The Entitlement Syndrome

One of the tactics used to win a debate is to bring up an irrelevant or inaccurate comparison, present it as relevant and accurate and then build a whole argument around it before one's opponent can protest that the comparison is illegitimate in the first place.
This is the tactic used by Rav Avi Shafran in his latest piece supporting the ongoing fight by the Chareidi community in Israel to avoid the implementation of a universal draft.  His comparison is to - wait for it - a single welfare mom.

Earlier this week, though, Cindy, and hundreds of thousands of others like her, received word that the government is ending those programs. Budgetary concerns were one reason given but the letter Cindy received also noted that she could still qualify for some of the benefits she was receiving if she found and accepted a full-time job. “When citizens like you, Cindy,” the personalized form letter explained, “are a regular part of the workforce, it benefits not only you and your family, but the economy as a whole. And that is something that every loyal citizen should appreciate!”

The comparison is a joke to begin with.  The majority of people on social assistance in North America are not there by choice.  Yes there's a minority which has decided that the welfare lifestyle is for them and have no ambitions for rising above it but most people on social assistance are there because of circumstances, illness or lack of opportunity due to economic decline.  These people would, given any chance, grab the first reasonable job offered to them in order to escape the welfare trap.  What's more, even if they see themselves as trapped on assistance until they hit their pension years they all hope their children will finish school, get some kind of usable education and join the economy.
Which is exactly the opposite of what the Chareidi community current presents as its core values.  Consider Rav Shafran's protests:

Over the past decade or so, their social services – primarily in the form of child allowances – have been drastically cut, several times. Now what is left of the allowances is under the knife again. And charedim are being pressured to forgo full-time Torah-study, their “most important asset” and first priority. They are told that they must enter the army, even though there is no need for them in the military (as its leaders have repeatedly stated) and they fear the impact Israel’s “military melting pot” will have on their lives. They are vilified without pause, and cajoled to act not in what they consider their best interest (and the best interest, ultimately, of the entire country) but rather just to do what they are told. All, of course, for “the economy” and the “greater good.”

No one, to be sure, can claim a “right” to social service entitlements. And one can, if he chooses, take the stance that no citizen of any country should expect, for any reason, that the government needs to take care of him in any way. That’s a perfectly defensible position, at least from a perspective of cold logic.
But every compassionate country recognizes the rightness of assisting the poor. And a country that calls itself the Jewish one, it can well be argued, has a special responsibility to underwrite the portion of its populace that is willfully destitute because of its dedication to perpetuating classical Judaism (which, as it happens, is what kept the connection between Jews in the Diaspora and their ancestral land alive for millennia, and allowed for a state of Israel in the first place).

Yes there have been ongoing cuts since Bibi Netanyahu was finance minister under Ariel Sharon way back in the early 0's but those cuts were, in part, due to a lack of sufficient tax revenue to pay for the social services then in place.  The Chareidim have long complained that they suffered disproportionately from these cuts and that's true because of their larger families but imagine if a sizeable proportion of the community, instead of living off social assistance, had been working successfully and paying taxes?  Might that have alleviated the revenue shortfall by increasing taxes and reducing the number of people needing handouts?
Then there's the argument that the chareidim are being forced to forgo their first priority.  But they're not.  The Israeli government is simply saying that it won't pay for them to do it anymore.  If they want to they still can but not on the general taxpayer's agorah. 
Then there is the claim that the Chareidi community has been villified without pause.  Now while there is some hostility on the secular side against the Chareidi one ask to ask Rav Shafran: Have you not read your own press lately?  If there is any edge in hostility, false claims, and villification it belongs to the Chareidi press which has outdone any fascist 1930's Central European newspapers when it comes to presenting the situation in Israel.  Just ask Rav Dov Lipman, a genuine practitioner of Chareidi Judaism except for the part where it comes to checking one's brain at the door, what happens when you don't tow the party line 100%.
Finally, of course, his statement that no one has a right to social service entitlements is just laughable since this is exactly the crux of the Chareidi community's argument.  Since their Torah study protects the country (except when it's under attack) it is a privilege for secular Israelis to support their welfare lifestyles.  They are not only entitled to unlimited access to Israel's tax coffers, they are bewildered as to why the secular folks are upset by this. 
Refusing to support oneself, demand charity from the government while simultaneously attacking it for being unJewish and evil and then announcing that Israel has to support them because it's Jewish country is like the old case of the man who kills his parents and then asks for mercy from th court because he's an orphan.  Chutzpah!
Cindy would be insulted by the comparison, by the way.
The Chareidi PR's tactics until now have been relatively simple: scream bloody murder, drive the seculars to the point of responding angrily and then screaming that Chareidim are hated.  Let's hope that this tactic isn't successful.  The repercussions would be terrible.

Sometimes Intention Is Everything

It's a well known dispute in the Gemara in Berachos as to whether kavannah, intention, is necessary for the proper performance of a mitzvah.  It is, however, pretty well agreed upon that negative kavannah, intending not to fulfill one's obligation, while performing the mitzvah, does invalidate the act.
One historical example of this is the appointment of Shaul as the first king of Israel.  The Torah in Devarim clearly states that it is a mitzvah to establish a monarchy in Israel.  Various places in the Talmud delineate when this became obligatory after the initial conquest and settlement of Israel under Yehoshua but no one denies that there is a mitzvas aseh to have a king in Israel.
If that's the case why is the response of Shmuel haRo'eh, the leader of our ancestors at that time, mainly negative?  The Bible details his response to the people's request for a king and it isn't a positive speech.
The answer to that is contained in the speech.  It is clear to Shmuel that the desire for a king had no holy aspect to it.  It was about politics and matching the nations around that had monarchies and central governments.  It wasn't "I want a king because I want to fulfill the mitzvah" but "I want a king to be like all the nations around me".  This negative intention nullified the religious value of the kiyum hamitzvah which is what so annoyed Shmuel.
I was thinking about this while reading through the back and forth debate between Cross Currents and Morethodoxy on the recent "ordination" of three new Mahara"ts.  It's a fascinating discussion to follow because, while it appears interactive, it is quite clear that both sides are not interested in talking to one another but rather in talking at one another.  Nothing Rav Avraham Gordimer says is going to change the minds over at YCT and nothing Rabbi David Wolkenfeld writes in response is going to change Rav Gordimer's mind.
But in my humble opinion the entire point of this debate is being missed.  This whole discussion isn't about whether or not female rabbis are permitted in halacha.  The real point is seen in blogs and Facebook comments of people who support the YCT initiative and can be summarized by one particular post I saw: "This is a step in the right direction".
The right direction?  Doesn't that strike one as a little arrogant, relegating the vast majority of Torah-observant poskim who oppose the YCT initiative as a group going in the wrong direction?  If one stands up and states that after a careful analysis of the issue one opposes the ordination of female rabbis one is automatically wrong?
And if so, why is one wrong?  What makes the ordination of women a step in the right direction?  Does it add to the general kedushah of our nation?  Does it increase habatzas Torah?  Is it necessary to stem something which is widely perceived as a problem among the majority of Torah-observant Jews?
From the various comments I've seen as well as the posts on Morethodoxy none of these seem to be the case.  Rather we get back to our ancestors' request of Shmuel.  Secular society around us is egalitarian.  Most Chrisian denominations these days, with the notable exception of Catholicism, are egalitarian or close to it.  We want, the YCT folks seem to be saying, to be like the secular society around us.  They have women priests, women politicians, women executives and we think that's right.  Therefore becoming more egalitarian by ordaining women as rabbis is a step in the right direction.
Although this might harsh, I would like to bolster my point by bringing up a never-mentioned (to my knowledge) consideration.  Up until now the YCT crowd has been emphasizing the supposed need for women to have a greater role in Jewish life and for Orthodoxy to be more egalitarian.  This means women need to start leading services, need aliyos to the Torah and need to be rabbis.  (Oddly there's no similar effort to ensure men start lighting Shabbos candles or baking challah)  But there's another important community position, one often forgotten about by lots of folks but which is amazingly essential for the Jewish community.  Like the position of rabbi, there's no mishnah or gemara that forbids women taking this position.  In fact the Mishnah bpfeirush states that women are permitted to perform its duties.  The Shulchan Aruch brings that mishnah as halacha as well.  Yet all over the world there are no women doing the job.  Not only that but there's no outcry from the YCT crowd about this.  There are no women lining up to break the glass ceiling surrounding this profession.
Have you guessed what the job is?
The local shochet.
Why is it that with all the clamouring from LWMO about women assuming equal roles with men, community leadership and so on that there is no demand from women to be taught about how to slaughter animals?
I'll tell you why: there's no glamour to it.
Many of the demands of women to assume male roles in the Jewish community is, I believe, driven by the behaviour of Jewish men.  Think about it: how many men wear a glitzy tallis and parade around proudly in it like it's a status symbol?  How many men make a big deal out of getting an aliyah instead of approaching the bimah in dread and awe of the responsibility of performing the mitzvah properly?  And don't even get me started on chazzanim.  Is it any wonder that some women want in on the action?
But being a shochet?  That's messy, smelly and pretty much anonymous.  The hours are lousy, the work is hard and since the cost of making a mistake is not only problematic al pi halacha but also financial in terms of losing the animal for kosher sale.  It's not something most men want to do.  What a surprise that YCT isn't running a shechitah program for its Mahara"ts.

