As a rule, technology that is utilized for visual purposes poses a greater challenge to religious sensibilities than technology that is aural. The ready explanation is that what the eye sees has a significantly greater impact on behavior and attitudes than what is merely heard. This is akin to the familiar Talmudic principle, lo t’hei shmiah gedolah mi-re’ah. Hearing is less reliable than seeing.

This may explain why certain innovations that may be problematic from a religious Jewish standpoint do not evoke strong negative reactions. The cell phone, which is now indispensable to most of us is also a frequent instrumentality for improper midos, as when it interrupts tefila. It is addictive and results in the enormous waste of time ... Read More >>]]> Unlike other of our handiwork that may have ethical implications – medical advances and design of clothing come to mind – technological innovations inherently are ethically neutral. Much of what we now take for granted is little more than tiny chips that have the capacity to contain an astounding amount of information or to perform complicated tasks in no more than the blink of an eye. How technology is used is another matter.

As a rule, technology that is utilized for visual purposes poses a greater challenge to religious sensibilities than technology that is aural. The ready explanation is that what the eye sees has a significantly greater impact on behavior and attitudes than what is merely heard. This is akin to the familiar Talmudic principle, lo t’hei shmiah gedolah mi-re’ah. Hearing is less reliable than seeing.

This may explain why certain innovations that may be problematic from a religious Jewish standpoint do not evoke strong negative reactions. The cell phone, which is now indispensable to most of us is also a frequent instrumentality for improper midos, as when it interrupts tefila. It is addictive and results in the enormous waste of time or bitul and (along with conventional telephones), it is a great catalyst for lashon hara. However, rabbinical hackles were raised only when cell phones became Internet accessible.

Because they are visual, movies and televisions are regarded as off limits by rabbinical authorities. Apart from their addictive capacity, it is easy to get along without watching any movies or television. They are diversions and nothing more. We can also get by without reading the daily newspaper and while we may know less as a consequence, what we are missing is nearly always tangential to what we must know and do.

The computer and Internet are different. Of course, they can be dispensed with, yet the universe of people who do not rely on the Internet is shrinking rapidly as the younger generation which is computer literate replaces the older generation whose literacy in this regard is often limited. This is evident even in Orthodox circles, as it is everywhere else. The Internet is indispensable to most people in business and for lawyers and other professionals. Teachers rely on it, as do students. It is a key source for needed medical information, a money and time saver for shoppers and it is vital for air travel. Before long, the Internet may be the primary means of making telephone calls. Each day, bright people are figuring out how to expand its vital uses.

Too many have also figured out how to put the Internet to less than admirable uses. There is a gray zone occupied by many bloggers and a certain genre of entrepreneurs, and there is a far darker zone comprised of those who convey totally offensive material that is at once repulsive and yet also exciting to young people and many adults. There has been an explosion of such material and it has been abetted by a culture of permissiveness and the inability to constrain the Internet within national boundaries.

What is evident is that we face a serious problem. Younger people, especially teenagers, are vulnerable, as are many adults. We are faced with a destructive phenomenon that can enter the core of people’s lives and alter their behavior. For religious Jews, the danger posed by the Internet may be greater still and while this may seem incongruous in view of the standards within Orthodox life, the explanation is that because we adhere to a moral code that proscribes immodesty, the intrusion into one’s life of such material can be jarring and transformative, impelling those who are influenced to abandon entirely the values and standards that they were taught.

The easy part is to condemn that which is hostile to our way of life. The far more difficult issue is to determine what to do about a technological conveyer of what is highly improper when that same technology is utilized to help us do what is beneficial in our lives. It’s pat to say that we should ban the whole kit and caboodle, starting with the ordinary computer. The strategy of throwing out the baby with the bathwater cannot be effective in a business and societal environment that mandates access to the information and tasks available via the Internet.

We can hope that one day courts and society will come to their senses and cease putting a constitutional stamp of approval on material that is far more harmful to far many more people than dozens of items on the Food and Drug Administration’s forbidden list. There is little prospect that this will happen soon, even with world-wide opprobrium and criminal charges directed at the purveyors and viewers of child pornography. We have yet to sufficiently recognize how harmful pornography is to the children who serve as viewers.

Our options are therefore limited. Technology to restrict what can be accessed has been developed. While apparently it is not totally effective, improvements are being made, and together with parental determination to establish firm rules regarding where computers are placed and how and when they can be used by children, we should be able to attain a comfort level regarding the availability of inappropriate material.

This is not good enough for yeshivas and Beth Jacobs in Lakewood. They have decreed that the Internet is entirely forbidden and parents who transgress this decree will suffer the expulsion of their children from the schools. This isn’t the first time that such a policy has been adopted; as with its predecessors, with all due respect to the Rabbis and educators who are its architects, this is not the way to go.

The new policy allows – because it must – exceptions for parents who can show just cause for Internet access in their homes and who will install the proper controls. This inevitably means that there will be loopholes exploited by some parents, while other parents may well pursue the path of deception, which is the usual outcome when something that is useful is banned. At the end of the day, the parents and their children who will be most affected will be those who are most truthful.

