Rabbi Pruzansky's Blog

The Jewish Press (February 16, 2018) asked a number of rabbis to address this interesting but rarely-discussed question: “Some of the most famous and important works of literature contain passages and themes that are immodest in nature. May a G-d-fearing Jew read these works for the good they contain, or must he forego reading them entirely?”

This is the link to the entire feature: http://www.jewishpress.com/sections/books/on-the-bookshelf-23/2018/02/16/

These were my thoughts on the matter:

     I don’t believe there is a definitive answer to this question, although it is certainly easier just to say “no.” Much depends on motivation, purpose, context, source, and especially the precise nature of the immorality, of which, of course, there are gradations. Perhaps the most important determinant is the message that is being delivered. Ancient and medieval works generally frowned on immorality and as such reinforce a Torah message while more modern and contemporary works often celebrate immorality. Usually, no good comes from the latter and prolonged exposure to values that are antithetical to Torah will eventually dilute the reader’s moral perspective and later his or her practice and commitment as well.
It’s important to note that Chazal (recorded in Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 307:16) banned the reading of “divrei cheshek” – loosely, books of romance – as a waste of time that could be spent on more godly pursuits and as a tool that could only increase illicit temptation. Books that might fall under that genre must therefore have some redeeming value. Its prurient aspects must be incidental to its primary message for it to be considered appropriate and worthwhile. Fiction generally, Rav Kook wrote, affords us the opportunity to see the world through the eyes of another person’s experiences and thus can broaden our horizons. But not every lifestyle or experience deserves to be investigated, studied or fantasized about and certainly not emulated. So caution must be applied.
That being said, there is one Book that exposes the vices and venality that can permeate human nature and is unsparing in its accounts of our failings.  It is superior to any work of fiction. That Book is the Tanach. And we can rest assured that its moral guidance is always spot on. Anyone who wants to learn about our potential for degradation as well great virtue is urged to study the relevant passages and not just skip over them. They provide a solid grounding in moral instruction and, nevertheless, occasionally put human dysfunction on display. One who is drawn to indulge in problematic works of literature would be well advised to study the works of Tanach instead, especially the chronicles of the early prophets. “Turn in it and turn in it, for everything is in it”( Avot 5:22).

  The great baseball player Rogers Hornsby, still holder of the single-season record batting of .424, once said: “People ask me what I do in winter when there’s no baseball. I’ll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring.”

       He is not the only one, and this has nothing to do with baseball. It has been an unusually cold winter in much of the United States with temperatures even in New Jersey hovering for weeks near zero degrees. Let the scientists debate the global ramifications; each side offers definitive proof to its proponents of the correctness of its views and the errors of their dissidents. All I know is that it is cold outside, and then it gets colder. I am not even warmed by the realization that our ancestors in Eastern Europe – in Russia, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine and elsewhere – lived through much colder winters although I am certain that added to the general melancholy of life in the Pale of Settlement and places further east.

      There are some people who enjoy the winter, with its beautiful vistas and the opportunity to ski some exotic mountain ranges. All I see is snow that has to be shoveled and ice that has to be avoided lest one encounter some unexpected peril. There are cities in the world that suffer during the winter with only seven hours of daylight, something which can only add to the desolation. Those who enjoy warm weather endure the winter and wait for spring, and those who spend the winter in temperate climes and complain when their thermometer hits sixty degrees find little sympathy in these parts.

     Adding to the gloominess is that we have no Biblical holidays in the winter. The holidays that are recorded in the Torah all occur during the spring and fall when the climate is temperate and the verdant beauties of nature are alive. In essence, the three regalim (Pesach, Shavuot and Succot) are all agricultural holidays, notwithstanding their historical connotations as well. The winter, therefore, should be the time of our discontent.

     And yet, that is the way G-d re-created His world when mankind was redeemed after the Great Flood. G-d promised never again to destroy the world and afforded our ancestors the variety of climatic conditions experienced today by much of the globe: “As long as the earth exists, there will be seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night; it will never cease” (Breishis 8:22). As there is a cycle to life, so too there are rhythms to the year, and in each new setting, we are challenged to be productive, serve our Creator and spread kindness among His creations.

