What Learning Should Be

For the last year or so I've been slowly going through the Michtav MiEliyahu, the great mussar tract of Rav Eliyahu Dessler, z"l.  A few parts are difficult, many are inspirational but at the end of the third volume amongst copies of some letters he wrote are parts that are very frustrating.
As a Chareidi icon, for example, it is no surprise that he decries any attempt at innovation in the religious eductional system in the harshest terms.  I was also slightly taken aback by one of his statements on corporal punishment.  Although I don't agree and am reupulsed by the ntion, I can understand how he would, based on ample statements from Chazal, encourage the beating of students by their rebbeim but his advice to beat even a child that is obedient as a prophylatic measure is simply bizarre.
But ultimately it's his condemnation of any use of modern techniques (modern being the 1940's) in the educating of children, the insistence that the way we did it back in Eastern Europe is the way we must do it today, is what I disagree with most.  Forget computers and the internet, he had a problem with blackboards!
The problem with a tradition-based religion/nationalisty is that sometimes the tradition becomes the religion and replaced the original idea.  Is learning about taking in as much of Torah as possible or is it about going through the motions, swaying in front of a yellowed, crumbling text in a dark room by candlelight?  Is it more important to understand the gemara or to understand how the tune recited while reading it goes?
A more fundamental question: is learning Torah supposed to be enjoyable or approached as one does any field of knowledge?
There is no debate that Jews approach the learning of their sacred materials differently from other religions, that we approach Torah as a body of knowledge different than other fields.  We are not only to learn Torah but to love it and the process of learning it as well.  We see value not just in the knowledge but in people who are steeped in it and even in the books that contain it.  A scientist learns facts to conduct experiments, a Jew learn Torah to complete his neshamah and earn his place in Olam Haba.  Quite different.
As Rav Levi Cooper notes in this article, the idea that there should be joy in the learning of Torah is fundamental to the undertaking.
But there is something deeper to this as well.  Unlike other fields of knowledge where a lack of love for the material precludes an interest in it, Torah demands learning despite a person's passion for the material or lack thereof.  A person might not be excited about Shabbos but still has to observe it.  A person may have a strong hankering for ham but still has to keep kosher.  A person might not care much about what happens to an egg born on Yom Tov but there is still an obligation to know.  And here is where I think the insistent on the traditional method of learning lets people down.
There is, after all, no obligation to make learning difficult ab initio.  If someone is doing well in Talmud and really getting enthusiastic about it, do we change him over to some obscure Aramaic text that he can't possible get into and demand he restrict himself to that?  And if someone benefits from a particular teaching style that might not have di rigeur back in the shtetl, do we tell him to buckle down and get used to flickering candlelight instead of trying to meet his needs?  Is not learning the material more important?
In the end it would seem to me that our responsiblity as Jews is, as Rav Shimshon Rafael Hirsch, zt"l notes in his comments on the first mishnah in Avos, to ensure maximum dissemination of Torah knowledge.  If it is done is a way that reaches the most amount of people the goal is achieved.  There is value to some traditions but not if it stands in the way of the most important mitzvah to be performed, that of learning our holy Torah.

According to the Alexander rebbes, only someone who endures hardship to study Torah, toiling and sweating, perhaps barely understanding – only such a person should be lauded as having really studied Torah. Enjoyment when studying Torah could be considered a foreign body that contaminates the purity of the pursuit.

The Alexander Rebbe’s work Yismah Yisrael was published posthumously in Lodz in 1911-1912, but the material was presented publicly over the years, and it is entirely possible that the Avnei Nezer had heard about the position expounded by successive Alexander rebbes.
The Avnei Nezer was not impressed with the Alexander idea, declaring that this position was a “famous mistake” and claiming that the contrary was actually true: Torah study is most valuable when it is a joyful endeavor.
Only when a person takes pleasure in studying do the words of Torah become part of his lifeblood, coursing through his veins and providing him with spiritual nourishment.
To buttress his contention, the Avnei Nezer cited the Zohar, which says that both the Evil Inclination and the Good Inclination grow through happiness.
The Evil Inclination is nourished by unworthy actions; the Good Inclination grows due to the enjoyment of Torah. Thus delighting in Torah study is a positive emotion, for it serves as a growth hormone for the Good Inclination.
The Avnei Nezer did, however, acknowledge a caveat: One who studies only for personal enjoyment – such as monetary gain or intellectual stimulation – and not because Torah is our Divine heritage is indeed learning for the wrong reason. Nevertheless, we are encouraged to fulfill God’s commandments even if we do not do so for the right reasons, in the hope that we will one day fulfill those commandments for the sake of Heaven (B. Pesahim 50b).
In sum, the Avnei Nezer concluded: One who studies both for the sake of Heaven and for any benefit that accrues from Torah study – such learning is for the sake of Heaven, and the person is entirely holy, for even the enjoyment can be considered the fulfillment of a commandment.
Who is correct? Should we ideally take pleasure in Torah study, or is our Torah study purer when it lacks any measure of enjoyment? Perhaps this is a question that need not be answered, and the two contradictory approaches should both be preserved and recalled at appropriate times.
On those days when we relish the encounter with Torah; when we can think of no better pursuit; when we enjoy poring over hallowed tomes and find it difficult to pull ourselves away; when every word seems to speak to our soul – on such days, the Avnei Nezer reminds us that real Torah study is supposed to be enjoyable, and at that time we are “entirely holy,” for the Torah is our lifeblood.
On those days when we regrettably find no joy in Torah; when we grapple with passages from old texts that seemingly have no relevance and no import for our daily lives; when we would prefer to be anywhere else but in front of a book of Torah – on such days the Alexander rebbes remind us that if we overcome the discomfort and study Torah, that Torah is truly pure and lofty.

Occupy This!

Socialism has had a pretty rough time of it over the last couple of decades.  First there was the fall of the movement's international patron, the Soviet Union.  Then there was the revelation that socialism/communism in full and unfettered boom was a murderous and ecological nightmare.  Now we're watching the slow implosion of the social democracies in Western Europe that ignored the consequences of the "Gimme! Gimme!" method of budgeting for way too long.  Yes, someone with  his head screwed on straight would conclude that while some limited elements of socialism might help make a country healthier and happier, full out social democracy creates an prohibitively expensive mess that winds up hurting the people that it was most meant to help.
However, a philosophy's stupidity has never stood in the way of its popularity and there are plenty of people out there with their heads not screwed on straight.  This is possibly the best way to explain the "Occupy Wall Street" movement currently attempting to effect change to the Western capitalist system.
Now on one hand, these folks can hardly be blamed for being outraged.  After all, we live in a system in which corrupt individuals preach to the masses about restraint while shovelling as much money, influence and power towards themselves as possible.  But enough about the Democrats.  There are also CEO's who, despite leading their companies either to the edge of or clean over a cliff have walked away with handsome "bonuses" that are larger than most of us will earn in our lifetimes.  It's understandable that the little guy who loses his job because some rich CEO screwed up and has to eat dog food while the guy responsible for the mess drives around in a gold-plated Cadillac to be bitter.
But here's the first problem, the slogan: We're the 99%.  Well no, they're not.  They're considerably less than that.  Using statistics you can always create a 99% are not rich while 1% are rich scenario and then start preaching about class warfare.  It's doesn't take much intelligence to do so and the members of this movement aren't that intelligent so they're quite capable of staking such a claim.
In fact the number of people who are "wealthy" according to the Obama Administration is far higher than 1% of the American populace.  After all, for Obama you are a "millionaire" who deserves higher taxes start at an annual income of $250 000.  Wow, American math.  That's right, you've got a good middle class job, you've made some smart investments, you shop and provide stimulus to your economy every day and because you've been successful, well you need to be punished with higher taxes.
Except here's the second problem.  Taxes are not what's wrong with the US economy, or anyone else's for that matter.  The problem is spending.  The problem is a culture that says "I want the government to take care of me and minimize my personal responsibility as much as possible".  Europe has been in the advanced stages of that culture ever since the Americans paid for them to rebuild after World War 2 and under Obama's tutelage Americans are catching up.  The old joke used to be that the difference between a Canadian and an American is that if you push an American over he gets up and smacks you hard but if you push a Canadian over he lays there and cries "Why isn't the government picking me up?".  That distinction seems to be gone if the demands of the Wall Street occupiers are to be taken seriously.  An end to debt?  An end to tuition?  Are these people for real?  Do they have any concept of how an economy works?
Of course not.  These are folks who still believe in global warming, after all.  In such a culture there is no understanding of supply and demand, value and quantity and other basic economic principles.  Like the Greeks who demands full social services, a 35 hour work week and a fully funded pension at age 55 but at the same time did everything they could to avoid paying taxes, these people think the government can magically soak that paper villain, "the rich" to raise all the money they can.
But the government can't, for one big reason.  One is that the rich can move.  If you create a hostile enough tax environment then the rich will move en masse to a better jurisdiction.  What's more, if the rich move they take their money which has been funding those factories and jobs with them.  Who suffers then?  Not the rich.
Finally there's this to consider.  According to some reports the OWS movement has amassed over $200 000 in donations and the amount rises hourly.  Is this money going to help the poor?  Finance a food bank or two?  Or is it going to support people who would rather not work for a living but are having fun living in tents in Zucchini Park?  And is that really what a world-changing movement does?
Do these people honestly want the system to change?  It's doubtful since some of them must still have an IQ enough to realize their demands are unreasonable and ruinous to the economy.  They want what their "Gimme! Gimme!" attitude tells them they are entitled to: free everything without having to engage in such ludicrous things as getting a basic job to help pay the bills.  For the sake of everything sensible they should be rejected as retread from the 1960's who just never grew up.

