Category Archives: Contemporary Life

The First

Posted on February 14, 2014 | 12 comments

Few things bore me more than reading about the “firsts.” No, not the first person to climb Mount Everest or the first person on the moon, but about the first black to… the first woman to… the first Jew to… the first disabled person to…the first homosexual to… etc.

It is worse than boring; it is demeaning. It is the outcome of a peculiarly liberal approach to humanity that defines people not as individuals, nor sees their accomplishments as those of unique individuals, but rather as an expression of whatever group to which they are supposed to belong. There are no “people” anymore; you are whatever bracket that you have been assigned. Your deeds are celebrated because of the classification that you are given in some cases from birth, in other cases acquired through life’s experiences.

To many liberal elitists today, your basic rights accrue to you because of the group to which you have been assigned, and some groups are entitled to special rights because of their group identity. It ensures that you will always be judged by your group label, which can never be shed or disregarded. It demands that you show solidarity to the group intellectually, politically, and materially. The NY Times always specializes in these types of calculations – counting up the number of blacks, women, etc. who are in public or corporate positions, belong to certain clubs, or have achieved positions of prominence in industry, politics or athletics.

Affirmative action is based on the notion that you are your group identity. A black teenager from a wealthy home or possessing superior athletic skills has advantages over the poor white teenager equally (or sometimes more) gifted scholastically but who cannot claim membership in one of the cherished groups. Graduate schools still apply these quotas that affect whites and Jews for sure, but Asians even more so.

The overt assumption is that any group that is not represented anywhere in rigid accordance with its proportion in the population is the subject of discrimination. Well, not every group. The dearth of Jews in professional sports in the New York area where American Jews disproportionately live has never been attributed to discrimination, although it should be, obviously. Talent is clearly not the issue. Certainly, Orthodox Jews – of whom there are none in professional sports – have the greatest claim to this type of discrimination. Is it bias, or is it an unwillingness to make reasonable accommodations to Orthodox Jews (like no games on Friday night or Shabbat)? I wonder…

There are two problems with “the first” syndrome. First, it precludes a fair evaluation of the individual as an individual. The “first homosexual” (open, they say) football player is a perfect example of this. Why he saw the need to share his bedroom practices with the world is one unanswerable question, but completely in line with today’s obsession with exhibitionism. But, essentially, he has asked to be assessed based on a behavioral pattern that he embraces that he shares with others. I never heard of him before this week, but prepare for this: when draft day comes, if he is drafted in the first round, his team will be extolled by the elites for its courage and openness. If he is drafted in a lower round, the league and its teams will be castigated for their cowardice and narrow-mindedness. Talent – the primary determinant, presumably – plays a lesser role. You could write that story today.

And if he is blocked hard or suffers an injury during a game, prepare for the allegations that he was treated differently, singled out, or punished for his group identity. But who is the one who foisted his group identity on an uninterested or unknowing public? The person himself. He could have chosen to be judged as an individual and keep private what is inherently private. He didn’t. He diminished himself as an individual by asserting the primacy of his group identity.

That is the second problem. “The first” syndrome is dehumanizing. The Talmud (Masechet Sanhedrin 37a) states that “the first man” (Adam; OK, that was an acceptable “first”) was created as an “individual” to show the preciousness of every person as an individual, as a unique existence, and as a special creation of G-d. “A person can mint many coins and they are all similar, but the Holy One, Blessed be He, fashioned every human being with the stamp of Adam, but no two human beings are alike.” And elsewhere the Talmud (Masechet Berachot 58a) asserts that “human beings neither think alike nor look alike.” We each possess the “divine image” – a soul – that guarantees our uniqueness. That is missing in a world where everyone is just a coin of one denomination or another.

The “first” syndrome also imposes a group-think obligation on all members of the group and thereby also belittles their individuality. Justice Clarence Thomas is lambasted, as are many conservative blacks, for not sharing the world-views or singing from the victimization hymnal of the professional black race-hucksters and their liberal enablers. Women who are not feminists (or even anti-feminists) are routinely castigated for their backwardness and betrayal of the sisterhood. There are homosexuals who are opposed to the re-definition of marriage. G-d help them withstand the wrath of their “group.”

And, as we know too well, it distorts politics and statecraft. The “first black” president was intensely desired by many; qualifications and background did not matter. The imperial presidency and its encroachments on freedoms in a way unseen in 40 years is ignored by the same media that has crucified other presidents for the same and for less. We should prepare ourselves for the onslaught of the “first woman” as president drumbeat. And then? Let every other group apply, I suppose. It will be their turn.