     The winter, its chill and precipitation are all opportunities to praise G-d and marvel at His creation. “Praise Hashem from the earth…fire and hail, snow and vapor, the stormy winds fulfill His word” (Tehillim 148:7-8). Life is not all “mountains and hills, fruit trees and cedars” (ibid 148:9). G-d is the Master of nature in all its forms – and the Master of nations as well, “kings of the earth and all nations, princes and all judges on earth” (ibid 148:11).

     The earth lies dormant during winter. It conserves its strength, marshals its energies and finds renewal in the spring. Winter is the time for the earth to regroup. Indeed, the same could be said of the Jewish people. One reason that there are no Biblical holidays in winter is that it is a time for us to regroup as well. We survive the winter, both physically and spiritually. The holidays that we do celebrate during the cold season are Rabbinic holidays that commemorate our survival – Chanuka (our spiritual survival in exile) and Purim (our physical survival). As we marvel at the earth and its capacity to replenish itself and come back to life as the temperature warms, so too we should be astonished (and grateful) for our survival as a nation throughout the bitter harshness of exile. Against all odds, and only with the grace of G-d, have we been able to endure what no other nation has, and both survive and thrive, outlasting great empires that tried to eradicate us.

      During winter, we recoup, carry on, and reflect on our durability and eternity, but we are a people of the spring. We are duly commanded to “observe the month of spring, and bring the Pesach offering to the Lord, your G-d, because it was in the month of spring that the Lord, Your G-d, took you out of Egypt” (Devarim 14:1). The Jewish calendar is built around several propositions, the most important of which is that Pesach must always fall in the spring.

       The Jewish people have been given up for dead many times by our enemies, almost disappearing into the wintry frost of the ghettos and the Gulag. Yet, our national existence parallels that of the spring. The nations of the world have their moment in the sun of summer and then they disappear. We are eternally young, a people of spring. Even during the darkest and bleakest moments of winter, we still dream and remember. If the winter is the time when creativity and growth are stifled, it can nevertheless also be the springboard to even greater growth when it passes.

       Rav Kook wrote that the Exodus from Egypt will always be spring, not just for us, but the world’s spring as well. We are responsible for the blossoming of the national idea and charged with ensuring that the nations use their political formations for good and not evil. Like the seed of winter that disintegrates before it achieves new life, we must always have before our mind’s eye that the darkest times are only preludes to the fulfillment of our national destiny in the spring.

      As King Shlomo wrote: “Behold the winter has passed, the rains have come and gone, the blossoms have appeared on the land and the time of your song has arrived” (Shir Hashirim 2:11-12). May we soon merit the full blossoming of our redemption.

Is there a uniquely Jewish approach to immigration?

Obviously, Jews have benefited from liberal immigration policies, such as existed in the United States from 1880-1923, and suffered grievously from restrictive immigration policies in the years before and during the Holocaust. But Jewish Law proscribes even the entry of, for example, idolaters, to the Land of Israel, much less their permanent residence. Gerei Toshav who by definition embrace the Noachide laws are welcome, to a point determined by the society. That sounds reasonable.

To read some of the statements of the Jewish left, one would think that Jews support unlimited immigration, as if every person on the planet has the right to live wherever he or she chooses to live. That is certainly a compassionate sentiment, albeit unrealistic, and compassion that is not tempered by realism is harmful and foolish. It is as if the Treaty of Westphalia that established in 1648 the ground rules of the system of nation-states is as dead as the Oslo Accords. We can delude ourselves into thinking that we are in a post-national world where defined borders and distinct national identities no longer matter but wishing it so does not make it so. Indeed, the restrictions built into Jewish Law on residence in Israel for foreigners is designed to maintain the unique character of the Jewish polity that would be diluted by the residence of large numbers of aliens; we are, after all, “the fewest among the nations.”

