The Friendly Face of Anti-Semitism

One of the things I like to do in my family practice is take in students.  One of the fun things about having new students is hearing about what's going on at the local medical school, any changes in the curriculum and the initiatives the school is launching.
Sometimes I also get to hear about class politics. A few years ago I had a couple of Jewish students who told me about one of their classmates, a very politically active fellow who was constantly bombarding their student message board with announcements about protests and demonstrations he thought his fellow students should get involved in.  He was also using it to share his political opinions freely even though the board was for school-related information.  As you can probably guess his opinions were on the left side of the political spectrum.  As you can also guess his comments on Israel were not, to say the least, friendly. 
It was bad enough that the Jewish students in my office expressed discomfort with having him around.  It's one thing to have strong views but in medicine one of the unspoken but very important rules is "Leave your politics at the door".  I've had Muslim students galore in my office and ER.  We stayed away from political discussions and got on fabulously.  I don't bring my beliefs into the department and I expect others not to as well.
Over time the name of his guy faded from memory.  My students graduated and moved on through residency and onto independent practice.  Then, last Saturday night I arrived at the ER I always work at on Motzei Shabbos and met the new guy who had just joined the staff.  He was friendly and the nurses said they liked how he worked (always important).  Then I heard his name.  At first I thought "Wait, I know that name" and after a few minutes it came to me.  It was that guy my students had told me about.
Now here's the predicament.  There is no doubt this guy is a Jew hater.  (I try to avoid the term anti-Semite because of all of those ignoramuses out there who say "Well an Arab can't be an anti-Semite because they're Semites too)  A quick Bing search of his name  along with the word "Israel" brings up a plethora of links including his Twitter feed where he discusses an elective he did in 'Aza during residency.  His comments are, as expected, about the great resilience of the so-called Palestinian people who are suffering from the "illegal" seige and "indiscriminate shelling" that Israel is throwing at them.  It's the usual Jew hating crap when it comes to Israel and its enemies.
So how do I know he's a Jew hater?  He could be just another leftist useful idiot.  I put it to the test.  I reentered his name into Bing along with "Tibet" (occupied by China), "Darfur" (occupied by Sudan), "East Timor" (occupied by Indonesia) and "Rwanda" (site of a large massacre a few years ago, you might have heard about it).  No hits.
Like all other Jew haters he is the kind of guy who cloaks his venom in a respectful facade of caring about social justice and oppressed people but there's only one people he cares about and only one side of a story he wants to hear before rendering his verdict.  I doubt he's toured S'derot or Be'er Sheva and seen the damage rockets from 'Aza have produced.  Frankly I don't think such a tour would make a difference.  He'd just see them as acts of resistant and blame Israel anyway.
But what's bugging me is how nice he is.  He did handover without an issue (naturally there was no mention of my kippah), told the staff a few jokes and went on his way.  He followed the rule: leave your politics at the door. 
I will happily admit I was fortunate to grow up in a sort of bubble.  I experiences no Jew hatred as a child or young adult.  The only time Jew hating slogans were shouted at me were by high school acquaintances who were not Jew haters but simply wanted to insult me and chose the least imaginative way possible. 
In university I was aware that there were Jew haters on campus and of the occasional anti-Israel protests but I graduated long before Israel Apartheid Week came into being and besides, I never had time to look into these things.  Unlike leftists who don't seem to have any academic responsibilities I actually had exams to study for which meant long hours in the library.
The only real trouble being Jewish caused me duing my medical training came from other Jews who were quite happy to insist that I should be scheduled to work on Shabbos because they didn't keep Shabbos and didn't see why I should.  In contrast, my gentile colleagues were always very accomodating.
So I've never really encountered a true Jew hater.  What bothers me is that this guy isn't the typical stereotype.  He isn't the elistist WASPish snob, nor is he the uneducated white trash guy in the wife-beater getup.  He's a nice guy, educated but not aloof and very friendly, yet he hates what I hold most dear and has common cause with the dedicated enemies of my people.
It probably won't be much of an issue.  I generally work overnight shifts which means I work alone ("plays nicely with others" isn't a comment I got too much on my report cards growing up) and I will not bring up politics at work, like I wrote about.  But he is a stark reminder that the friendly face a Jew runs into throughout society might be hiding some of the most ancient hatred plaguing mankind.

Elections Are Bad For Judaism

The municipal elections for mayor in Israel are happening today and reading the ongoing saga of the election campaign from out here in golus has been truly frightening.  Perhaps it's because I'm Canadian and just expect a certain level of civility but listening to the tactic various candidates have use to promote themselves is really scary.  Tearing down one's opponent's signs is bad enough but in this case it's the most benign strategy being used.  Did a Chareidi newspaper really print a picture suggesting that the non-Chareidi candidate in the Beit Shemesh race would put Chareidi children in to concentration camps?  Did more than one "Gadol" threaten those who don't vote for the parties they recommend with death?
For as long as I can remember elections in Israel have been a rancorous affair.  Possibly that's because there's so much at stake.  In addition the various parties have real differences in their platforms in terms of the direction they want to take their electorate in.  As opposed to Canada where the biggest distinction between party platforms is the colour of the cover page of their policy book, Israeli politics generates meaningful discussions and real passion. 
Too much passion sometimes.  Am I the only person who remembers the mid 1980's Likud convention (I think it was 1986) that had to be cancelled because of fist fights and thrown chairs?  Or the election campaign in the mid-1990's where multiple postal workers were fined for refusing to deliver campaign propaganda from parties they disagreed with?
All of this would be fun to watch were it not for the involvement of the religious parties.  For all the Chareidi PR machine tries to convince us of the holiness and purity of that community the behaviour of its political representatives easily smashes that image.  Whether its the ongoing disgrace that is the mayor's race in Beit Shemesh or the lack of any campaign in Bene Beraq since only the "Gadol approved" candidate is allowed to run, the face of the Chareidi community these cretins display is very discouraging.
One concern is, of course, the demographic time bomb.  A majority of young Jewish children in Israel are Chareidi.  Even with a strong OTD rate the community's representation in Israeli politics is going to continue to increase.  Even if it doesn't at the national level the number of towns now Chareidi controlled is increasing.  This is no longer a fringe phenomenon but a national concern.
And what can we expect from this ongoing development?  What will a dominant Chareidi political establishment look like?  Contempt for the masses, supreme power to "the Gedolim" and real power concentrated in the hands of their handlers who will decide what anouncements these sages will make and what they will expect from the people.  Non-compliance will be dealth with by threats of violence and death.  Freedom of expression will be a thing of the past.  Only think what you are told to think, only do what you are told to do and don't ask any questions.  How dare you expect "the Gedolim" to explain themselves to a maggot like you?
Worse than that will be the backlash from the general public.  For people for whom freedom of expression (as long as you agree with me, otherwise we'll have to argue loudly) and belief are cherished values the idea that a group of old men, wise as they are, controlled by power-hungry askanim will dictate their lives to them is unacceptable.  This is the impression they will get of Torah: we frum types are just like the Iranians and Saudis except we wear different outfits.  Is that not a chilul HaShem of the highest order?
From what I've read the Chareidi response has broken down into two groups.  One group is sick of this behaviour. A major sage calling for his opponents to be killed sickens them.  They love being Chareidi, they love all the great positive things the community possseses in spades, they love the fervour of the worship and the intensity of the Torah learning but they can't stand the people who are making their look like the Jewish equivalents of Muslim fanatics.
Then there are their counterparts who cannot comprehend even questioning "the Gedolim".  If Maran HaGaon Rav X says people who don't vote for the right parties deserve to beaten and die they'll line up at the hardware store to purchase a crowbar (during men's shopping hours) to eagerly participate.  They will see their subsequent idiocy as a mitzvah performance of the highest order.
It is therefore imperative that the outside community reach out to the reasonable part of the Chareidi community and offer them what will be an uncomfortable choice: are you with us for fairness and rationality or are you with them because they're your buddies?  Are you interested in a Torah community that represents intelligent thought and action or with the primitives who still see drunken Cossacks around every corner?
The problem with politics is that it is a mudpit.  Even the greatest "Gadol" with all his learning and purity gets covered in mud when he jumps into it.