Judaism vs Universalism

One of the interesting contradictions within secular liberalism is how it demands post-national universalism for the Western world while embracing the exact opposite for the Third.  North Americans and Western Europeans are expected to submerged themselves in moral relativism and multicultural non-judgementalism while any "foreign" cultures, no matter how homophobic or misogynistic, are to be respected and treated as special.
For some so-called "streams" of Judaism this has never been much of an issue.  The Reformers, in particular, have made the ideals of secular liberalism into their new version of Judaism without much apology.  The Conservatives, on the other hand, have striven for decades for a middle ground position embracing both selective aspects of Jewish "tradition" while adjusting whatever aspects of Torah they didn't like to better reflect politically correct positions of contemporary society.
Like any balancing act the time comes when a side has to be picked and it is obvious that over the last thirty to forty years that Conservatism has picked the side of Reform.  There is an increasingly blurry divide between the two movements which allows for all manner of cooperation and even occasional mergers where resources or space are tight.  This should not be a wonder to anyone.  Unlike Orthodoxy where membership is determined by attitudes, beliefs and lifestyle, Conservatism and Reform memberships are based on what temple/synagogue you send your dues cheque to without any reciprocal expectations.
In many areas this acceptance of secular liberalism as a substitute for Torah values has been relatively innocuous.  As opposed to unlabelled am haratzim who act in ways contrary to Jewish ones, these folks simply act in similar ways but use the label "I'm a Reformative Jew!" to justify their actions.  However this has rarely caused much a schism across the greater Jewish community.  Reformatives might not keep kosher, for example, but they have no rules against it which means your local JCC can spend extra to keep a kosher kitchen without much expectation of objection from the local non-religious folks.
Sometimes a schism is caused but again, it is usually more because of a need for convenience than outright rebelling against Torah values.  The recent debate over the opening of the JCC in Baltimore, MD is an example of this.  No one from the non-religious side was demanding the JCC open as a reflection of their Jewish values.  They just didn't see the point in closing it one day a week.
However a line is being crossed now that is significantly more important in terms of the greater Jewish nation.  In its drive towards demanding post-nationalism for the West, secular liberalism has focused on Israel (big surprise!) as a particularly villainous state because of its insistence on being a "Jewish" state instead of a "state for all its citizens".  Israel is also unique in this regard as it shares space with one of the darlings of the secular liberal left, the so-called Palestinians.  Remember that while secular liberals demand post-nationalist universality from Western groups, it is perfectly find accepting nationalist fervour.  The same folks who condemn Israel for putting restrictions on where a Gay Pride route might be in Yerushalayim go silent when the so-called Palestinian Authority announces that in an independent Palestine homosexuality will be a capital crime.
How has this affected the Reformatives?  Well for Reform one need look no further than its former chief, Eric Yoffe and its frequent statements supportive of the position of those who would like Israel to be wiped from the wipe.  Then there is their current chief who is a supporter of one of the most pernicious anti-Israel groups in America, J-Street.
The question is how this is affecting the Conservative who, traditionally, have been strong supporters of secular Zionism, especially through their day school programs and the network of Ramah camps.
Well the answer seems to be in and it's not pretty:

But if the new crop of Conservative rabbis has anything to say about it, Conservatism may not occupy the center for very long.  That, at least, is the message of a recent report by the movement's Jewish Theological Seminary, based on a survey of political views among "Generation Y" rabbinical students—born in the mid-1970's to mid-1990's—and the Seminary's somewhat older rabbinical alumni, ordained since 1980. 

At first blush, the report purports to show what one would hope to find among the rabbinate: a solid Jewish identity and strong attachment to Israel.  On closer examination, this identity appears increasingly filtered through a universalistic and liberal political perspective.  Among American Jews as a whole, according to the Pew Forum, 38 percent identify themselves as liberal; 39 percent call themselves moderate.  In contrast, 58 percent of the Conservative rabbis surveyed—and 69 percent of the rabbinical students—called themselves liberal.  It's hard to defend the center when you're not in it.

These rabbis and rabbinical students are "pro-Israel," but they are redefining what "pro-Israel" means.  As liberals, they hold an optimistic view of human nature: Though Palestinian leaderssee their conflict with Israel as a zero-sum game, it seems hard for the rabbis to acknowledge this grim fact.  Instead, they get their understanding of events in Israel from ideologically reinforcing left-oriented sources: liberal media outlets, Facebook posts, and Haaretz.  These sources help explain the conspicuous disconnect between the next generation of Conservative rabbis and mainstream American Jews on the subject of the Arab-Israel conflict.  More than three-quartersof American Jews, according to the latest American Jewish Committee survey, believe that the Arabs' goal is not merely the return of the "occupied territories" but the actual "destruction of Israel."  Only 30 percent of the JTS rabbinical students agreed with a similar statement.

One of the most telling statements in the article is "These rabbis and rabbinical students are 'pro-Israel,'".  Like everything else they have done with Judaism, they have redefined what "pro-Israel" means to avoid admitting that they are becoming anti-Israel.  Pro-Israel for them means demanding of the Jewish state things that would lead to its initial emasculation and ultimately to its destruction.  It means providing support for its enemies and those groups that would assist them in the name of "universal values" like social justice.  Given the choice between traditional Jewish attachment to and support of Israel is the face of international hostility they have chosen to side with the enemies of the Jewish people since that position leads to less of a conflict with their innate secular liberal values.
What's interesting to note is that, just like on the issue of women rabbis and egalitarianism, it seems these rabbis are disconnected from many of their followers.  I'm certain this isn't much of an issue since once of the tenets of secular liberalism is a self-righteous "And I know better than you so if you disagree you're wrong".
What this worsening of their position might ultimately lead to is a fracturing of the movement between those who are essentially indistinguishable from Reform and those who still feel a positive attachment to the enduring Torah values of the last 3500 years.  Time will tell.

Is It Such A Surprise?

By now everyone is aware that Muammar Ghaddafi is dead, killed by the rebels that overthrew his government after 42 years of autocratic and despotic rule.  Two conflicting stories have emerged as to how his life ended.  The "official" version is that he was killed in a shootout.  (The fate of his Ukrainian nurse is unknown)  The unofficial version, supported by actual video footage, is that he was beaten until nearly dead and then shot in the head.
I can't say that I or many others will shed any tears for the monster of Tripoli.  Few will argue that the world is not a better place because of his passing and the American government can rest assured that it has one less major enemy in the world.
What is bizarre to me, however, is the reaction from human rights organizations.  If various reports I've read are to be believed, they are upset that Ghaddafi was killed by the rebels instead of being arrested, read his rights and then escorted to a comfy prison cell, there to await trial in either a Libyan or international court room.
Are they kidding?  Trials are for situations where the guilt of a person, while assumed or implied, is not absolutely proven.  Is that the case with Ghaddafi?  Here's a man accused of multiple crimes over the years like killing his own citizens, running a giant prison state and aiding international terrorists.  But there's a wrinkle: Ghaddafi freely admitted doing all those things.  In fact, he took great pride in them.  What purpose would a trial serve other than to give him one last platform to spew his venom from before taken off to prison or the gallows?
There is a certain naivete born of liberal idiocy combined with Hollywood idealism that seems to infect these groups.  They honestly want to believe that the rebels in Libya are budding democrats seeking to turn the country into a model of social democratic prosperity.  In reality the rebels are simply thugs little different from the thugs they've just removed from power with the help of NATO.  As a former American president might have said, "they're bastards but they're our bastards".
Except,  of course, they're not "our" bastards and the minute it becomes convenient to do so, they'll turn on NATO and treat it as enemy no. 1.  Will anyone with their heads crewed on straight be suprised when they do?
Sometimes I wonder if politicians actually believe the pronouncements they make or if they're just going through the motions because that's what diplomacy requires. 