There is a “first” every day. Every day is the “first” time I have lived that day, prayed its prayers, performed the day’s Mitzvot and lived my life. Even the famous “firsts” are trivialized by the association of their accomplishments with only one aspect of their identity, for every person has multiple components. Human beings as individuals have many different connections and relationships; that – and our personalities – is what makes us individuals.

There is little that is as divisive in modern life as the diminution of the individual and the celebration of the group. The great sportswriter Jimmy Cannon once wrote about Joe Louis (the heavyweight champion boxer known as the “Brown Bomber”) that “he is a credit to his race, the human race.” Unfortunately, that mindset has died, replaced by our growing anticipation of reading of some achievement by the “first black/ female/ Jewish/disabled/homosexual to ever….”

Never mind.

12 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Machshava/Jewish Thought

Oslo Mentality

Posted on February 7, 2014 | 10 comments

Here in Israel, the annual Jerusalem Conference was an often-riveting discussion of every major issue – and controversy – in Jewish life today. Sponsored by “Besheva” and “Arutz-7,” the sessions attracted many hundreds of Jews, mostly but not all situated on the right-wing of the political and religious spectrum, and voices from all sides of each issue were heard. There was the typical Israeli audience “participation,” i.e., the occasional heckling, catcalls and shouted questions, all to let the speakers know that the audience was listening. The first session was an historical retrospective with the most current applicability: “Twenty Years Since Oslo: Success or Failure?”

One might reasonably conclude that a diplomatic process that resulted in 1500 homicides of innocent Jews, thousands more wounded and maimed, the abandonment of significant parts of the homeland, the arming of one’s enemy and the resuscitation of Yasser Arafat as a respectable figure on the world stage, the proclamation by a government of Jews for the first time in history that the land of Israel does not only belong to the Jewish people, the increased vulnerability it spawned among the Israeli populace and the whetted appetite of the Arabs for more concessions – a ravenous, insatiable hunger that will not be satisfied by anything less than full surrender – the ruptures in Israeli society yet to be healed, etc. was indeed a failure, one of the greatest blunders in history.

In fact, Uzi Dayan, former head of Israel’s National Security Council and a leading strategic thinker, prefaced the session with the statement that “of course, it was a failure, by every yardstick. We can even bypass this whole session.”

Not so fast. One of the speakers was the original architect of the Oslo Process, Professor Ron Pundak, who willfully violated then-Israeli law by negotiating with the PLO and came to the infamous agreement after months of negotiations. He is, to say the least, sincere and unrepentant, terming the Oslo Process good for Israel, and “one of the most Zionist acts in the history of the state.” What was fascinating about Pundak’s presentation was not only seeing and hearing it live but witnessing a complete disconnect between theory and reality, between the dream and the nightmare. He even ignored the obvious question: “was it worth 1500 deaths?”, just choosing not to answer.

He spoke passionately about the demographic demon that had underwritten Israeli leftish diplomacy for decades, notwithstanding that the dire findings have long been discredited. (The Israeli birth rate has exceeded the Arab birth rate for years.) He noted with pride the international acclaim that Israel garnered as a result of these withdrawals, without acknowledgment that said acclaim was a fleeting phenomenon. He was outspoken about the security benefits that accrued to Israel as a result of not having to patrol areas where there is an Arab majority, hardly a comforting eulogy to the victims of Oslo, victims only because of the military and territorial empowerment of the Arab population. If was as if the last twenty years had not happened – and the promises and vision of the Oslo-ites had never been proclaimed with such fanfare; as if none of its proponents – Rabin, Peres, et al – had ever promised the nation that if the process resulted in violence, Israel would just go back in and re-conquer the territories. Uh huh…

As former YESHA Council head Dani Dayan said, it is hard even to debate someone who lives in a world with such “dangerous illusions.” There can be no common ground when one side sees down as up, left as right, defeat as victory, and death as life. Indeed. He was quite concise: “If one said: ‘I have a great idea. Let’s bring Arafat to a place five minutes from Jerusalem, give him weapons and a government…’ It is hard to imagine that intelligent people actually believed that.”

Pundak even saw fit to share a dream that he had the night before the conference. He saw himself guiding PM Netanyahu through the “Palestinian territories” and protecting him. (Why anyone would need “protection” from lovers of peace is actually a mystery, but what a weird, even unsettling dream? And what a nightmare for those people forced to live in the real world!)