The Vanishing Jews

The recent release of the Pew Report on American Jewry has excited lots of comment.  Before jumping to any conclusions one would be wise to heed Samuel Clemens' famous observation: "There are lies, damned lies and then there are statistics."  With any large study people will first jump to conclusions and then look at the data relevant to those conclusions.  The Pew Report will not be any different.
What fascinates me about the report is how it highlights the possibly irreconcilable divide between Torah-observant Jews and our non-observant brethren.  In short, it seems to imply that for the non-observant we're not really brethren at all.  While from an Orthodox perspective Judaism is a nationality with religious content and the definition of "Who is a Jew" is a legal one from the non-Orthodox perspective there seems to be no iron-clad definition at all.  Hence the categories in the survey called "Jew of no religion", "Jewish not by religion" and my personal favourite, "Not Jewish".  Apparently the latter includes folks who love what they think is Judaism and therefore consider themselves Jewish without any actual legal tie to the Jewish nation.
It all seems to boil down to the difference between American Jews and Jewish Americans.  For the former the "Jew" in the identity is the primary factor.  I am a Canadian Jew, therefore I am kin with English Jews, Russian Jews, etc. through our joint shared nationality.  He is a Jewish Canadian, therefore the main part of his identity is shared with other Canadians, not so much with other Jews.
The price of this lack of proper understanding of their Jewish heritage comes with a high price.  A scandalously high percentage of non-observant Jews don't fast on Yom Kippur which might not sound so out of place for a group of people who also don't keep Shabbos or kosher but fasting on Yom Kippur, outside of its strictly legal importance, has always been one of the last things a failing Jew does before giving up entirely on his connection to Am Yisrael.
Similarly the percentage of Jews who don't participate in a seder on Pesach raises alarms for the non-observant community for the same reason.  Interestingly I download a pdf of the report and searched the terms "circumcision" and "brit milah".  No results came back.  I'm happy with that because I don't want to know what percentage of Jews have abandoned our most ancient ritual.
Perhaps this is why the Chareidi sector of the Torah-observant community doesn't take the non-religious part seriously.  On our side being Jewish is the core of one's identity and comes with very specific requirements and responsibilities.  The idea that one could claim to be a proud Jew while also an atheist is laughable.  We are the people of God, banim laShem.  On the non-observant side, however, it's not a contradicition.  Being Jewish is like being Italian.  It comes with ethnic foods, ethnic slang and ethnic behaviours, nothing more.  A proud non-observant Jew would see no conflict between his feelings for Judaism (as he defines it) and marrying a non-Jewish spouse of either gender.
Another concerning statistic that seems to pop out of the survey is the Orthodox proportion in the total Jewish population.  Now one should take the number with a grain of salt.  After all, this is a study in which a percentage of people who were identified as "Orthodox" intermarried!  But on the other hand the overall number, 10%, bears looking at.  Over the last few decades there have been repeated studies on the American Jewish population and for some reason Orthodoxy always winds up at 10%.  Now the true number might be larger if one excludes from the study all those non-Jews who someone wound up in it but it still forces one to question the famous kiruv statement that Orthodoxy is the future of all Jews because the non-religious will assimilate out and disappear.  This line has been in currency for 50 years and during that time the 10% number hasn't budged.  This is the starkest warning of the size of the OTD crisis, in my opinion.  After all, even if assimilation rates for the Reformatives are overstated the sheer fecundity of the Orthodox population should have led it to dominance by now.
I am certain that many secular Jewish organizations will study this report and convene committees on "the Jewish future" and "Jewish continuity" because of the alarming numbers regarding assimilation and marrying out.  Like the last dozen times we'll hear about calls for more free trips to Israel, more Holocaust education, more social groups for Jewish youth as the cure to what ails us.  This will all happen despite a 50 year track record of producing no results.  The thought that education Jews to be Jewish through halachic observance and through a sense of connection to 3500 years of history all the way back to Matan Torah will simply not occur to them and, if suggested, will give them a feeling of revulsion.
Meanwhile we Orthodox will continue creating large families and educating them in Torah and mitzvos observance.
Many years ago I posted the following comment on the Cross Currents blog (back in the days before I was banned from it) and I think it's still relevant today: They have conferences, we have babies.  Let's see who wins.