This protest against what I regard as a wrongful policy should not be misread as a justification of wrongful behavior. The Internet is not going away. More and more people in our community will utilize it because it is increasingly required to get done what people need to get done. We must not target children because we have problems with the Internet and we must avoid the halachically and ethically dubious notion that we can so easily expel students from our schools. Not long ago, our schools focused on the mission of bringing children closer to Torah and mitzvos. It is painful that those who set policies for the yeshiva world are finding justifications for keeping children out of our schools. We are moving away from the great goal of kiruv rechokim to the ignoble principle of richuk kerovim. The children who we throw out or reject are out of sight and out of mind and we blissfully continue on our self-congratulatory path, proclaiming that we are people of chesed and goodness. This is the most disheartening development that I have experienced in half a century of involvement in Torah education.

What the Lakewood schools have done needs to be challenged, lest what is toxic spreads. We must not be fearful. Last May I protested in this space against the refusal of certain Lakewood schools to admit applicants whose fathers commit the unpardonable sin of working. This wrongful attitude came to a crisis point at the start of this school year when a significant number of female students had no school that would accept them. Fortunately, Israeli Torah leaders mandated that Lakewood’s Beth Jacobs could not open until all of the applicants were placed. Is it possible that the Internet policy is meant to circumvent this ruling by finding a “legitimate” way of excluding students?

Instead of following the well-trodden path of issuing bans, our rabbis and educators should deal with the obviously troubling consequences of Internet access by teaching and emphasizing how restraint and prudence can reduce and perhaps eliminate the potential harm to children. Inadvertently, the employment of harsh measures conveys a lack of faith in the ability of our schools and community, as well as our parents, to properly guide our children.

I hope that those who have authored the expulsion policy will reflect on their handiwork and will pull back. The process of reflection might begin with a clause in the frequently cited Mishnah in Sanhedrin that speaks of the merit of saving a single Jewish life. The next statement, which is rarely quoted, teaches that he who destroys a single Jewish life is as if he has destroyed the entire world.

Professor Aumann studied at the Rabbi Jacob Joseph School, was outstanding in math, graduated from the high school, continued in the Beth Medrash, and in interviews and speeches he has given credit to the yeshiva for his interest in math. It is nothing short of outrageous that Haaretz could not get this right, although I suspect that its willingness to print something so patently false arose in some measure from its antipathy to yeshivas.

If it is not known, I have been president of the Rabbi Jacob Joseph School for thirty-three years, and this is a voluntary position.

“Rabbi Janet Marder asks non-Jewish spouses to come to the bimah on Yom Kippur morning and then has the congregation stand as she blesses them with the Birkat Kohanim.”

How much longer are we going to play the Am Echad game? Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch established the austritt community on far, far less provocation.

Since conflict is inherent in human relations, with proximity enhancing the prospect of its appearance, the crucial question is how disagreements are handled, whether with a sense of restraint or in a no-holds barred fashion, with the goal being to defeat the other side. Societies invest much in conflict resolution, and for good reason, because there is always the danger that disputes will turn violent or exact other serious costs.

That religious groups are not immune from internal discord and personal disputes is a proposition too ... Read More >>]]> There is a potential for conflict in all social relations, and it exists not because people are selfish or foolish or have other shortcomings — although these are factors — but because it is natural for people to look at the world they are in through their pair of eyes and no one else’s and in terms of their own interests. The negation of self-interest may strike us as moral and often it is, yet it is not what we ought to expect and it is not always the moral thing to do. While it is generally preferable to avoid conflict, at times the preference should be in the other direction.

Since conflict is inherent in human relations, with proximity enhancing the prospect of its appearance, the crucial question is how disagreements are handled, whether with a sense of restraint or in a no-holds barred fashion, with the goal being to defeat the other side. Societies invest much in conflict resolution, and for good reason, because there is always the danger that disputes will turn violent or exact other serious costs.

That religious groups are not immune from internal discord and personal disputes is a proposition too obvious to need explication. The added ingredient of ideology or theology to self-interest increases the prospect of serious intra-group and inter-group conflict. This prospect increases in turn the obligation of those who lead religious groups to be careful about the rhetoric they use and the actions they endorse, lest religious and ideological conflict get out of control as true believers believe that their mission is sacred and they must prevail.

The dangers of religious conflict are sadly on display in Williamsburg within the Satmar chassidic group, as followers of rival claimants for dynastic succession are battling it out in synagogue, court and wherever else their twain meets. There has been violence and arrests, and because neither side is particularly blessed with a sense of restraint, what lies ahead is frightening.

Apart from the obvious reasons why this behavior needs to be condemned, it is especially to be regretted on two additional counts. Overwhelmingly, the rank and file of Satmars are not directly involved in the fray. While they look quite different from nearly all of us, like most of us they are primarily concerned with livelihood, raising a family, and enjoying the blessings — material and other — available in this land of freedom and opportunity. Of course, they also are determined to live religious lives. Except for a few, Satmars go to shul to daven and not to throw punches.

