShamayim at all!  Why take such an ideological position when it would have been far simpler to say "Jews must believe in matan Torah in order to be considered Orthodox" and leave it at that?
But the second problem is far more difficult.  As Prof. Marc Shapiro shows in his work, The Limits of Orthodox Theology, there is plenty of legitimate evidence that small changes have occured to the text of the Torah over time.  Starting with a baraisa in maseches Sofrim which openly discusses Ezra editing the Torah after the return from Babylon in order to produce a reliable text, moving on to the rare times the Talmud misquotes a verse from the Torah and through various Rishonim and Acharonim who openly discuss the problem and its implication for fulfilling the mitzvah of listening to krias haTorah there is enough talk in the mesorah literature about the issue.  To state that 98% of the Torah we have today was what was handed to Moshe Rabeinu is doable.  To state it's 100% denies Chazal and the subsequent poskim who examined the facts.  Yet this is exactly what the Toronto Board of Rabbis does in its proclamation.  For them you're either 100% in or you're 100% out.
So here's the problem: their position is vulnerable.  Start at a position of 98% and you take away all your opponent's arguments.  Through a defense of the integrity of the text through its explanations in the Talmud and Midrash along with genuine scholarship that proves the antiquity and indivisibilty of the Torah the Orthodox position can be maintained.  Start at 100% and you're easily disproved and once that happens there is no red line stopping critics from moving from a 98% position to a 0%.  What's more, there can be no Orthodox counterargument since the original position was so unworkable.
The mishnah in Avos at the end of chapter 1 tells us there's nothing better than silence.  Another mishnah tells the sages to be exceedingly careful with their words lest bad consequences result.  Perhaps these mishnayos should have guided the proclamation.

With Their Nation Or With Their Enemies?

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland exists in a way that makes it seem graced by Heaven.  Just off the northern Atlantic it should be a frozen wasteland devoid of any meaningful population.  Nature, however, supplies it with ocean-based winds that keep its climate not too hot in the summer and not too cold in the winter.  Yes there's the rain but that makes up for the lousy water pressure.
In addition the culture seems so modern and liberal.  The British have presented us with some of the finest literature, cinema and television in the world, not to mention comedy.  Add to that their magnificent history of bringing culture and civilization to the four corners of the globe and their role, as the first truly global empire, of creating safe international commerce through the power of their navy.  Yes, Britain is an important country in world history.
It's almost enough to make you forget that they're generally a bunch of damned Jew haters.  Well, almost.
What we, in our rush to quote Monty Python at all the right occasions, like to forget is that while it is a Western democracy, fought against the Nazis and all that, Britain has been a hotbed of Jew hatred for centuries.  Whether it was expulsions, libels or outright massacre the soil of green England is stained red with the guilt the British should be feeling for their treatment of our nation.
One does not even have to look into perfidious Albion's dim past to make this case.  The 20th century will do quite nicely.  After liberating Israel from the Ottoman Turks recall that Britain solemnly took upon itself a mandate to create a Jewish national home in Israel composed of what today is Israel and Jordan.  Then, without any real authority to do so, it sliced off Transjordan to pay a war debt to some of its Arab allies.  Then, realizing the importance of oil and maintaining a powerful presence on international affairs meant sucking up to the emerging Arab states, the British decided to do away with the rest of their commitment to us.  Piece by piece, first by restricting land purchases, then attempting to deprive the chalutzim of the ability to defend themselves from Arab attacks, then a blockade of Israel's coast to prevent Jews from arriving (ethnic based immigration restrictions, how cricket is that?) and finally an attempt to partition Israel into mostly Arab Palestine and a tiny Jewish bantustan the British did what they could to ensure that the Jewish Nation Home project would be an abject failure.
And then there were British attempts to ensure that Jews fleeing the fires of Nazi-occupied Europe would be unable to escape that Hell.  In summary, as my father once said, maybe it was that Nazis, y"sh, that slit our throats but it was the British holding us down so they could do it more effectively.
It should therefore not come as any shock that Britain is slowly starting to show its true colours once again.  What must infuriate them now is their inability to bully the Jewish nation like they once could.  Their idiot MP's and ministers can stand up and hector Israel all they want and we don't have to apologize and ask for more.
Consider this article from The Spectator:

Glick recently came to London to take part in an Intelligence Squared debate. The debate was about Israeli settlements. Glick and Danny Dayan attempted to explain to the London audience that Palestinian rejection rather than Jewish settlement in the West Bank is the primary reason there is still no solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. The debate is now available on Youtube and there you can see the deeply rancorous tone of the discussion. At one point Lord Levy’s son, Daniel Levy, (arguing against Glick and Dayan) has to be almost physically restrained by his own co-debater (William Sieghart). Levy’s frustration appears to come from being pulled up on an allegation he casually makes against Israel for which he turns out to have absolutely no evidence.

But the audience go with him, and go against Glick and Dayan in the final vote by a factor of 5 to 1. As Glick notes in her bitter farewell to London, the audience was so hostile towards her argument that when she even mentioned the matter of Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini and his involvement with the Nazis during World War II she was booed down by the audience. They – having been presented to her as open-minded – turned out to be so close-minded and partial that they would not even hear a historical fact about a Palestinian figure who was an actual Nazi.

There are also William Hague's endless one-sided anti-Israel pronouncements coupled with his empty statements about his friendship for Israel.  Some friend.  I'd rather have an honest enemy than a false friend like him.
There is a certain pride the British feel about their country, their history and their culture and there are many reasons they should.  But British Jews will soon have to make a choice.  In order to share in that pride as a member of that society, in order to maintain their good standing as "British" they will have to throw their status as "Jews" into the mud and stomp on it well and good.  If the "Jew" part of their being is of any value then they will have to face the fact that Jews who are proud of Israel and Judaism are not a welcome segment of British society.  Haven't been and aren't now.  Sorry old chap, you weren't expecting that?
Ah, but no one expects the Spanish inquisition!