YCT Is The Agudah's Fault

The Agudah has long been trying to trademark Orthodox Judaism and make its definition "He who is Orthodox like us".  Through its PR efforts, publications and kiruv work the folks at the Agudah have been trying hard to convince the rest of the world that they are the genuine form of Orthodoxy and anything else that claims to be a Torah-observant is either a deviation or step down from the real thing.
It therefore seems to be infuriating to them to have the Yeshivat Chovevei Torah crowd come along with their "Open Orthodoxy" and "Morethodoxy" initiatives and announce to the world "Hey!  We're Orthodox and we're cool!"  It flies in the face of everything the Agudah has been trying to achieve and only leads to confusing questions like "If they're Orthodox why don't they wear black hats?"  It leads to repeated attacks by the Agudah's PR folks repeatedly pointing out the obviously flaws in Morethodoxy's ideology.  And, of course it has lead to rejoinders from the YCT crowd and ongoing attempts to justify their new form of Orthodoxy.
The problem with all this back and forth is that it misses the real point which is a tremendous flaw in Torah Judaism today.  In fact I would suggest this flaw has become de facto Torah Judaism today even though it's destructive to real Torah observance but it is so entrenched that no one even sees it.
In short, ritual has replaced reason.
Those who denigrate the Reformatives for their ongoing egalitarian watering down of Judaism sometimes fail to remember that for the non-Orthodox Judaism is a lot like Chrisianity.  Saturday morning services and the occasional holiday party are pretty much the extent of their Judaism just like for Chrisians Sunday morning services are about the only religious behaviours they indulge in.  And as been noted exhaustively before, if all your religion has is a service of public rituals and this service excludes women then the religion itself comes to be seen as patently unfair.
Let's extend this to Orthodoxy.  Yes, I know that for the Torah-observant Judaism doesn't begin or end in shul and its already well-established that the three cardinal behavioural mitzvos, kashrus, Shabbos and taharas mishpacha are women-dominated but Orthodox doesn't seem to revolve around that anymore.
Look at the right side of Orthodoxy.  Far from dominating it, women are increasingly being relegated to non-existence.  We have mehadrin buses, the burka babes of Beit Shemesh, Photoshop(tm) efforts to remove women from any public photos and a general attempt to make them seem that all women are sources of sin and temptation that need to be buried from public view.  The more one distances women from one's reality, harei zeh meshubach!
On the other side we have YCT and its ongoing efforts to create Egalitarian Orthodoxy.  Other than the mechitza there is a hardly an area of synagogue ritual that the Morethodox haven't altered in order to be more "inclusive" if not halacha-obedient.
But behind all the various justifications for these initiatives is the missed point.  Jewish observance, the learning of Torah and the performance of mitzvos are about developing a relationship with God and bringing His Will into this world through our actions.  If I keep an extra-special bit kosher it should be motivated by my desire to come closer to Him, not just to keep up with the Jonesteins or because it feels right to be machmir for the point of being machmir.
This is, however, not what is happening out there.  On the right side the stringencies are increasingly becoming the defining factors of Orthodox Judaism.  It's not tzedakah, chesed or rachmanus that are being stressed but what we wear, how much Yeshivish we speak and how much we avoid interaction with the opposite gender that are the gauges of Orthodoxy.  We pride ourselves on being an intelligent people but for many in the Orthodox world it is the mindless mumbling of the mantra "I only do what the Gedolim tell me to do and never dare think for myself" that is repeated over and over.
And again on the other side YCT doesn't seem to be so much motivated by a genuine desire to connect to the Divine as a dynamic that suggest that secular liberalism is the Divine will so the closer Orthodox Judaism comes towards it the more true it will be.  Their mantra is quite similar: "I do what secular liberals tell me to do."
But if YCT has any traction and is gaining any ground among possible adherent one can only blame the Agudah.  All its attempts to limit the definition of "Torah true" to its crowd and those to the right of it have led to countless observant Jews feeling disenfranchised or unconnected.  If you tell someone with a rational mind that he must surrender his independence of thought to "the Gedolim" and accept religious opinions that are patently contradicted by reality (for example, the age of the world and whether or not dinosaurs existed) if he wants to be Orthodox you will drive him from Torah observance.  Many folks recognize that the stringencies that exist in mainstream Chareidism are largely a result of a "holier than thou" attitude with many of them having little justification in halacha (separate seating at Shabbos meals, for example).
These folks don't want to leave Orthodoxy so instead they react.  Does the Agudah want us to believe that mehadrin buses are normative Judaism?  We'll bring in women to lead services.  Doese the Agudah hold that photoshopping women out of advertisements and newspaper photos is unexceptional Jewish practice consistent with our mesorah?  We'll give the women aliyos as well.  To a large extent YCT is simple an opposing reacton to the folks who have taken Torah observance too far to the right and is yanking left hard in order to keep it relevant to its followers.  Do the Chareidim believe that Jews are a Chosen People with a special relationship to God and subject to an all-encompassing halacha that affects our entire lives and defines right and wrong?  YCT will simply redefine Orthodox as one movement amongst many, equal and equivalent without any aspect of exceptionalism.  Does Cross Currents wants you to believe the Torah we have today is 100% identical to the one handed by God to Moshe Rabeinu, a"h without a single letter having changed over the millenia?  YCT will have its number one guy publish essays on the internet endorsing the Documentary Hypothesis!
The more the Chareidi community pushes to to the right the more outrageous YCT's antic will become.  The critical difference is that there seems to be no right border to Orthodoxy.  The most nutbar Satmars who think that burning the Israeli flag on Iyyar 5 is a tradition that dates back to Matan Torah are still considered Orthodox. But there is a left sided border to Orthodoxy and the time will come when YCT will cross it.  Then how will they justify themselves?

Let's Kill The Sick!

Dr. Donald Low, a Toronto physician who was a main player in the fight against SARS a decade ago recently passed away.  He was a real hero whose level-headed leadership during the crisis was decisive in local public health's containment of and successful struggle again the virus.  Beyond that he was am indefatigable teacher, prolific researcher and clinical, an inspiration to a generation of students.
Unfortunately life was not kind to him after that.  He suffered from cancer and after a courageous battle with his brain tumour he recently succumbed at the young age of 68.
But in his final days he also had a dark side.  Like too many unfortunate people who must struggle with painful illnesses at the end of their days it seems he seems to have decided that he should have had the right to end his life when the prognosis became hopeless and the suffering intolerable.  To that end an interview from the final days of his life shows him expressing the view that assisted suicide should become a legal option for people in Canada. In the interview he noted that he was frustrated that the system couldn't accommodate him like it would have had he lived elsewhere like certain European countries.  He lamented that the debate in Canada was so difficult to have on a "mature" level and opined that people who opposed him should have to live 24 hours in his body to see what real suffering is like.  And naturally the liberal crowd which supports his position chimed in to support him.
Without meaning any disrespect to the dead, could Dr. Low have been any more condescending?
Consider how he set up the discussion.  He implied that if you opposed him you didn't understand him.  He came out and stated that mature discussion was difficult which means if you oppose him you're not capable of having that mature discussion.  He felt that the last days of his life should have been enjoyable, something that all people wish for but so few get to have.
It is really not surprising that a significant number of folks in the Western world and especially in Canada are in favour of assisted suicide.  We live in a culture where unborn foetuses live under constant threat of being aborted for such deep reasons as "Oops, I forgot to take my pill like I was supposed to".  If the lives of the unborn are worthless and unprotected it is not a huge step to extend that kind of the thinking to the old and palliative.  It seems it's all about convenience.  We are used to unwanted babies.  Now we have unwanted sick people, so unwanted that they are undesired even by themselves!
I do not wish to minimize or dismiss the suffering Dr. Low and others suffering like him went and are going through.  As a physician I well know how much pain, nausea, confusion, sweating, shortness of breath and other disturbing symptoms the dying patient can go through.  I have seen people degenerate into unmanageable Alzheimer's states causing a horrible burden on themselves and their caregivers.  I have watched people linger away from chronic heart failure and lung disease.  People too often outlive their minds or bodies.  These are fates I would only wish on my worst enemy and I certainly want not even a taste of them in my life, chas v'shalom.
Finally one must keep in mind that a position endorsing assisted suicide is a sure sign of a godless secular society where life is no more valuable that those shoes you bought last week.  Great to have around while comfy, easy to throw away when worn out.
And don't think that I'm exaggerating.  Only a few years ago The National Post carried the story of an elderly woman who was lobbying for assisted suicide for herself.  She was in perfect health but was recently widowed and in her grieving state couldn't stand the idea of going on without her husband.  It seemed perfectly reasonable for her to demand the right to commit suicide rather than go on alone.  For those who think that assisted suicide would be restricted to the very ill or elderly I would ask: how would you justify to this woman that she doesn't qualify?  How about someone who has just been diagnosed with an incurable illness?  If he says that he'd rather end things now way before he begins to feel any serious decline, will he be told he first has to suffer a little before being allowed to kill himself legally?
And that's why I have to state my opposition to Dr. Low.  For one thing, there is the bias he presents by being a member of the group he supports.  Yes, I cannot truly appreciate the suffering he endured but his enduring that suffering is exactly why he should not have been opining about the role of assisted suicide in Canada.  The decision should not be up to people who have already made the decision because fate has dealt them a lousy hand and they see killing themselves as the only acceptable option.  What's more, the decision should be in the hands of people who see some value in life.  Not lip service "Well of course life is important" folks but those, religious or secular, who truly see life as something more than just another commodity we're stuck with, who see being alive as bigger than them.
I'm sorry if Dr. Low thought that disagreeing with him means I'm immature.  I'd rather be immature and value life than be mature and live a meaningless existence with the thought of ending it the minute I couldn't have my self-perceived entitlement of a suffering-free life anymore.

