Category Archives: Machshava/Jewish Thought

       “In short, there is no crisis; there is only…life, people and human frailty. The nostalgia for the perfect world of the past, where all Jews, especially Rabbis, were decent, honest, ethical and upright, is a fantasy, and a dangerous fantasy. Human nature remains human nature, and as a people we are defined by the majority, not by the exceptions, even if the exceptions grab the media spotlight. And the majority of religious Jews – and Rabbis – are decent, honest, ethical and upright people, and even among the accused wrongdoers, the overwhelming majority of their actions also reflect the values that they profess.” I wrote that last August in response to a number of scandals in Jewish life, and once again it is, sadly, timely. (https://rabbipruzansky.com/2009/08/05/crisis-in-orth…xy-perhaps-not/).

     News reports have revealed the lurid details of a Monsey Rabbi who allegedly abused his position as prominent converter of non-Jews to take advantage of the women who came into his orbit. Until last week, the individual in question headed a right-wing Orthodox agency called Eternal Jewish Family (endorsed by many Gedolei Torah across the world) that was created ostensibly to foster universally-acceptable standards for conversion to Judaism. I do hope that allegedly trading sexual favors for conversion are not the “universally-acceptable standards” he, or the organization, had in mind.

     This is no attempt to glorify myself or anyone else at the expense of the perpetrator. Anyone mature enough to understand human nature will recognize that what distinguishes people are not the desires or tendencies that we have but only our ability to control them, and to pursue them licitly. What varies from person to person is the level of self-control we maintain. What moves me to write is that the Chilul Hashem is, again, breath-taking, and “in the place where there is desecration of G-d’s name we do not defer to the honor ordinarily due Rabbis.” It is simultaneously embarrassing to the Jewish community but not shocking, another brutal reminder that “there is no guardian against sexual immorality.” Any person can succumb, and the Talmud itself has a number of cases to prove the point, wherein chaste, virtuous people succumbed, or nearly succumbed, to this passion. Elmer Gantry rides again. In the last fifteen years, such miscreants have emerged from the left, center and right wings of Orthodoxy (and from the non-Orthodox movement, and from the non-Jewish world), putting the lie to the perception of many in each group that their particular wing is the repository of all virtue and goodness and all others the domicile of the impure and the promiscuous. There is good and less-than-good in each group.

    What makes this case especially egregious was that the alleged offender in question was instrumental in stirring up the “conversion” tumult that has rocked America and Israel in the last few years – questioning past conversions, besmirching or belittling current Batei Din, and generally sending shock waves throughout the system that have not yet died down. I do not know the individual but have met him; I even participated – at his invitation – at an EJF convention that I found to be both over-hyped and underwhelming. It was much ado about very little, and at one kind-hearted and well-meaning person’s expense flew in Rabbis from all over the world (including myself) to a luxury hotel to hear restatements of the obvious in both obvious and quasi-threatening ways. I serve on the Bet Din L’Giyur of Bergen County, faithful and successful adherents to the GPS guidelines promulgated by the Rabbinical Council of America and the Beth Din of America. The thought of using the conversion process in order to obtain money or other favors is abhorrent, as despicable as preying on people who are spiritual searchers and therefore somewhat vulnerable to the charms of their teacher or mentor. In these matters, self-control should be a prerequisite, an absolute.

     There are some important general lessons to be derived from this mess. I am always suspicious of people who rail against the failings of others, and by name, and who make every dispute (I mean, EVERY dispute) personal. The Talmud (Kiddushin 70b) said wisely that, generally speaking, “he who delegitimizes others does so with something illegitimate about himself.” People stigmatize others with their own blemishes –perhaps to avoid exposure themselves, perhaps in an effort to deal with the internal conflict and guilt they must feel. Readers know that I have strong feelings on a variety of issues (like EVERY issue) but I try never to personalize the dispute, but rather to disagree forcefully but agreeably. Just because someone disagrees with me does not necessarily mean they are wrong, and even someone who is wrong is not necessarily a bad person. People should never to be defined by one issue, position, or deed, I always assume that the motivations of my antagonists are sincere, and there is much good in them that transcends our areas of disagreement. I wish that were the norm in religious life.