Secondly, Satmars have a remarkable record of chesed, including toward those from whom they are distant, as is apparent in their extraordinary activity to assist those who are hospitalized or have other needs. There may be no other Jews who have as powerful an instinct for charity.

Violence and wrongful behavior do not alter this record, yet they deflect from our appreciation of the good that these chasidim accomplish. It should be clear that charitable activities do not provide a scintilla of justification for violence or the unwillingness of community leaders to show leadership by calling for restraint and peaceful resolution and not for warfare.

In the classical way that one wrongdoing results in additional wrongdoing, the Satmar conflict is further marred by the two competing sides relying on secular courts to vindicate their claims. There has been a stream of litigation, doubtlessly all of it costly because as with doctors, chassidim want the best lawyers. This is in clear contravention of powerful halachic or religious legal strictures that designate religious courts or Beth Dins as the appropriate forum for conflict resolution. Litigation in secular courts is described as a Chillul Hashem, a desecration of G-d’s name, because it amounts to the declaration that religious authority cannot be relied on to resolve disputes.

Sadly, in chassidic circles there is a spreading tendency to engage in civil litigation when conflict erupts, mostly over dynastic succession. There is no excuse for this and the practice must be strongly condemned. By contrast, in the yeshiva world sector of Orthodoxy there is a commendable tendency to resolve disputes — again, invariably regarding succession — via the Beth Din route. Admittedly, the stakes are higher in intra-chassidic disputes because the outcome determines who leads a community and controls its institutions, while in the yeshiva world the outcome affects a single institution and usually determines who inherits the bills and the burden of fundraising.

Violence inherently is a Chillul Hashem and media attention adds to the desecration. Even without fistfights and worse, it’s deplorable that the Satmars cannot find restrained ways of conflict resolution. Are there no rabbis to turn to for counsel and religious rulings? Certainly, there are respected religious figures in Israel with whom Satmar has good relations. Why aren’t they being asked to listen to the competing sides and determine how to go forward?

We who are religious Jews are told constantly that restraint and moderation are hallmarks of our religious life. We proclaim that the ways of the Torah are pleasant. It should bother us enormously when the message received by the overwhelming majority of American Jews who are not observant is that our religion is not pleasant, that restraint is not practiced and that their rejection of religious life is justified. Their criticism is often not justified, but it should matter to us, including the Satmars, that we are giving them potent ammunition.

There is at long last heightened awareness of the tuition crises confronting a great and growing number of religious families. After years of silence about the subject, despite powerful evidence that constantly rising tuition begets enormous pain, there is talk that something needs to be done. This is good news, yet before we start celebrating we need to recognize that we are far from being out of the woods, that any effort to provide meaningful relief to families that deserve relief faces long odds.

I have raised the tuition issue for nearly the entirety of my one-third of a century as RJJ’s president. As much as I may want to think or claim otherwise, my advocacy has essentially failed. Torah Umesorah – the National Society of Hebrew Day Schools has been extremely negligent in this area and its once glorious record has been tarnished. Roshei Yeshiva have been occupied with other causes and other issues. Over the years I have been a lone voice protesting against the wrongness of an attitude ... Read More >>]]> (In line with the suggestion made by one of its readers, I am posting the following from the RJJ Newsletter just out. )

There is at long last heightened awareness of the tuition crises confronting a great and growing number of religious families. After years of silence about the subject, despite powerful evidence that constantly rising tuition begets enormous pain, there is talk that something needs to be done. This is good news, yet before we start celebrating we need to recognize that we are far from being out of the woods, that any effort to provide meaningful relief to families that deserve relief faces long odds.

I have raised the tuition issue for nearly the entirety of my one-third of a century as RJJ’s president. As much as I may want to think or claim otherwise, my advocacy has essentially failed. Torah Umesorah – the National Society of Hebrew Day Schools has been extremely negligent in this area and its once glorious record has been tarnished. Roshei Yeshiva have been occupied with other causes and other issues. Over the years I have been a lone voice protesting against the wrongness of an attitude that makes yeshiva education into a consumer product and the wrongness of an attitude that results in stress and pain in some of the best families that we have.

As this newsletter is being written, I am at the halfway point in a campaign, expressed through a series of full-page messages that are appearing in the Jewish Press that aim to challenge the prevailing notion that basic Torah education is not a communal responsibility. It is telling that Hamodia and Yated Ne’eman, the English-language weeklies that serve the yeshiva world and certain chasidic sectors, turned down these messages because they did not want to go into controversial territory. What we need, in fact, is more discussion and debate and not only about tuition but about a wide range of issues affecting American Orthodoxy.

We have become afraid of controversy, even afraid of disagreement. In my youth, at the Agudah conventions and elsewhere, Gedolei Torah often disagreed with one another and they did not shy away from dealing with subjects that might breed dissent. They also had no problem with laymen taking positions on key issues, including those that were controversial. Without advocacy that is accompanied by a good dose of passion, there is scant prospect that the tuition situation will be improved.