Obtenez les grenouilles d'ici

One of the crowning achievements of Canadians society is the success of multiculturalism.  As a country we have taken in people from all corners of the globe and encouraged them to not assimilate upon their arrival here.  Instead of expecting them to adapt to local mores and customs we encourage them to continue to act as they did in their home countries.  When it comes to dress, language and behaviour we seem to send out the message that their becoming more Canadian would actually be a disappointment.
This is true for the entire country outside of Quebec.  Inside la belle province the story is quite a bit different.  The White French majority, fed on a diet of "We are under threat!" propaganda for the last few decades, is revolting against multiculturalism.  They have seen a future in which the burka replaces the beret and they're not going to put up with it.  While the rest of Canada does what it can to bury its English heritage (including the parts about hard work, honesty and quite civility) these Quebecois are determined to protect and enforce theirs.
Hence the recent introduction of Bill 14 into the Quebec provincial parliament.  To be charitable, it's a fascist law that forbids civil servants the wearing of religious garb of any kind while at work in public buildings.  Are you a Sikh who works in the Ministry of Transportation office?  Sorry, leave your turban at home.  Are you a Jew who works for the Human Resources Ministry?  Kippah off at the door, my friend.
Now, as others have  noted there is a reason for this bill.  It's called the niqab, the garment worn by some Muslim women that covered their entire body except their eyes.  Muslim immigration to Quebec has increased over the last few years and, like everywhere else, the number of women going around with their faces covered has gone up.  This has led to some valid concerns in a variety of areas.  Canadian law says that the accused has a right to see his accuser.  What if his accuser is a woman in a niqab?  Canadian law says that when you vote you have to present ID to prove who you are.  Well what about the woman who won't show her face?
The government of Quebec, faced with this challenge, pulled out a hammer to kill the ant.  Instead of creating a simple law that said "Public workers are forbidden from wearing face coverings while on the job" they reached for the far more fascistic banning of all religious symbols by those workers.  It's not hard to understand why.  Quebec has been anti-religion ever since emerging from centuries of reactionary rule by the Catholic Church.  Why just go after the niqab if you now have an opening to attack all religions?
We must also remember that the Quebecois consider themselves quite progressive.  This is, after all, the province with the highest rate of fetus murders in the country and also the first one to legalize the execution of the infirm elderly.  Isn't killing off the most helpless in your population a sign of how civilized you are?  One of the things a progressive society is not is racist.  If they were to just ban face covering the Muslims would scream "racism".  Better to attack a bunch of races all at once to avoid that.
Finally one must consider that some secularists are just as fanatic about spreading their beliefs as some religious folks.  We see coercion is all religious societies.  Islamic countries and Chareidi neighbourhoods are excellent examples of how a fanatic fringe can control the behaviour of the more sensible majority.  The secular leadership in Quebec is behaving in a similar fashion.  They hate religious symbols and therefore they are going to ban them as best they can.  Goose and gander, mes amis.
What's really amazed me, though, is the public response.  A sizable proportion of Quebec's population, and a not-insignificant number of people in the Rest of Canada (RoC) support this law and many of them feel it doesn't go far enough, thinking that all religious symbols should be publicly banned.
Imagine that.  I'm walking down the street with my kippah on.  It doesn't affect you.  I don't walk over and try to impose my views on you.  But you think I should be forbidden to wear it because seeing religious symbols offend you.  Now who's intolerant?
And what about religious symbols worn for non-religious reasons?  If I, as a Jew, wear a turban will that also be forbidden because it's objectively a religious piece of clothing or will it be permitted because for me it has no religious significance?
Having said all that, I am strongly in favour of Bill 14.  As a long-time resident of Ontario I can confidently say that the Parti Quebecois, with their racist and idiotic ideas, has been the best thing to happen to the province I live in.  Every time they come up with another one of their pur laine initiatives many of the remaining Quebecers with have an ounce of sense in their brains jump into their cars and migrate down the 401 highway to us.  The influx has been especially good for the Jewish community of southern Ontario which was, until the first exodus from Quebec almost 40 years ago, a dull and colourless place.
Alors, allez, mes camarades fascistes. Apportez votre meilleur et les plus brillants de votre facture et de laisser venir de notre côté.

Maybe Extend Their Vacation A Little More?

For those not following the news in Canada, Tarek Loubani and John (not Dick) Greyson are two Canadian citizens recently arrested in Egypt.  Loubani is an emergency room physician and Greyson is a filmmaker. A few weeks ago both arrived in Egypt with the intention of going on to 'Aza.  Their intention was for Greyson to film a documentary featuring Loubani working in an 'Aza hospital helping out the locals.  After arriving in Egypt they encountered one of the regular anti-government riots and were arrested by the military when they swept through to end that particular protest.  Since that time they were held in an Egyptian jail under conditions that could generously described as unsavoury.  From the government to celebrities, the hopes for their well-being and the demands for their release were unrelenting.  Today the news is announcing that they've been released.  And all I can say is...
Gosh, couldn't the Egyptians keep them a little longer?
In case you think that sounds cold, well it's meant to.  Let me give you a little background on Loubani and Greyson.  Loubani is a so-called Palestinian who had made frequent trips to 'Aza and been involved in anti-Israel protests.  Greyson, on the other hand, can't seem to find enough anti-Israel causes to get involved in.  One report I read stated that the point of the documentary they were going to 'Aza to film was to "expose" how the Israeli "occupation" was negatively impacting the health of ordinary folks in the Strip.
The arrest in Egypt must have come as quite a surprise to them.  For one thing, they're "activists" and think that they are immune to the vicious whims of international demagogues.  For another they were on their way to 'Aza to film a documentary that would demonize Israel.  Egypt, recall, is a major international source for Jew hating literature.  Whether the government is Islamist or martial, bashing Israel is a common feature to keep the mobs there happy.  Sure they thought that having a common enemy would accord them red carpet treatment?
One can indeed imagine them screaming "But we also hate the Zionists!" as they were being dragged off to incarceration.
So unlikely my fellow citizens I didn't look at the them and think that two of my fellow Canadians were in a dangerous situation.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  I was quite happy that two Jew haters who masquerade as human rights activists (human rights for all except Jews) were getting their comeuppance.  I just wonder why it couldn't be for a little longer.

Beyond Synthesis

A Guest Post From Rav Ben Hecht

When Garnel put up his post entitled The Necessary Synthesis (at http://www.garnelironheart.blogspot.ca/2013/06/the-necessary-synthesis.html), I mentioned to him that while I thought there was value in his overall objective, I also felt that there was a critical problem in his approach. While his argument is most true that Modern Orthodoxy needs a fundamental Torah construct that can encompass the differing outlooks found within its purview, I felt that the attempt at synthesis which he offered was not going to be the method of achieving this objective. What is really necessary is a further recognition of the basic principle that distinguished the Rav and Rav Kuk from others – and the need to articulate and express this principle as the true basis of this perspective in Torah. It is this basic principle that both these great Sages uniquely shared which distinguished them – albeit the vast differences that would still emerge from their thoughts – and it is this that must be articulated and celebrated as the essence of this derech in Torah. Garnel graciously accepted.my offer to write a piece on this thought.   

On the surface, the answer would seem to be obvious. Both of these individuals had a sensitivity for collective Israel beyond its halachic boundaries. Stated in a different manner, both the Rav and Rav Kuk related to Jewish communal entities even as these entities may not have reflected an allegiance to Torah. This was clearly a shared uniqueness that they both had. To clarify, there is no doubt that many, if not the vast majority of, gedolim, throughout the centuries, have advocated for the caring of all members of Klal Yisrael even as these individuals may not observe the directives of Torah. The uniqueness of the Rav and Rav Kuk, however, was that, while they also obviously shared this love of all Jews, they were unique in their willingness to relate to non-Halachic communal entities. Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch was an adamant lover of all Jews – he was the essential pioneer of all kiruv – but he would have nothing to do with Jewish communal entities that operated outside the boundaries of Halacha. Similarly, the modern Chabad movement is constantly noted for its love of every single Jew regardless of his/her level of observance – yet they also will have nothing to do with structured Jewish entities that function outside of Torah. So we have an obvious point of connected uniqueness between Rav Kuk and the Rav – but what effect does this have on our quest? Is this shared uniqueness enough upon which to develop and promote a different derech in Torah? I would say the real question is: why? Why did the Rav and Rav Kuk develop this position? It is the motivation that led the Rav and Rav Kuk to take such a stand that I believe is the uniqueness that needs to be articulated as the vary basis of this derech in Torah.