Simple Logic

Spock: "The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few"
Kirk: "Or the one."                         (Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan)

The Jewish world is all a-twitter with the news that a deal has been arranged to have kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit released in exchanged for 1027 Arab terrorists, many of whom are responsible for the murder of Jews.  For some this is a moment of euphoria.  After five years of what must have been brutal captivity, Gilad is coming home!  For others, a broader view of the situation seems to preclude celebrating.  I find myself in the latter group.
On one hand, I feel great sympathy for the Shalit family.  For five years they have been living a nightmare that I would wish only on my worst enemy.  Chazal tell us that when one loses a loved one for certain that the grief eventually passes but when one thinks a loved one is dead but really isn't the bereavement never ends.  We learn this from how Yaakov Avinu mourned for Yosef Hatzadik for 22 years.  For the Shalits, the grieving over the loss of Gilad, combined with the faint hope he might return safely to them one day must have been agonizing.
On the other hand, we have to ask if the terms of the deal are worth it.  One soldier for thousands of murderers and wanna-be murderers.  According to some reports I've seen the recidivism rate of released terrorists is about 60%.  It is almost guaranteed that hundreds of Jews will die over the next ten years as a result of this release.  And beyond that there is the suffering being caused to survivors of terrorist attacks and their families who thought their assailants were imprisoned for life and who now have to accept that those monsters will be loose to wreak havoc on them and their neighbours once more.  Yes, the pain of the Shalit family has to be considered but what about the pain of these other families?  Was it not taken into account?
In addition there is one basic problem with this deal: there is no confirmation that I am aware of that Gilad is alive save for the assurances of Hamas.  Not exactly the most reliable source, eh?  What happens if, at the prisoner exchange, the Arabs show up with Gilad in a box?  Does the deal get called off? 
I do not blame the Shalit family for one instant for protesting for the government to get Gilad back and applying the pressure they did.  I do blame the government for capitulating to them.  Bibi Netanyahu has to be concerned not just with the Shalit family but with the six million other Jews in Israel, many of whom will suffer if this exchange goes through.  Yes we all want to see the Shalit family happily and safely reunited but what about the cost to everone else?  Do their lives matter less?
To be blunt: If/when these killers murder more Jews, are the Shalits prepared to make a shiva call to each family and say "Well we're sorry about your loss.  Too bad but hey, we got Gilad back!"?
It is still my opinion that Gilad was killed by Hamas five years ago after they realized a quick prisoner exchange was not in the works.  I also don't doubt that they will not understand Israeli's reluctance to hand over 1027 murderers for his body.  The Arab world has had a long tradition of expecting Israel to fulfill its side of any deal without feeling any obligation to keep up its own end.
But I cannot put my mind at ease with the idea that one soldier, however loved by his family and friends, was made more important than six million other Jews.

Inventing History

It's a cryptic posuk in Ha'azinu.  "They have provoked Me with non-gods," says the Ribono Shel Olam, "so I will provoke them with a non-people."  Rashi ad loc identifies this non-people with the Chaldeans based on a relevant verse from Nach but then he had never heard of the so-called Palestinians.
If one comes to argue with anybody about whether or not the "Palestinians" deserve a state, one has already lost.  Even using the name is a loss for those who would defend Israel's legitimacy and Jewish rights in our land.  The only way to argue is to challenge the defender of the Arabs in Israel to explain exactly who these so-called Palestinians are and where they came from.
We need no reminder that the name "Palestine" is a Latinized version of "Philistia", chosen by the Romans to replace the title "Judaea" after the downfall of the Second Commonwealth and the destruction of our Temple (may it be speedily rebuilt).  One reason the name was chosen is because there were no Philistines.  It was a safe name to give the province since no ethnic/national group was likely to crop up and demand control of it.  \We also need no reminder that from the end of the Bar Kokhba revolt to the declaration of the State in 1948 there was never a minute in which Israel was ruled by a local government instead of by an imperial authority from afer.  There was never, ever a state called Palestine.  There has never been a Palestinian currency or national anthem used at official functions. 
Even the so-called Palestinians themselves are intruders in the area, leftovers from the Arab conquest of the MiddleEast and north African several centuries ago.  That is why it is so important for many of them to either deny the Jewish historial tie to Israel or to pretend that we are all descendants of Khazars and converts.  After all, admitting we are Jews and that we had a functioning kingdom there when the ancestors of the Europeans were still loincloth clad savages would mean they came second, that they are the real invaders while we are the real homeowners.
None of this seems to matter when it comes to attacking Israel.  Certainly truth is irrelevant or inconvenient.  The Arabs latest ploy, having had their attempts to declare a "state" delayed at the UN General Assembly, is to once again delegitimize Israel in the eyes of the world by severing our historical connection with our land.  The Arab bid to join UNESCO - something illegal under the UN charter but hey, why be a wet blanket? - and then declare all the places they can in Israel as their own "heritage" is but another attempt to attack our nationhood and replace truth with lies.

The Palestinians will seek World Heritage status for Bethlehem and its Church of the Nativity if the UN cultural agency admits them as a full member, and will then nominate other sites on Israeli-occupied land for the same standing, a Palestinian Authority minister said on Monday.

Hamdan Taha, a PA minister who deals with antiquities and culture, said UNESCO membership was the Palestinians' natural right. He described as "regrettable" the objections of some governments including the United States.
Aside from Bethlehem, the Palestinian Authority has listed ancient pilgrimage routes and the West Bank towns of Nablus and Hebron among 20 cultural and natural heritage sites which Taha said could also be nominated as World Heritage Sites.
UNESCO's board decided last week to let member states vote on a Palestinian application for full membership, seen as part of a Palestinian drive opposed by Israel and the United States for recognition as a state in the UN system.
"UNESCO membership carries a message of justice and rights. Why must the Palestinians be left outside the international system?" Taha said. "I see it as crowning long efforts over the past 20 years."
He said that after gaining full UNESCO membership, the Palestinians will revive their bid to secure World Heritage status for Bethlehem, which was rejected this year because the Palestinians were not a full UNESCO member.
"This is a simple example of how Palestine has not been able to preserve its cultural heritage through the tools granted to every state in the world," Taha said.

Preserve its "cultural heritage"?  How can a "people" with a non-existent history prior to 1919 have a heritage?  Other than through the deluded ramblings of Islamic preachers, does the Arab world have any tie to the tombs and sites in Israel?  Was Rachel Imeinu a Muslim?  Was Avraham Avinu a so-called Palestinian?  What claim do they have to an inch of our land?  None except those claims which have arisen in their fertile imaginings.
Why have the so-called Palestinians been left outside the international system?  Because they are not a nation but a weapon, created by the Arab League and maintained by the PLO and Hamas in the Muslim world's ongoing war against Israel.  Weapons do not have heritages or holy sites.

False Freedom

The Mishnah in Avos famously tells us that there is no real freedom other than through observance of Torah.  Although the non-religious like to scoff at this describing our observance as an unending and myriad collection of rituals and minutiae, from the philosophical Jewish point of view this is absolutely true.  In a reality in which a person is either guided by his yetzer hara, his animalistic and primitive passions, or rises above them it is only the person who says no to his primal passions and leads a life of free choice based on the Torah's ethics that really lives up to his potential.
Sadly this message is lost on many of our brethren, such as Uri Misgav:
The self-importance this man radiates is palpable yet beneath the veneer of his indignation against religion and especially, of course, Judaism lie some important contradictions.

I do not fast on Yom Kippur for the same reason that I do not adhere to any religious mitzvah: I do not believe in God. I am not “secular,” because this is a narrow definition referring to lifestyle alone, and I’m not infidel either. I’m an atheist.

I do not believe in any form of higher or divine intervention. I only believe in human beings and in systems of values that are worthy of following while living life in this world. I also believe in progress and science. After thousands of years of human existence in the company of “God,” it appears reasonable to demand a single, minimalistic empirical evidence to his existence.
At this stage, many of you will dismiss me with being “simplistic” – after all, generations of theologians convinced us that faith involves endless intellectual depth. Yet the truth is that there is no such science, theology. One cannot base a whole science on something that was never reinforced by evidence of actually existing.
Meanwhile, genuine, broad and well-argued atheism may be simple, but not simplistic. In fact, this kind of atheism is sorely lacking in Israel.
I can still address the existence or non-existence of God as an open question somehow. Yet in the face of religion I’m speechless.
Am I Jewish? Certainly. I was born to a Jewish mother and I feel belonging to the Jewish people, its past and heritage. However, I am an atheist Jew. Nice to meet you. And let’s not stop with Yom Kippur. I did not circumcise my son. I object to the cutting of genitals for children of both sexes, with or without anesthesia.
I know you are infuriated with me right now. This is what I wanted. I want all of you, but mostly the “seculars” among you, to seriously confront your choices. The principle of “to each his own” is acceptable to me, as long as it means that a person may choose not to believe anything.
Don’t decide for me what to eat, when to fast and on what day of the week to travel by bus. I was born and I shall die a free man

Consider his demand to be left alone by the requirements membership in the Jewish nation foists upon him.  He is quite happy to identify with the cultural aspects Judaism offers.  After all, there are no obligations associated with latkes and humantaschen.  It is also quite possible that he is a passionate Zionist.  Again, no obligations.  In fact, like so many like him it's all about the obligations. 
Imagine a teenager or someone in their early 20's still living at home, demanding meals, laundy and to have his room cleaned but snorting arrogantly when told that he has to shovel the driveway, mow the law and wash the dishes.  Could anyone have respect for such self-indulgence?  Yet with God our Father watching over us, providing us with our entire existence and running the universe for our benefit there are still folks out there playing the "Nah! Nah! Nah! I can't see you!" game.
In truth, Misgav isn't as benign as he likes to sound.  Despite insisting that everyone has a right to make a choice of his own, he has already made an important decision for his son.  By refusing to circumcize him he has decided that his son will be lacking full membership in the nation he himself feels a cultural attachment to.  If the son, when he grows up, wants to return to observance of Torah he will only be able to do so properly after undergoing a painful operation under anaesthetic.  Thanks dad!
Then there is his final line, that he will live and die a free man.  As Chazal have so annoyingly reminded us, real freedom is not deciding that one wants the pizza instead of the wings for dinner tonight or to wear non-matching socks despite the wife's nagging.  Real freedom is rising above one's instincts, passions and desires and making a choice based on reason and logic instead of "I want this!"  Misgav is not a free man.  He is a slave to his yetzer hara who, like God, he refuses to see even though it is right in front of him.  He ate on Yom Kippur, chalilah, not because he chose to but to "show God He can't tell me what to do!"  Some freedom.
Now, Misgav may otherwise be a fine gentlemen.  He may be possessed of good manners, a kind disposition and a generous spirit.  Certainly by living in Israel he is already on a high level despite his refusal to acknowledge such spiritual things.  But he is not free and his refusal to see that only deepens his servitude.