Ultimately that is what undermines the legitimacy of the YCt crowd's arguments.  After all the picking and choosing of halachic supports, the main reason they are so passionate about their initiative is because they want to bring their Orthodoxy closer to the values of secular liberalism that they aspire to hold by.  They want Orthodoxy without conflict and Orthodoxy without conflict, without differentiation from the outside world, isn't real Orthodoxy.

The Necessary Synthesis

In Rav Dov Schwartz' book on the history of Religious Zionism he notes that the movement faces a critical issue in defining itself.  During the 20th century two rabbinic leaders towered over the ideology and did much to define it, the Rav, zt"l, and Rav Kook, ztk"l.  From today's perspective their influences were seen as different from one another.  The Rav's approach was strictly halachic, being faithful to his Brisker roots and his belief in the pre-eminence of halacha in all areas of Judaism.  Rav Kook, on the other hand, is recalled from the mystical perspective he brought to Religious Zionism which is quite different.  The followers of Rav seek to develop Religious Zionism along practical, halachic lines while the students of Rav Kook see things in a more messianic fashion.  The differences make it difficult to find common ground between the two factions.
But it seems to me that this doesn't necessarily have to be so.  For one thing we must remember that in addition to being a pre-eminent mekubal Rav Kook was also a major posek.  Yes he wrote a great deal in the mystical fashion but he also appreciated good halachic methodology just like the Rav.  The gap between the two authorities isn't as great as one might think.
What's more, recall that Rav Kook himself was a special synthesis of the two pre-eminent traditions in the Torah-observant community of his time, the Yeshivish and the Chasidic branches.  In his writings one can find evidence of his efforts to unite the two disparate philosophies and show that together they form one comprehensive and complete vision of Judaism.  As the Final Redemption draws closer it's important to encourage efforts like this so that what has become a fragmented faith with all sorts of different traditions finds an inner unity.
Why is this important?  On both sides of centrist Torah observance there are troubles brewing.  On the left side there is the movement that wants to bring secular liberal ethics into Judaism but still call itself Orthodox.  On the right the Chareidi world has become a self-righteous ethnic group more concerned with preserving itself than properly observing the Torah it claims to be the defender of.  Only with strong positions in both halacha and kabalah can centrist Orthodoxy, Navonim if you will, stand as viable alternatives to both.
For all those Chareidim who are fed up with the narishkeit their leadership is serving them there is little perceived alternative.  It's either the Oreo cookie outfit or complete secuarlism.  Centrist Orthodoxy, with its current emphasis on academic approaches to Judaism combined with a perception that it is "Orthodoxy-lite" does not seem to them to be a serious alternative.  As a result many bright and committed individuals who might find a home in a religious rigorous but moe rational Judaism are lost to Torah observance.  Centrist Orthodoxy could fill this gap if it were to know how much deep halachic commitment and mystical awareness are part of its heritage.
Similarly on the left such stands could finally define what is acceptable according to a rationalist mesorah and what is simply playing "pick a posek" Judaism.  This can only occur if centrist Orthodoxy demands firm loyalty of its followers to the proper halachic methodology.
It therefore seems to me that what is important for centrist Orthodoxy, both the MO and DL communities, is to unify around a greater commitment to learning the works of the Rav and Rav Kook and building a community around their values and traditions.  In this way an amorphous group can form a strong alternative.

Kick Them Out Already

The angry resistance to the Israeli governments intentions to draft all its Jewish citizens equally continues to rage out of the Chareidi community.  Not a day seems to go by without further insults, accusations and enmity being expressed by their representatives, they who speak in the name of the "Gedolim" who, of course, know the mind of God Himself.
Is it any wonder they're so angry at recent events in Israeli politics?  For decades the Chareidi leadership has worked to crate an image of Judaism that fits its ideological agenda.  Jews were always Chareidi right from Matan Torah on down.  Moshe Rabeinu even wore a shtreiml at Har Sinai.  Why wouldn't he?  In this world view there was no debate, no variety within the Torah community through the ages, all was monolithic and agreed upon until those nasssssty Reforms and Haskalah types appeared in the 18th century and created new, evil movements that claimed to be Judaism.  What's more, it's Chareidi learning that sustains and supports the Jewish people and the land of Israel, nothing else.  Its "Gedolim" have "Dass Torah" and, through their special ruach hakodesh, possess infallibility and therefore require unquestioning obedience.  And it's always been this way, always!
Yet after the recent election this carefully contructed ideology faced severe problems.  Large numbers of religious but non-Chareidi Jews were elected to the Knesset, many of them on the slate of a secular party.  What's more they had no intention of giving the usual obedience to the Chareidi leadership's dictates.  They had the arrogance to assume that their version of Orthodoxy was also a legitimate expression of Torah behaviour.  They had the temerity to insist that Chareidim do not have a God-given (forgive the pun) right to sit and learn all day while receiving funds from the State they enjoy slandering.  Jews claiming to be Orthodox and not towing the Chareidi party line?  Chutzpah!
As bad as all that was, the response continues to show a lack of moral integrity within certain elements of the Chareidi world.  We already saw the Neturei Karta demonstration in which they dressed their children up as concentration camp inmates.  We had editorials in Chareidi publications insisting that Israel has simultaneous obligations to pay the Chareidim to sit and learn while not expecting them to serve in the army.
Now we have a major Torah authority in the United States spreading lies about what Naftali Bennett said in support of drafting Chareidim.  Not interpreting in a hostile fashion or selectively quoting but outright lying, in the name of Torah-true ethics no less!  And if that couldn't be outdown the recent demonstration by the Satmar Chasidim (an oxymoron if you know what the word chasid means) featured competing claims as to whether the Gaon Harav Chaim Kanievsky, shlit"a, supported the protest.  Some Chareidi blogs prematurely trumpeted the announcement that he did only to discover afterwards that Rav Elya Ber Wachtfogel, the Rav who made the announcement, hadn't actually heard such from HaRav Kanievsky.  To top it all off a written letter was produced which was claimed to be from HaRav Kanievsky in support of the rally and it was shown to be a forgery!  So now we have Roshei Yeshivah lying in the name of Gedolei Torah in order to support an ideological position and say it's approved by Daas Torah.  And as Rav Slifkin notes, the public propaganda put out by these groups strongly implies that if you don't agree with them you're not a real Jew at all.
It boggles the mind!
Perhaps it's time to stop expressing annoyance at provocations like this.  Perhaps it's time to stop simply blogging and editorializing and take a stronger stand.  For far too long one of the spot-on criticisms of Modern Orthodoxy and Religious Zionism is that the two groups accord respect and authority to the Chareidim while the opposite takes place in reverse.  For far too long we have come to accept that "real" Gedolim and "real" learning mostly occur in the Chareidi community.  This is not true and cannot be accepted any longer.
It's time to push back.  It's time to declare that the principle that sitting all day and learning while wearing the "right" outfit is not an automatic ticket to being designated as righteous.  Both Modern Orthodoxy and Religious Zionism have their own leaders and the followers have to start asking them the hard questions: are they really leaders or just quiet stand-ins for Chareidi authorities?
We are all taught that quiet responses calm bullies and make them go away.  We all know from real world experience that the opposite happens.  Bullies are only intimidated when challenged by superior force and the will to use it.  Are we willing to say that not accepting the legitimacy of the State of Israel is wrong?  Are we willing to say that saying tachanun on Iyyar 5 and acting as if nothing important happened in Jewish history on that day is wrong?  Are we prepared to stand up and reclaim Jewish history from those who have perverted and revised it to fit their narrow agenda?  In short, are we prepared to stand up for the truth and say that those who don't accept it have no place among us no matter how long their peyos?