      Those who obsess over the failings of any particular wing in Orthodoxy (or, for that matter, Jews generally) should recognize how little these intramural wars of the Jews matter to our enemies. Perhaps they should matter less to us as well. I am often stunned by the vituperative reactions in each group – left, right and center – to any criticism, and the glee that erupts when they find new ammunition to fire at their foes who are, after all, their brothers and sisters. We should rise above that.

       One other question intrigues: the individual in question had the ear (and support) of Gedolim throughout the world. How is it possible that they were fooled, that – even if the allegations are false – they did not reckon with the reality that such allegations could be raised against this person? After all, these are the great leaders and thinkers of our time.

     This is confirmation of something that I have witnessed myself over the years. Gedolei Torah – and most Rabbis – are incapable of recognizing true evil and hypocrisy. Call it the “Yitzchak Avinu and Esav Syndrome.” I have been in the presence of Gedolim, and they live on a plane of purity and saintliness where such incidents – while theoretically possible; after all, the Tanach is filled with stories of the foibles of great people – are not considered practical possibilities. Most never encounter salaciousness, degradation, and the dark side of man. (Fortunately – or unfortunately – I worked as a criminal defense lawyer for 13 years, and so I am permanently spared of such illusions.) To see this alleged scoundrel in the company of great people – even some who guided him and supported him – is not to see their failings but, paradoxically, to see their greatness. Certainly they can – and do – err, and certainly they should do their due diligence in these matters as best as possible, but the bottom line is this type of misconduct is not part of their world view. They know on some level that it exists, but it is as real to them as the prospect of eating a cheeseburger on Yom Kippur. In the long run perhaps they are better off, even if there is price that is occasionally paid for this propriety.

     As I concluded in August: “So let us not rationalize nefarious conduct – but let us also not be naïve about human nature or simplistic about the Torah’s commandments. Let us continue to demand of ourselves the highest standards of fidelity to G-d’s law… The Torah is perfect; no one ever claimed all of its practitioners were also perfect. Rather than cast aspersions on others and make sweeping and smug generalizations, we should instead look in the mirror and confront our own failings…  And then we will truly become servants of G-d, a nation renowned for its virtue and piety, and a people worthy of redemption.”

      Who said this ?   “War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease — the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.”

     “And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.”

      “Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of “just war” was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations — total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred.”

       “We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.”

          It is hard to believe, but those uncharacteristic words were part of President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech (“Compared to some of the giants of history who’ve received this prize… my accomplishments are slight,” a suitably humble statement that is itself an exaggeration.) Do the words above sound like those of a talmid of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who railed against America, its wars, its “hubris,” its international “aggression and its “racism”?

       Not at all, and nor what followed in what was – at least in its first part – an eloquent articulation of the nobility of the use of arms in a just cause: “ I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.”

       “But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.”

     These were words more suited to Franklin Roosevelt (who fought World War II; in fairness, he died before its end so the Nobel Committee was off the hook), Harry Truman (who ended WW II and should have won), Winston Churchill (who obviously should have won), Ronald Reagan (whose policies precipitated the end of the Cold War, and certainly should have won), and perhaps even George W. Bush (whom decent people may yet respect for the courage in beginning the relentless struggle against radical Islam that less decent people would rather wish away). Any of those leaders could have – and probably did – deliver that speech. No wonder his audience greeted his remarks with stony silence.

