Author Archives: Rabbi

For over a year, I have participated in an “Ask the Rabbi” panel responding to questions posed by the editor of the Jewish Press. here is the latest installment. This column, including the responses of my colleagues, can be read at Jewishpress.com

Assuming one is following the letter of the halacha, is it proper to do fun things during the 9 Days–such as gathering with a few friends or taking the kids on an outing?

The operative principle should be as the Mishnah Berurah (554:21) stated: “The House of God deserves that we grieve over its destruction at least one day a year.” By extension, the Three Weeks and Nine Days are periods of escalating sadness that culminate on Tish’a B’Av – that “one day a year” of intense mourning. As we cannot abruptly enter a period of national mourning (personal sorrow is exactly the opposite) we prepare for Tish’a B’Av by decreasing our pleasure excursions.

That being said, we should be able to retain our social interactions (as they are not inherently joyous or frivolous) and certainly to enjoy time with our children. Such outings need not be incongruous with the period of mourning, mindful of what is age appropriate for children. At no time should a person be oblivious to the mourning, and social interactions – and particularly time with the children – can be used for meaningful discussions about inyana d’yoma, the matters at hand.

We should also be wary of imposing mourning practices on children who are not mature enough to understand, and certainly avoid conveying the impression that Judaism is a religion of misery and anguish. We are always mindful of the churban, and more intensely so this time of year, but we are mandated to enjoy a simchat hachayim as well, as that is the most exalted service of Hashem

Thus gatherings and outings need not be incompatible with this sorrowful season – and it is most proper to infuse those interactions with discussions of the hardships of the past (the churban and other tragedies), the blessings of the present (Israel, Aliya, etc.), as well as the joyful challenges of the future redemption that is unfolding before our eyes.

Is it proper to use the title “Rabbi” when referring to someone who received rabbinic ordination from a Reform or Conservative institution?

The counterargument would be that such ordination does not really confer the status of rabbi and therefore demeans the title for all rabbis. I do not find this contention very compelling; indeed, it is unnecessarily provocative. Notice how the title doctor encompasses everyone from a neurosurgeon to one who holds a doctorate in ethnic studies. It is a form of addressing someone by a title they have chosen, earned, or claim that ordinarily should be uncontroversial.

Rav Moshe Feinstein in several of his responsa referred to non-Orthodox rabbis as “rabbis,” phonetically spelled out in Hebrew, in contradistinction to his references to Orthodox rabbis as “Rabbanim” and other such honorifics. It is as if he used the term “rabbi” to denote a lesser or unworthy form of ordination. “Rabbis,” apparently, can be non-Orthodox, men or women, and in the recent case of a Haredi-dressing man in Yerushalayim, a Christian. The term has been so abused that true Rabbanim deserve better.

Indeed, it has become quite common in rabbinic circles to refer to Rabbanim by the title “Rav” and not Rabbi, to make the distinction even clearer. It is used on letterheads and in advertisements and immediately identifies the individual as an Orthodox rabbi.

If only for the purpose of friendly relations it is appropriate to call someone by the title of their choice. They can be rabbis. I am happy to be a Rav.

Is it presumptuous for a regular frum Jew to disagree (not face to face, obviously) with a great rabbi on a particular matter in Jewish thought or public policy?

This treads on very sensitive territory and the critical element is the precise area of disagreement. Certainly on halachic matters the opinions of a “regular frum Jew” carry little weight. Psak, like any specialty, requires extensive training and preparation and encompasses far more than knowledge of books or texts. I can read an X-ray and ascertain obvious fractures; undoubtedly, though, I will miss 95-98% of what there is to see in an X-ray. Great rabbis are radiologists, while the average person is not.

Similarly, matters of Jewish thought also require expertise in a given area. We may be living in the “era of feelings,” but not every feeling translates into a cogent and legitimate expression of Jewish thought. Not everything that a Jew says (or thinks) becomes, by definition, a valid part of Torah. Without a background in Jewish thought, it would be presumptuous to disagree with a Rav who possesses such a background.

Public policy matters are somewhat different because determination of the proper approach requires more than just knowledge of Torah. It requires a worldly understanding of life, politics, societal trends, culture and current events. Not every rabbi – even great ones – is necessarily conversant with all these issues. Nevertheless, two points must be added.