Even with the most effective advocacy, the odds are quite long against significant improvement in the short term. As one of the as yet unpublished Jewish Press messages underscores, yeshiva and day school education in the New York metropolitan area alone costs about one-billion dollars a year. That’s without taking into account capital expenditures for new and improved facilities or the cost of Beth Medrash and seminary programs, kollels and certain other religious educational activities. The obvious point is that Torah education is now extremely costly and expenses will continue to rise, with parents bearing a growing share of the burden because our schools must pay their staffs and bills.

While personnel costs obviously account for by far the largest share of the typical yeshiva budget, three other expenses provide insight into the hardship schools face as they try to make ends meet, a hardship that in turn is passed on to parents, too many of whom are trying to make ends meet. After 9/11, there were massive increases in the cost of insurance. It was also necessary for schools to devote scarce resources to ensuring security and this too has been costly. In the wake of Katrina and other events, energy costs have gone through the roof; as winter approaches, many schools are wondering how they will meet their fuel bills.

Torah education is a costly matter and getting more costly, although nearly all yeshivas and many day schools actually underspend because they are forced to cut back on vital services. Even if contributions rise, we have a long way to go until there will be meaningful relief. But we must begin. In part, our schools must pay more attention to fundraising and be more creative in this area. This means that lay leaders of yeshivas and day schools do not fulfill their responsibility when their role is essentially limited to setting tuition, limiting scholarship assistance and hoping that the annual dinner will be successful. They have to do a better job at fundraising than most of them are now doing.

However, if the status quo regarding communal support is not challenged and changed, even with the best of intentions few lay leaders will be able to avoid making decisions that essentially mean that parents have to pay more each year, irrespective of how limited they are financially.

The argument against writing is that it is wrong to hang out our dirty linen in public, particularly when every bit of Orthodox wrongdoing is pounced on by those who hate our religion and presented as evidence of Orthodox decadence. On the other hand, writing may – and I admit that this might be a longshot – cause some within Satmar to contemplate changing the way their disputes are handled. As a collateral point, not writing may be regarded as turning a blind eye to something that is substantially wrong.

I hope that those who look at this comment will share their views with me, hopefully in a measured way. I might note that if I do write I will also touch on the wrongfulness of Satmar going to secular courts to settle this and other disputes. ... Read More >>]]> I have a question regarding the disgraceful goings-on within Satmar, including but not limited to the violence that occurred on Simchas Torah when the two rival factions desecrated G-D’s name in the main Satmar shul in Williamsburg. My question is whether I should write about this incident and related matters in my regular Jewish Week column.

The argument against writing is that it is wrong to hang out our dirty linen in public, particularly when every bit of Orthodox wrongdoing is pounced on by those who hate our religion and presented as evidence of Orthodox decadence. On the other hand, writing may – and I admit that this might be a longshot – cause some within Satmar to contemplate changing the way their disputes are handled. As a collateral point, not writing may be regarded as turning a blind eye to something that is substantially wrong.

I hope that those who look at this comment will share their views with me, hopefully in a measured way. I might note that if I do write I will also touch on the wrongfulness of Satmar going to secular courts to settle this and other disputes.

Furthermore, too many of us do not marry. Those who do, as often as not, marry non-Jews. We also marry later and have fewer children than other white Gentiles. In short, as Jews have become more appreciated by their fellow Americans and have made distinctive contributions, we also are moving in the direction of becoming extinct. Since we are certainly among the most avid readers of the New York Times and, I suspect, pay inordinate attention to obituary notices, we should have a good sense of what is happening at that end of the life-cycle. Many more ... Read More >>]]> Jack Wertheimer, provost of the Jewish Theological Seminary, has written a terrific, must-read article for the latest issue of Commentary. “Jews and the Jewish Birthrate” is chock full of ideas and data that add up to a pessimistic view of the American Jewish prospect. While intermarriage inescapably contributes to this pessimism, Jack’s primary focus is on fertility and related demographic factors. He notes that our median age is “seven years older than other Americans” and that “among Americans of all kinds … Jews have the fewest number of siblings, the smallest household size, and the second lowest number of children under eighteen at home.”

Furthermore, too many of us do not marry. Those who do, as often as not, marry non-Jews. We also marry later and have fewer children than other white Gentiles. In short, as Jews have become more appreciated by their fellow Americans and have made distinctive contributions, we also are moving in the direction of becoming extinct. Since we are certainly among the most avid readers of the New York Times and, I suspect, pay inordinate attention to obituary notices, we should have a good sense of what is happening at that end of the life-cycle. Many more of us are exiting than are entering and with the exception of the Orthodox, the new arrivals are far less likely to be Jewishly connected than those who have departed.

The “cumulative effect” of these developments, Jack writes, “is now being felt and will only become amplified as time goes by. In a community that has long since ceased to replace its natural losses, continued low fertility rates mean that the number of children in the communal pipeline will soon drop sharply, causing a decline over the next decade in enrollments in Jewish schools and other institutions for the young.” He quotes sociologist Bruce Phillips that soon “there will be fewer practitioners of Judaism in the U.S.,” a development that “will at some point become evident in the number and/or size of synagogues and other Jewish institutions.”