Are They Taking This One Too?

First it was Channukah.  Officially a holiday reminding us of the triump of our observant ancestors over the Seleucid/Greek occupiers of Israel and their assimilated Jewish allies, the festival has become a celebration of "religious freedom" and gift giving to millions of non-religious Jews whose connection to Torah and Judaism is limited at best. 
Then it was Tikun Olam.  Officially a legal term referring to those measures and bylaws needed to ensure society works well, it has become in the hands of the non-religious a catch-all phrase to represent those virtues secular liberal society holds dear like feminism and ecocrusading.
Now it seems Kol Nidrei and Yom Kippur are starting to undergo the process of being co-opted by those who desire a connection to Jewish nationhood and history but not through the proper channels of Torah learning and mitzvah observance.
This story, for example, shows how the "trendy" crowd is starting to latch onto Kol Nidrei and turn it into another day of "social awareness":

It's rare that Mae Singerman, a self-described secular Jew who grew up in a Reform family, observes Yom Kippur by praying, fasting or attending synagogue.

But at sundown on Friday, the 27-year-old from Brooklyn planned to join hundreds of other Jews at the Occupy Wall Street demonstration for Kol Nidre, the opening service of Yom Kippur that starts the holiest time on the Jewish calendar.
"For me, it's about bringing my Jewish identity and my politics together," said Singerman, who has participated in several anti-capitalism protests in recent years and visited the demonstration at Zuccotti Park for the first time last week. "Having a Jewish service or ceremony brings more Jews who wouldn't necessarily come. I know people coming tonight who are pretty skeptical about Occupy Wall Street but are willing to give it a try because of the Yom Kippur service."
Organized mostly via Facebook over the last week, the Kol Nidre service starts at 7 p.m. across from the downtown park where demonstrations have occurred since mid-September. Almost 500 people have RSVP'd on Facebook, although at least a few dozen of them are out-of-towners who are just showing their support.
The service, led by rabbis and students from several Jewish traditions, has been endorsed by Jewish organizations such as Jews for Racial and Economic Justice and the Shalom Center. The Rabbinical Assembly, an association of Conservative Rabbis, has donated 100 prayer books for the service, and organizers say that the Battery Park Synagogue and Chabad of Wall Street have welcomed holy-day observers who spend the night at the protest camp to come pray at Saturday services. Similar Kol Nidre services have also been planned in Boston, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C.
Daniel Sieradski, one of the service's organizers who has been participating in the Occupy Wall Street demonstration, said he was inspired to arrange for the Yom Kippur service by a part of the haftarah from the Hebrew Bible, which is typically read the first morning of Yom Kippur.
"You can fast for a day, you cover yourself in ashes, you can wear a sack cloth, but who cares if you are not out there feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, breaking the bonds of oppression?" said Sieradski, paraphrasing Isaiah 58:5.
"I am less concerned about halacha, Jewish law, and traditional observance than I am about the prophetic character of recognizing the divine in my fellow human being," said Sieradski, who also plans to observe the Jewish holiday of Sukkot at the demonstration.
While Sieradski said he does not plan to sleep over at the encampment Friday night, Nom, a 23-year-old Talmud student, said she plans to spend the night there with a group of friends to start her Yom Kippur observance. She will walk two hours to her upper Manhattan home on Saturday morning to attend synagogue.
"Part of Yom Kippur is that you are supposed to review the past year to see what you can improve about yourself and your community. I am seeing right now that I live in a country where homes are being foreclosed, where people are losing jobs and people are suffering," said Nom, who did not wish to give her last name.
"We're hoping the people up top can do some sort of teshuva. It literally means 'return,' but the whole point is that one specifically in the 10 days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur will admit their wrongdoings and ask for forgiveness," she said. "We are putting ourselves out there. and so should Wall Street. They should have the opportunity to review their actions and change."

While others have pointed out the idiocy of these protestors far more eloquently than I can, there are a few points that could easily be made from the Jewish perspective.
The first is the absolute hypocrisy of these protestors.  Using Facebook to organize?  Isn't that a large multi-million dollar corporation, the kind they're angry with?  I'm willing to bet that they checked for updates using Iphones, Blackberries and other smartphones running on the Android operating system, again all produced by giant corporations that are supposedly evil.  Like the rioters in England a few months back, claims about concern for the way corporations are running roughshod over society tend to get undermined when the prostestors openly rely on many of those corporations to coordinate their activities.
Then there's the open misuse of the word "Judaism" to describe activities that are not in the least Jewish.  Consider Mae Silverman's statements at the start of the article.  This is, according to the story, a woman who has never observed Yom Kippur properly but is now prepared to start but not in order to do any kind of chesbon hanefesh, but rather to blame someone else, anyone else like corporate America, for all of society's problems.  I'm willing to bet Mae Silverman has benefitted quite a bit from capitalism throughout her life although she doesn't seem to have enough insight to realize that her "anti-capitalism" protests are merely biting the hand that feeds.
Then there's Daniel Sieradski who is quoted as saying that he's not interested in any of the obligations that Judaism demands of its followers, just in regurgitating selective verses from the prophet of his choice that fits his agenda.  It's interesting that he picked Isaiah consider that this particular prophet had a great deal to say about the importance of Jewish law and tradition.  Does Sieradski also consider those verses important? 
Finally there's the statement: Part of Yom Kippur is that you are supposed to review the past year to see what you can improve about yourself and your community - that shows these protestors have no clue what Yom Kippur. 
Like a spouse in a dysfunctional marriage, it's all about "them", not "me".  How do I improve myself and my community?  By blaming Wall Street, corporate America, and capitalism for all my problems.  Do I work to improve them myself?  But I'm not at at fault!  Do I go out and become part of the system so I can constructively change it?  Nah!  They might expect me to actually show up on time for work and put in a hard day of it.  It's far easier to deride, insult and protest from a distance, all the while living quite well from the benefits of the system that I hate so much.
To all these people, please find something else to call your new religion and holiday.  The words "Judaism" and "Kol Nidre" are taken.

Ultra-Orthodoxy At The Crossroads

(Parodied shamelessly from here)