Of course, Oslo would be an historical aberration, a candidate for entry into a revised and updated edition of the Encyclopedia Idiotica (a compendium of history’s worst mistakes, a book I happen to own), but for the incredible fact that an Oslo III is now being planned, this time shoved down the throats of an unwilling Israeli government by the Obama administration in collusion with Israeli and international leftists. The exact same arguments heard pre-Oslo are being proffered again: there is a small window for peace; you make peace with your enemies, not your friends; the occupation is corrupting Israeli society; the world will turn on Israel with a vengeance unless the Arabs are appeased; etc. Some are even calling again for another unilateral expulsion of Jews, just to “do something,” show good faith to the Arab enemy (who is never asked for any act of good faith). Open threats are made of violence, war, terror, boycotts, sanctions, penalties and economic divestment from Israel, unless Israel divests itself of its land and its divine legacy.

Pundak put it best to the audience: “the question is do you prefer the Bible and the land of Israel or…” He never got to finish the question, because the audience pre-empted him with shouts of “yes, yes!” To him, Oslo was a success because it weakened the settlement movement, and peace in Israel will be the anchor of stability in the entire region. Tell that to the Syrians. And the Egyptians. And the Libyans. And the Iraqis. And…

Such experts are dedicated, to be sure, but dangerously certain of their own brilliance and blissfully oblivious to the real-world consequences of that brilliance. They are dangerously naïve. Pundak even termed Mahmoud Abbas – the “Palestinian” president whose termed ended five years ago, whose doctorate was a scholarly study of the hoax of the Holocaust, and who spent decades as Arafat’s top advisor – “one of the most honest [yashar was the word he used] men in the entire world.” The strongest argument that he (and another speaker) raised in support of more concessions was the odd declaration that “Ben-Gurion would have done it.” To encourage a surrender today by relying on the statecraft of someone who died forty years ago – even asserting that we have the possibility now of implementing the findings of the (1937) Peel Commission (!) – evinces a breathtaking cluelessness that only someone living in an ivory tower could actually espouse.

The world has no shortage of people who create their own realities. Some live in institutions, few achieve positions of power and influence, and fewer still retain those positions when their fantasies blow up (literally) in the faces of real people. There is something peculiar about Israeli society and its reluctance – its almost obsessive reluctance – to hold the architects of the Oslo failure politically accountable. Indeed, one of its primary proponents serves as president today.

This is not new; Golda Meir was re-elected after the Yom Kippur War debacle. She, at least, had the dignity to resign a few months later after the Agranat Commission findings were published, holding her accountable. The question is: why didn’t the people hold her accountable? Are Israelis so locked into support for a party – any party – that issues don’t really matter? Are they so easily manipulated by false narratives and a worrisome familiarity with, if not almost an expectation of, unending grief? And, it almost goes without saying that a Commission of Inquiry to investigate the Oslo debacle was never seriously considered, and certainly never convened. Perhaps it was politically unpalatable, even to the secular right; perhaps because the media were the driving force behind Oslo – and behind the prior Commissions of Inquiry – and they had little interest in exposing their own foolishness; perhaps because the Rabin assassination provided protective cover to the failures of Oslo.

Whatever the reason, the unwillingness to fully investigate the fiasco has left too many Israelis forgetful and hopeful – forgetful of what the past concessions have brought and hopeful that a new retreat will engender different results than the old retreats.

Who says Jews are people of little faith?

May Hashem bless Israel’s leaders with strength, a backbone, courage and faith, and keep a watchful and vigilant eye over His people who, like innocent children, indulge in wishful thinking that has too often crashed into an unkind reality. Fortunately, the Jerusalem Conference attracted from Israeli society the best and the brightest, the clear-eyed thinkers and the Jews of real faith.

10 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Israel

On Inequality

Posted on January 31, 2014 | 12 comments

The latest poll-tested platitude being purveyed by the politicians is the notion of “income inequality,” a pernicious idea that only leads to harm. Consider: In 2010, Joe earned $50,000 and Bill earned $100,000, a gap of $50,000. The following year saw a boon for both: Joe and Bill both doubled their earnings, to $100,000 and $200,000 respectively. Great news for both, right? Not according to this theory, which saw the disparity in their incomes also double. They each might have earned more money – a lot more money – but they should presumably be unhappy because the income gap rose from $50,000 to $100,000. Are there people who really think this a bad thing? Yes; these are the politicians and their spinners trying to agitate the public to serve their own purposes.