The article explores the socio-psychological, behavioral and ideological factors that contribute to the disturbing fertility pattern which is in contrast to the high fertility of the Orthodox. Although separately Reform and Conservative affiliation outnumbers by huge margins the number of Orthodox Jews, “among synagogue-affiliated Jews, the Orthodox sector contains more children than either of the other two.”

Apart from the Orthodox whose ranks will continue to grow, although aliyah and abandonment by some of a religious life will limit the gains, is it time to face reality and say that there is little to be done to avoid the inevitable loss of nearly all non-Orthodox Jews? Is it time to throw in the towel, perhaps by deciding that our resources should be directed toward helping Israel?

This isn’t a new question. It was asked of me about a dozen years ago by Zalman Bernstein, the great philanthropist, after the 1990 National Jewish Population Survey left many of us shaking our heads about the future of American Jewry. Subsequent bad news has resulted in the question being asked again and again. The answer a dozen years ago and now is that while our losses are severe, there are lots of Jews who can be reached and the effort must be made. They number in the high tens of thousands and it is possible to strengthen their Jewish commitment, provided that we make substantial and meaningful investments in Jewish education – something that we have not done sufficiently – and provided that we recognize that continuity is not a term but a way of life that accepts our past, our heritage and our traditions. What American Jewry has called continuity since NJPS 1990 is largely discontinuity.

In any case, organized American Jewry is not prepared to call it quits, no matter what the bad news, nor is the Israeli government. We have contrived a self-deluding and generally delusionary picture purporting to show that while we have changed radically, we are doing rather well. Working with statisticians aka demographers and others who have a stake in putting a stamp of Jewish approval on our losses, we have convinced ourselves that severely watered down Judaism is a legitimate product. Because we have invested so heavily in false versions of Jewish life, we are impelled to keep the shell game going.

We need to continue to promote the notion that the emperor is fully clothed. What would our federation and organization worlds be like if we acknowledged that 80% or more of what we refer to as American Jewry is under water?

The Israeli government and the Jewish Agency know the score. The data they are looking at is based on research by Sergio DellaPergola of Hebrew University and it is bleaker than what Jack Wertheimer presents. Their strategy is not to indulge in self-delusion but to try to retard the frightening consequences of what we have wrought on these shores. They believe that Israel’s welfare depends to an extent on a strong American Jewish community. They are scared out of their wits by what is transpiring.

Their plan is to build on Birthright Israel through a new program called MASA that will provide extended educational, work and other experiences in Israel for up to a year for Jews of college age. Israel and the Jewish Agency are committing huge sums for this purpose and they are also soliciting outside philanthropic support.

While Birthright has been oversold in some quarters, it has achieved promising results under difficult circumstances. Birthright remains a valuable approach to the predicament of American Jewry. It is a disappointment that the new initiative will be independent of Birthright, the reason perhaps being that we must never forego the opportunity to establish another Jewish organization. However MASA is constructed, we must pray for its success because we desperately need to reach out to Jews who are at the edge of being lost entirely.

COLPA is no more and that is a loss, yet the greater loss by far is in the abandonment of the attitudes and strategies that motivated those of us who were working on behalf of Orthodox Jewry. We were advocates, even fighters, and we weren’t afraid to be militant or unpopular. Our approach was reflected in an article that I wrote called “The New Style of Orthodox Jewry” that was published in the January 1966 issue of Jewish Life, then the publication of the Orthodox Union. We weren’t satisfied with photo ops or visits ... Read More >>]]> The title of this piece will be echoed in other writing. Forty years ago to this day, on September 15, 1965, Rabbi Moshe Sherer of blessed memory and I went out to Staten Island to meet with Reuben Gross of blessed memory, a noted Orthodox attorney. We discussed the growing independence of Orthodox Jewry and the need to establish a mechanism to give voice to our differences with the mainstream organizations that purported to represent American Jews. Out of this meeting came the National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs, or COLPA. I was its first president.

COLPA is no more and that is a loss, yet the greater loss by far is in the abandonment of the attitudes and strategies that motivated those of us who were working on behalf of Orthodox Jewry. We were advocates, even fighters, and we weren’t afraid to be militant or unpopular. Our approach was reflected in an article that I wrote called “The New Style of Orthodox Jewry” that was published in the January 1966 issue of Jewish Life, then the publication of the Orthodox Union. We weren’t satisfied with photo ops or visits to the White House or meaningless ceremonies or glamorous trips to Israel or any of the other sterile glitter that now informs too much of Orthodox life. We focused on issues and outcomes, testifying before Congress and other legislatures, writing briefs and promoting through the media what we believe was right.

Although we were few in number and scarcely any Orthodox Jews were partners at major law firms, we gave abundantly of our time and talent and we achieved results. At the time, all three branches of the Federal government were essentially in the hands of those who believe that the First Amendment precluded any aid to parochial schools, yet when Congress passed – before COLPA was established – the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, parochial schools were included. New York enacted important legislation providing textbook and other assistance to parochial schools and the brief on behalf of a united Orthodox community had an impact on the Supreme Court.

