Posts from — March 2007

Yaakov Weinstein has a piece on Beyond BT, “Orthodox Assimilation On Campus - Part 2,” which addresses the challenges of risk and reaction to those who choose to attend a secular college campus in a respectful and thoughtful manner, and he does not seek to minimize the importance or validity of secular education, but in addition to noting the reality that the dual curriculum schools are not the only options students will take, he demands others support this choice. Though he blames some of the challenges to faith on a young person’s desires, he also advises,

“Don’t give glib answers to sincere questions. If you think you can answer who wrote the Torah or the evolution ‘problem’ in a one minute conversation keep it to yourself. You merely show that you are not taking the question seriously.�

I would personally go further of course, and would note that the sacrifice a young BT makes in his early years is in some important ways not unlike credit card debt assumed in his the early years. The weight of such decisions, if too heavy, can come down hard later, manifesting in painful and debilitating ways. If people are interested in the health and longevity of a baal teshuvah, they should advocate a path that will be satisfying in the long-term, and not advise a track because it increases the odds for stricter religious adherence in the short-term. [Note to haredi kiruvniks – grandchildren being religious Jews is not a sufficient example of personal long-term satisfaction, and when that’s all you offer, it only reveals how debilitating and costly your ways are, or you would have given something more personal beyond “nachas.â€? You can’t pay a mortgage with nachas, and nachas isn't what people face on a daily basis at work.] Why must long-term satisfaction usually include a quality higher education at a secular college campus? Look at the popularity of Beyond BT itself, a site primarily for established BTs — not new ones.

Secular and liberal Jews who become Orthodox usually never stop being baalei teshuvahs. Nuance in culture and outlook in contrast to FFBs remains forever, and is even passed down to subsequent generations. This is not a bad thing at all, and is a credit to these people. Those who can truly reject every aspect of their personal and familial past and value system are either chameleons, or must come from something truly terrible. Neither is the case with most of secular Jewry, nor with BTs.

I have refrained from writing this post for a long time, but I think it must be said.

There are those in the Right-Wing Modern Orthodox Baal Teshuvah community who would prefer to see as many Jews as possible attend dual curriculum schools such as Touro College and Yeshiva/Stern College. While I have not attacked YU before, there are murmurings of YU starting a new program for Jews from secular backgrounds for after a year of Israel.

For graduate school, YU has some great ones. By all means, go. However. At the undergraduate level (at least for the men), I am afraid Yeshiva College is not appropriate for most Jews from secular backgrounds. The only exceptions I know anecdotally are those Jews who descend from Holocaust survivors, and came to the U.S. during the post-war period.

I went there, and my great-grandfather attended a yeshiva later absorbed into YU. But Jews at YU from such families as mine are few and far between. Like most of the men I know from a secular background who went there, I did not enjoy my experience at Yeshiva College, and not because Yeshiva College is a bad school – it most certainly is not — but because the culture of the students and campus life is simply too limited and far removed from those of us who have been in the U.S. for a long period of time. I don’t want to attack my alma mater, and wish the best to YU. We are not talking Touro College. You will learn secular studies for real. But it simply is a very bad idea to send secular Jewry into Teaneck, unless they are really Zionist. We pretty much all hated it. Even Yeshiva College students from out of town went to the same summer camps, and come from an insulated culture. We have nothing in common. For instance, I was the only guy who played the violin while I was there. The school’s literary journal was confiscated from our mailboxes because of its objectionable content. A few years ago, I met a younger brother of a baales teshuvah (she has since left Orthodoxy) who convinced her younger brother to attend Yeshiva College. He was a really nice kid, and very polite, just like his sister. I met him one Saturday night, and asked him how he liked it, and he said it was okay. I told him I thought it was sometimes hard for those of us who were from secular, more Americanized backgrounds, and then he began to become visibly upset, stunned at the empathy of a stranger who understood immediately. I assured him all of us felt that way, and to just realize that it would be over forever soon enough, and that he was young enough to just transfer out, which I believe he did. I felt bad for the guy, and certainly remembered my own time there. But all that was understood later…it was my earliest initiation that was the first chill of Yeshiva College reality.