How To Deal With The Women Of The Wall

The first step in dealing with a group is to understand that group's purpose and its internal dynamics.  This is something excitable types never seem to want to do but in the current conflict between the Chareidi authorities at the Western Wall and the Women of the Wall it is crucial that we observe those factors if we are to responsibly deal with them.
Therefore we have to note a few important points:
1) This group is not homogenous.  This is not a gathering of hairy men-hating lesbians who want to destroy the Torah.  Well, some of them might be but most are not.  It seems instead that the group breaks down into two basic parts.  The first is the more vocal one, the followers of Anat Hoffman.  While I cannot comment on their shaving status or sexual preferences it is quite clear that they are not interested in approaching the Wall from a position of halachic acceptability.  They have picked and chosen those public Jewish rituals they find personally meaningful, redefined the word Judaism to create a new religion that only cares about those things and then demanded equal access to the Walls since they call what they practice "Judaism".
2) The second group are women who could be categorized as left-wing Modern Orthodox, the YCT type of folk.  These women are quite different from the Anat Hoffman group.  They are genuinely interested in being proper halachic Jews but their understanding of how decision-making in halacha works is flawed.  As a result they seek to  approach the Wall solely within the basis of what they think halacha allows.  They have been lumped into the other group and are not distinguished from them but their aims are quite different.
3) Both groups thrive on attention.  They are well aware that the Chareidi position is perceived by the vast majority of the Jewish population of Israel, including many well-meaning folks in the Modern Orthodox community, as hostile and intolerant and therefore inherently "unJewish". They know that the more they poke the bear, the more outsiders to the conflict will side with them. They know they have the secular court system where real legal power lies on their side so they have everything to gain from creating confrontations.
As a result, responding to the WoW's must take these factors into account.  To wit:
1) We must understand that no compromise like that offered in the Sharansky plan will be acceptable to the WoW's.  The Anat Hoffman group isn't interested in creating a small egalitarian prayer group over at Robinson's Arch.  They want to bring their new religion and its smattering of Jewish practices to the main plaza because they need the attention to survive.
I well recall years ago the night that the Conservative synagogue I grew up in went egalitarian.  When women were asked afterwards if they would now regularily attend services they all replied in the negative.  Having won the battle for their "rights" they had no interest in exercising them.  Anat Hoffman surely knows that much of her crowd is there for battle, not prayer.  In the absence of a confrontation many of these women will no be interested in simply showing up and praying.  How dull.
2) The second group, the LWMO one, must be taken more seriously.  These are women who are interested in genuine worship of God but simply have some misunderstandings leading them in the wrong direction.  An education outreach, an understanding of what they are interested in and an implementation of accepted halachic leniencies is certainly in order here.  This is all the more important because this group is not interested in an egaliatarian group at Robinson's Arch.  They are not seeking Reformative worship but rather they want to be Orthodox within certain understandings.
3) The most important thing to do is to demand calm from the Chareidi side.  The more riots there are, the more screaming and violence, the more inflammatory statements, the more the WoW's gain public and legal sympathy.  Honestly, who would you rather side with, an aggreived woman in a tallis who just wants to pray or a slavering Chareidi protestor screaming about the purity of Torah?  Knowing this, and knowing that the WoW's know this the response to their provocative actions must be muted or creative.  The attempt by the local Beis Yaakov schools a few weeks ago to swamp the women's section at the Wall was creative.  The subsequent Chareidi rioting from then men's section was not.  Once their spotlight shrinks their movement will lose its momentum.  Condescending editorials, screaming, and promises of violence will only do the opposite.
Above all we should remember what the fighting is about.  Newspapers love to state that the Wall is Judaism's holiest site.  Well it isn't.  It's the elevated piece of land beyond the Wall that is the Har HaBayis, our holiest site.  How odd that we're not even thinking about fighting over that with its current occupants.

Calling All Real Chareidim

One of the problems with having English as one's first language is forgetting that Hebrew words actually mean something.  I mean, we say "Beit Shemesh" but never think about visiting someone in the "House of the Sun".  Similarly there are millions of Jews who call themselves Chasidim but aren't especially pious.  The title comes with the outfit and lineage, not personal middos.
It's especially important to remember that Chareidi is a real Hebrew word as well, meaning one who trembles, as in one who trembles before the Lord and His Torah.  Like chasid the term has ceased to be used appropriately and has now become an ethnic designation for a specific group of Torah-observant Jews.  And like chasid one doesn't have to actual tremble before the Lord, just wear the right outfit and swear loyalty to the right rabbonim.
Having said that I am well aware there are countless members of the Chareidi community that are actual chareidim as well.  However it also follows that one can be chareidi and not a Chareidi.  How many folks in the Dati Leumi community, especially among the followers of Rav Kook, spend their days learning and performing mitzvos with a keen awareness of the Ribono shel Olam just like their Chareidi brothers?  Why there might even be a few in the Modern Orthodox community who fit such a description, folks for whom pleasing God is the number one priority in life even if their approach doesn't fit the prefab model presented by "the Gedolim".
Perhaps this is the answer to the question of achdus amongst us.  A person who is sincere and honest in his desire to fulfill God's will in This World will seek out like-minded individuals regardless of how they look or talk.  We all know of the stereotypical Chareidi, the one who looks at a non-Chareidi observant Jew and automatically dismiss his legitimacy.  Let's get past that.  Yes there are lots of narrow-minded individuals among the Chareidim but there are also many decent ones for whom a common love of Torah trumps an interest in what kind of hat one wears.  It's those that we should be reaching out to.
How do we reach out?  There is only one legitimate answer: through Torah study.  After all the words of ahavas Yisrael and talk of charity and good deeds there is one primal mitzvah that defines us as observant Jews: learning Torah.  If we non-Chareidim wish to be taken seriously by "open minded" Chareidim then we must take Torah learning seriously.  It's not enough to say "We're Orthodox too!"  The proof of one's Orthodoxy comes with the desire to learn Torah.
There is a famous story of how the Satmar, back in the 1920's, was asked by his allies to go to Israel and try to argue with Rav Avraham Kook, ztk"l.  He refused reputedly on the grounds that he was worried that Rav Kook, far from being convinced he was in error, would convince the Satmar he was wrong! 
This approach to Torah is exactly the one we must oppose.  A position which is maintained by ignoring, avoiding or shouting down any genuine opposition is weak and not worthy of being observed.  The best Torah observance is one that demands its practitioners' full willingness to defend it from opposing points of view.  It is only this form that thrives, provided its adherents with proper spiritual satisfaction and can stand up to pressures from the outside world that seek to distract us from our holy path.
Let us then consider approaching those Chareidim for whom honest belief in Torah trumps blind ideological loyalties and see if ties can be built that will heal some of our schism.