It is my belief that the distinguishing mark of these two gedolim was their perception of the dynamic nature of life and Torah. What I believe they both acknowledged – and it marked their complete approach to Torah – was a recognition that humanity – and, as such, the Jewish People – are constantly in a dynamic flux. By extension, this would also mean that Torah, in its relationship to the Jewish People, is also in a resultant constant dynamic movement. This is all, of course, within the parameters of Halacha – in fact, these very parameters of Torah actually further add to the dynamic nature of this process. Albeit that they responded to this inherent dynamic nature of life differently, this is what I believe marked the Rav and Rav Kuk as unique. They both dealt with life -- in itself and in its relationship with Torah -- in movement.

This dynamic perception is actually what is at the basis of chiddush and intellectual aspirations. It is the question that breeds further understanding. It is the challenge that demands new perspectives. On a certain level, in that chiddush is inherent to Torah, what I am proposing as unique to the Rav and Rav Kuk actually must be inherent in any thinker within Orthodox thought. Part of the very nature of Torah study is that we always find something new. Rav Kuk and the Rav, however, expanded this concept. In seeing life in dynamic flux, they inherently recognized that Torah must, in parallel symbiosis, also be in such dynamic flux. And then, from this recognition that Torah must also demand of us to see things anew, they looked again at life anew. This dynamism permeated their entire Torah thought.

Let’s look at Rav Kuk’s view of the early settlers in Israel. Here were individuals not generally following halachic practices who were devoting themselves, absolutely selflessly, to building up the Land of Israel. How can one view, from a Torah perspective, such contradictory behaviour? The uniqueness of Rav Kuk was that he saw this question.

Let us look at the Rav’s break with Agudah. Klal Yisrael went through the Holocaust and now was re-establishing itself in Eretz Yisrael. Something was happening albeit not in any manner that was previously predicted (which, I should mention, Rambam states, is all speculation anyways). How, though, is one to view what is happening – such dynamic movement in life -- and understand it from a Torah perspective? The uniqueness of the Rav, again, was that he saw this question.

I heard that it was once said about Rav Kuk that when he was asked what he thought about Darwin, he said that he appreciated Darwin’s works for it further explained Ma’aseh Bereishit. Not a challenge but seeing anew. It is said in the name of the Vilna Gaon that for every measure of secular knowledge that one is missing, a person is missing manifold measures of Torah knowledge. Secular knowledge is constantly expanding. Life is essentially, as such, dynamic. Torah, in the true process of Torah study and not with apologetics or compromise, is to parallel this process of new insight as we relate to the body of Divine Wisdom. The Rav and Rav Kuk’s conclusions were vastly different in the process. That is Eilu v’Eilu Divrei Elokim Chayim. Both, however, shared this vision of the process – of how we are to interact with Torah. It is this dynamic nature of this interaction that should really be marking Modern Orthodoxy.

Reattaching Reason To Ritual

Over the last while we've seen repeated posts at Morethodoxy and Cross-Currents dealing with both the recent Rabbi Farber essay on the Documentary Hypothesis (DH) and the ongoing struggle in Israel between the Chareidi community and the government issue over the impending draft and implementation of a real curriculum in Chareidi schools.  While the two subjects don't seem very connected it seems to me that there is something deep that unites them and explains what is so wrong with Orthodoxy today.

Let's look at Rabbi Farber first.  Ever since he published a piece at Thetorah.com along with an unrepentant follow up piece in which he embraced the DH over Torah MiSinai (TMS) as his preferred explanation for the origin of our holiest book Morethodoxy has been posting essays which debate the issue back and forth.  Is the DH legitimate?  Is TMS a viable opinion?

There are two problems with this whole discussion.  First of all, in a real debate both opponents enter with the goal of convincing the other side or at least a substantial part of the audience that their position is correct.  If both sides prefaced the debate with the statement "And we don't care what you say, we're not changing your mind" it would not be a genuine debate, just an exchange of opinions.  This is what happens when people debate the DH vs TMS.  The bottom line is that Sinai-deniers will not accept any of the multitude of arguments put forth by Chazal, the later commentators and some modern academics that confirm the truth of the unity and antiquity of the text.  On the other side Torah-observant Jews stop listening once someone gets to the second syllable of the word "Documentary".  We know the Torah is true, we are only interested in those legitimate Torah sources that discuss the issue and therefore outside academics and their opinions are of no interest to us.  That's why these discussions go nowhere.

The real discussion therefore, and one which Morethodoxy is eager to avoid, is: can one hold that the DH is true and still call oneself Orthodox?  Rabbi Farber and probably most of the YCT crowd, even those who publicly state otherwise, would say that it is possible.  For those of us on the other side we wonder how this could be.  How can one be Orthodox while denying the authenticity of Judaism's founding event, Matan Torah?

Now let's look at the other side.  Rav Natan Slifkin recent posted a critique of an article by Eytan Kobre on his blog.  Kobre, a PR guy for the Chareidi side in the ongoing army draft controversy brings a number of sources to show that learning full-time is an accepted, traditional and preferred method of life for the observant Jew.  Rav Slifkin, on the other hand, looks at the sources in a more complete fashion and points out at pretty much none of Kobre's sources actually support his position.  Rav Slifkin wonders where Kobre draws his conclusions from.  My belief is that Kobre knows quite well that his footnotes are not relevant to the argument but he's hoping that a selective quoting, a smattering of dropped names and enough references will convince the reader who doesn't have the time or interest in double-checking things that his position is the correct "Torah true" one.   Anyone familiar with the genuine halachic method would have to be greatly disturbed by this unOrthodox distortion of our mesorah.  

In other words, Eytan Kobre has reached a conclusion and handpicked the sources he needs to support his predetermined conclusion.  If this sounds familiar then go back to the first part of this post.  Rabbi Farber and his supporters, in their quest to turn the Torah into a human document, are also able to quote from a smattering of Rishonim and statements in the Gemara which they turn into a proposal to suggest that the DH is accepted by authentic Jewish authorities.  They too will handpick sources to fit their predetermined conclusion.  Two radically different groups in the Orthodox world using the exact same methodology.

How do both these groups justify their belief that their positions represents genuine Orthodoxy despite the obvious problems with them?

The answer might be that they have detached the two principle elements of Orthodox practice, reason and ritual, from one another.  Contrary to the assertions of scoffers we are a religion of reason.  We do not draw laws and rituals from thin air.  We practice on the foundation of thousands of years of legal discussion and philosophical reason.  This intelligence must ever inform our approach to ritual.  Ritual without the thinking behind it becomes a mindless routine, as decried by Yishiyahu HaNavi and Yirmiyahu HaNavi. 

Recall Yirmiyahu's cries of anguish in the final days of the First Temple.  He well noted that the general population believed that the Har HaBayit was a place inviolable, that God would never allow His holy habitation to be destroyed.  Here were people who would routinely sin and then routinely bring sin offerings as a payment, not as a penitence.  No matter what the Navi told them they could not change this outlook.  For them Judaism was about the ritual and as long as the ritual was performed properly the reasons behind it mattered not a whit.