    What possessed President Obama to laud the notion of a just war, and defend America’s conduct of just wars ? Certainly he had to have been a bit embarrassed over the distinction (see https://rabbipruzansky.com/2009/10/09/premature-congratulation) never before awarded to a person with such slender achievements in the field in which he was honored. He might have been even more discomfited by his delayed decision to order a surge of American forces in Afghanistan (a policy announced, after an inordinate delay, shortly before the Oslo ceremony). It must be weird to address a group of peaceniks just a few days after ordering 30,000 more troops to escalate a war – and odder still when that policy seems to duplicate that of the loathed and scorned predecessor whose name Obama could have mentioned (but, unsurprisingly, did not) in recognition for the just wars he waged. After all, he won the award in large part because he was the anti-George W. Bush. (The surge also reflects well on Obama. Even though he did not provide the number of troops requested by the commanding general, that is also not unprecedented. Generals, like fund-raisers, will always ask for more than they need, in the hope of getting what they need. In stable countries, the civilian government controls the military so decisions can be made that reflect a broader range of priorities, and not just one particular battle or war.)

     Did the speech intimate that Obama has suddenly become enamored of the projection of American power across the globe in order to advance American interests and values ? Not likely, as liberals gloat over the “post-imperial president,” oblivious to the potential consequences to a world that has grown accustomed to a United States that defends and promotes freedom throughout the world.

     It might have been – surely was, to some extent – a crass political calculation designed to boost his domestic standing. With Obama’s poll numbers in slow and steady decline, many Americans (granted, most of them not natural Obama supporters anyway) had tired of the President’s habitual apologizing for America’s “sins,” his bowing to foreign potentates, and his overt lack of pride in American accomplishments. This speech made amends for that. He could not make another anti-American speech abroad, and retain the respect of anyone but the hard-core left.

    It also spoke the truth as Jews see it. War is a necessary evil, “the beginning of redemption,” and often the only means of eradicating evil. In the Chanuka prayers, we even thank G-d for the “wars,” because they are the prelude to the salvation, redemption and all the miracles. To fight evil is a great good, and one that classical Christianity has unfortunately denied both in theory (in its pacific strain) and in practice, as Jews learned well for almost 19 centuries.

     Or maybe, one can hope, Obama has grown in office, and indeed is starting to see the world as it really is, and not simply as “Bush’s fault.” There is a virulent strain of wickedness in our world, and it must be confronted and crushed with the relentless weight of America’s might. To the extent that Obama identified that at Oslo marked that speech as a high point of his presidency; to the extent that his future policies reflect his new-found realism will determine the direction of America’s leadership and much of the world’s stability in the coming days.

    The utter shrillness of the response to my “Rabbinical News” of last week evoked these conclusions:

1)      Liberals, Voltaire should have said, will defend to the death your right to agree with them. The dismissive contempt found in certain “Modern” Orthodox circles for any person  – certainly Rabbi – who doesn’t toe the official or progressive line should give us all pause. That triggers a…

2)      Defensiveness in which closed minds refuse to re-consider or look again at anything. This is not that uncommon; a piece I wrote a few months ago critical of aspects of Haredi society garnered me some Haredi criticism – and praise as well. See : https://rabbipruzansky.com/2009/08/26/haredi-follies/

3)      Many people are confused about the notion of Mesora. Bet Shammai’s opinions were certainly part of the Mesora, although we generally don’t pasken like them. To cite, therefore, individual opinions (some rejected long ago) as support for innovations today is tacky, and outside the framework of halachic methodology. Let us not conflate creativity and cleverness. One can certainly find individual opinions – creatively interpreted – to support almost any desire that a person has, but desires should not fuel the halachic process. For example, given a few minutes, I could “justify” eating milk right after meat; cheating on taxes; reinstituting pilagshim (concubines – and alleviate the singles’ problem somewhat), venerating a dead Messiah and a host of other practices that would sound bizarre and are outside the four ells of halacha and the norms of Jewish life. And I am neither Houdini nor his Rabbi-father. But it is not scholarship to pick your target and draw a bulls’ eye around it, nor is that a legitimate part of the Mesora.