The “regular frum Jew” might have a sensible approach to public policy but it might not be informed by the Torah. If so, then these lay approaches will be less compelling and should be treated accordingly. Conversely, unless we maintain that rabbis have daas Torah that affords them unerring insight into public policy, then rabbis will have no special proficiency in these areas. Those who believe in daas Torah must explain why rabbis often disagree on matters of public policy, something that undercuts the idea that there is only one daas Torah.

Respectful dialogue between rabbis and laymen on policy issues is the ideal.

     The repugnance and absurdity of Dan Perry’s Jerusalem Post screed against Haredim is readily apparent from the headline:  “Haredim, not Arabs or Iran, are the biggest threat to Israel.” Although you can’t always blame the writer for the headline, in this case you can, because in his text he calls Haredim the “primary threat” to Israel’s future. One must be filled with hatred to reach the conclusion that faithful Jews are a bigger threat to Israel than hostile Arabs who wish to dismember the state or Iran that yearns for Israel’s nuclear destruction. From where does such antipathy arise? One never knows the internal motivation and biases of another but we can ascertain the sources of his fears from his world view.

     According to Perry, the Haredim endanger Israel’s existence because they have no discernible or foreseeable role in the “Start-up Nation that is a world leader in cybertechnology, agrotech and venture capital, punches above its weight on Nobel prizes and exported television formats, is a global leader on gay rights and decriminalizing cannabis and has developed Iron Dome to zap rockets out of the sky.”

     In other words, the writer’s conception of the Israel, the world’s only Jewish state, is a sort of weird hybrid of Singapore and Sodom. While the technological feats should make us all proud (some others are more dubious), they hardly constitute sufficient reason for Israel’s existence and the sacrifices required to sustain it.

      Centuries of Jews did not dream of returning to Zion so that Jews should be world leaders in cybertech. Jews who were murdered in sanctification of G-d’s name did not pray for an Israel that would transform the world with its “exported television formats.” Even Herzl did not fantasize about a Jewish state that would be a “global leader in gay rights.” Jews won plenty of Nobel Prizes before and since Israel’s establishment. And, suffice it to say, the Iron Dome would not be necessary if the “primary threat” to Israel were Haredim rather than radical Arabs and genocidal Iran.

     It seems clear that Perry perceives Israel entirely as a place of refuge for the Jewish people and not at all as the place where Judaism – as found in the Torah, elaborated in the Talmud and Codes, and observed and preserved by millions of Jews throughout history – is to be fully realized. That crucial flaw underlies his world view which seeks to safeguard Jews but not Judaism and therefore does not at all address why is it important for Jews to survive or for a State of Israel to exist. It cannot be because mankind could not endure without Homeland or In Treatment. And there are plenty of Asians and others who are quite gifted in cybertechnology.

     The writer disdains Haredim because his fantasy of Israel is that of a material powerhouse and a spiritual non-entity. Haredim have no substantive role in that notion of a Jewish state. And in this he is correct: if that is all there is to Israel, there is little reason for secular Israelis to remain, serve, sacrifice and develop the country. They would do better elsewhere. And  having banished the Torah from Israel – the Torah which is the source of our claim to the land of Israel – Perry lacks any real justification for being here, and no answer to the ancient (and modern) allegation that we are “robbers who stole the land from its inhabitants.”

     It is fascinating that the Jerusalem Post reported recently that Bnei Brak ranks as Israel’s poorest and most densely populated city and yet its residents are Israel’s happiest and most contented. Surely that conundrum is incomprehensible to the writer.

      Fortunately, he is wrong and misguided in each assertion, for Israel is far more than a haven for endangered Jews. It is the one place on earth where Jews are to live and the Torah is to be actualized. Yes, the Torah which is the Tree of Life to all who grasp it – the Torah that provides us with a constitution for the Jewish state, the place from which G-d’s morality is exported to the world in every conceivable format.

        Perry is the wrong person to make the argument that Haredi society has to change because at the heart of Haredi society is the impulse to do what is necessary that Judaism survive and not just Jews. “Jews without Judaism” is a non sequitur, a purely ethnic identity with any real meaning or importance.  A “Jewish state” without Judaism cannot endure and there is absolutely nothing in Perry’s credo of Israel that is remotely Jewish.  Contrary to Perry’s conclusion, Israel cannot survive without Haredim as their intense focus on Judaism provides the state its raison d’être.