This is the position that Orthodoxy finds itself in today.  Is it any wonder we are a community divided by the type of hat or kippah a person wears?  Is it any wonder we base a shidduch on the type of sheitl a person wears or whether or not they allow their children to wear a certain colour of socks?  Where are questions about the person's innate honest and decency?  Where are questions about the depth of their beliefs or the understanding of the nature of the godhead?  We worry about when the last time they went to the shaatnez checker but not the last time they put on their tefillin and stood for a moment to appreciate their enhanced connection to the Ribono shel Olam.

We are now deep into Elul.  We are approaching a series of holidays rich in ritual but also in reason.  We are faced with a challenge.  We can worry if the shofar is appropriate and fulfills all the strictest halachic requirements, if the etrog and lulav pass our inspection with a jewel cutter's glass or we can apply that same rigorous approach to ourselves.  Do our souls survive the same scrutiny we give our external ritual behaviours?  Do we spend more time worrying about the status of the tzitzis on our Yamim Noraim tallis or about whether our connection with the Divine is frayed?  Do we take the time when the shofar is blowing not just to make sure the tokea is stretching out each note precisely or to make sure we pour out our whole hearts during that sacred moment and beg our Father in Heaven to accept our words?  Are we there just because that's what one does or because we desire an audience before Him?

In short, is it just about ritual for us or does the reason also play a role?

Both Morethodoxy and UltraOrthodoxy seem to have detached the reason from the ritual.  The YCT crowd proposes one can be Orthodox entirely through behaviour without regards to one's underlying thoughts and beliefs.  The UltraOrthodox crowd puts an emphasis on ritual that relegates reason to a limited supporting role, only relevant when supporting that ritual.

We must reject this approach and remind ourselves that God wants from us an intelligent practice, one where the reason and ritual intermix and influence one another in perfect synergy.  This is the challenge of real "Torah-true" Judaism that makes it such a challenge to do properly.  May we merit that all of us consider this in the coming weeks so that our High Holydays are celebrated properly for our benefit?

The Evolution of Artscroll

Over at the Seforim Blog , Eliezer Miller recently posted a scathing review of Artscroll's new edition of Sefer Yishiyahu, the book of Isaiah.  In competition with Judaica Press' extant and complete Nach series Artscroll has slowly been rolling out a version of its own.  This set is different from the books in its older Tanach series.  Whereas those were exhaustively researched works formatted with a few lines of the Hebrew text and translation at the top of the page and tons of commentary at the bottom, these new books are formatted to look like they could replace the old Mikraos Gedolos volumes.  The text on the Hebrew side is clear and in an eye-catching format.  The communtary, while not as long as the Tanach series counterpart, is quite detailed.  For all the ideological differences one might have with Artscroll there is no denying they put a lot of effort into making their seforim look fabulous.  So what trouble might Eliezer Miller have had with this new edition of Isaiah?
Going through that post Miller raises points that should be completely obvious.  Artscroll isn't in the business of putting out comprehensive commentaries that include secular information.  Miller notes a lack of interest in archeological and anthropological information that might have enhanced the commentary but that's not the crowd Artscroll is selling to.  They're looking right at the yeshivish crowd and those BT's who want to fit in with that group.  The commentary is meant for people who know nothing of Nach and want to get some basics.  This would explain most of Miller's objection.
But after reading Miller's review I think I can explain most of the problems he has in another way.
Remember that within the Chareidi community the study of Nach is very problematic.  Some yeshivos ban it outright.  Others let you study the weekly hafataros but not much else.  The idea that someone would sit down with a set of Bible books and a good commentary to understand them is incomprehensible in their worldview.  Why would a good bochur want to do that when he could be learning Gemara and halacha?  From this perspective Artscroll is actually being quite daring in wading into this area.
Knowing this Rav Nosson Sherman, the chief editor, is simply doing what he is expected to do for his books to be accepted and get the right haskamos.  Were he to include an essay showing the differences between our text of Isaiah and the one on display in the Israel museum he'd face a tarring and feathering.  You mean there's different texts?!  Were he to try and explain all those times in Nach when major figures in our history commit acts that are apparently against halacha without simply retreating into a "Chazal knew best" shelter he'd be forced to pull the line off the shelves.
When it comes to their Talmud Artscroll is a huge resource.  The time and intelligence they've invested in that series makes those books masterpieces.  When it comes to their other books, however, the overarching agenda - the Agudah version of this is the only legitimate version, etc. - tends to show through.  Their infamous translation of Shir HaShirim is a travesty to any thinking person but then, Artscroll doesn't want you to think when you're learning Shir HaShirim, just to know what you should be thinking.  Similarly their digests of famous commentators (the Pirkei Avos of the Maharal and the Sfar Emes series come to mind) aren't so much presentations of the original work but rather the Artscroll author's version so you won't reach the "wrong" conclusion you might have if you had actually seen a decent translation of the original.
For those who are paying really careful attention you'll also notice that the Satmar philosophy of anti-Zionism infects their works in the relevant places.  Consider Artscroll's commentary on the Three Oaths at the end of the Kesobus or the couple of places in their translation of the Kinnos where they brazenly insert Satmar principles (no forcing the end!  no ascending like a wall!) even when there's absolutely no Hebrew lines on the other side to stick them to.
Their Nach series is therefore simply more of the same.  The average person, it seems, can't be trusted to think about what he's read in Nach so Artscroll saves you the trouble.  Eliezer Miller wonders what's wrong with Artscroll but really there's nothing wrong.  They are the publishing arm of the Agudah and the Agudah has an agenda.  Enough said.

Old Loyalties Die Hard

Anyone out there remember the Palm Pilot?  Back in the late 90's it was the gizmo to own.  A small (for the times) device it not only came with a built in contact list, calender and memo program but it also had lots of other neat applications (back then we still said the entire word).  As the device evolved it got smaller and sleeker and its app catalog exploded with fun and relevant programs for almost any field.  About the only thing the Palms couldn't do was act like a phone but unless you were a Blackberry user you didn't really care about that.
In the hi-tech world one either evolves constantly or dies a quick death.  Such was the fate of the Commodore 64 in the late 1980's as Apple's Macintosh took over the home computing scene.  Such was the fate of Palm.  Late to the phone game Palm only realized inthe mid-00's that Blackberry was onto something when it combined personal data assistannts (PDA's) and phones.  It came out with the Treo and then the Centre which were okay phones but the underlying operating system never really changed.  Yes, the graphics resolution improved a bit and colour became a standard feature but overall it looked and felt the same as the original.
Then came the iPhone and Androids.  Suddenly Palm was in huge trouble selling a phone with an antiquated operating system.  Yes they had the app catalog but those programs also looked positively antique when compared to what Apple and Google were putting out.
Much too late Palm put out the Pre and then the Pre2.  I owned a Pre2 and had high hopes it would revive the company.  It was fast with great graphics and an intuitive operating system.  Unfortunately it never took off.  Palm was bought by HP which tried to make waves with the Pre3 and then just gave up on the cell phone business altogether. 
So there I was with a Palm phone and it was a lonely experience.  The app catalog numbered in the 1000's with only 2-3 new programs appearing a week, sometimes less.  It was frustrating to read about all the new app's coming out but only for Apple, Android and usually Blackberry.  It's an awful feeling to be left behind but I'd been with Palm since 1998.  I was so reluctant to let go.
Ultimately I did though.  I didn't want an iPhone or Android (I found the original Terminator movie frightening when I was a kid and he was an android) so I tried out the Blackberry Z10.
Now, full disclosure: I own Blackberry stock and I bought it on the hope that the Z10 would be a kick ass phone.  I'm pleased to note that it is.  Suddenly I'm working with a huge app catalog that is growing daily and constant updates to programs I have.  As opposed to the lonely quiet world of Palm I feel like I'm back on the information highway again, not some information side road in the country.
But every so often I look at my old Palm, still sitting on my desk and wonder about what could have been.