Disappointing Darkness

Warning: Spoilers ahead

Like many other die-hard fans I recently had a chance to take in Star Trek Into Darkness, the latest installment in the venerable sci-fi franchise.  We've been waiting for this one since 2009 when the JJ Abrams helmed reboot warped into theatres.  Was the wait worth it?
For me: no.
Let's take a step back.  The 2009 film could have been one of two things, a reboot to get the franchise up and producing again or a great tribute film full of in-jokes for long-time fans and revved-up action for the unwashed masses.  The sequel, for me, would decide this.
The plot, in short, is that a mysterious figure is terrorizing Starfleet.  Using a proxy he blows up an important research station.  He then attacks a meeting of admirals and captains that is discussing the attack, killing Captain Chrisopher Pike (which, I guess, beats spending the rest of your life horribly scarred and sitting in a wheelchair that can only go 'beep').  In the meantime Captain Kirk saves a primitive population from being destroyed by a volcano but gets demoted because he broke the Prime Directive (don't interfere with primitive cultures, just sleep with their women on the sly) to do so.  But with Starfleet's finest either dead or bleeding profusely from the attack Kirk is tasked to capture the terrorist which he does, almost a little too easily.  He's all ready to celebrate when he learns that the terrorist is a former pawn of an ambitious Starfleet admiral which used him to build a dreadnought, the USS Vengeance.  There is a big exchange of phasers between the Enterprise and the Vengeance and in the end the bad guys are destroyed and the Enterprise gets rebuilt.
Lots of cute lines, great action and amazing special effects.  So why was I disappointed?
Well, who was this mysterious bad guy?  None other than Khan Noonien Singh.
Yes, that Khan, the one from the original episode Space Seed and the greatest Trek movie ever, The Wrath of Khan.  Khan, you may recall, was a genetically modified superman who, in the aftermath of World War III in the 1990's, fled into space in cryogenic freeze with his followers.  In the original series timeline his ship, the Botany Bay, is found floating in deep space.  Khan and his followers are revived, he tries to take over the Enterprise and they are exiled to a remote savage planet.  In the new timeline the Botany Bay was discovered by Admiral Marcus who revives Khan and uses him to build the USS Vengeance while holding the rest of Khan's people hostage.
So there's a twofold disappointment here. The first is that, with a whole reborn galaxy to work with, Abrams et al go for the comfy, easy repeat by dragging out the most infamous Trek villian ever.  Then they fill the movie with "sneaky nods" at the original with a twist.  Were you expected Kirk to scream "Khan!" again?  No, this time it's Spock.  (I don't give a damn about his personal proclivities.  Zachary Quinto is a wuss compared to Shatner, it does not work when he does it).
And more than that, Khan is played by Benedict Cumberbatch who may be a great actor but is also pasty white.  Khan was Indian.  They're brown!  In the original Space Seed they at least had the good sense to use a well-tanned Ricardo Montelban.  This time we have to sit with serious faces as a guy the colour of milk announces "My name is Khan!"  Puh-leeze.
So yeah, more and more it looks like the 2009 movie was a great tribute and the future holds a bunch of generic acting and stolen lines.  Pity.

Maintaining One's Temper

The ongoing political struggles in Israel regarding the current government's efforts to bring the Chareidi community out of its ghetto and into greater society through universalizing the draft and cutting welfare coverage have had their fair share of coverage in news recently.  Unfortunately much of that coverage has feature the Chareidi PR establishment's less than conciliatory approach to the new government demands.
In fact, much of the conversation sounds like this:
Seculars: We want to discuss you guys sharing the burdens of society by participating in the army and teaching your kids basic skills and knowledge so they can be employable.
Chareidi PR guys: Nazis!  Cossacks!  We know what you really want!  All you do is sit around all day and think about how to destroy Torah!  You're worse than the Czar, Haman and Hitler all rolled in together!  Don't you know it's our learning that keeps the world alive?  You need to be grateful for our limud Torah!  Wait, why do you hate us so much?
The weaknesses of the various Chareidi positions regarding learn-don't-earn have been documented elsewhere as have the obvious rebuttals to the whole Torah-study-defends meshugas.  I don't need to go into them again at length.
But there is one point I'd like to make.  Like a spoiled child who drives his parents into anger and then screams "See!  You do hate me!" the Chareidi leadership seems hell-bent on creating an atmosphere of hatred among the secular population at which point they will turn around and say "See!  We knew you hate us!"  It's either that or the leadership is so devoid of insight into its behaviour that it really does believe the empty lines it spouts about Chareid exceptionalism.
Whichever is the case it is important not to play into either strategy.  There is much that is important and necessary for Jewish survival in the Chareidi community but it has to be isolated away from the elements that would like to see Chareidim permanently impoverished and ignorant.
Therefore it behooves all of us to remember that the proper response to provocations, attacks and lies from the Chareidi spokesmen is to recall the average Chareidi has a lot more to fear from his own leadership than he does from the secular worlds.  The principles that secularism has a life of its own and doesn't exist simply to destroy Torah must be repeated.  The idea that sharing the burden fairly is a value society wants implemented in all its sectors must be repeated.  The fallacies that the Chareidi PR folks spout about how the halacha supports their positions when it really doesn't must be calmly but thoroughly countered.
Most of all we must remember that the average Chareidi on the street is a normal person with normal aspirations, held prisoner to a rigid ideology that imprisons his opportunities to grow and succeed.
Only through keeping calm and remembering that these initiatives are done for the benefit of all might they succeed.

Guest Post - The Story of Irena Sendler

This piece comes from Simcha at TargetSplash and tells the story of a nearly forgotten hero of the Shoah.  It is reproduced here with his permission:

The Nearly Forgotten Story of Irena Sendler

Memorial ceremonies recently held in remembrance of the Warsaw ghetto uprising’s 70^th anniversary have stirred up interest in the historical events of the era, including lesser-known episodes.

One wartime experience involved a woman who was responsible for saving over 3000 Jews. Incredibly her story was almost lost to history until a group of Kansas high school students researched and publicized the affair in 1999.