       That being said, here is where I part company with both sides. Rav Kook noted over a century ago that the Old Yishuv Jews, the spiritual ancestors of today’s Haredim, had rich spiritual lives but their national lives were impoverished. They lived, and to some extent still live, in a Jewish world in which the need for a Jewish state ranges from desirable to tolerable to unnecessary. Their focus is not on statehood and what is needed to maintain it but rather on Torah and what is needed to maintain it. If only they realized that the moment is at hand – it is not coming, it is here now – when the Torah must be applied and integrated in the modern state, a state that is pervaded with Jewish morality and values and not those imported and absorbed from Western and pagan sources.

      I too wish the Haredi world were more receptive to this approach. The antagonism towards much of the Haredi world in Israel is overblown but it is also real. It can also be diminished. For years, there has been a growing realization in the Haredi world that a life of voluntary penury is unsustainable and certainly not at public expense. Substantive efforts have been made to increase Haredi service in the military and participation in the work force. Not every politician who encourages military service, work, self-support and even a reduction of benefits is an enemy of Haredim (for sure, some are). And Haredi politicians have also not distinguished themselves with their public deportment, words or policies, some of which are indefensible.

     The most unfortunate aspect of Haredi life is the vibe that is often projected that Torah is incompatible with a modern state and that Haredim must remain sheltered until the storm passes. That is a disservice to the Torah that is cherished by its adherents. Life itself involves weathering this “storm.”  It is insufficient, as apologists often do, to highlight the amazing chesed that exists in Haredi society for that is born of necessity as much as it is born of virtue. There would not be a need for thousands of gemachs if people were able to support themselves.

       It is surely not surprising that a writer who extols Israel for “decriminalizing cannabis” would have no interest in or respect for those who learn Torah and get lofty with G-d’s word rather than high with a plant.  A truly Jewish state can create the right balance between those who study the Torah and those who implement it in the public domain. Indeed, they will often be the same people at different times. This is also our failure – to convey the depth, beauty, wisdom and all-encompassing majesty of the Torah to all Jews at all times.

      Perhaps that is the real threat to Israel’s future – a generation that is so devoid of Torah values and connection to G-d that it does not know why we are here and what to do now that we are here. In overcoming that threat, Haredim are surely our allies and, as their numbers increase, they will be the leaders in building Israel’s future.

      The Bennett government has been in place for a few weeks and the country is still standing. People are still davening morning, afternoon and evening and the sky is not falling; perhaps, better said, the sky has yet to fall. See? The power of positive thinking.

     Nevertheless, the anger in many right wing precincts is as real as is the reluctance to draw any conclusions from the failure to form a right-wing government after four successive elections and Likud victories as the largest party. The lack of desire for a reckoning – it is clear that Binyamin Netanyahu would not have been able to form a stable government had there been another four elections – is self-defeating and counterproductive. But no more so than the particularly pernicious platform that the Likud has adopted. Indeed, the Likud has only one objective, one arrow in its quiver: to topple the government and quickly. And even the nation’s needs must be sacrificed to attain that single goal; that is worse than unfortunate. It is unimaginable.

     Take, for example, the extension of the Citizenship Law, which has been passed on an annual basis for some twenty years. It prevents, among other things, Israeli Arabs from marrying Arabs from Judea and Samaria and bringing them to reside in Israel proper as citizens. This helps preserve the demographic advantage that Israel has. The renewal of this statute has been fairly routine under right wing governments, with even centrist support, for some time.

     Now, under the Bennett government, the Likud is balking, endangering the law’s extension (and the security of the State) simply because this odd coalition that relies on the votes of Ra’am for its existence cannot pass it on its own. From a purely political perspective, the argument makes sense. The opposition always wants to make the government’s life miserable. From a moral perspective, though, the approach is absurd, even grotesque.

     Added to this are voices emanating from the Likud asserting that the right wing may not support the government’s efforts to combat Hamas or to challenge Iran’s determination to build a nuclear capability. This is, for lack of a better term, insane. And something else as well.

      This time of year – the Three Weeks in which we mourn the destruction of the Bet Hamikdash, the exile of the Jewish people and the numerous catastrophes that have befallen us – we often hear bandied about the cardinal sin of the Second Temple era that presaged the Destruction: sin’at chinam, baseless hatred. The term is used frequently but is rarely defined. In fact, it is almost always misconstrued.