We moved on to other fields, primarily the establishment of a body of law that I refer to as the law of religious persons. The main focus was on protecting Sabbath observers in employment, but we moved on to hospital and cemetery rights, milah and other areas. We were effective to an extent that we could scarcely predict and we gained the respect of organized American Jewry.

Other Orthodox Jews pressured Federations to do more for our schools and, here too, there were results. In an important way nearly everything that has been achieved with respect to Federation is based on the breakthroughs of the 1960’s and 1970’s and this is true of what has been accomplished regarding government aid to parochial schools, Sabbath observers, and the rights of religious persons.

All that we have now is predicated on the victories achieved a generation ago.

In fact, we have a lot less today. When Congress, under conservative control, enacted President Bush’s “No Child Left Behind Act,” all religious school children were left out. We have lost ground on the rights of Sabbath observers and in other areas as well. Yet we trumpet our alleged political influence!

There is no advocacy anymore, no militancy anymore. We indulge in frivolity, in meaningless ceremonies and we are intoxicated by the mirage of public relations. Of course, we have more affluence and potentially more influence. But we are far behind where we were forty years ago. The smell of success has gotten to our organizations and leaders, such as they are, and we are afraid to be unpopular. In our beliefs and practices we are far further away from organized Jewish life than we were in the 1960’s and 1970’s, yet we are far less willing to challenge those who deprecate Torah law.

Even as most Israelis, including those who strongly supported the withdrawal from Gaza, shed tears and felt and shared the pain of those who were being forced out of their homes and whose communities were being destroyed, there were those who continued to attack these Jews of faith and strength who surely are among the best that Israel has.

The ultra-secular Israeli world that is represented by the journalistic cesspool known as Haaretz did its sadistic best to add to the pain, to add to its long and ignoble record of hatred for Judaism.

I write these words on a plane back from Israel, after a stay of more than a month. Each day I read the English Haaretz, a difficult exercise because without let-up the newspaper denigrated and demonized the Jewish Gazans and, more generally, religious Jewry. In my experience, I cannot think of a single issue of Haaretz that has not carried at least one rabidly anti-religious article or editorial.

Two weeks before the withdrawal began, Haaretz editorialized that the Jews in Gaza were “criminals.” In a follow-up editorial the newspaper suggested that the government show an “iron fist” toward these Jews. Isn’t it interesting how those ... Read More >>]]> The Jewish Press
August 24, 2005

Even as most Israelis, including those who strongly supported the withdrawal from Gaza, shed tears and felt and shared the pain of those who were being forced out of their homes and whose communities were being destroyed, there were those who continued to attack these Jews of faith and strength who surely are among the best that Israel has.

The ultra-secular Israeli world that is represented by the journalistic cesspool known as Haaretz did its sadistic best to add to the pain, to add to its long and ignoble record of hatred for Judaism.

I write these words on a plane back from Israel, after a stay of more than a month. Each day I read the English Haaretz, a difficult exercise because without let-up the newspaper denigrated and demonized the Jewish Gazans and, more generally, religious Jewry. In my experience, I cannot think of a single issue of Haaretz that has not carried at least one rabidly anti-religious article or editorial.

Two weeks before the withdrawal began, Haaretz editorialized that the Jews in Gaza were “criminals.” In a follow-up editorial the newspaper suggested that the government show an “iron fist” toward these Jews. Isn’t it interesting how those who pretend to be liberal and caring about human rights can come up with so perfect a fascist phrase to indicate how they feel toward religious Jews?

As challenging as it is to go through this garbage heap, the effort allows us to understand how during the Holocaust there were Jews whose animus toward Judaism was so great that they collaborated with those who slaughtered our people. There is a kapo syndrome in our bad seed.

What did Haaretz have to say as hundreds of thousands of Israelis — including those in the military — wept? In an editorial called “Extortion by Sanctity” it went amok over the efforts to save Gaza synagogues by having them taken apart and rebuilt elsewhere. Referring to “deranged messianic acts” the newspaper opined, “the walls of the synagogues, their floors, roofs and any other part of the structure in which people pray, are neither sacred nor sacrosanct.”

It is surprising to see those who mock our religion pretending to know anything about our religious laws. Haaretz is, of course, wrong on Jewish law, as it is whenever it sees fit to offer moral judgment. I have in fact quoted only a very small part of a loony editorial which thrice referred to the effort to save the synagogues as “blackmail.”

It’s time to say that though it is written in Hebrew by Israelis nearly all of whom are Jewish, Haaretz is not a Jewish newspaper. It is an anti-Jewish newspaper published by people who hate our religion, who hate our heritage, who hate most of our people and who hate our land.

As the withdrawal process began Haaretz published another editorial arguing that “after decades of occupation, Israel has an obligation to be at the forefront of giving assistance to rehabilitate Gaza and assuring the Palestinians’ prosperity.”

If this is not madness, what is? The Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas announces that the Gaza withdrawal is the first step and Jerusalem is next; tens of thousands of Palestinians, many of them armed, march and chant death to Israel; the terrorist network against Israel continues to function and the goal to destroy Israel remains alive in the minds of nearly all Palestinians. And what does Haaretz propose? That Israel has an obligation to take from its treasury and give it to the Palestinians.