Irena Sendler was a young Polish social worker who joined the Polish underground in 1939, immediately after the Nazis invaded Poland. During those early days of occupation Sendler helped Jews fleeing the Nazis and it is estimated that she assisted over 500 Jewish men, women and children in this effort.

In 1940 the Zagota underground group was formed so that members could assist the Jews in a more organized fashion. As part of that group Sendler was given forged documents that identified her as a nurse and she entered the Warsaw ghetto as an "expert" on infectious diseases. She was allowed to bring in food and medicine but her true acts of mercy were in what she removed from the ghetto.

Sendler quickly realized that the Nazis intended to murder all of the ghetto residents and she began to smuggle children out of the ghetto, sometimes under tram seats and other times in toolboxes, suitcases and even in bags under barking, snarling dogs. She also learned about the sewer system and other underground exits and brought children out through these tunnels. Many of the children were orphans but others had living parents and Sendler went door to door in the ghetto, to convince the parents that leaving the ghetto was the only hope that the children had of survival. 

Sendler recorded all of the names of the children on scraps of tissue paper together with the names of the families, convents or orphanages in which they were placed. Sendler hoped that the children could later be reunited with their families, though in the end, only a few of the parents survived the war. Through her efforts however, many of the other children were brought to Israel to live as Jews.

Sendler was captured by the Gestapo in 1943 but she did not divulge any information about the whereabouts of the children, even under torture. Zagota members were able to bribe the guards and secure her release and Sendler lived out the remainder of the war in hiding.

Just Like Everyone Else

Hat Tip: The Rebbitzen's Husband

Sometimes things happen that just make you wonder: what was this guy thinking?  As a follow up to the previous post, I would like to discuss this article from The Forward which deals with another Morethodox rabbi who, caught between doing "the right thing" and following halacha chose to do the former.

What was once an auspicious future leading Maine’s Jewish community became an uncertain world filled with passions almost entirely and forever out of reach. But then a hand reached out from the blurry abyss. Rabbi Akiva Herzfeld, of Portland’s Modern Orthodox synagogue Shaarey Tphiloh, straddled the denominational aisle and invited Goldfinger to help him lead Friday night services and say Kaddish for her mother, who died when Goldfinger was 15.
The nine-mile drive to Shaarey Tphiloh from Goldfinger’s home is too far for her to make on her own, so we rode together — past Portland’s tree-lined streets and New England-style homes. Herzfeld greeted us at the synagogue, with open arms and fresh pita made by a local Iraqi refugee. Then he led us inside to talk.
“I tried to imagine what it would be like for me to be a female Reform rabbi. I thought, what if I were her and she was me? I would want him to ask me to lead services,” said Herzfeld, 34, who joined Shaarey Tphiloh, Maine’s oldest synagogue, five years ago. He spoke effortlessly, almost motionlessly, his red hair and pale skin standing out against stained-glass windows behind him. Goldfinger sat nearby, listening to the man who helped guide her spiritual ship of state.

Once again, it is quite clear that Rabbi Akiva Herzfeld is not trying to rebel against God, rule against halacha or give the finger to anyone.  I'm willing to bet, in fact, that he's the kind of guy who will let everyone else rush the post-Yom Kippur food table while he stands back so as not to get in anyone's way.  This is therefore not meant to be a personal criticism of him.
There is so much in this story it's hard to know where to begin but it's easy to know where to end.
One of the things that bothers non-Orthodox folks about the frum world is our lack of acceptance of non-Orthodox practices as being genuinely Jewish.  We are not like Chrisians who, while they spread across dozens of denominations, don't deny that other groups are legitimately Chrisian as well.  We Orthodox do.  We don't think that non-Orthodox rabbis are real rabbis.  We don't think it's okay to have mixed seating at services and we don't think that driving to shul is more important than keeping Shabbos properly.  It's not that we don't do such things.  We think it's wrong for other Jews to do it, especially when they create a hyphenated Judaism for themselves and say that in their version of Judaism it's okay.
And this lack of acceptance is one of the hallmark features of Orthodoxy.  You don't want to keep kosher?  That's between you and God but don't tell me and expect my response to be "Well that's perfectly fine". 
It seems to me that this is where Morthodoxy diverges from Orthodoxy.  Reading this story one gets the feeling that Rabbi Herzfield, while personally committed  to halacha in his own life, does not see that Orthodoxy does demand a certain judgementalism, that he can tolerate different "streams" of Judaism without having to accept their legitimacy.  For him there is Jewish moral relativism.  A rabbi is a rabbi is a rabbi in his worldview so he would have little problem, his meagre protestations in the article notwithstanding, treating her as "one of the crowd".  It would be no different, one imagines, if a Conservative rabbi visited a Reform temple or vice versa.  Herzfield, in a dealous effort to be empathic and kind, has reinterpreted Orthodoxy to allow in those for whom the Torah is a nice book but certainly not authentic or authoritative.
One can be welcoming and tolerant, after all, without going too far.  A kind welcome, a mention that there was a distinguished visitor, letting the visitor say kaddish, all this could have been done but despite Herzfield saying he was going out of his comfort zone in letting Alice Goldfinger lead services one gets the feeling that the opposite was happening.  This was a chance to be progressive, inclusive, to make a positive impression on someone non-Orthodox and he was going to grab the opportunity.
That no one in his congregation complained is hardly a surprise either.  If this is how he practices his rabbinical position the folks who care about proper Orthodoxy probably decamped to the Chabad shul a while ago.
It seems therefore that we finally have a definition of Morthodoxy that pushes them out of genuine Orthodoxy.  The moral relativism that places halachic Jewish observance on the same level as make-it-up-as-you-go Judaism would be the breaking point.

The Obsession Continues

Every Jewish group these days seems to have its own obsession, its own focus which defines how it achieves its self-imagined holiness and dveikus.  For some in the Torah world it's a never-ending fascination with emulating the Taliban and creating a society in which women are invisible, voiceless beings good only for popping out babies once a year or so.  For others it's a desire to create an Orthodoxy that is academic and won't be laughed at by the atheoskeptics.
But for the Morethodox it's all about women and gays.  More specifically, it's about figuring out ways for open lesbians to have aliyos while leading Kabbalas Shabbos.  Thus the latest post by Rabbi Haym Shafner and his earnest and never-ending attempts to bring open homosexuality into Orthodoxy.
Now on one hand there is no question that Rabbi Shafner's obsession with egalitarianism and alternative lifestyle equality is born of a sense of decency and fairness.  He is not trying to rebel against God, Torah and halacha.  Far from it.  He is simply trying to reconcile the strong secular liberal values he holds when it comes to these areas with a Torah-approach that is hostile.  He does not wish to jettison either so he has to choose to adjust one of them and it's quite clear that he will choose adjusting halacha before anything else.
Certainly he engages in a lot of self-delusion when he tries to create the impression that halacha is only minimally opposed to homosexual practices.  His refusal to recognize that incest and homosexuality are pretty much both condemned by the Torah for being very wrong is only the most egregious of the many errors he makes in order to avoid getting answers he doesn't want to deal with.
And one has to ask: what's his endgame?  What is he hoping to accomplish?
Is it to create a shul environment in which an openly homosexual congregant can come in, sit down and interact with others in a respectful fashion?  Well one would hope that this would already be the case although reality shows us that certain prejudices run deep and negative treatment of folks enamoured of certain sexual preferences rarely get treated the way other folks, like mechalelei Shabbos do. 
Rabbi Shafner tries to make the argument that there are other congregants guilty of major sins, financial or ritual, that still receive respectful treatment and get kibudim in Orthodox shuls.  This is certainly true but on the other hand a guy who drove to shul on Shabbos rarely waves his car keys over his head as he walks down to the bimah to get his aliyah. The guy who stopped at MacDonalds on the way to services doesn't walk into the sanctuary dropping restaurant napkins everywhere or saying "Egg McMuffin!  Smell my breath!" to the guy sitting next to him.
So if a homosexual male or female, dressed in appropriate attire for shul walks in and sits down exactly how does his sexual proclivity come into play?  If he's acting like everyone else in the crowd then why is his bedroom preference relevant? 
What's more, if he's really an intelligent and committed Jew then where does he sit in shul?  This comes up every time we hear about a gay Orthodox Shabbaton or other prayer program.  The purpose of the mechitzah, after all, is to keep men from looking at women in a lascivious fashion.  Now you have this guy who has the same type of attraction but to men.  Should he be sitting in the men's section?  Isn't that forbidden to him as much as it is for a heterosexual male to sit on the women's side?  And if he avoids this issue and just quietly sits in the men's section then how serious is his commitment to being frum? Isn't he simply just going through the motions?
The love that once dared not speak its name has, in recent decades with the support of secular liberals, become the love that has to scream about it out loud day and night and shove it in the face of everyone who disagrees with it.  Creating a "gay and Orthodox" Jewish movement runs the risk of bringing that dysfunctional dynamic into the Torah community.  What purpose would it serve other than to create a group whose primary demand would be "Change the Torah to accomodate us!"?