     Sin’at chinam cannot mean any type of hatred as there are hatreds that are not baseless at all. Indeed, it is eminently logical that most hatred is grounded in something tangible – an event, a word, a deed or a personality – which someone finds offensive. I have never heard of an individual harboring the simplistic sin’at chinam for another individual.

     “I hate that fellow!” 

      “But why?”

     “No particular reason.”

     Sin’at chinam is hatred that is self-destructive, a hatred in which the hater is so passionate and irrational in his hatred that he does not care if he himself is destroyed by that hatred. That was the hatred of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza in the Gemara’s woeful tale, in which Bar Kamtza preferred to inform on his own people – and bring out his and his nation’s ruin – rather than endure a petty personal humiliation.

     Sin’at chinam is the suicidal hatred of the Zealots who burned the storehouses of supplies – enough to feed the people through a siege of twenty years – in order to provoke a war against Rome that they could not win and the people did not want to fight.

     Sin’at chinam is the hatred of politicians so distressed to be out of power – even momentarily – that they will sacrifice all moral notions, all strategic goals and the national interest itself in order to regain that power. That is insane.

      There is nothing wrong with an opposition trying to topple the government – but do it over issues on which you disagree, not issues on which you agree but choose to play games. There is nothing wrong with introducing a new bill to perpetuate the Citizenship Law rather than go through the charade of renewing it every year. But that is something the Likud could have done any time in the last decade, as it could have passed legislation limiting the jurisdictional reach of the Supreme Court that leads to the dismantling of settlements built in the land of Israel. Don’t be a tzadik on someone else’s dime, or shekel.

     Perhaps there will come a time when this government has to be strenuously opposed. One would hope there are enough sane right-wingers in the government to know when that time comes and to be courageous enough to admit it, leave, and collapse the coalition. But it should not happen at the expense of national priorities and certainly not on issues that are bread and butter to all right-wingers.

     The current approach is an eerie and equally ludicrous duplicate of the Biden administration that reflexively opposes anything that Donald Trump did simply because he did it, regardless of its merits. It has induced the Biden team to renew subsidies to the hapless Palestinian Authority, thereby subsidizing its oligarchs, encouraging its mischief and hampering the prospects for expanding the Abraham Accords (a term Biden and company churlishly eschew because it evokes a Trump success).

      We are better and wiser than that. Issues will arise that naturally cause rifts in the coalition and that run counter to the interests of a strong, proud, Jewish Israel, and those can be exploited. But issues that promote Israel’s interests should be supported even if – perhaps, especially if – the coalition supports it. The alternative is the self-destructive sin’at chinam that has caused only grief and tragedy in Jewish history.

For over a year, I have participated in an “Ask the Rabbi” panel responding to questions posed by the editor of the Jewish Press. here is the latest installment. This column, including the responses of my colleagues, can be read at Jewishpress.com

When publishing a deceased person’s writings, may one censor a tiny amount of material in order to vastly increase the number of people who will read and be influenced by the author?

The mature, sophisticated reader will not be injured by exposure to an author’s writings or thoughts in their full complexity and depth, which is not to say that every reader today is mature and sophisticated. Worse, “language archeology” has become today a most regrettable passion of certain individuals who literally dig through the writings of their targets in order to unearth words or phrases that meant no harm when uttered or recorded decades ago but can today be presented in a most unfavorable light in order to “cancel” them. Shame on these censors, but in such an environment making stylistic emendations is not improper.

A full answer to this question really depends on circumstances, particularly who is censoring and for what reason. Certainly the ideas, values and world view of the author should never be modified in a way that distorts his opinions or conceals his attitudes. It would be troubling to hide pertinent information about an author for fear that it would undermine a community norm that is not a halacha. For example, it would be wrong to hide the fact that the Netziv read Jewish newspapers on Shabbat, as his nephew recorded. It would be wrong to omit that a particular gadol did not embrace a chumrah that is popular in some circles, or did embrace a kula that some frown upon. We accept our gedolim in all their breadth.

Similarly, it is wrong to suppress writings of great Jews who supported the Zionist enterprise or the State of Israel, as it is misguided to camouflage the writings of gedolim whose anti-Zionism today sounds anachronistic. We should be able to learn from the Torah of all gedolim even if we don’t accept each of their pronouncements on broader issues. We should all strive to be mature and sophisticated.

Is listening to rap or heavy metal music appropriate?

No. Never.