Nowhere is this dilemma highlighted more than in the current debates over illegal immigration in the United States and the presence of illegal migrants in Israel. Naturally, the leftist spokesmen who habitually distort the Torah’s view on any issue that intersects with their political positions favor what appears to be unlimited immigration to America (although they won’t call it that) and have recently criticized Israel for endeavoring to deport some 40,000 migrant workers from Somalia, Eritrea and Sudan who escaped to Israel looking for work but have also brought terror, crime and general misery to the Jews of South Tel Aviv where they disproportionately reside. We are sympathetic to the plight of the refugee and all refugees, i.e., people fleeing persecution, deserve temporary havens until permanent places of residence can be found. But not every person who leaves his country of origin is a “refugee” as classically understood and as naturally evokes the sympathy of Jews and all decent people.

For example, people who leave their home countries that “lack infrastructure, opportunity and stability” (to “paraphrase” President Trump) are not necessarily refugees who are entitled to a haven in their country of choice. Thus, in Israel, the migrant workers sneaked in to the country to seek greater economic opportunity, certainly understandable from their perspective. But every nation has a responsibility first and foremost to its own citizens and when uninvited newcomers threaten to unravel the social dynamic, a country is obligated to protect itself. In Israel’s case, it built a wall on its southern border that reduced illegal migration by 99%, part of the impetus for the Trump approach and a rebuke to those who say that walls are obsolete. They are not, even in America’s case where so many illegal immigrants just overstay their visas. But a wall is certainly a necessary step to prevent the entry of contraband and to reduce the number of illegals who cross the border.  And there are plenty of poor Israelis who need job assistance and public support, and a nation that defines itself as a Jewish state must seek to retain its character. That means providing temporary asylum and then return to a country that is more culturally and religiously homogenous to the entrants.

The situation in the United States is more complicated as it defines itself as a nation of immigrants, and no nation has been more receptive to immigration than the United States. But the inability of people to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration is as astonishing as it is farcical. By the tenor of the debate, an observer would assume that anyone opposed to illegal immigration is opposed to immigration generally. That is a canard, one that is bolstered by the semantic games played – played extremely well – by the left. In the recent past, the term “illegal immigrant” has become a pejorative and replaced by “undocumented immigrant,” as if the problem is mere paperwork. By that logic, shoplifting is just an “undocumented acquisition,” a shopper frustrated by the failure to exchange the right paper (i.e., money) with the merchant.

The more recent past has seen advocacy for the “Dreamers,” another inspired euphemism that refers to children brought here illegally as minors by their illegal immigrant parents. The euphemism is a marketer’s delight; who could be against a “Dreamer” but a nasty troglodyte? If they would be referred to by a more accurate moniker, such as CHIIPS (Children of Illegal Immigrants ParentS), somehow their cause wouldn’t seem as fetching.  And this is so notwithstanding the sympathy that any normal person has for their plight, brought and raised here, Americans in all but name.

What exacerbates this debate is the extremes on both sides that reflect dueling values. It seems odd that neither side recognizes that there are competing values that must somehow be accommodated and can only be accommodated through reasonable compromise that should leave both extreme camps somewhat unhappy but most people gratified that a permanent solution has been achieved.  Not to oversimplify too much, but at its core, the conflict pits chesed (kindness) against tzedek (justice).

Thus advocates of unrestricted immigration present as paragons of compassion and morality, support stable families, dismiss crimes of illegal aliens as aberrations and unrepresentative of most illegals, and recognize that these immigrants often do work that Americans spurn and thus help the economy and the business climate. That is by and large true, although it doesn’t account for the anguished sense that one vicious crime committed by someone who should not be here is one too many, and it totally ignores the unfairness implicit in rewarding lawbreakers (illegal immigrants) while penalizing foreigners who applied for immigration through regular channels and are waiting their turn to immigrate lawfully. To reward lawbreakers by granting them amnesty incentivizes more law-breaking, and to grant even temporary relief without taking elementary measures of self-defense (such as a wall, increased security along the border, an end to chain migration and the like) is an exercise in futility as it just encourages even more illegal conduct.