I was a reporter for The Commentator, the student newspaper. For my first story, I asked a rabbi, who turned out to be quite prominent in the Modern Orthodox world, for a quote. He was sitting with another rabbi, and he declined, which is his right. But as I was walking away, he said sarcastically, “Bye, bye!� I was stunned. He had no idea who I was; we had never met. His contempt was therefore not towards me personally, but because I was part of the school newspaper, which was independent of rabbinical control. I became concerned that a lot of what I thought were only haredi anti-Western attitudes I had fled by going to the Modern Orthodox world were clearly here as well. I don’t want to name the rabbi, except to note it was neither Rabbi Blau nor Rabbi Schachter,

This sort of culture is fine for those brought up in Right-Wing Modern Orthodox communities if that’s what they want (and it apparently is, it was the students who forced the literary journal recall — from our mailboxes), but this type of controversy and experience is really inappropriate for those of us from secular backgrounds.

I am pretty sure none of the above would not be the case if I had attended SUNY Binghamton, never mind Oberlin, and simply don’t personally know any Jews from secular backgrounds who would attend Yeshiva College if they did it all over again except for those whose families came post-war and are either accountants, lawyers, or rabbis. In the off chance the student from a secular background you know descends from a family that has been here longer than the late 1940’s, or is considering other vocational options, he is not a good candidate for Yeshiva College.

Jews from secular backgrounds should not be steered towards the dual curriculum undergraduate schools. Not even Yeshiva College. They are not welcome there, and they are not wanted there.

Yeshiva College should think twice before actively recruiting Jews from secular backgrounds to their institution. Yeshiva University, which was built and continues to be funded predominantly by secular Jewish money, has revealed their contempt for secular Jewry for decades by letting NCSY and other institutions push newly Orthodox Jews into haredism without Modern Orthodox institutional options. YU let their program for those from a public school falter even as the baal teshuvah movement gained ground. And if you remember the scandals of NCSY and the Lanner bais din, you can’t say YU has not been involved in NCSY. In fact, YU people were involved in enabling the most egregious chapter of NCSY.

YU had a chance to demonstrate concern over the welfare of secular Jewry in many ways. They consistently blew it, and should not be given another chance. The students who go there will be just as miserable, albeit better educated, than those who go to Touro.

The first rule of kiruv should be, “Don’t create misery.� If YU creates a new program that leads to the social isolation and misery, as well as a lack of appropriate extra-curricular activities and available internships for those outside the business school areas of focus, they should be discouraged from now, finally – decades into this kiruv thing – pretending they care.

No one is out for a fight with YU. In many ways, YU is the largest institutional achievement of the Modern Orthodox. But if YU creates a program for Jews from a secular background, and does not meet their needs (for their needs are different than those of the normative Yeshiva College student population), the complaints are not going to be restricted to within the walls of Muss. You are going to have a big mess on your hands. So you better think this through.

The root of the conflict in Darfur appears to be fueled by the thirst for oil. Racism is certainly a factor, but oil is apparently a major economic factor for the longevity and intensity of the conflict, even if a speculative one.

On the Save Darfur Coalition page about this conflict, there is nothing about the role of oil.

Why does the Coalition not care to emphasize this issue? Do they believe this is not a factor as others claim it is? The coalition notes that the attacks are coming from “government-backed militias.� But what about the issue of a corporate backed government? What of the lure for the profits for those controlling the oil reserves? Though some feel it is important to note that much of the oil is speculative, that is not apparently whether there is a significant amount of oil, but exactly how much.

Has the coalition forgotten the economic root of the brutality in Sierra Leone? The root cause of diamonds had to be addressed for any guarantee of long-term stability.

Why is Darfur any different?

“But if we fail, then the whole world — Will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand year, Men will still say: ‘This was their finest hour’.” — Winston Churchill

In case any of you were not aware, Winston Churchill was cleared of defamation. I am horrified that there have actually been Jews who used this opportunity to attack Churchill, and would like to remind my co-religionists that Churchill was the one man who had the will to fight the Nazis, and dragged his countrymen into war for moral reasons, and they accepted.

I would remind Jews on both the Left and Right that even if he had written these statements (and he did not) it wouldn’t matter. Here’s a little customized tip to some of my my favorite groups to help prevent this from happening next time.

To my liberal Jewish friends: I would ask that you accept that the greatest political leader of the 20th century was not FDR (he was hardly outstanding during the war), was not JFK, was not Martin Luther King, and was not even Golda Meir, EVEN though she was the first woman prime minister in the Middle East. Churchill trumps them all. And no, he wasn’t a liberal. He was a conservative. War is hell like that.