What will the rabbinic leadership of the Ultraorthodox (UO) world do? A wave of provocations from the Far Right challenges the very definition of Orthodoxy. Should Yidden in other parts of the community who are far from the battle lines care? It would take a navi to answer the first question. Responsibility for Klal Yisrael and caring for other Jews demands a resounding “yes” to the second.
Lots of things are happening in the Ultraorthodox world – some good, some not so good, and some astonishingly terrible. The far right of Ultraorthodoxy seems to be intent on continuing an unrelenting drive to push the envelope and driving people away from leading an Orthodox life. Rabbi Dovid Kohn of the Toldos Aharon community of Meah Shearim who in many other ways is a model of selfless commitment to ahavas Yisrael, has unfortunately become the charismatic leader of what is now a movement. His followers routinely hold violent demonstrations and organize outright riots, attacking passersby and police.  Then there are the Sikrikin, another Ultraorthodox group that uses mafiesque tactics to destroy the lives of those it sees as intruding on its pure Torah environment.  Ultraorthodox Jews like these see themselves fully committed to love of all Jews but limit the definition of Jew to those who look and think exactly like them while excluding everyone else as
Toldos Aharon and the Sikrikin are not the only groups flexing Far Right power. When the Agudat Israel, the rabbinic umbrella group of Ultraorthodoxy was confronted with the widespread problem of pedophile yeshiva teachers some rabbis on the right were upset by what they saw as `mesirah`if state criminal law demanding mandatory reporting was followed.  They came up with a ridiculous position that one is allowed to report but only with the permission of a rabbi, something they gleaned from certain teshuvos, ignoring the vast majority of poskim who disagree, and who have disagreed for a very long time.  The children being abused are being sentenced to lives of difficulty and self-torment and of the silence the Agudah demands– whether valid or not – is already being questioned since it rejects the standards of the majority of poskim.
The Far Right does not rely on notoriety alone to capture attention. It makes steady and good use of the media, as well as direct mail, pashkevils and advertising, all aimed at the rest of the Orthodox community, and well beyond. One of its more effective tools is a blog called Matzav which, in their words, is the "online voice of Torah Jewry" already looking at the sight it is only a segment of Torah Jewry that seems to be represented.   (The Matzav blog has a mirror site called Yeshivah World News which is read almost exclusively by the part of the Orthodox community it caters to.)
Maintaining public visibility as guardians of the faith and protectors of the purity of Torah observance produces much thunder and attracts significant media attention outside the Orthodox world. This is designed to increase pressure on non-ultraorthodox rabbis, and move the majority of the community to view its changes as the only legitimate Torah position.  People who lack the background in learning to analyze the arguments on both sides see a group of “conservative” rabbis willing to define Judaism definitively which seems like a good thing to them. Then they note a different group of “progressive" rabbis who insist on changing everything to assuage their liberal consciences.  This generates enormous pressure on the progressives to make concessions so as not to alienate growing numbers of their congregants. Years ago, the Far Right sought innovations like insisting all women wear socks in public or complete bans on kol ishah even where permitted.  (Women were advised that they could get around the “problem” of the being silenced in public by attending shiurim and publicly asking questions of the speakers). Those changes are so commonplace that they have lost their cachet. Today the push is for burkas, bans on driving and the complete separation of men and women even in the home.
The latest skirmish in the battle between extreme innovation and tradition came a few weeks ago, when a group of ultraorthodox fanatics decided that they would not tolerate a religious but non-ultraorthodox school near their neighbourhood in Beit Shemesh.  Using "civilized" tactics like threats of physical violence, shouting "prutza" and "shiksa at 8 year old girls and bombarding opponents with rotten food.  All this in the name of protecting the dome of "purity" they believe they have established around themselves.
Reacting to a firestorm of criticism within the UO world- oh wait, there wasn't any - the barbarians continued their daily intimidation tactics.  They also organized a demonstration at which prominent local rabbonim were present to give words of support as if there was any justification for their vile actions. Rabbi Chaim Malinowitz was asked to condemn the protesters and openly refused.
More provocations followed on the heels of the abandoned beracha. Riots continue at a Jerusalem parking lot open on Shabbos despite attempts by the municipality to avoid any chilul Shabbosi in its operation.  Women clad in burkas multiple daily setting a new perverted standard for tznius that will likely become the new Chareidi standard within 1-2 generations.  And always the reminders from the Ultraorthodox leadership that they are the real representatives of Torah Judaism and that only their leaders are authentic Jewish leaders.  For them there is one way to practice Orthodoxy - their way and no eother.
The ongoing conflicts between Ultraorthodoxy and the rest of the Orthodox world continues to degenerate.  It is clear that the Agudah and its allies look at halacha in a manner fundamentally different than the authentic method used for centuries by genuine Torah giants.  They choose something to forbid, selectively research those poskim who agree with that position and then present their negative answer as a universal answer agreed to by all halachic decisors - but without discussing why ignored permitting opinions were not considered or refuted.  Only those approved authorities can be quoted.  A teshuvah from the Rav, ztÈl or Rav Kook, ztÈl, might as well never have been written as far as they are concerned.  It is the embodiment of the Dubno Maggid’s famous response as to how he always has the perfect mashal (“you shoot the arrow, and then paint the target around it”) applied to halacha. Absent is the sense of looking for an objective truth. That quest permeates hundreds of years of halachic literature: weighing all the views available, and only relying on those best supported by the evidence of the words of the gemara and rishonim.
Critics of Far Right halacha point to two other elements that differentiate it from traditional halacha:
• Very few on the right know anything about halacha outside a relatively narrow range of authorities. It just doesn’t have such knowledge because of the closed-minded attitudes in their institutions.
• In traditional halacha, there is a strong emphasis on keeping issues local, on the authority of the town Rav or another local counterpart.  The idea that every question, however mediocre, has to be run by a Gadol for his approval because he has a mystical superpower called ÈDaas TorahÈ is a new concept invented by the Ultraorthodox in order to justify why their Gedolim should be listened to by all Torah Jews while they can safely ignore the leading scholars of non-Ultraorthodoxy.   The right balks at consulting non-Ultraorthodox sources seeing this as an affront to the Daas Torah of their Gedolim.  Then there is the role of the Askanim, community leaders who openly manipulate the insulated Gedolim into issuing psak and bans whenever they feel like it.  Such a model, where the leader is led by ideologically-driven underlings, is patently ridiculous to those on the outside.
Where does this leave the rest of the Ultraorthodox community? People who reside entirely in the more modern Orthodox world are often clueless about the nature of Ultraorthodoxy. They are sometimes aware – correctly – of hashkafic differences between the Chasidim, Litvaks and Chabad, especially in regard to the State of Israel and how much there is an emphasis on "chumrah of the week".  Other images of Ultraorthodoxy could benefit from a bit of updating. The last decades produced, in many ways, a good deal of achshara dara – a more ignorant and violent generation in the UO community. To be sure, it is beset by major problems, just as the modern community is. Some of these problems are the same; some are different. For the most part, though, the stereotype of Yiddish-speaking peddlers checking their tzitzis for the 30th time that day and rebbetzins who look like they come right out of a Sholom Aleichem story is no longer valid.  There is less Torah learning going on in many UO shuls, probably because its members are too busy attacking others on the street to open a page of Gemara. Children often have received an education completely devoid of any secular material, even basic math and language and have spent more time in Israel where many have increased their fanaticism through immersion in high-octane learning.  Ultraorthodoxy has produced large numbers of men and women who have become public apologists for all that is wrong with their community, working on the concept that "a good offense is the best defense" and trying to create the impression that any problems that must inevitably be admitted to are the fault of the outside world anyway. 
Many in the modern community would be surprised by the makeup of the “heimish” rabbinate in particular. The conformity is enormous. Many of the younger rabbis in particular have learned in a manner devoid of critical thinking and know only how to be "machmir" for the sake of playing it safe.  Any intellectual challenge is dealt with either by covering the ears or going to the local "Gadol" for advice.  In their ranks you will find bnei Torah with good learning skills, a real love for limud Torah, and an enviable grasp of serious, nuanced halacha – besides excellent training in speaking, writing, and counseling. Unfortunately, you will find others who display woeful ignorance of gemara and halacha which is ignored by the highers-up in the name of expediency.
What should the Ultraorthodox rabbinate do about Toldos AharonéSikrikinÉ  The question is studiously avoided by the Agudah and its allies.  One can scan the Chareidi newsservices with utter futility in the search of condemnation of the rioters in Beit Shemesh.  Yet if the leadership ignores this trend towards primitive and barbaric behaviour in the name of `Torah Purity` where will this all lead? Given enough time (and enough headlines), will there be anyone cilivized left in their community to talk to? Even if no further changes are contemplated, doesn’t the approach suggest a complete misunderstanding of how a Torah Jew is supposed to aporach difficulties and handle the need to compromise with othersÉ
The Agudan has not changed much in recent years. As always it is almost exclusively the province of UO Gedolim and Roshei Yeshivah from the Chareidi sector. Any authority that diverges from its established groupthink is automatically excluded so as to present the front that there is a uniform Torah Judaism and these are its only legitimate leaders. The incessant Talibanization of our mesorah by the Far Right has rattled the more mainstream.  They believe that if these fanatics are not accomodated then the Augdah and its allies will come to be seen as too left and lose its leadership position amongst the rank and file.  This includes many Gedolim who keep coming up with new ways to say `no`in order not to be considered ``progressive`.
The Agudah``s leadership, for the most part, has taken a principled position that it has always tried to keep out as many Orthodox rabbis as possible, where the minority can at least demand of the majority to accept their standards unilaterally.
Many of the Agudah rank and file might consider posing a counterargument. Maverick stingent positions in the past were just that arguments put forth by individuals. They could not go any further.  The Toldos AharonéSikrikin, on the other hand, are on a crusade – with values and protocols that the majority cannot in good conscience share or be party to but who will eventually adopt them anyway.
The essential question might be how the Agudah and its allies should see itself. Some regard it as more or less a fraternal organization for rabbis who need a place where they can share some cholent with colleagues. For many years, the Agudah was just that. In such an organization, there is no for people who disagree completely with each other since that precludes engaging one other with admirable collegiality and personal respect.
Others, however, look to the Agudah as the face of a good part of the Orthodox community to the external world. Orthodoxy has finally arrived in the American mainstream; so many Jews and non-Jews are curious about what we have to say about questions and issues that arise in a world changing at a dizzying pace. The Ultraorthodox world, which believes in a very limited engagement in general society and wants to have a large role in articulating Torah positions in a wide variety of areas. It is an organization that can speak forcefully because its members agree to a set of common principles. An organization that stands for too many things ultimately stands for nothing. Many UO members feel that the divide between Toldos AharonéSikrikin and the rest of the UO world is not that large and that keeping all members under one roof is not so hard if the Agudah and its allies just become a little more ÈfrumÈ.  If the Toldos Aharon/Sikrikin stay then the Agudah is a figleaf apologist for their violent and primitive behaviour.  If they leaves, the Agudah can show it cares about keeping Ultraorthodoxy from degeneratin into a violent cult.  It is as simple as that.
It is difficult not to think of the dispute between Rav Avraham Yitzchak Kook, zt`l, and Rav Yosef Chaim Sonenfeld, z`l.  When Jews both religious and not began to return in significant numbers to our ancentral homeland, Rav Sonenfelt immediately developed a position opposing the Zionist movement.  Better a small, impoverish but Torah pure community than a large one full of pritzus and chilul HaShem  Rav Kook saw that God was changing history and beginning the unfolding of the Final Redemption and that the secular Zionists were, despite their irreligiosity, the implementers of His Divine plan.  No one can say who was objectively “correct” in that dispute (Rav Kook was, by the way), although the last generations have looked favorably upon Rav Kookès bold position.  Some argue that today’s agonizing choice is different. In British-occupied Israel the lines of demarcation between Zionist and Ultraorthodox Judaism were clear. Today, many fear, those lines are no longer clear enough.  To avoid erosion of Torah values and practice, the rest of the community must define the approach of the Far Right as so different, that it can no longer be called Orthodox as the rest of us know it.
Who will decide which of these opinions should be applied to contemporary times? Who has the qualifications to address such a weighty issue – dealing not with heretics, chas v’shalom, but nonetheless about defining other Jews as outliers?
At least insofar as UO membership, there have been few who have spoken out against the Far Right.  Fearful of a violent backlash from people who know nothing of decent behaviour the Ultraorthodox response so far has either been ÈHey, theyère just a bunch of fringe lunaticsÈ or ÈWell you canèt expect other Chareidim to have to apologize for them!È  With the stakes so high, only one recourse suggests itself. The question of keeping Toldos AharonéSikrikin or defining it out of contemporary Orthodoxy should be put to the three talmidei chachamim within the ultraOrthodox world that are most respected for their halachic ability: Rabbis Sholom Eliashiv, Shmuel Wosner and Aharon Shteinman. The Agudah should be prepared to abide by whatever decision these three come up with. We should watch to see if this solution gains in popularity.
Why should the more sane part of the community care about issues completely off its radar? The problems with which the Ultraorthodox world is grappling are just not relevant to communities much further to the left. In fact, we should be able to identify several reasons.
Firstly, the impact upon areas of Orthodox cooperation will be enormous. If the Far Right grows stronger in untethering itself from both traditional hashkafos and accepted protocols of determining halacha, there will almost certainly be a reaction in the rest of the Orthodox world. Lemegdar milsa, to draw clear lines of differentiation, the sane community split.  Some will move in the opposite direction to oppose changes it sees as dangerous and illegitimate while others will, through their insecurity, be absorbed into the lunatic fringe. We will drift even further apart. Cooperation in many areas – education, kashrus, kiruv, gerus, political advocacy – will be jeopardized or eliminated. Much of the right will argue that if Ultraorthodoxy can tolerate such aberrations in its midst rather than expelling it, than they cannot trust or continue to deal with the Ultraorthodox – especially if a Toldos Aharon/Sikrikin presence becomes mingled with the Ultraorthodox mainstream in common enterprises. Cooperation that took decades to accomplish may quickly unravel.
Other frum Jews simply cannot be unconcerned about the future of hundreds of thousands of Ultraorthodox brethren, many of whom are in danger of embracing a treif ideology. We must be concerned for their well being; all members of our spiritual family deserve our love. (Those on the Far Right also deserve our love, but at the moment it may have to be tough love! Sometimes, as a last resort, an errant child needs to be rebuffed before he or she can fully participate with the rest of the family. The gemara speaks of rebuking by distancing with the left hand, while drawing closer with the (stronger) right hand – and allows for reversing the hands at times!)
Minimally, HaKadosh Baruch Hu expects our deep concern about wide-scale counterfeiting of Torah, even if it does not impact upon us directly. We should be prepared to show it. Are there any UO rabbis showing extraordinary mesiras nefesh in refusing to compromise on what they received from their rabbeim? If you learn of an UO mara de-asra in your community who is valiantly holding a line against incursions from the Far Righft, consider offering some chizuk. Heaven knows he'll need it!  Let the rov know that you will give him the money that you normally give to the shnorrers who come to your door.  Let him know that while some people think that people’s Yiddishkeit is defined by what they wear on their heads, you believe that what they carry in their heads is far more important. And in that regard, we are much closer to each other than they can ever be to the Far Right.