Majority Rules?

One of the arguments raised by Rav Tzadok, may he remain healthy and successful, against legitimizing indirect metzitzah b'peh was that the vast majority of poskim oppose anything other than direct MBP and that all contemporary poskim oppose it.
Now leave aside that this isn't true. A significant number of poskim, several of them leaders of their generations, approved of indirect MBP.   There are also numerous poskim in both North America and Europe who approve of indirect MBP especially in light of the frequency of herpes transmission as well as a growing fear of governments outlawing ritual circumcision if indirect MBP isn't used.
Here's the biggest question, one born of cynicism and a knowledge of the history of the last 150 years: since the ending of the Sanhedrin around 2000 years ago (may it be speedily reconvened) has Judaism become a democracy in which majority votes rule?  Did someone create a parliament?  Which rabbonim get to sit in it and who chooses them?
Let's look at the controversy surrounding the definition of death, especially when it comes to organ transplants.  There are large numbers of important poskim on both sides of the issue (although just like with metztizah b'peh you'll often hear a proponent for the cardiac death side saying "all the poskim agree with me") but if you expand the eligibility definition I am quite certain you'll find that the definition of death as being brain stem death has far more supporters than the cardiac definition.  Should majority rule?  Should we tell the poskim on the cardiac death side that their opinion no longer has any authority and that their views are invalid al pi halacha?
Well I'm not going to go and tell them.  Any volunteers?
What's more, let's consider one particular issue in which the majority of great poskim were on one side and a minority on the other: fleeing Europe when the Nazis, y"sh, threatened Europe's Jews.  Never forget that most European rabbis opposed Zionism and any attempts by their followers to run away either to Israel or America.  How many people stayed put on the advice of their well-meaning posek who insisted that prayer, faith and submission to the Germans would save their lives?  How many of them actually lived?  Majority rule?  Doesn't always work.
What's more, we're all well aware of the mishnah in Eduyos that explains why Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi recorded minority and divergent opinions for posterity, because times might arise in which they would be needed to be relied upon.  So even if something is a minority position and not accepted halacha the situation might arise that makes it so. Might I be so bold as to suggest that the rise of sexually transmitted diseases present during metzitzah b'peh be worthy of consideration, especially when we're not talking about abolishing MBP but simply adjusting it a little to make it safer while maintaining the fundamental elements of the procedure?
Finally, there is something called Daas Hedyot, as noted a couple of years ago by Rav Harry Maryles.  In short, it is the common sense of ours, the unwashed masses.  The post noted several instances over the last century where the common sense of the masses turned out to be smarter than the official Daas Torah position.  We also know Daas Hedyot has some validity from the Gemara in which Hillel, stumped by his colleagues for how to handle a situation of carrying when erev Pesach fell on Shabbos decided to see what the people coming to the Temple with their sacrifices did.  The shomer mitzvos community, when left to its own devices, can often come up with acceptable solutions and this helped Hillel solve the problem.
Well let's use common sense.  Ask any reasonable parent whether, given two options both supported by numerous poskim, he'd prefer the one that gives his child a chance at catching an incurable virus that might leave the infant very ill or the method that avoids it while maintaining the requirements of the mitzvah.  What do you think he or she will say if not pressured by the local askanim?
And really, that's what it comes down to for us on the indirect MBP side.  We are saying we want a safe MBP.  They are saying they want to endanger our children for the sake of tradition.  Which side does common sense lie on?