It is extraordinary to see how this journalistic sewer that hates religious Jews is so much more favorable to those who hate Israel.

When we daven or say tehillim, even when the focus is on a particular individual or set of circumstances, what we are doing is strengthening our emunah, thereby bringing us closer to G-D and to an acceptance of what He has decreed. The person on whose behalf we are praying or the circumstance that we have in mind serves no more than as the instrumentality for the strengthening of our belief, in much the same way that when we give tzedakah to a poor person, the recipient is no more than the instrumentality ... Read More >>]]> Along with other members of my family, I was at the massive Tefila and Tehillim gathering at the Kotel prior to the painful commencement of the withdrawal from Gaza. The event was extraordinary because it brought together perhaps 250,000 or even more religious Jews from all sectors. This was not a political event. Thus, I was surprised to read in the latest Yated Ne’eman (the U.S. edition) that the gathering was “futile” and “fruitless.” Such language which echoes the slant taken by Haaretz and other secularists is shocking when it comes from a newspaper that is rooted in the yeshiva world.

When we daven or say tehillim, even when the focus is on a particular individual or set of circumstances, what we are doing is strengthening our emunah, thereby bringing us closer to G-D and to an acceptance of what He has decreed. The person on whose behalf we are praying or the circumstance that we have in mind serves no more than as the instrumentality for the strengthening of our belief, in much the same way that when we give tzedakah to a poor person, the recipient is no more than the instrumentality for perfecting ourselves by accepting limitations and discipline in how we use the resources that we have been blessed with.

Tehillim and Tefila are never futile. We all understand this in the frequent situation when a sick person on whose behalf we are praying passes away. We do not say that our prayers were fruitless or futile. Accordingly, Yated’s characterization which as I have noted parallels the sneering characterization from the secularists is shocking and unacceptable. It is an affront to those who participated in the great gathering, it is an affront to hashkafa and it is an affront to all Torah observant Jews.

The newspaper compounded its wrongdoing when after a close relative of mine sent an email questioning its usage, the editor responded that the gathering at the Kotel was a political event. This, too, parallels what Haaretz and the secularists have said.

I trust that Yated which so often speaks about Da’as Torah did not consult with respected rabbinical leaders when it used such unfortunate language. It is interesting and telling how Da’as Torah is a selective obligation.

In addition to the affront generated by such language, what Yated has done – and this sadly is too characteristic of the recent behavior of some in the yeshiva world – is to further alienate some religious Jews from our heritage. How else might they look at their solemn participation being described in such an unfortunate way?

I have repeatedly pleaded with people in our community to get out of the business of richuk kerovim. Yet, we seem incapable of pulling back. Consider two letters published in each of the two most recent issues of Yated castigating someone in shul on Shabbos who committed the terrible sin of “wearing an orange T-shirt that was plainly seen since he was not wearing a tie.” Here is a fellow coming to shul, doubtlessly keeping Shabbos and other mitzvos and who feels that he must “tell people about the disengagement and that he is against it.” Has he committed a sin? Of course not. But Yated published two letters making such a fellow feel like dirt. Yes, we are in the business of richuk kerovim.

Many years ago I heard Shlomo Wolbe, ztl, at a Torah Umesorah convention saying that he looked carefully in the Shulchan Aruch and he could not find a requirement to wear a white shirt on Shabbos. This giant understood what too many of us do not.

Although my affiliation is essentially in the charedi sector, notably the yeshiva world, I have long regarded the Dati Leumi people with whom I have contact as individuals blessed with the highest ideals and values, people who exemplify true Torah modesty and who are extraordinarily sincere and careful in their devotion to mitzvos.

It seems to me that the charedi world, at least in Israel, is uncaring about the open wounds being experienced by many Dati Leumi. Is this deliberate? Or perhaps, it is simply that charedim have other interests and problems.

Again, I am just asking a question.

What is there to celebrate when four Justices say that any public display of the Ten Commandments violates the First Amendment? What is there to celebrate when in all likelihood, the Supreme Court ruling will mean that most displays will be ruled unconstitutional? What is there to celebrate when we continue to have decisions that are hostile to religion?

I know that the Ten Commandments issue is not per se that important. People do not respect religion because a tablet is installed in a public place. No one’s belief or behavior is affected. As a practical matter it makes small difference whether the Ten Commandments can be posted in a public place.

What concerns me essentially is not what the Supreme Court did but how we as Jews – and particularly Orthodox Jews – look at the matter. Overwhelmingly, American Jews are not only secular, they embrace a brand of secularism that is ... Read More >>]]> When the Supreme Court cut the constitutional baby in half and ruled that some Ten Commandment displays are kosher and some are not, the spokesman for the Orthodox Union warmly welcomed the development. Good public relations, but bad Judaism.

What is there to celebrate when four Justices say that any public display of the Ten Commandments violates the First Amendment? What is there to celebrate when in all likelihood, the Supreme Court ruling will mean that most displays will be ruled unconstitutional? What is there to celebrate when we continue to have decisions that are hostile to religion?