More On Uman

The last post I did on Uman generated some lively discussion (at least for this blog) on the subject of leaving eretz Yisrael for the most important days of the year.  I was pleased to see a few days ago a similar post from HaRav Shlomo Aviner, shlit"a, that pointed out the following important points:

 Question: Is it permissible to travel from the Land of Israel to Uman (Ukraine) to visit the grave of Rebbe Nachman on Rosh Hashanah?

Answer: This is a new "custom" based on the statement of Rebbe Nachman of Breslov: "Anyone who visits my grave and gives eighteen coins to tzedakah will merit life in the World to Come." One may only leave Israel for a mitzvah (see Rambam, Hilchot Melachim 5:9 and Tosafot to Avodah Zarah 13a). Anyone who violates this, will, we hope, repent. Worse than this is one who travels under the impression that he is performing a mitzvah, because how then will he then repent?! Visiting the grave of tzadikim (righteous people) is not defined as a mitzvah – not a rabbinic mitzvah and not a Torah mitzvah; it is a positive act. Based on this, Maran Ha-Rav Kook ruled that we do not leave Israel to visit the graves of tzadikim, and he wrote "are we without graves in the Land of Israel that you travel to the Exile?!" (Shut Mishpat Cohain #147).
It is true that Rebbe Nachman said: "Anyone who visits my grave and gives eighteen coins to tzedakah will merit life in the World to Come," but Avraham Avinu is greater than Rebbe Nachman. Rebbe Nachman himself said this. Anyone who goes to Ma'arat Ha-Machpelah in Hevron and gives eighteen gold coins can be certain that Avraham Avinu will aid him. Furthermore, know that the Land of Israel is holier than Uman. Rebbe Nachman himself said this.
Therefore, go to Ma'arat Ha-Machpelah.
Also know that it is not enough to visit a grave and give eighteen coins to tzedakah to be worthy of life in the World to Come, but one needs to perform acts of loving-kindness, learn Torah and perform the mitzvot. And it is not proper to spend thousands of shekels to travel there. You should give the money to tzedakah. The value of traveling there is unclear, but giving tzedakah is clear. It is an explicit verse in the Torah.
Also, if you leave your wife alone and sad on Rosh Hashanah, know that you will not stand guilt-free before the Heavenly Court.
The custom of Ha-Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach was to stand across from the national cemetery on Mt. Herzl and say: "These are the graves of the righteous who died sanctifying Hashem's Name. Why should I travel far distances? (Oro Shel Olam, p. 380)."
[A collection of other leading Rabbi's statements on this issue -
Ha-Rav Mordechai Eliyahu: "It is not proper to leave Israel on Rosh Hashanah or during the rest of the year, and it is preferable for one who wants to pray at the graves of tzadikkim to visit the graves of tzadikim in the Land of Israel – Hevron, Kever Rachel, Kever Rashbi – who was the teacher of Rebbe Nachman, etc. Do not leave Israel for the impurity of the lands of the other nations."
Ha-Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv: "Go daven at the Kotel."
Ha-Rav Ovadiah Yosef: "How did the grave of Rebbe Nachman become more important than the graves of the Rambam and Ha-Gaon Rav Yosef Karo?"
Ha-Rav Dov Lior explained how absurd is the thought-process of those who travel to Uman: "People travel to the grave of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai in order to ask him to help them to travel to the grave of Rebbe Nachman so they can make a request of him."]

The constant emphasis on finding spirituality in all the wrong places and for all the wrong reasons is something that Orthodoxy has to address even as more people are led astray by these concepts.There is no question that Rebbe Nachman was a great and influential tzadik.  One need only look at the livliness and intensity of modern Bratzlovers who, in the absenc of a living leader still maintain a vibrant movement.  But as Rav Aviner points out, he was not Avraham Avinu.  He was no Rav Yosef Karo.

Rights, Responsibilities, and Rosh HaShanah

When I was in residency one of my supervisors asked me what I thought the biggest distinction between Jewish ethics and secular ethics was.  I responded that secular ethics emphasize rights while Jewish ethics emphasize responsibilities.  Canada has a Bill of righs.  Judaism has a Torah of obligations.  For many years I believed it was that simple.
However, upon further consideration I don't think it is.  I mean, I haven't changed my mind about the emphasis secular society around us places on rights.  Everything seems to be about that.  The right to eat what we want without consequence, the right to drink heavily and then be treated in hospital when complications ensure, the right to not be assaulted when entering a person's home with the intent to rob him, and the list goes on.  In fact I would suggest that most of what is wrong with secular society today is a result of this unbalanced emphasis on rights to the near-absolute exclusion of responsibility.
But on the Jewish side it doesn't seem to be that simple.  Yes the responsibility angle of Judaism gets a lot of press what with the high profile the chumrah-of-the-week crowd gets in the news these days.  What's more, when one interacts with Torah Judiasm the concept of responsibility seems to crop up in everything.  What we eat, who we touch, what we say in prayer, what we look at, we are told we have responsibilities in all those areas.  If one reads more intense books like Nefesh HaChayim and absorbs the implications that the concept of mystical connection to the higher spheres through our actions it almost seems like we have no rights at all, just a constant sense of duty to ensure Creation doesn't get messed up by our actions.
But is it that simple?  In this week's parsha there is a hint that we do have some rights.  Back in Re'eh Moshe Rabeinu, a"h, started one of his sermons by pointing out that he had placed good and evil, life and death before us and this week in VaYelech he concludes by returning to that theme, first repeating the choice and then adding a request to choose life by performing the good, ie the mitzvos. 
But why is the language one of choice?  "And thou shalt choose life!"  Not "And thou art commanded to choose life!"  The final choice is autonomous and informed.  We are told of the reward for doing what God wants, the penalty for disobedience and told to decide for ourselves what it'll be.
Now one could say that this is a rigged choice.  A child who is told "Eat your broccoli and you'll get ice cream, throw it on the floor and you'll get sent to your room" will often eat the broccoli not out of a sense of appreciation for its nutritional value but instead out of a desire for the ice cream.  However, anyone who has raised children knows this is not always the case.  Some kids will throw the broccoli on the floor and defiantly refuse to submit to the punishment.  Others will scream about the unfairness of it all.  The child's lack of acceptance of consequences, however, does not change the parent's authority and the idea of reward and punishment.  The resistance due to the resistance of the child to the simplicity of the yes or no choice.
Ar we as adults any different?  Are we as a Jewish nation any different?  We remind God of His promise to protect us, to help us establish a Jewish state in our Land and all the good things mentioned in the Torah but when it comes to the obligations side of things we get a little fuzzy.  We want a diety that will give us health, prosperity and happiness without having the keep any of the mitzvos.  The same God we want to prevent a child from being hit by a car is the same God we tell to butt out when we decide to drive that car on Shabbos.
As we approach Rosh HaShanah we must therefore learn the balance between our rights and responsibilities.  We have a right to make our own choice in terms of how to live our lives.  God will not force the issue.  There might be subtle suggestions from on high from time to time (for people who are tuned in to such things) but there is no voice from Heaven telling us what to do when we don't want to.  But we also have a right to demand His compassion when we make our best efforts to serve Him. 
On the other side though we have a responsibility to make that best effort.  As Chazal say, God wants the heart and only we and He know if our attempts are our honest best.  We can stand before Him knowing that we cannot fool Him through a sudden display of piety and remorse.  We have a responsibility to examine our deeds and repent them but having done so honestly we have a right to demand forgiveness.
May each of us merit an accurate cheshbon hanefesh that allows us to responsibly demand our right to life and mechilah on Rosh HaShanah.