The Fundamental Jewish Value

The problem with any revolution or movement based on novel idea or single principle is that with time dedication to that position overshadows a commitment to the greater values that lead to its development.
How many mass movements have become the victim of success and single-mindedness?  How many revolutions ended with the victors becoming as tyranical as the dictator they replaced?
In the last 300 years two major movements came to dominate Ashkenazic Jewry - the Yeshivish philosophy of the Vilna Gaon, ztk"l and his primary student, Reb Chaim Volozhiner, ztk"l, and the Chasiddic ideology of the Baal Shem Tov, ztk"l.
The Misnagdim of the Yeshivish community believed in the importance of Torah learning. Closeness to God, as defined by Reb Chaim Volozhiner, came through intense learning of Torah Lishmah.  The Chassidim, on the other hand, sought out dveikus through ectasy (the emotion, not the drug), happiness and celebrating one's relationship with the Creator.
While there is a great validity to both approaches the limitations are quite evident in today's Orthodox community.  On the Yeshivish side the original learning of Torah Lishmah has been slowly corrupted into learning for the sake of avoiding the real world's obligations.  Look at the responses from the Yeshivish community when the perceived right to sit and learn on the State of Israel's shekel is challenged.
On the Chassidic side the strong emotional tendencies of the movement have changed from joy and celebration into anger and xenophobia.  Consider the violent outbursts from communities in response to challenges from the outside world or even just a woman in  a tank top who wandered into the wrong neighbourhood.
Yes, there are many adherents to both movements who remain committed to the original ideals of their respective founders but the public face of both groups has changed and not for the positive.  Like any mass movement, a particular value came to represent everything and the original reasons for that value have been forgotten.
Rav Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook, ztk"l, made attempts to reconcile the two opposing philosophies of the Yeshivah community and Chassidus through his philosophy and his writings.  A product of both worlds, he wrote ina way that was a synthesis of the best values of each.    But it is clear, a century or so later, that much of what he hoped for was lost on the masses.  Both the Yeshivish and the Chassidim have ignored him and the Religious Zionist community, for the most part, has concentrated more on his Zionist thinking than on the meta-issue of religious philosophy.
Perhaps it's time for another try.  I'm not suggesting I'm interested in starting a mass movement.  I'm no revolutionary and besides, I have a day job that pays really well.  But I do think it's time to suggest something and get people thinking about it.
Consider: Gratitude.
Over the millenia we have had great Jewish thinkers present many rationales for keeping the mitzvos.  We have had many ideas presented as to how to motivate the Jewish public and bring about achdus.  As our current miserable situation in golus proves, none of them have taken off.
Think about all the books on middos improvement from the Rishonim and Acharonim.  Consider all the sifrei mussar out there.  They were written by brilliant and pious men, they are logically presented and widely read but how many of them really had a mass impact?
I often listen to shiurim while I'm driving in the car and am struck with the disconnect older rebbeim have with their students.  A mature adult understands the value of Torah lishmah and appreciates the opportunity to learn in such a manner.  A 14 year old boy often doesn't.  This is understandable.  What's not understandable is the rebbe saying "I don't see why you're not as excited about this as I am!  What's wrong with you?  Why would you rather look out the window or play baseball than figure out the Ritv"a on this blatt?"  I wonder how many OTD's there are out there because of rebbeim who think that the best way to motivate a teenager or even a younger kid is to tell him there's something wrong if he doesn't find in-depth Gemara learning or davening an amazing and inspiring experience.
How then to motivate?  Again consider: gratitude.
One of the biggest causes of depression that I run across in my daily work is ingratitude.  Not that people are consciously being that way, mind you, but in our modern society it seems to be standard for many folks to always focus on what they don't have instead of what they do have.
I have one patient, for example, that suffers terribly from this.  She lives in a beautiful apartment, is financially secure, has a daughter married to a successful plumber and a handful of healthy, well-behaved grandchildren.  But if you met her you'd think she was living a life of misery... because of the arthritis in her knee.  Not both knees, just one but it's all she cares about.  Everything else in her life means nothing because her knee hurts.  She could just die!  Life's not worth living!  There's nothing good out there!
So again: gratitude.
You could tell a 14 year old boy who doesn't like getting up in the early morning to daven that there's something wrong with him.  You could shout at him that he's not motiovated or that he's going to be committing an aveirah by missing z'man krias shema. 
But perhaps another approach would work.  You could remind him of all that he has, like his family, his pesonal possessions, his health, his living in a peaceful society where the rule of law usually runs things and that the root cause, the ultimate reason for all this is the chesed of the Ribono shel Olam. 
When it comes to Torah study it could also be applied.  Imagine telling a young man that his reason to learn is because the Ribono shel Olam gives him so much and all He asks in return is for him to learn about Him and His works in the Torah and Talmud.  He's not learning Torah because he must, because he has no choice, because it's what everyone is doing, because of what the neighbours will say, but because he recognizes what He has done for him and it's only right to give a little back.
You can argue with someone about the importance of keeping kosher or Shabbos until you're blue in the face and it won't work.  Might the approach of reminding him that it's pretty much universally recognized that giving back to someone who has given you something is a positive trait have a better effect?
This also could go beyond such narrow interests.  Look at the surrounding Jewish community.  Too often our Orthodoxy builds walls between us and our non-observant brethren.  We see what divides us and miss all we have in common.  Yet it cannot be ignored that without them we would not exist.  What kind of amazing, growing and prosperous Chareidi would there be in Israel without the hard work of the secular Israeli taxpayers and soldiers?  What kind of Jewish community would exist in North America without the money and organizations run by the secular Jews here?  No, we don't have to agree with their definitions of Judaism but we can recognize that we have much in common with them and focus on that.
Imagine what would happen in Israeli society tomorrow if yeshivos were to start preaching to their students that they much acknowledge all the good Israel as a country and a society has done for them without harping on the bad.  What would that do for the average secular Jew's perception of Torah Judaism?  How would that change the inner nature and character of the Chareidi Jew?
What kind of changes would we see in an education system in which motivation to learn and pray is through wanting to thank God instead of living up to the expectations of others?  How would that enhance the individual's feeling of self and desire to be part of Torah society?
It's not as intense as Torah Lishmah and lacks the pizazz of dveikus but perhaps Hakaras HaTov as a fundamental philosophy is something we need to start thinking about.

Liar, Liar, Shtreiml On Fire

The ongoing debate over the medical safety and halachic necessity of metzitzah b'peh (MBP) in the Jewish world is not showing signs of abating any time soon.  Every time another report of an infant infected with herpes on his male organ most likely as the result of contact with an infection mohel's mouth reaches the news the flames of controversy swirl up again.
It is important to take a step back and clarify terms.  As people with a fanatical devotion to any religious position will ensure happens, terms of reference often get muddied up, the better to accuse opponents of crimes they have no intention of committing and thereby avoiding serious debate on the subject.
Therefore let me be up front with my definitions.  I have no interest in abolishing MBP.  I am not stating that it is a halachically recommended part of the bris milah process.  Clear?
I also would like to point out there are four options when it comes to MBP.  First, there is the option of not doing it.  This is not as outrageous as some would like to portray it.  First of all, the Gemara makes it clear that it holds metzitzah to not be an essential part of the circumcision process which it ends with p'riah, the retraction of the membrane over the glans.  The purpose of metzitzah is one of hygeine and health safety following the procedure.  The Gemara also recommends, for example, putting cumin powder on the incision which is not something we do anymore and no one suggests it is an inviolable part of the bris milah.  Throughout history there have been poskim who have suggested not doing metzizah for various reasons.  They are not in the majority but their authority does carry some weight.
A second option is to do it through pressure, for example placing a sponge on the incision and using that to suction blood.  This follows the letter of the requirement precisely.  According to the Gemara it is the removal of blood from the incision that creates the health benefit and the sponge does it.
The third option is do to the time-honoured act of direct MBP which involves lip-to-penis contact and the use of inhalatory suction to pull the blood out.  The final one is to do the same thing but with an intervening sterile device like a syringe barrel or pipette.
The problem is that the importance of metzitzah and how it's performed does not end with the Gemara.  In the Zohar and other Kabbalistic literature metzitzah takes on a whole new importance and becomes an essential part of the bris milah procedure.  And not just any old way but direct MBP and nothing else aligns the sefiros and brings forth the heavenly shefa that the baby needs.
As a result nowadays we are often presented with the position that direct MBP is not only the oldest form of metzitzah but that it's an unqualified fact that it's the only way to properly do it.
This is not true.  When one investigates the halachic literature one finds multiple poskim, many of whom post-date the "appearance" of the Zohar, that hold like the Gemara and do not see it as essential.  Others hold it is necessary but that it can be done with the sponge or pipette techniques and still be valid.  Again, these authorities are more than balanced by those demanding direct MBP but they are still impressive in number and count among themselves many important Torah leaders.  In other words it is not heretical to hold that indirect MBP is permissible.
Enter the herpes virus.
Herpes simplex is a nasty little virus.  It comes in two basic flavours.  Traditionally type 1 was associated with cold sores and type 2 with genital lesions.  However, due to people putting their lips in places they don't belong over the last couple of centuries there is now plenty of overlap between the two.  Most importantly, herpes is transmitted by direct skin-to-skin contact and can shed from one person to another in the absence of a visible cold sore or blistering rash.  In other words, a mohel who, on Thursday will develop a cold sore on his lower lip will be contagious at the bris he performs on Monday.  After a suitable incubation period the infant will develop a herpes lesion at the site of contact and it will be 100% the mohel's fault.
So now the halachic debate begins.  If the purpose of MBP is to prevent health complications but it itself has to potential to harm the infant then how can it be performed?  If MBP is an essential part of the bris milah for mystical reasons then is the risk of herpes transmission acceptable in order to do the circumcision correctly?
There is ample support in our legal literature for the direct MBP position.  What is truly a shame and what shows the weakness of direct MBP's supporters is their refusal to deal with the problem of herpes.  Like historical revisionists who repaint history to support a pre-determined "We were all Chareidi until those blasted Reformers showed up" version the supporters of MBP resort to scientific revisionism in order to avoid the nasty implications their position implies.  Hence we have Rav Avi Shafran's latest piece in which we find the following statement.