In truth, my experience with these genres of noise (music it is not) is waiting at a traffic light with the windows down hearing these cacophonous sounds emanating from another car. I have been tempted to drive through the red light to escape, but I confess I never have.

Music should uplift. Writing as a Levi, one of our primary tasks in the Beit Hamikdash was to accompany the avodah with singing and instrumental music. That music touched the soul, as music should.

Rap and heavy metal are usually vulgar, boorish, crude and abnormally loud. Earsplitting noise, combined with lyrics that should make a sailor blush, appeal to the worst of our instincts. It is often prurient, degrades women, and offends the sensibilities of anyone with the slightest inclinations towards sensitivity, decency and kavod habriyot. I have yet to see its redeeming value nor have I detected much talent among the noisemakers. Mozart and Beethoven, it is not, and even mild exposure to it makes me long for Avraham Fried and Mordechai ben David.

In a generation that is oddly proud of its degenerate cultural offerings that do little more than debase the citizenry and dishonor the species, rap and heavy metal are particularly offensive. Profane, offensive words set to deafening and shrill noise is just air pollution. It is not my cup of tea (I confess to being locked into ‘70s music) nor that – one would hope – of any cultured person.

That is our mission as a wise and understanding people, a light unto the nations. Turn the noise off!

Is being on time a Jewish value?

Punctuality is a Jewish value, and not just for the obvious reason that minutes matter in Jewish law. The difference between Shabbat and chol, between the permitted and the forbidden, between chametz and matzah, or between something qualifying as a mitzvah or not can all be measured in a single minute. Our performance of mitzvot demands an acute sensitivity to time.

But it is even more than that. Punctuality reveals to all our personal attributes and the values we cherish. It is a true indication of an disciplined, orderly life. When our days are arranged methodically, we accomplish much more and are more fulfilled. Furthermore my Rebbe, Rav Yisrael Chait shlit”a, often said that lateness is a psychological compromise – often unconscious – between not wanting to do something but having to do it. We are caught in that trap – and lateness is the middle ground we adopt. (Think about those Jews who are habitually late to shul.) If we appreciate something or someone then we arrive on time for it or for them.

That means that elementary kavod habriyot (respect for others) demands that we respect the time of other people also. Being late for a date, a meeting or an event – and forcing others to wait for you – is disrespectful. Time is life, and lateness means the devaluation of the life of another person.

Rav Yisrael Salanter opined that one of the three things that we can learn from a train is that everything can be lost if we are late just by one minute. Consequently, punctuality is treasured by Jews (not just Jews of German origin) as a sign of respect for G-d, respect for ourselves, and respect for others. And if you are going to be late, notify the other party and apologize sincerely.

 Some people insist that Hebrew and Lashon HaKodesh are two different languages.  Is the assertion correct and is the motivation behind making this assertion commendable?

This is an obvious and somewhat incomprehensible mistake, as can be attested to by the Mishnah (Sotah 7:2) that states that certain passages must be recited in Lashon Hakodesh, among them Mikra Bikurim and Birkat Kohanim. Clearly, Lashon Hakodesh in that context, and every other, means Hebrew. This contrasts with other parts of our liturgy that can be recited in any language, such as tefilah.

It is hard to trace the provenance of such an error, except to note the profound nostalgia many Jews feel for the Yiddish language that was used by Jews in Europe for many centuries. But previous generations of Jews felt the same nostalgia for Greek (even to the extent that Chazal granted it special status), Aramaic (the language of much of the Talmud), Arabic (in which Rambam wrote all his works except for Mishnah Torah), Ladino, and others as well, including English. Yiddish is perceived as the mamme lashon, even if my mother speaks to me in English, but a mamme lashon is not a Lashon Hakodesh, which is a holy language.

Last I checked, the Torah was given in Hebrew, and the Kuzari (2:68) underscores that Avraham spoke Aramaic for mundane matters but reserved Hebrew – Lashon Hakodesh – for holy endeavors. Rambam, in his Mishnah Commentary (Avot 2:1), characterizes the study of Lashon kodesh as a mitzvah kallah, a simple commandment that is nonetheless not to be trivialized. Of course, he meant Hebrew, and in his Moreh Nevuchim (3:8) he explains why Hebrew is termed Lashon Hakodesh.

Is it a positive development that Hebrew has been restored as a living, spoken tongue in the modern era? Of course, and it is miraculous, unprecedented in history, and a sign of the wondrous times in which we are living. We should appreciate it and learn Hebrew.