What Putin Knows

A country about to hold the Olympics usually wants to impress the world.  The Games are, after all, a multi-gagillion dollar endeavour and a chance to show the world all that's glorious and positive about the host country.  Never mind the economic opportunities that it brings, the Olympics is a chest-beating moment.
It's odd then that Russia seems to be taking the opposite approach.  Far from endearing itself to the world before the Games begin, the governmet in Moscow seems intent on the opposite: showing the rest of the world - and especially the West - that it doesn't care what others think about it.  President Vladimir Putin and friends have done this by passing new legislation that bans the public promotion of homosexuality, a law draconian enough to cause people to fear that just wearing a rainbow pin in public could get one arrested.  What's more, the Russians have promised that this law will apply to all international athletes while in Russia raising the possibility of some of them getting arrested on the flimsiest of charges.
It's given Russia quite the black eye in the international arena and seems to make no sense.  Russia is, after all, not a particularily religious country.  Some columnists I follow suggest that Putin is doing it to win the popular support of the Russian Orthodox Church and its followers but considering that theft and abortion are also major sins in that religion it's curious that the government isn't coming up with restrictive laws about those.
The timing is also problematic.  Why couldn't Putin have waited until after the Games to avoid the negative publicity?  Doesn't he know this might hurt his tourist income?
It seems to me that Putin isn't out of touch when it comes to these matters but rather that he has a very accurate sense of the pulse of things.  He knows something that the pro-homosexual lobby hates to have shown and he's exposing it to the world.  He knows that the pro-homosexual lobby are craven bullies.
Look at the Western world and what happens to any politician who dares to even muse about not approving gay marriage and giving it equal standing to the traditional equivalent.  What happens to any public figure who uses the phrase "That's so gay!" in the wrong context? 
Ever noticed how strongly Pride parades demand public support in places like Rome and Jerusalem?  Despite the religious sensitivites of many of those cities' inhabitants, or possibly because of them, these parades are turned into major human rights demonstrations.
But is there a Pride parade in Mecca?  To quote the immortal Al Bundy, "Uh, no Peg."
Every year the Toronto Pride parade features a group called Queers Against Israeli Apartheid.  Meanwhile over in so-called Palestine it's illegal to be homosexual and getting caught means execution.  Is there a float for so-called Palestinian victims of so-called Palestinian violence?  Uh, no Peg.
Do you think there will be any public demonstrations by the Olympic athletes when they arrive for the Games in Russia?  Uh, no Peg.
There is no question that Vladimir Putin is a bully.  His whole model of government presumes that very thing.  He is the biggest oligarch amongst the worst collection of corrupt "biznesmen" in the world, the chief viper in the snake pit.  He's looked across at the pro-homosexual lobby and seen something familiar.  They are also bullies prepared to scream, show and be absolutely fabulous when any of their principles or beliefs are even slightly questioned.
But they'll only do it if it's safe.  They're quite happy to stand up to middle-aged white folks while the police stand nearby guaranteeing their safety.  It's quite another to stand up and shout when the cops are the opposition.  When they can't bully their opponents the pro-homosexual lobby goes eeerily quiet.
And that's what Putin knows.  After all the caterwauling back home in the West where it's safe all the gay athletes and their supporters will show up in Russia because they don't want to miss the even they've dedicated their lives to.  They'll publicly play good heterosexuals and won't say a word about the repressive Russian legal system.  They very much believe in their equality but not quite enough to stand up to an even bigger bully.

Just Wait Quietly

When the subject of Yair Lapid comes up amongst Torah-observant jews someone inevtiably mentions his father, Tommy, and how Lapid the elder was a virulent anti-religious fanatic.  Much of this is true.  Lapid was very anti-Chareidi and by extension did not show much love for non-Chareidi Orthodox Jews.  His Shinui party won 15 seats in its most successful election which earned him a senior seat in the cabinet rom where he tried to implement his anti-religious agenda.  Frum folks often speaker of Lapid the younger as the second coming of Tommy with the same dedication to destroying the "Torah world" as his father.
What people often don't recall is what happened to Tommy and Shinui.  There is a good reason the party was a one-election wonder.  Shortly after getting his cabinet position Lapid discovered that personal popularity and decent election showing did not translate into anything close to political omnipotence.  He also discovered that the people he elected were no immune to the disease that afflicts all politicians sooner or later: corruption.  Shinui wound up becoming like every other minor party that made it big.  It failed to implement much of its platform and its members wound up on the front page of the newspapers guilty of the same crimes they had so condemned during the election campaign.  And then Shinui disappeared.
If one is going to compare the two Lapids one needs to keep this whole picture in mind.  Like his father, Yair campaigned on a populist platform, shouting about the needs of the middle class and the need to reduce the hegemony of the Chareidi parties in matters of religious and national affairs.  Campaigned as a righteous defender of the poor is easy.  Remaining one once you're elected is a real trick.
To his credit Lapid has handled himself in a superb fashion until recently.  The master manipulator, Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, gave his the Finance Ministry portfolio, a graveyard for ambitious politicians.  Yet he has remained on message when it comes to economic reforms and he has refused to be publicly enraged by the ongoing abuse he receives from the Chareidi leadership and its political representativies.  All it would take is one statement like "You stupid religious bastards..." and the "Ah ha!" shouting would being.  So far he has held his temper and has made the Chareidi leadership look all the more infantile for it.
But now there is a first chink in the armour.  It's one thing to go on and on about needing to strengthen the middle class.  It's one thing to itnroduce a budget.  It's another to implement one's plans and for that one needs senior people on message.  Lapid is under further pressure because Israel is, to our sorrow, one of the most corupt countries in the world when it comes to financial issues and the concentration and control of wealth by the few over the many.  The governor of the Bank of Israel is an especially important person for Lapid yet so far he has picked two contestants for the position and both have had to withdraw their candidacy for personal reasons.  This has created the impression that finding a decent person to run the Bank is more difficult than it should be and that Lapid's ability to find such a person is defective.
Now by itself this is not such a crisis for Lapid.  I have no doubt he will shortly find a qualified candidate.  But it is instructive in that it is a first failure for him.  He is not omnipotent, he is not automatically the next prime minister as he himself has crowed and he has stumbled.  Perhaps him opponents, instead of trying to turn him into a martyr the public can rally around, should just step back and see if this initial stumble turns into a full fledged fall.