The Coming Storm

Liberal Jews in the west (and a good number of conservative ones too) like to believe that anti-Israel sentiment and Jew-hatred are separate things, that the anti-Israel protester who rabidly calls for the desetruction of our State with saliva spraying from his mouth would not hate them personally as Jews as long as they didn't say something malicious like "I believe Israel has a right to exist" or some other hate-filled line.
There is, of course, good reason for this.  The same psychological backlash from World War 2 that killed nationalism in Europe also made public Jew-hating statements unfashionable.  No one with their head screwed on straight ever believed that the world hated the Jewish nation any less after the details of the Holocaust came out but for several decades it was decidedly impolite to state it openly. 
This situation was a change from what had been common practice in the Western world up until the war.  For people raised in the last two generations who think that the world the way it is now is how it always was, this is the norm.  For those of us who know history, this is a vacation from business as usual. 
And the vacation is coming to an end.
One might point to the UN vote supporting the partitioning of Israel into Jewish and Arabs states in 1947 as evidence of the world's new-found love for Jews.  For those who have watched the UN in action ever since that vote seems less like a gift and more like an attempt to allow the Arabs their own chance to perpetrate a Holocaust, seeing as how they mostly missed out on the European one.  Indeed, the State of Israel's greatest crime in the eyes of the world is its victory in 1949 over the enemy when it was supposed to be wiped out, simultaneously assauging the guilt of the Western world (well we tried to give them a country) and satisfying their darkest dreams (we're finally rid of them!).
Since that time the world has not stopped working towards the end of Israel.  Whether it was openly supporting our enemies (the Russians and their allies) or quietly helping to build the anti-Israel narrative (Western Europe by accepting the Arab lies about Israel) there has been an ongoing attempt by the international community to delegitimize Israel.
In 1993 this effort, along with Shimon Peres' incredible naivete and lust for a Nobel peace prize, resulted in the Oslo Accords.  Israelis saw it as a chance for true and lasting peace but the rest of the world saw it for what it really was: Israel's first admission that it was the criminal in the ongoing conflict and that it was have to make all the sacrifices from then on.
Look at Israel's opening positions back then versus those of the Arabs.  Now look at the positions today.  Israel has moved miles in order to accomodate the Arab demands alongside the request for appeasement by the West.  The Arab demand, however, have not changed one iota - one iota! - since opening day and can be simply summarized as "Please commit national suicide and we'll sign the deal."
Now it would seem we are rapidly approaching the endgame.  This week terrorist Mahmood Abbas, a man with a PhD in Holocaust denial, will stand before the world community and demand that his so-called people be given a state.  Is there any doubt that the General Assembly that once voted that Zionism was racism will easily approve this move?  Is there any doubt that they will clap loudly for him once he is done his speech?  Even if the Security Council rejects the GA's recommendation, either through a vote or veto the damage will be irreversable.  The international community will recognize the existence of a new state of Palestine regardless of whether the UN rules say it should or shouldn't.  What are rules when there is history to be made and Jews to be killed?
And for the record here is the state they will be endorsing:
1) Its first president is a Holocaust denier.
2) Jews will be forbidden by law from living in Palestine.  Not Israelis.  Jews.
3) So will homosexuals, by the way.
4) It will also deny citizenship to those Arabs currently living in UN refugee camps.  Yes, they will deny citizenship to their own people and continue to demand their return to pre-1967 Israel.
Imagine that.  The governments of the so-called civilized world, governments that view Jew-hatred and homophobia with disgust and disapproval, that opine about justice and rights, will gather together to help create a state where the antitheses of these values are official policy.  They will smile, speak about how they have done and great thing and then avert their eyes when things get nasty.
They are not interested in the life of the average Arab in Israel, including Yehuda and Shomron, just as the government of the so-called Palestinian authority is not interested.  They couldn't care less about the well-being of the average Arab, his right to live a life of dignity or his freedom of expression.
This is the message that we must get across: A vote for Palestine is a vote in favour of Jew hatred.  Pure and simple.  If Bolivia or Germany vote in favour of Palestine they are saying "We so hate Israel we are prepared to facilitate the creation of a terrorist state whose values we abhor just to push the end of that State closer to reality".  We must say it clearly and without shame so that those people who still live in the illusion that being anti-Israel and being a Jew-hater are separate things are permanently disillusioned.

The Right Side of Orthodoxy

As I've noted before, it's relatively easy to identify the left side of Orthodoxy, the line at which one ceases to be considered genuinely Torah-observant and can better be classified as heterodox.  Advocating for mixed seating, insisting women can be rabbis or promoting the idea that homosexual marriage is something that traditional Judaism should accept tend to be pretty big red flags. 
The problem is not with the left flank but rather with the right.  It is very hard to define when a person becomes too religious to be considered properly Torah observant.  Some of this is the fault of the superficiality with which we practice our religion.  Let's face it: a person with a black hat and suit who throws the occasional Yiddish word into his vocabulary pretty much gets a pass as "religious" irregardless of personal practice, especially in the bein adam l'chaveiro realm.  The weirder the hat, the longer the coat, the more ultra-Orthodox the person becomes.  Is there ever a point beyond ultra-Orthodoxy when the person can no longer be considered to be a normative Torah-observant Jew?
In some cases there are calls for certain groups to be classed as "too right" for Torah Judaism.  The Neturei Karta, a group of mentally ill primitives if there ever was one, is the classic example of this.  However, they're also an easy example since part of their philosophy is that they're the only real observant Jews anyway.  They're unlikely to walk into a standard community shul and participate in friendly ways so questions like "Can we count them to a minyan" or "can we give them an aliyah" are pretty much academic.
However, a recent article by Rav Yonasan Rosenblum got me thinking that there is, in fact, a working definition for "too Orthodox to be called Orthodox".  Here's the line:

I don't expect to convince the small group of extremists in Ramat Beit Shemesh that their actions endanger the chareidi community. They don't listen to Rav Elyashiv, why would they listen to me?

Here's what I'm thinking.  If one wants to look at defining differences between Modern Orthodoxy and Chareidism one must consider the role of the Rav.  As opposed to MO circles where the Rav is a guide, a teacher or a pesky shul employee good for sermons on Shabbos and Yom Tov, in the Chareidi community the Rav is an authority.  Typical of any authoritarian system there is a pecking order up to the coveted "Godol HaDor" title which, depending on which sect you belong to, is Rav Eliashiv, Rav Sternbuch or Rav {insert name of Chasidic rebbe here}. 

In this system, the word of the Godol HaDor is law.  Similarly the other Gedolim from the various sects also carry a high level of authority.  Ravs Wosner and Shteinman may only be near the top of the heap but if any of them issues a psak it carries tremendous weight for the Yeshivish community.  If they say that doing the hokey-pokey four times before lunch every day is halacha then woe to any Yeshivish kolleleit who doesn't put his right foot in and put his right foot out on schedule. 
Now to the best of my knowledge, no authoritative Godol has authorized or approved the protests that are currently occuring in Beit Shemesh outside a religious girls school.  You know, the one where supposedly pious Jews line up daily to harrass little girls with such educated words as prutza and shiksa.  In fact, some pretty prominent rabbonim have voiced their opposition to these protests, yet they go on regardless.
Similarly a few years ago there were massive riots in Meah Shearim when children's aid services abducted a child being half-starved to the death by her mentally unstable mother.  At the time there were reports that Rav Sternbuch himself has voiced disapproval of these protests.  Guess what kind of impact those statements didn't have.
Here's a final timely example.  We all recall the story about the Burka Babes of Beit Shemesh (what is it about that town that attracts all these nutbars?) and how their leader was jailed for, amongst other things, beating her children visciously and forcing them to commit incest with each other.  Unfortunately that revelation did not end the existence of this "holier than somebody" group.  No major Rav has spoken approvingly of their Talibanistic customs and several have come out against it.  Again, guess how many women have responded to rabbinic authority and removed their veils.
It's one thing for a MO to ignore a Rav who has told him to do "X".  Heck, they often avoid it because they know how little authority they have.  But here are Chareidi groups, groups defined by obedience to its religious leadership, that is ignoring its that leadership.  Inconceivable.