These advocates also reject the notion that there is a particular American identity, and so do not mind that new immigrants (especially illegal) often do not make even the slightest effort to assimilate into the American culture and value system such as was common among our immigrant parents and grandparents. To them, talk of an “American ethos” is a synonym for “white supremacy.” Whatever that is supposed to mean, it is perceived as a compelling argument that should stifle all debate. But part of the polarization that has roiled America for almost two decades has been engendered by the diminution of an American “character,” and avoiding this issue will only make the situation worse and potentially irreparable. It is ironic that some of the loudest advocates for unlimited immigration to America are also some of the loudest voices castigating the country and its citizens as racists, sexists, xenophobes, etc., which begs the question: why would anyone want to live in such a country? And yet people still want to come – by the millions.

By the same token, proponents of restrictive immigration policies sometimes do not recognize the abject conditions that exist in some of these countries that “lack infrastructure, opportunity and stability” that drive myriads of people to want to leave their birthplaces, homes and sometimes families to seek opportunity in the United States. It is as if they don’t realize that America remains a magnet for the rest of the world, and what is often considered a “problem” here would be a blessing in much of the rest of the world. They should also recognize the humanitarian interest in formalizing the status of the CHIIPS; there is something awry when – as has happened – a CHIIP on active duty in the US military can face, or his parents can face, deportation.

Immigration can be boon to a country even as it can also undermine social harmony. Every new wave of immigration brings with it a criminal element; even immigrant Jews in the early 20th century had a criminal underworld although we outgrew it after several decades. (Look it up: there were Jewish mobsters who would not murder on Shabbat out of respect for their observant parents.)

A zero tolerance policy is in order for illegal aliens who commit crimes. Otherwise, the compromise being suggested strikes me as fair: a big wall that prevents infiltrations and smuggling, increased security at the borders, legalizing the status of the CHIIPS (or Dreamers) over time even allowing full citizenship if appropriate after a decade or more from the bill’s passing, and even finding some legal status for the current illegals whose only crime to date was crossing into America illegally.

Of course, it’s not perfect. Law and order proponents (“yikov hadin et hahar”) will be dismayed by rewarding any illegality. Unlimited immigration proponents will cry foul at any restrictions or limitations on full acceptance of non-citizens as citizens. In the broad middle, a solution is to be found that aspires to fairness and justice, and effects the proper balance between chesed and tzedek.

The partisans can keep fighting about this issue for a few more decades or leaders acting in good faith (if there are any left) can act. Which is more likely? We will see.

(This was first published yesterday as an op-ed in the New Jersey Jewish Link)

The announcement by the Orthodox Union leadership to enforce the decision of their rabbinic panel on the unacceptability of female clergy is welcome, timely, prudent, proper, and, in today’s environment, courageous. For sure, one would think that “courage” is not required to follow a rabbinic psak; after all, that is what Jews are supposed to do. Ask a question to a rabbi on a complicated halachic matter, get a reply and implement it. “You shall not deviate from what they tell you neither to the right nor to the left” (Devarim 17:11). Nor should “courage” be required to disapprove the notion of Jewish female clergy, something that even Professor Shaul Lieberman of the Jewish Theological Seminary characterized almost forty years ago as risible and a “mockery” of Torah.

Yet, it is courageous to decide to follow Torah guidance that confounds modern culture and the ethos of Western life and embrace a truly Jewish perspective on the unique and differing roles of men and women. The OU thereby reinforced the indispensable sentiment that Torah decisions must be made in the Bet Midrash by qualified masters of Torah and Mesorah and not on social media, in op-ed articles, or the musings of bloggers. The latter may be interesting, sincere, heartfelt and even occasionally amusing but they play no role in the methodology of psak or in the discipline of halacha.

In its wisdom, the OU decided to ban female clergy from its congregations and champion traditional Jewish law and practice while offering those handful of currently non-compliant synagogues a “sunset” provision that allows those houses of worship to choose to comply by redefining the role of their female teachers to indicate that they are not clergy or eliminating the positions entirely. It was important for the OU to articulate – as it now has on several occasions – that there are synagogue roles that can be performed by women and that the Jewish people lose when we cannot in a formal way access the talents and brains of half our population. But the preferred assignments clarify that since women cannot according to halacha fulfill many important functions of the rabbinate, the ascription of that title and those roles to women serve ultimately to diminish the very essence of the rabbinate. That cannot be good for the Jewish people.