Who'd You Rather Have Dinner With

Following up on my last post, I would like to bring up another important point, one I think is always lost when we start screaming "heresy" and the like.
Let's compare two people who have been in the news lately that occupy the opposite ends of the Orthodox spectrum.  The first is Rabbi Zev Farber.  The second is Avraham Mondrowitz.
Now for those who don't know Mondrowitz is a serial pedophile and child rapist who victimized multiple boys in both the Jewish and Italian communities he lived in.  Naturally it was the Italians who attempted to bring him to justice while his Jewish community did everything it could to run cover for him and eventually get him to Israel where he has escaped extradition with the reported help of the Gerer Rebbe himself.
Now, let's run that comparison.  Rabbi Farber doesn't believe in Torah MiSinai.  Despite a lack of any archeological evidence to contradict its occuring and some to support it, Yetzias Mitzrayim and the greatest event in human history are just mythology for him.  This drops him out of Orthodoxy as far as many are concerned.  Heck, I'll go further.  I'll bet you he thinks evolution is real and the world is billions of years old.
In his personal behaviour Rabbi Farber is exemplary.  He's a scholar, polite and cultured and treated his colleagues and laymen with decency and honesty.  If he's every touched a young boy it's probably been to prevent the child from running out into traffic.  If he's ever touched a woman other than his mother and daughters he has probably done everything he can to banish lawd thoughts about the encounter from his mind.
Mondrowitz, on the other hand, definitely believes in every word of the Torah at its most literal level.  He probably also accepts all Midrashing as literal historical fact.  He surely thinks that the world is only 5773 years old and that the dinosaurs are a stunt put there by secularists to deny the Torah.  His tefillin, both Rabbi and Rabbeinu Tam, are perfectly kosher and the only part of him that would ever touch a woman is the spittle in his mouth.
He's also a child molester.  He's walking proof that an intense Torah education and lifestyle is not incompatible with base immorality.  Need I add anything to that?
So on one hand you have Rabbi Farber who doesn't believe the right thing but acts quite Jewish when it comes to the overarching goals of making the world a kinder and more decent place.  On the other you have Mondrowitz who believes in all the right things but is a menuval min menuval l'mehadrin. 
Is it just about beliefs and not about actions?  Yes, the best path is to have the correct beliefs and act in the correct fashion but given the choice of just one, should we be obsessing over a decent guy whose basic metafacts about Creation are wrong or over the people who think that enabling and protecting a monster are fulfilling the ratzon HaShem?
In short, if you were looking to have a good Jewish dinner, who'd you rather eat with?

The Heresy Of Zev Farber

Once upon a time I was sitting in shul on a Shabbos morning and an acquaintance, a proud Conservative, wandered over and asked me if I knew whose yahrzeit it was coming up in a couple of days.  Without hesitating I answered "A.J. Heschel".  The acquaintance smiled and seemed pleased that I knew.  After he walked off someone asked "How did you know?" I responded, "Well, he's Conservative so he'd really only make a big deal out of one of them and when you've only got one 'Gadol' to choose from it's kind of easy to guess."
One must feel a little sorry for Yeshivat Chovevei Torah these days.  Like the Jewish Theological Seminary many students have passed through their gates but only one seems to have qualified for the coveted "Yadin Yadin" status, Rabbi Zev Farber.  Now it turns out their greatest prodigy is trying to redefine Orthodoxy into something that violates much of its treasured core principles and beliefs.
YCT is, of course, no stranger to controvery.  Ever since Rabbi Avi Weiss printed his "Open Orthodoxy" credo the yeshiva and its followers have continually struggled to redefine Orthodoxy further and further into secular territory.  From their pulpit in the Morethodoxy blog they have espoused changing some of our morning blessings because it offends their egalitarian senses, subtly encouraged the idea that halacha should change to allow for homosexual marriage and presented deadly enemies of the State of Israel in an encouraging light.  Each time they insist they have support from the halacha using their pick-a-posek method of decision making.  Each time they insist they are Torah observant in their views and are not violating any principles of Orthodoxy.
In fact there is a tremendous difference that does remain between Morethodoxy and right wing Conservativism. Despite all the comparisons and accusations that have been made that YCT is just JTS with a mechitzah we must acknowledge that the pick-a-posek method, while invalid, is still superior to the so-called Rabbinal Assembly's method of open voting on halacha.  YCT recognizes that they still cannot simply make up new rules or dispense with old ones willy nilly.  We should not forget that.
But Rabbi Farber may have finally crossed a line and provided opponents of YCT with their "Ah ha!" moment.  In a recent essay he endorsed many of the lies that the Documentary Hypothesis has been spreading over the last couple of centuries while analyzing Sefer Devarim.  True, his first statement is vague and can be explained away as simply pointing out that the conclusion of those Sinai-deniers who fail to see the unity and holiness of our Torah.

The simplest explanation for these differences between the accounts in Exodus-Numbers and Deuteronomy is that they were penned by (at least) two different authors with different conceptions of the desert experience

But one of concluding statements dispenses with that assumption of innocence:

 it appears to me that being able to accept that there are contradictory perspectives expressed in the Torah allows us to offer meaningful interpretations of each and to address significant tensions in the text without feeling the need to create hollow apologetic explanations

By referring to the wisdom of Chazal as apologetics Rabbi Farber seems to be stating his preference for the academic approach to Chumash rather than the Jewish one.  His tossing out of the phrase eilu v'eilu to justify his position smacks of open Reformativism.  Eilu v'eilu doesn't include opinions that allow driving on Shabbos or the eating of bacon.
This is not the only time Rabbi Farber crosses the important line.  He dismisses the narratives of Bereshis as mere allegories and moral tales, denying the historical existence of Avraham Avinu et al, something no believing Jew could conceive of doing.  His final justification for continuing to be "Orthodox" despite not believing in fundamental principles of it sounds like a paean to orthopraxy:

I was once asked by a friend how I can go on being an Orthodox Jew when I believe that virtually all of the stories in the Torah are ahistorical. I responded with a story from the Babylonian Talmud (Berachot 61b). During the Hadrianic persecutions, when the teaching of Torah was a capital offense, a man named Pappos asks Rabbi Akiva why he continues to teach Torah if it could get him killed. Rabbi Akiva answers that a fox once asked a fish why he swims in water if he could get caught by fishermen. “Would it not be better,” the fox asks, “to hide on the dry land and avoid the nets?” The fish responds that this would be a bad idea. “Outside the water,” the fish says, “I will surely die; inside the water I have a chance.” “I am the fish,” says Rabbi Akiva, “and the Torah is my water.”

This is a powerful story about Rabbi Akiva’s commitment to his faith and people. Now, if Pappos had responded by saying, “Akiva, you are telling tales—fish don’t talk,” he would have been missing the point. “It doesn’t matter whether fish talk,” we would respond, “Rabbi Akiva’s story is still true.” Now, I am going to tell you something else: there was no Pappos; the story is a fictional account, written in Babylonia four hundred years after Rabbi Akiva’s death. Nevertheless, that is not the point; it is still true. 

In short, Rabbi Farber doesn't believe the Torah is a produce of the Divine.  He doesn't believe our forefathers existed.  He simply feels comfort in Orthodox practice the same way a Reformative feels comfort in what passes for Judaism on their side of the line.  He continues to keep kosher not because of some imperative from Sinai because frankly the Sinai experience probably didn't happen, chalilah.  He does it because he likes it, it gives something to him. His religious experience is selfish, just like that of the Reformatives.
And despite YCT's protests to the contrary we should not be fooled that the leadership of Morethodoxy has any problem with this position.  They can't.  Accepting that Matan Torah happened, accepting that the Torah is a divine and accurately preserved expression of the Will of God and that the Oral Law is a necessary part of it, not a product of Chazal invented much later on, creates the authoritative mesorah which must be handled with extreme care and only by the greatest authorities, none of whom work for YCT.  It means that being Torah observant is the correct lifestyle for a Jew and the only one at that.  It means no moral relativism but external standards of right and wrong that do not change to fit secular society's mood.  In contrast, the new "Rosh Yeshivah", Rabbi Asher Lopatin, is on regard as dismissing the uniqueness of Orthodoxy when it comes to genuine Torah observance.  For him, like Farber and the others Orthodoxy is simply a stream, a style, not the authentic practice of the mesorah we have received from our ancestors.  I have no doubt that the leadership of YCT does not believe in the historical reality of Matan Torah or the unity of the Torah as a God-given document.  Unlike Rabbi Farber they realize they cannot continue to portray themselves as "Orthodox" if they admit it publicly.
Now Rabbi Farber may be a nice man.  He is probably quite ethical, honest and decent in his dealings with others.  But it seems that he is not, despite his attempts to redefine the term, Orthodox.  A pity such a mind has gone off in the wrong direction.