4)      The labeling of Jews by Jews is abhorrent, and the open distaste – even anger – that some “Modern” Orthodox feel for some Haredim/Yeshivish Jews (and vice versa) is worse. That is why I refuse to label myself, or the community in which I live and work, and prefer to keep learning Torah and having an open mind about issues. I cringe when Modern Orthodox Jews are criticized, and when Haredim are criticized.

5)      I ran to the archives and dug up an article I wrote for our shul (CBY) bulletin in July 2000, more than nine years ago. It is remarkably consistent with what I wrote last week (to detractors, clearly I have shown no “growth” in nine years!), and I re-print here as it remains timely.  It was entitled: “Whither Modern Orthodoxy,” and it was written while I was leading a tour of Spain, hence the Spanish Jewry reference at the end.

 ESSAY:

     “Is it not time to call halt to these wars (between the Orthodox, Conservative and Reform) and learn to live with one another in peace and respect, even if we have profound differences? Now that centuries have passed since the formation of these divisions, perhaps we can come to terms with reality and a way to at least tolerate one another for the sake of the continuation of Judaism”.

     “My sense of what is happening in the Jewish world tells me that there are signs of such a change. Reform has begun to learn a new respect for aspects of tradition it formally rejected. Modern Orthodox circles have closer to the understanding of development within Judaism that has characterized Conservative Judaism.”

       “The willingness of the Israeli government with the agreement of at least one chief rabbi and the silence of the other, to give the Masorti movement a place at the Kotel for prayer is a sign of progress. More and more Modern Orthodox circles are beginning to see that they are not so far from the Conservative movement – both are based on halacha, although they arrive at different conclusions.” (Italics mine)

     So writes Reuven Hammer, one of the leaders of the Masorti (Conservative) movement, in a June edition of the Jerusalem Post. To be sure, his declaration that Conservative Judaism is faithful to halacha is an old canard, demonstrably false, and quite unremarkable. It is his assertion that Modern Orthodoxy is moving closer to the methodology of Conservatism and even is “not so far from the Conservative movement” that is cause for analysis, if not outright alarm. Regardless whether or not his claim is true, why would he think such a thing? What is happening in our world that would lead a Conservative spokesman to rejoice in the blurred distinction between “Modern” Orthodoxy and Conservative Judaism, long recognized by all shades of Orthodoxy as deviationist, non-halachic “stream” of Judaism?

      Conservative “psak” deviates from traditional Judaism in a number of essential ways (including a new “interpretation” of the mesorah from Sinai), but primarily in its focus – in the first instance – on a particular, desired result. Traditionally, halacha is process oriented, not result-oriented. The decisor analyzes the question, determines the central point at issue, and investigates the halachic precedents. The result emerges only after the process has been faithfully completed.

     The Conservatives begin the process with a desired result in mind (abolishing the mechitza, permitting cohanim to marry divorcees, counting women in the minyan, etc.) They are quite adept at manipulating the halacha to achieve that result, twisting and turning the words of our sages until they are “saying” what the Conservatives want them to say. And where that is impossible – even distortion has its limits – the Conservatives will simply assert that “times have changed, “the Rabbis were biased or insensitive”, or they are “irrelevant in these progressive times”.

      Apparently, Reuven Hammer perceives that a certain segment of Modern Orthodoxy, a left-wing fringe, has adopted a halachic methodology similar to that of his own movement. “Solutions” to halachic or social problems are demanded, even if halachic process is thrown to the wind. “A user-friendly halacha is desired, anything not explicitly prohibited (and even some things which are) is permitted, and there is often a palpable discomfort with tradition. Individuals who flout halachic convention are labeled brave or courageous, rather than exposed as charlatans. And halacha never stands in the way of good time.

      Thus, there are “modern” orthodox communities where swimming and organized athletic competitions for adults are acceptable Shabbat activities. The wearing of tzizit by adult males is shunned, and tzniut generally takes a back-sear to the latest fashions. Liberties are taken with kashrut outside the home, and Talmud Torah often becomes a treasure – hunt for leniencies.