To my far-Left Jewish acquaintances: I would ask you to accept that the most heroic leader of the 20th century was not transgendered, was not a person of color, was not gay, and was not some Marxist putz on a motorcycle itching for a global nuclear war with the U.S. Tragically, he was a white, Christian, middle aged, cigar smoking, hopelessly straight male.

To my Neocon friends (no real need to emphasize they’re Jewish, right?): Yes, you love Churchill. But you love Reagan more. I would ask you to accept that even more effective than trickle down economics or running away from Lebanon after the first suicide bomb, even more beneficial to survival than deregulation and privatization such as with Enron and Latin American water supplies, even more satisfying than our wonderful triumph in Iraq, Churchill’s defiance of Hitler proved a greater benefit to a broader range of capitalist consumers by most marketplace standards.

To my frum friends: I would ask you to accept that Churchill was even shrewder than the Gedolim who insisted everything would be just fine and to stay in Europe. I would ask you to find the strength to say Churchill had a strong moral code, and concede not only that he was a true hero, but that he was (I’m trying to put him in terms you understand) very big. Do kids learn about Churchill in haredi schools in the U.S. and Israel? What are they taught about him?

We would all do well to remember Mr. Churchill with the gratitude he deserves, and remember this greatest world leader of the 20th century with the respect he deserves. I would translate that into holding fire at his general character because of a stupid letter. Even if he did write it, which he clearly didn’t.

Below is a picture of Charlie, a parrot that is (very) dubiously thought to have been owned by Mr. Churchill, a claim many want to believe because of the bird’s habit of spewing vulgar anti-Nazi tirades for whomever will listen. Next time Jewish bloggers attack Churchill over some letter he didn’t write, they will have to face him.

NCSY is working with Agudath Israel, a haredi political organization, through a new partnership in running a kiruv organization, Camp Nageela Midwest. The website, available through NCSY’s site, offers no information about who the Agudah is, never mind its involvement (and ownership) of this camp.

Emes Ve-Emunah praises this new relationship, and notes,

In this partnership, Agudath Israel has agreed to provide both the facility and funds for the camp, while NCSY has been given charge of administrative staff, developing programming and running the camp. Counselors will be culled from both the NCSY and the Agudah worlds [Editor's note: I told you!], and all staff people will be approved jointly by Agudah and NCSY. The posek for the camp is Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst, dayan of Agudath Israel, who has a longtime sensitivity for kiruv issues and close working relationship with NCSY.

Check out NCSY’s listing of this summer program on their site. Where is there mention of the haredi Agudath Israel’s involvement? They say it is a “partnership trip,â€? but unlike other partnership trips, such as their Taglit-Birthright and Summer at YU partnership trips, there is nothing about Agudath Israel being a partner.

I wonder why not…

One of the most troubling aspects of Liberal Judaism adherents is the belief that all aspects of Judaism must be continually revised to conform to modern sensibilities. More arrogant, or perhaps, just strange, is the insistence that none of these issues ever existed before this writer came of age.

In his article “Scrap the Mechitza,� Aaron Hamburger writes,

Seating me with a bunch of men is like locking Jackie Gleason in a delicatessen, as the old Jackie Mason joke goes. But if I were to sit with women, my own beauty might distract everyone around me. I could sit in a section composed solely of gay men, but then we’d all distract each other. To be safe, I’d have to sit in a room with only one other person, a lesbian. But first, we’d both have to undergo testing to make sure neither of us had any latent bisexual tendencies[…] Separating men from women does not make shul a sex-free zone. Even in a synagogue that bars openly professing homosexuals from attending, you might still have a few closeted gay or lesbian congregants who secretly get their jollies from sitting among members of the same sex.

This is not, in fact, a new issue. There have been gays – including Jewish gays – since the dawn of man and woman. This phenomenon did not start with Stonewall.

“Also, where would you seat a hermaphrodite, or someone who’s undergone a sex change? If you seat a biological male who’s turned female among men, you’re certainly creating a distraction there. However, a mechitza requires you to do just that because its designers could only conceive of gender in bifurcated terms.�

In fact, the Talmud does discuss hermaphrodites. So there certainly was a conception outside of a bifurcated understanding of male and female. Why not allow that Judaism prefers perceiving gender in stricter terms in the synagogue itself?