Unlike the left side where the worst crime is letting a woman lead Kabbalos Shabbos services, the right side seems to delight in violence and public chilul HaShem.  Certainly it is a higher priority to recognize this group's unacceptability
Therefore it seems to me that this is how to define someone who has moved beyond the rightward boundary of Orthodoxy.  If someone takes upon himself a certain practice as a religious duty and is then told by the highest religious authorities that this is wrong but continues the practice then that person has to be seen as having moved outside of Orthodoxy.  He may look ultraOrthodox, he may speak impeccable Yeshivish, he may only buy meat with four different hechsherim on it but by rejecting rabbinic guidance that his practice is not acceptable he is rejected Orthodoxy.
Naturally I don't expect the ultraOrthodox community to adopt this definition any time soon.  We in the Torah observant world are too ingrained to believe that there is no "too Orthodox for Orthodoxy" position as opposed to "not Orthodox enough to be Orthodox".  However, the Modern Orthodox community may well wish to examine this.  For a long time they have been hammered by the ultraOrthodox over groups like the YCT gang.  It is time to return the favour and point out that on the other side there are those who also masquerade as Orthodox Jews.  

The Trouble With Uman

A couple of weeks ago I was having Shabbos lunch with a friend who has strong ties to the Chasidic world.  As he does every year at this time, he mentioned wistfully that he wished he could be in Uman for Rosh HaShanah to pray at the grave of Rebbe Nachman.  Having done it before he craved the spiritual uplift such an experience provided him.
Now maybe I'm too much of a rationalist but I felt I had to challenge him on that.  I noted that Yerushalayim, not Uman, is the centre of the world.  Unlike much of the last 2000 years, including the years in which Rebbe Nachman, z"l, lived we have access to our spiritual centre up to the Kotel itself.  If we are looking for the one place on Earth where a connection to the Ribono shel Olam is strongest it's right there in Israel.  If Rebbe Nachman was alive today would he insist his followers stay in Uman instead of making aliyah to be closer to God?  Why go to Uman when you could go to Israel?
My friend (I think he still is) smiled and said that I was indeed being rational and logical which is fine except that in matters of spiritualism rationalism and logic simply don't lead to the right conclusions.
Me, I think crap is crap no matter how much incence you blow around it.
Look at all our holy writings.  Has there been any land imbued with holiness other than Eretz Yisrael?  Are we advised to seek out God anywhere other than Yerushalayim?  If we choose to elevate ourselves are we told of any other place in the world where we can maximize that elevation other than Israel?
What's more, the choice is between a grave and the site of our holy Temple (may it be speedily rebuilt).  Yes, Rebbe Nachman was a great and influential man with an amazing legacy but he was just a man and we are talking about a piece of land upon which the Shechinah once manifested itself.  How can one compare the two?
Fortunately it doesn't seem that I'm alone in thinking that this pilgrimage represents a certain abandonment of specific Jewish principles in the name of a spiritual high:

An Israeli rabbi has come out against the increasingly popular custom of married men traveling to the tomb of Rabbi Nachman of Breslav in Uman, Ukraine for the Rosh Hashanah holiday without their families. There is no justification for leaving one's family to take the trip, Rabbi Ratzon Aroussi told Arutz Sheva.
“We must extend blessings to every movement that brings Jews back to Torah, each in his own path, particularly in these days of repentance,” he said. “However, we must speak the truth: the unity of the family is above everything else. It is a very precious thing in halakhah [Jewish law].” He quoted a passage from the Talmud in which a rabbi told his student, “If you have a family, stay with your family.”
The same spiritual benefits can be had in Israel, he continued. “Do we not have tombs here? The forefathers of our nation are buried here, why go abroad? What about the Tomb of the Patriarchs, Rachel's Tomb, the tombs of the great and mighty of our nation... ?”
Rabbi Aroussi, the rabbi of Kiryat Ono and a member of the Rabbinic Council of the Chief Rabbinicate, explained that visits to a chassidic leader on holidays can be problematic for the same reason. “The spiritual connection to the Admor [Torah leader – ed.] is important – but not at the expense of your home,” he declared.
“Whoever leaves his family and goes to his rabbi or 'admor' (Chassidic leader, ed.) for the holidays, whether in the Holy Land or even more so, outside the land, is violating halakhah,” he stated. Those who wish to connect to their spiritual leaders on the holiday “should take care to bring their families with them, but G-d forbid that they should leave their families,” he added.
Rabbi Aroussi stated that a one-time trip to visit the tombs of rabbis buried outside Israel would be permissible, “because it is a trip undertaken for a holy purpose, in order to kindle the flame of faith.” However, such trips should not be taken on an annual basis, he added, and not on the holidays.

Or am I just missing something here?Israel is the centre of our universe.  There is no comparison between the holiness in our Land and the tumah which envelopes the rest of the world.  To volutarily bypass an opportunity to be in Israel in order to go somewhere else for inspiration would seem to me to miss the whole point of how one should become Jewishly inspired.

The Inherent Contradiction of Being In Kollel

Over at RationalistJudaism, Rav Natan Slifkin has pointed out in his usual inimitable fashion the problem with Chareidi claims that their right to army exemptions derives from their Torah learning being the real source of protection for the State of Israel.  He starts by brings an excerpt from a column by the venerable Rav Yonasan Rosenblum in Mishpachah Magazine in which he notes that it is in the Chareidi community's interest to support certain financial benefits for those who serve in the army:

To insist on the equivalence of kolleleit to any other societal group is a double-edged sword. A few years back, income supplements for kolleleit meeting certain criteria were challenged in the Israeli Supreme Court on the grounds that such supplements were not available to university students. The Israeli Supreme Court agreed, and rather than extend the supplements to university students, it got rid of them altogether.
I argued at the time that the Supreme Court had erred because university studies and kollel studies are manifestly not the same thing and provide different benefits to society. A democratic legislature can favor one over the other and in different ways precisely because they are manifestly not identical.
No issue so enrages secular Israelis about the chareidi community as the draft deferment for yeshivah students. Chareidi support for generous benefits for those who serve in the IDF is one means of mitigating that animosity. As Rabbi Grylak frequently reminds us, we are a minority in Israeli society, and, as such, should go out of our way not to irritate our secular brethren, especially at a time when Prime Minister Netanyahu has already vowed to review internal social priorities in light of the “social justice” protests.
We will not convince secular Israelis that kollel students protect Israeli society no less than IDF soldiers, and demanding that social policy conform to that assumption only infuriates them.

It is the last paragraph that we are to pay extra attention to. In truth, it's actually less radical than the usual set of claims one hears because it assumes equivalence between the Tzahal's efforts and those of the KDF (Kollel Defence Force) instead of the more common "The KDF is the real army of Israel".  But as Rav Slifkin notes:

Never mind secular Israelis - you won't convince anyone of that. On a theoretical level, it has a very shaky foundation. On a practical level, nobody really believes it - not even charedim.

Further on, Rav Slifkin states:

Second, and most significantly: Regardless of the sources that someone might dig up/ reinterpret to claim that yeshivah and kollel students are protecting Israel, the bottom line is that (a) the facts on the ground demonstrate otherwise, and (b) when push comes to shove, the charedim don't even believe it themselves.
The facts on the ground - as the Gemara would say, הא קא חזינן דלאו הכי הוא! From the tragedy of the Holocaust, to the 1929 massacres in Chevron, to the murders several years ago at Mercaz HaRav Kook, it is evident that Torah students are not even automatically protected from harm themselves, let alone protecting others. And this is only military harm - there are plenty of other kinds of harm that affect Torah students, from illness to fires to road accidents. And Israel does not seem to be any safer now than in 1948, despite the fact that there are 40,000 extra people learning in yeshivah/ kollel.
The charedim don't even believe it themselves. In Kiryat Sefer and Betar, bastions of the charedi community which are full of kollelim, they have the same security fences and armed guards as every other town in Israel that is over the Green Line. They have the same protections against different types of harm; in fact, charedim often seek to get the best doctor, not just a regular doctor! Any charedi person, given the choice of living in a settlement with a kollel but no guards, or a settlement with guards but no kollel, would choose the latter.

Certainly one can think back only a few ago to Operation Cast Lead.  The souther Chareidi community's reaction to the barrage of rockets shot out of 'Aza was not to run to the beis medrash but to Bene Beraq.  If Torah study protects, why the need to flee?
It is Rav Slifkin's final line, however, that leads one to see the innate contradiction that the idea of the KDF presents:

So, if you want to claim that we need lots of people in kollel in order to rebuild Torah after the losses of the Holocaust (although there is vastly more Torah learned today than before the Holocaust), fine. But don't claim that you believe that kollel students are remotely equivalent to the IDF in terms of protecting the country. They're not, and you know it.

Now here's where the inherent contradiction comes in.  The reason the "Gedolim" decreed after the Holocaust that the only good Jew is a full-time learning Jew is because of the need to rebuild the devastated Torah community.  However, if Torah study protects as the KDF claims it does, how did the Holocaust affect the Torah community of Europe?  Should they not have been immune to the devastation?  And if Torah study doesn't protect, if the IDF is superior to the KDF, then what excuse does the community really have for evading their share in the protection of Israel?