     Pandering to the spirit of the times, women’s “grievances” against the halacha have taken center stage. New forms of worship have been created, oblivious to its trivialization of halacha and potential harm to the community. Flippant “solutions” to the ancient and vexing agunah problem have been extolled as reflecting greatness and creativity, despite their dubiousness. The question, “when will the Rabbis free agunot?” recurs with increasing passion, and sometimes disrespect, an approach that would never surface with another professional question, such as, “when will the doctors cure cancer?”

      The whole notion of asking a she’elah (halachic question) has been undermined, as questioners seek out Rabbis who have been pre-selected to tell them what expect to hear. It is no wonder that I am unable to think of even one book of responsa produced in the 100 years of American Modern Orthodoxy.

       In a recent book by a self-described Orthodox feminist, the author writes why she chose to remain Orthodox despite the “problems”: “It is what I inherited and it belongs to me. I am committed to the ennobling elements of the religion: a vast, rich literature, a dramatic history and strong collective memory, a serious concern for ethics and justice, a dignified framework for daily living and an overriding sense of community. I have been enriched by constructing a Jewish identity, developing a Jewish consciousness, and sharing codes and languages with Jews around the world.”

     What is missing from this eloquent account of her Torah commitment? That the Torah is true, that it is G-d’s word, and that halacha is the reflection of His will. These basic foundations of Torah life are unstated, and thus the author reserves for herself the right to change the halacha wherever and whenever she finds “inequity” or aspects of Torah life that are not “ennobling” to her. What is lacking is the surrender of the heart and mind to G-d’s will, which is at the core of the Torah personality and the essence of Kabbalat Ol Malchut Shamayim (acceptance of the yoke of G-d’s kingship).

      Rather than learn what the Torah has to say, the fringe element tries to get the Torah to say what it wants to hear. Thus the expressed discontent with the roshei Yeshiva at so-called Modern Orthodox institutions when their decisions do not conform to the “popular” will. A colloquy I recently overheard: Someone asserted that “the Roshei Yeshiva are out of touch with the masses”, to which the (proper) response was: “perhaps the masses are out-of-touch with the Torah”.

       To be sure, most Modern Orthodox Jews do not subscribe to this distortion of their ideology at all and would recoil in horror at the suggestion that they are casually being lumped together with non-halachic streams. This group carries on the Modern Orthodoxy of prior generations on other continents: confronting and engaging modernity without fully embracing it. In doing so, they remain faithful to Halacha inside and outside the home, conduct themselves as Bnai and Bnot Torah, ask she’elot and genuinely seek Torah guidance. Their Shabbat is sacred and not a prelude to (or pale imitation of) Sunday, and their Torah study is genuine, sincere and spirited. They honor and appreciate Rabbis and Roshei Yeshiva, The women revel and excel in their Torah-designated roles, and are fulfilled and content with Torah and life itself, And this group – proud bearers of banner of Modern Orthodoxy – are perceived as obstacles to the “development” of Modern Orthodoxy by the fringe elements whose cause is championed by the secular “Jewish” media.

      Reuven Hammer has unwittingly sent a wake-up call to all of Modern Orthodoxy, and exposed the path of which many have chosen to tread – a path littered with thorns and thistles and which leads toward an abyss. Is he wrong? Has he overstated his case to rationalize his own heresies? Is his comparison of Conservatism and Modern Orthodoxy wishful thinking on his part? Or has he touched a raw nerve that should inspire all of us to gaze into our heart and minds, uncover our true inner world and open our souls to the truth of Torah?

      Spanish Jewry, perhaps the first Modern Orthodox Jews, became fully integrated in the culture and society of medieval Spain. They foundered and eventually disintegrated in a wave laxity of observance, forced and unforced conversions, massacres and expulsions. Only we can determine whether we will behold a similar decline, or tenaciously grasp the tree of life in the way which has sustained the Jewish people until today.     END

     Again, that was written in July 2000. The more things change, the more they remain they same. And what will be of Torah, and the Jewish people ?