Are normal people bothered by this? One would think not, but in fact studies have shown that most people would rather not have their earnings increased if it meant that their neighbors’ earnings increased even more. The problem then is not “income inequality,” but “character inequality.” People who let envy dictate their moods and happiness and begrudge the success of others will usually lead over-competitive and miserable lives, never able to enjoy their bounty, and only because someone has the same or more. That weakening of society’s moral fiber threatens more than opportunities for all to prosper; indeed, it threatens our ability to relate to each other properly and respect the rights of all.

The President and his PR advisors surely know this, but what has made “Income inequality” today’s buzzword is the sheer outrageousness of it. There has always been income inequality, and there will always be income inequality. Even if every person was a millionaire, there would still be people in the bottom 20% and the top 1% of earners. That is simple arithmetic. If we posit – as the liberals seem to – that the bottom 20% is almost always the victim of the top 1% (or top 10%) then there is no hope of ever moving forward because logic is then the greatest impediment to progress. There will always be a bottom 20% – in income, education, accomplishment, talent, etc., and there is no way to avoid that.

Thus, the “income inequality” gambit is a shameless plea for votes, and nothing else, by stirring up class warfare – by arousing the jealousy of the less fortunate (who are more numerous) against the more fortunate. But note the selectivity of the thinking: inequality troubles the Chief Executive only in one narrow area of life: industry and the professional class. That CEO’s, doctors, attorneys, bankers and similarly situated people out-earn (and by far) the average worker is held to be some sort of crime perpetrated by them against the masses. But those groups of people are also more educated and (generally) spent far many more years of their lives studying and preparing for their careers. They are also the ones who take risks, start businesses, build factories, manufacture products and invest their money in enterprises that will employ others. With risk comes the possibility of failure but also the possibility of great reward. Why should they be begrudged their successes when their counterparts who invest and lose money are not compensated for their losses? (Of course, some are –like the big banks that failed – and blame the politicians for that cozy relationship that uses taxpayer money to bail them out so – among other things – campaign donations could keep flowing).

But that is the only kind of inequality that troubles the President. Oprah far out-earns her competitors, as does Lebron James who out-earns the 12^th man on his team. Chicago Cubs fans suffer from championship inequality, certainly in comparison to Yankee fans. How shall that be rectified? The pay scale in Hollywood is wildly disparate, certainly between the lead actor and the “best boy” (I’m unclear what he does and I am afraid to ask.).

Life presents a series of inequalities: of intelligence, talent, opportunity and family stability. Across the world, there is a gross disparity in equality of freedom. These inequalities can be ameliorated but never fully eradicated. It is just life, in which we are placed in differing circumstances and forced to deal with a variety of challenges. Poverty is a challenge for some, and, frankly, wealth is a challenge for others. Indeed, wealth may be the greater challenge, if our guide is the young Hollywood star – there are a few such wretches every year – who comes into wealth early and self-destructs before our eyes but to the delight of the celebrity media.

The idea that taxing the wealthy more will improve the financial situation of the poor has been tried, tested and failed repeatedly. The war on poverty has spent trillions in fifty years with no appreciable impact on the poor; the percentage of poor people –but poor, not just relative poor – remains the same. And why would we think it should? Poverty is here to stay. “For the destitute shall never cease from the midst of the land; therefore I command you that you shall surely open your hand to your brother the poor and to the destitute in your land” (Devarim 15:11).

In a healthy society, the existence of different classes is a phenomenon that binds people together, that enables each group to interact and make its unique contribution, and allows the wealthier to share their G-d-given bounty with the less fortunate. Taxation is not charity, and government is not an instrumentality of charity. Taxation is coercive, and therefore tax avoidance (not evasion, of course) is part of the American system; charity is voluntary and therefore ennobles the giver, as well reminds him of the simple justice involved in helping the needy. When government tried to displace the individual of the dispenser of charity, it not only does it more inefficiently but it also deprives the donor of the opportunity to refine his character.

None of this wins votes. What win votes are the promises to take money from Bill (by one mechanism or another) and give it to Joe. That is why the true solution to the income gap – due to the diminished opportunities available to some – lies within our reach but is unlikely to be embraced or even widely discussed outside a small circle of interested people. The problem is not the dearth of money for some but the dearth of values for too many.