Yes, New York Mayor (a.k.a. “Nanny-in-Chief”) Michael Bloomberg, with the assistance of the New York Board of Health, has waged war on metzitza bipeh, claiming that it has been the cause of infections of Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 (the cold sore virus, carried by most of the population but which can be dangerous in babies). That fact was the extent of Mr. Savage’s research of the issue. But it has been compellingly asserted by objective scientists that the mayor and health board’s claims are without basis in fact

Now I generally try not to be (too) insulting when I disagree with someone on my blog.  In this case I do not think it disrespectful to say this: Avi Shafran is a bold-faced liar.  Period.
First of all, Mayor Bloomberg's "war" on MBP has consisted of asking mohels to get a signed consent from the parents of the infant before direct MBP has been performed.  Secondly, the claims he dismisses as being without basis in fact are actually true.  Shafran is lying, pure and simple.  There is no question as to how herpes simplex is transmitted.  There is no question about its contagiousness in the absence of a visible skin lesion.  To say otherwise is to either be willfully informed or a liar.
Nor is Shafran's bolstering claim of any worth:

New York Westchester Hospital Chief of Infectious Diseases Dr. Daniel S. Berman, Beth Israel Hospital director of epidemiologic research Dr. Brenda Breuer and Columbia University Professor Awi Federgruen, an expert in quantitative methodology, have all publicly called into serious question the claim that metzitza bipeh represents any quantifiable danger to babies

When challenged by folks about their belief that the Earth is the centre of the universe and that the sun revolves around it instead of the other way around, contrary to the understanding of modern science, Chabadniks often mention a scientist named Velvel Greene.  According to Chabad mythology Greene started off by dismissing the claims of the Rebbe, z"l, about a geocentric universe and other misconceptions based on 2000 year old scientific understandings and ended up believing as the Rebbe did.  Therefore, they conclude, not all scientists believe in a heliocentric universe.  There is authentic support for the Rebbe's position.
Yes, one scientist who, by the way, is not an astronomer.
If Stephen Hawking were to claim tomorrow that he has come to realize that gravity is a fiction or that it's not oxygen that keeps us alive but rather nitrogen his achievements and recognition would not matter.  He would be dismissed for denying scientific fact.  Shafran can find any number of Agudah toadies with medical degrees who are willing to lie or misrepresent scientific facts but that does just change those facts no more than Peter Duesberg was wrong when he claimed that HIV is not the cause of AIDS.
The proponents of direct MBP are probably not comfortable being told that insistence on their position in this day and age exposes defenseless infants to a virus that can cause life-threatening infections.  Unable to refute this opposition rationally they become irrational and deny science.  It does their side no favours to be exposed as liars and revisionists since it also draws into question the process they used in analyzing the halachici literature to come to their staunch direct-MBP-only position.
The saddest part is that the compromise position, indirect MBP, fulfills everything that metzitzah is supposed to accomplish.  There is oral suction, there is drawing of blood from the wound and if the mohel really wants, he can then smear that blood on his lips without ever exposing the baby to any danger.  But what kind of people refuse such an obvious accommodation while threatening harm to an infant and lying about that very danger?

The Second "W" Isn't For Wrestling"

Years ago I met a Reform convert who told me that she liked putting on tefillin every day because it made her feel closer to God while praying.  Shortly after I had the opportunity to see her in her gear and made some observations.  For one thing she wore the head tefillin nice and low on her forehead.  When I pointed out the mistaken position she assured me she was doing it correctly because the Torah said it should be "between your eyes" and the Rabbis came along later and changed it so she was doing what God really wanted.  She had also wrapped her arm strap eight times instead of the customary seven as she didn't feel the first loop, which in her view only served to stabilize the others, counted.
(She also enjoyed bringing her guitar to her synagogue on Shabbos so she could lead people in the group prayers, but I think my point was made).
Tzedek-tzedek, over at his blog, recently put up a post describing his feelings when he sees pictures of the Women of the Wall in their attempts to be manly in their prayers.  Clearly this post evoked a great deal of negative reaction because he's now taken it down and replaced it with an apology.
On one hand, having read the post, I did find it quite strong.  On the other hand I can understand why Tzedek-tzedek had such a response.  One need not look exclusively into the world of traditional religion to see that people with strong beliefs can have strong responses when things they care about are challenged.  Consider the screaming that occurs when anyone in Canada dares say words like "limits on abortion" or "private health care".  How about the insults that begin to fly when someone in a university setting starts a sentence with "I disagree that global warming is occuring..."?  Is it therefore so unexpected that someone who takes his religious faith seriously and with great passion would be deeply offended when he sees a group of people who are, in his eyes, mocking it for their own selfish purposes?
On the other hand I did disagree with his description of the negative emotions seeing the WoW's brings out in him.  I don't think the WoW's should be looked at with hatred, disgust or other derogatory feelings.  Allowing oneself to feel those things does nothing to build up personal character but, more importantly, that's exactly what the WoW's want.
We should stop pretending that this group is about religious freedom.  The recent Sharansky plan for the Kotel in which the main plaza would remain al pi halacha while the Robinson's Arch area would be renovated and egalitarian showed this clearly.  That the frum response would be that no area of the Wall should be non-halachic is not surprising.  The response from the WoW's, that they would take the Robinson's Arch suggestion but still had plans to show up and disrupt prayers at the main plaza, showed what their true intentions have been all along.
There is a fundamental difference between Orthodoxy and non-Orthodoxy when is comes to accepting the legitimacy of other views.  Non-orthodoxy is famously tolerant while Orthodoxy is the diametric opposite.  No Reformative Jew out there I am aware of looks at an Orthodox shul and feels that its form of worship is illegitimate.  They may disagree with separation of the sexes during worship and the limitation of public honours to men but they don't say it's not Judaism.
Orthodoxy, on the other hand, has a relatively rigid system in which right and wrong are defined with precision.  Eating kosher is right.  Eating non-kosher is wrong.  Observing Shabbos as defined by the Shulchan Aruch and subsequent decisors is right.  Driving to shul on Shabbos is wrong.
It is this difference that seems to rankle the feelings of the non-Orthodox and this is understandable.  No sincere person wants to be looked at by a comrade who is doing things differently and be told "You're not doing it right so it doesn't count".  Unfortunately for the non-Orthodox this is exactly what a rejection of Torah observance and the authority of halacha has led to.  You cannot expect to walk up to someone Orthodox, say that you intermarried, eat pork on Mondays and bread on Pesach and get him to say "Well fine, your Judaism is just as real as mine."  It simply will not happen.
It is this resentment that seems to be driving the WoW's.  Their whole presentation is not about religious freedom but about interfering with Orthodoxy.  It's not that they want egalitarian Judaism for themselves.  They can't stand that the Orthodox over on the other side of the mechitzah will not recognize that their religious expression is just as legitimate in the eyes of God as the expression of the shomrei mitzvos.
That is why they have grabbed what Sharansky offered them but without giving up on the reason he had to be called in to broker an agreement in the first place for.
We should feel pity for the Women of the Wall, not anger or hatred.  Here are a group of intelligent, well-meaning women who are looking for a genuine connection with the Ribono shel Olam that have been diverted onto a path in which self-worship and the need to disrupt the prayers of others while hurting their feelings have become principles of faith.