Certainly, there were some who felt that the OU should ignore the clear directive of the rabbinic panel or otherwise allowed the offending synagogues to maintain their female clergy. But such would have disdained the very notion of rabbinic authority and would have undermined the OU’s outstanding work in kashrut and other Torah fields. It would have disseminated the unmistakable and unfortunate message that rabbinic authority is nothing more than a casual suggestion as to proper behavior and can be dismissed or disregarded at will. And the OU could no more have “grandfathered” these synagogues than it could “grandfather” food products in which non-kosher substances were inadvertently produced and sold; those products are always recalled. Forbearance with these synagogues would have surely tempted others to test the limits of the OU’s steadfastness.

On the other hand, there will undoubtedly be some who feel that the OU should have just expelled the non-compliant synagogues as a more resolute indication of this policy. I disagree with that approach for a number of reasons. Obviously the neo-Conservative proponents of female clergy sought to push the envelope and expand the boundaries of halacha (and then crossed them). But the reaction from the rabbinic world was slow and tepid, and such diffidence encouraged the promoters to continue on their path in the hope that, as they would put it, the facts on the ground will cause the halacha to eventually come around. Had there been a strong, assertive and unified rabbinic response a decade ago, this problem would have been averted. There wasn’t, although there are today new rabbinic organizations and public policy organizations that are not hesitant to articulate true Torah values that have filled the void caused by the reticence of the old, establishment organizations. Simply put, you can’t blame people for following their rabbinic leadership, even if misguided, and they must be given a fair opportunity to unwind their mistake. Consider that in the past the OU had member synagogues without a mechitza and afforded them decades to either comply or resign. It took decades – but that deviation from the Mesorah was eventually rectified. Life moves faster these days, but it is only fair that non-compliant synagogues be given the opportunity to comply.

Secondly, the “sunset” clause puts the ball in the court of the non-compliant synagogues. Having been apprised of the psak of the eminent Roshei Yeshiva and Rabbis of the movement to wish they declare allegiance, those synagogues are now empowered to choose the spiritual direction in which they wish to travel. They can, G-d forbid, continue on the path of neo-Conservatism and repeat the errors made by the waning Conservative movement when its heyday began a century ago, or they can resume their rightful place in the Torah world. It’s their choice, as it should be. If they fail to conform over the next several years, they will have expelled themselves from the Torah camp.

Thirdly, some will argue that the OU should not be in the business of monitoring the practices and perspectives of its member synagogues, and I am partially sympathetic to that approach. Orthodoxy is not monolithic and no organization should be in the position of dictating conformity or creating a litmus test of Orthodoxy. Yet, there are times when clarity is essential and the boundaries of a particular ideology must be delineated for that movement to have real meaning, purpose and influence. This is one of those times. Synagogues that employ female clergy, have mixed seating, deny the Divine origin of the Torah, have rabbinic leadership that glorify Western and secular values over Torah values, and frequently disparage the Mesorah really have no place in the Union of Orthodox Congregations of America. To be Orthodox should mean something; it should require conduct, deportment and principles that reflect the Torah as received at Sinai and as faithfully transmitted by the masters of the Mesorah down through the ages and until today. It is more than just joining a team and paying dues but is rather an expression of our deepest beliefs, those that bind us to our Creator and enable us to be part of an eternal people.

Rav Soloveitchik famously expressed that Jews were always provided with a “remnant of the scribes,” the Baalei Mesorah of the last generation who can guide the next. The survival of the Mesorah requires that past and future merge in the present. That is why radical changes are always spurned. It is why the infiltration of modern cultural norms into a Torah environment is so harmful and those norms are naturally rejected. A Judaism that is unrecognizable to the “remnant of the scribes” is not authentic. We are at an inflection point with this new movement and I hope they take this guidance to heart.

Therefore, I applaud the OU on its decision and salute the leadership for its sensitivity and acumen in executing the judgment of the rabbinic panel. I pray that the message sent by the OU clearly defines the outer limits of Orthodoxy, deters some synagogues from deviating from the Torah path in the future, and induces the non-compliant synagogues to come home to their roots, to tradition, to the unity of Israel so together we can glorify G-d’s Torah to our fellow Jews and the entire world.