It is well known that the greatest indicators of financial success in life are completing school (even just high school), getting married, and having children after marriage, not before. One can extrapolate from this and readily perceive the causes of poverty in American life: the poor are generally those who fail to finish high school, have children before they are married, and who even fail to marry or marry repeatedly. Those who stay in school and stay married are rarely poor, and usually their strained economic circumstances are the result of some trauma or untoward event.

There was a time when married couples received tax advantages in recognition of the government’s interest in encouraging stable homes. Although it still exists in modified form, there are other inducements to the anti-social behavior that produces or prolongs poverty. Children born out of wedlock to unmarried women are generally subsidized by the government – their births, their health care, their education, even their food. There is little incentive for a male breadwinner to stay behind, and so they don’t. Lingering poverty almost directly correlates to the epidemic of out-of-wedlock births, but it is considered uncouth and offensive even to use the term “out-of-wedlock,” as if there is some benefit to births that occur within a marriage as opposed to outside a marriage. News flash: there is a benefit, both moral and financial.

And couples who marry and stay married are more successful financially than those who do not. While we cannot impose love on those who do not love each other, we can encourage people to think long and hard before marrying and divorcing, especially if they have children together. Some communities have more of a safety net than others, but children – and the single parent who raises them – do tend to wind up on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder.

It is easier just to raise taxes on the rich. It sounds like the problem will soon be solved, but only fools believe that money is somehow conveyed to the poor. The poor are useful to the politicians for their votes, and the rich as the cudgels by which those votes will be extracted from the poor. But a true leader would not play the envy game. Instead, he would lead a campaign – not just give a speech – to revive traditional values in American life – of education, family, faith, stability, hard work, industriousness, and contentment with one’s lot in life. The true leader would also encourage many wealthy people to lose their obsession with material acquisitions, and certainly not to define their moral worth by their assets. In fact, what they give to others is a greater indication of their moral standing than what they spend on themselves.

Within a short time, “income inequality” will occupy no one’s time or thought. But because that canard has legs and votes, this approach is easier said than done. The effort alone would transform society in untold positive ways.

12 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events

The Real Story?

Posted on January 26, 2014 | 59 comments

The controversy du jour deals with the high school girls and their tefillin, and it has prompted the usual litany of responses. Once again, what passes for psak in the Modern Orthodox world is little more than cherry-picking the sources to find the single, even strained, interpretation of a rabbinic opinion in order to permit what it wants to permit or prohibit what it wants to prohibit. The preponderance of poskim or the consensus in the Torah world matters little; fables – like Rashi’s daughters wearing tefillin – carry more weight.

No honest reading of the sources could ever give rise to a statement such as “Ramaz would be happy to allow any female student who wants to observe the mitzvah of tefillin to do so.” Happy? Tell it to the Rema or to the Aruch Hashulchan. And what about the prohibition of lo titgodedu – of not having contradictory practices in the same minyan (e.g., some girls wearing tefillin and others not)? And what of the statement being made to the traditional girls – that their service of G-d must somehow be inferior to that of their peers who are on a “higher” level, or the statement being made to all of them – women’s spirituality can only reach its peak when it mimics the religious practices of men? I would not want my daughters to be exposed to either sentiment.

Frankly, it is unsurprising that many young students in high schools text on Shabbat, observe half-Shabbat, and the like. If the Mesorah can be manipulated to permit girls to do what they want, why can’t it be manipulated to permit what boys want? Clearly, the subtleties are being lost in translation. Would that the schools focused on enhancing the commitment of the boys and their tefillin than broadening it to include others who are not within the purview of the mitzvah.

And, like night follows day, the secular Jewish press – besides praising the courage of the administrators – have trumpeted this story as another sign of the feminization of Orthodoxy – a triumph of women’s rights in an age when those are considered some of society’s most cherished values. They perceive it as another sign that Orthodoxy is modernizing, getting with the times, and catching up with the non-Orthodox movements, to the chagrin of the troglodytes on the right who insist on impeding progress.

But what if that is not the story? It is quite possible that we – and especially the media – might have missed the essence of this unfolding tale.