Hamburger continues to refute all the usual reasons given, but doesn’t allow for the fact that there are many times when people prefer to segregate according to respective male and female groups. While this may be frowned upon to some extent in the American corporate world, there is no reason for Judaism to mirror that approach. I personally prefer the mechitza, and only feel comfortable in synagogues with a mechitza during the service. Why does the service need to feel like work?

Hamburger writes,

Some women resent being separated from men. Some men feel uncomfortable being separated from their families. Why does their discomfort count for less than the rather unnatural discomfort at finding yourself next to a member of the opposite sex, the way you would on any street corner?

Because we are not on the street corner. If you want things to be like they are on the street corner, go walk the streets. The synagogue is a sanctuary; it need not be like the street corner, and in fact, should not be like the street corner.

Hamburger further reveals his real issue, which is not the mechitza, but traditional Judaism generally.

The “separate but equal� argument doesn’t really work either because the act of separation is in itself inherently unequal. Walk into any Orthodox synagogue, and you won’t need much time to figure out which sex is in charge. (If you need a hint, it’s the one you see on the bimah.)

So you see, his issue is really Orthodoxy itself.

Well, I for one am sorry that many Jews do not see value in an Orthodox service or synagogue, and can only say that I find the jostling for parity and over the top demonstrations of their progressive nature of certain congregations frequently unsatisfying, and sometimes, quite frankly, abrasive. It can’t be MLK day every weekend. All too often, there seem to be very little of the moral and intellectual challenge at non-Orthodox congregations that some of the traditional Jewish places offer, nor do I feel a sense of continuity of faith at a congregation where the emphasis is “halachic progress.” There is no end to that, only continued frustration. It simply isn’t the faith of my ancestors. Laymen did not focus on that in shul each and every week.

What Hamburger does not even consider is that a mechitza does not just represent a division between men and women, but also a division between our secular lives and thoughts and our Jewish ones.

And when congregations don’t have one, this manifests in other ways as well. They are often not taking Judaism as seriously as the Orthodox congregations, as they can’t even muster the strength to say Judaism has value unless Judaism’s world view is in line with their secular world.

If that’s the case, why bother going to synagogue at all? And who needs Judaism?

A better question is why anyone bothers going to a synagogue without a mechitza.

The BBC reports,

The Sabian Mandaeans - one of the oldest religious groups in the world - are facing extinction, according to its leaders.

They claim that Islamic extremists in Iraq are trying to wipe them out through forced conversions, rape and murder.

The Mandaeans are pacifists, followers of Adam, Noah and John the Baptist.

They have lived in what is now Iraq since before Islam and Christianity.

There are thought to be fewer than 70,000 of the Sabian Mandaeans spread across the world - only 5,000 are left in Iraq.

This is an ancient people, and they desperately need rescue. We cannot absorb millions of immigrants from this horrific mess we have made, but we can take 5,000. This is not trying to solve Africa’s wars, nor is it trying to spread democracy. These are a tiny remnant of a peaceful civilization facing elimination from Islamic fanatics, innocent bystanders offensive to both sides.

We appear to go way back with them. They originated in East Judea, and apparently even left with the Jews when the First Temple was destroyed.

They need our help. Please spread word.

They face genocide.

UOJ claims he has evidence of a rabbi allegedly facilitating bigamy.

Very recently I have come to know that a rabbi has performed a Kiddushin or a Jewish wedding ceremony for a couple, while the woman “was still married” to her first husband. The violation is clear. The rabbi sanctioned this marriage “under the laws of Moses and Israel” while the woman was committing bigamy in the eyes of the law of the United States of America.

It would appear from UOJ’s language that the issue is that the woman is divorced according to Jewish law, which is to say, she received a get – but that she is not divorced according to American civil law.

Full story.

From what I have seen, I do not think Jewish homelessness and poverty should be left to general programs. For instance, I have personally heard two separate complaints of anti-Semitic violence in the shelter system, including a shelter under Jewish communal auspices. When a Jewish program services Jewish recipients less successfully than the non-Jewish recipients, we have a problem.

I would like to see a shelter in New York that does not accept government funds, and is not open to the public, but is a private shelter system specifically for the Jewish homeless.

Ye, it would be nice to solve homelessness generally, but I don’t know how to do that. What I do know is that the Jewish community is one of the wealthiest communities in the world, and if we can’t even successfully and significantly help our own, what good is it?