One question needs to be asked: do the girls here even define themselves as “Orthodox Jews?” Upon information and belief, they do not, and I do not write this to impugn them in the least. The fact is that in these day schools, anywhere from 10-30% of the student population consists of children from non-Orthodox homes. These families are proud members of non-Orthodox temples, and are certainly among the more dedicated. After all, they are sending their children to day schools under nominally Orthodox auspices. Some may even be the children of non-Orthodox rabbis, both males and females. When one girl explained that she has been wearing tefillin since her Bat Mitzvah, she is likely telling the truth. She has been wearing tefillin because that is part of the egalitarianism that is the most dominant value in the non-Orthodox world. If these girls – as it seems – are from non-Orthodox families, then the narrative has nothing at all to do with the so-called modernizing tendencies in Orthodoxy, but something else entirely.

The real story is not that Orthodox girls are wearing or want to wear tefillin, but that non-Orthodox children (or their parents) are essentially dictating to day schools how they want non-Orthodox practices incorporated – in school – in their children’s education. It is as if Conservative Judaism and its customs must be acknowledged much like schools have been known (and properly so) to allow children of the Edot Hamizrach to have their own minyanim and adhere to their own customs. And the schools are willing accomplices. Will they next remove their mechitzot to allow an egalitarian minyan, or is that too great a departure from the Orthodox brand?

There was a time when non–Orthodox Jews were thankful that yeshivot accepted their children, but correctly assumed that the curriculum, standards, practices and ideology taught would conform to Torah. They knew it would differ from what they were being taught at home – but they wanted that.
There was a time when a yeshiva administration had the authority and the courage to insist on those standards. Times have changed. In the competition for the tuition dollar of the non-Orthodox – and the fact is that SAR and Ramaz are competing for the same students – accommodations have to be made. And that is a travesty. Masquerading under the convenient narrative that this is a war for the soul of Modern Orthodoxy is the inconvenient reality: the inmates are running the asylum. The administrators are either unable or unwilling to maintain a complete fidelity to Jewish tradition, for at least some of their constituents are demanding otherwise.

Does a boy in such a school then have the right to say: “I do not feel that my divine service requires me to wear a kippa. My father doesn’t, not even in the house. I am against your religious coercion”? Should a school tolerate that? Or, an even better question: could a boy say that he rejects wearing tefillin until all the girls do? I.e., he is such an advocate of egalitarianism that it would be unconscionable for him, coming from his background, to continue to propagate the school’s antiquated, misogynistic, patriarchal attitudes that discriminate between males and females. I can hear it now: “There is only one G-d. He created all of us, and so there should be one law for all of us!” I wonder how the administrators would respond to that; probably, quite uncharitably, but on what grounds?

As one male SAR student asked me this week: if girls can be obligated when they are really exempt, why can’t he be exempt when he is really obligated? The logic is not impeccable – he is only 16 years old – but begs the question: if the Mesorah is so ephemeral that it can change on a whim, why can’t any rabbi make any change that he wants to make? Why can’t a layman?
Add to this one other point. I personally have met a number of graduates of these schools who are children of non-Orthodox female converts who were never informed by the administrators that the conversions were not acceptable according to halacha. In effect, they went through high school thinking they were Jews like all their classmates only to discover – years later and often on the verge of marriage – that they were not considered Jewish. The tragedy is heart-wrenching, because these young men and women are pure innocents. But there are halachic ramifications as well even while they are in school: Did the son of such a female convert lein in school? Was he motzi the audience with his Chazarat Hashatz? Did he count for the minyan?

Take a more tragic example: what if a young girl, child of a non-Orthodox converted mother, meets and falls in love with a male classmate (perhaps, her chavruta in Gemara class), and that young man is a kohen? What would have been a beautiful relationship is now marred forever and their life plans have to be altered. Perhaps, G-d forbid, the couple might then even turn away from Torah observance entirely because the young woman in question also needs to convert according to halacha, but now cannot marry this young kohen. Is the unequivocal acceptance of non-Orthodox converts and their children the norm in these schools? Is any attempt made to have them – if possible – convert according to halacha? I wonder.

On some level, the policy makes internal sense. For a day school appealing for non-Orthodox students in a very competitive climate, questioning the legitimacy of non-Orthodox conversions would be a turn-off to parents – just like denying these girls their tefillin would displease future applicants as well.

But the bottom line is that the story here might not be at all about “Orthodox” girls wearing tefillin but about non-Orthodox children seeking an accommodation of their religious practices, and about day school principals reluctant to insist on adherence to Torah standards. And that is the opposite of courage.

59 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Halacha, Machshava/Jewish Thought, Minhagim