I know that the Ten Commandments issue is not per se that important. People do not respect religion because a tablet is installed in a public place. No one’s belief or behavior is affected. As a practical matter it makes small difference whether the Ten Commandments can be posted in a public place.

What concerns me essentially is not what the Supreme Court did but how we as Jews – and particularly Orthodox Jews – look at the matter. Overwhelmingly, American Jews are not only secular, they embrace a brand of secularism that is hostile to religion. This may not be the conscious intent, yet it is what emerges from the totality of our advocacy against religion. This attitude strikes me as risky, both for Israel and American Jewry because it invites counter-hostility from Christian groups.

In organized American Jewish life, the most powerful imperatives are fundraising and public relations. From the standpoint of major secular organizations, being against the Ten Commandments is good business.

I wonder whether Orthodox groups are not overly driven by a similar consideration. There is in Orthodox life an unwillingness to oppose other Jewish groups, a posture that diverges enormously from what we witnessed in the post-Churban phase of Orthodox development in this country when we were far fewer in number and yet far better led by Torah leaders who were willing to be unpopular. Today, being popular is critical. How else can we explain the shameful example of the ADL’s Abe Foxman being placed in an honorary box at Agudath Israel’s Siyum Hashas, an event that occurred the evening before the Supreme Court heard argument in the Ten Commandments cases in which the ADL submitted a brief against allowing public displays.

As I point out in my latest Jewish Week column, we are in the second generation of mass intermarriage. In most situations, the consequences of intermarriage are not reversible. It is certainly true that the impact of intermarriage is cumulative, so that with the passage of time, halachic ties to the Jewish people are weakened and this is also true of social ties. Put otherwise, with each passing year, the percentage of those who are identified as American Jews who are not halachic Jews inevitably goes up.

Our kiruv activities appear to be oblivious to this truth. Far more than we may realize, kiruv is conducted today much the same as it was conducted a generation ago. For all of the efforts, real or imagined, ... Read More >>]]> To an extent kiruv (Jewish outreach) requires a suspension of reality. This is not necessarily a bad thing because from a religious Jewish standpoint, the reality of American life is harsh. The many good people who engage in kiruv blot out circumstances that suggest that their efforts are akin to a steady uphill climb. We should admire them all the more because of what they have accomplished.

As I point out in my latest Jewish Week column, we are in the second generation of mass intermarriage. In most situations, the consequences of intermarriage are not reversible. It is certainly true that the impact of intermarriage is cumulative, so that with the passage of time, halachic ties to the Jewish people are weakened and this is also true of social ties. Put otherwise, with each passing year, the percentage of those who are identified as American Jews who are not halachic Jews inevitably goes up.

Our kiruv activities appear to be oblivious to this truth. Far more than we may realize, kiruv is conducted today much the same as it was conducted a generation ago. For all of the efforts, real or imagined, to restrict kiruv to halachic Jews, the statistics of American Jewish life suggest that this is not possible. I am not suggesting that we abandon kiruv; I am suggesting that we be more cognizant to what is happening.

Interestingly, as we continue to reach out to those who are quite distant from religious life, we continue to do far too little to retain the many of a religious background who are falling away. One possible explanation is that kiruv efforts get more support and are more appreciated than inreach efforts.

The mother’s communication is doubtlessly overwrought. But we cannot deny that there is something wrong in our schools. Too many children are turned away, too many children are sent away. The explanations are many and, at times, they ring true. Far more often than not, they come from people in authority who do not care enough, people who for all of their religious credentials do not adequately sense the pain of parents and children, people who do not understand that Torah chinuch must embrace and not turn away.

We are a people who ask all kinds of halachic questions, too many of them trivial pursuits ... Read More >>]]> The question that forms the title for this posting is from the concluding line of a communication sent to me by an Orthodox Jewish mother whose son cannot get into a Jewish school. He is a teenager whose siblings are in yeshiva. He is not, apparently because he is ADD and there is no Jewish school that will accept him. So he is in a private school outside of New York where just about everyone there is not Jewish and where the atmosphere is warm and promotive of self-esteem.

The mother’s communication is doubtlessly overwrought. But we cannot deny that there is something wrong in our schools. Too many children are turned away, too many children are sent away. The explanations are many and, at times, they ring true. Far more often than not, they come from people in authority who do not care enough, people who for all of their religious credentials do not adequately sense the pain of parents and children, people who do not understand that Torah chinuch must embrace and not turn away.

We are a people who ask all kinds of halachic questions, too many of them trivial pursuits that take precious time away from Torah leaders. Rav Moshe Feinstein, ztl, said frequently that for all of the questions that he was asked – and they probably were in the tens of thousands – few concerned chinuch situations.

When a child’s presence in a class has a deleterious effect on his classmates, there is justification for removing the child, although even in such situations it is necessary to have process and not to have a single person – usually the principal – make the decision. The fact is that we tolerate arrangements where one person, at times in the blink of an eye, decides alone who is admitted and who is not, who can remain and who will be expelled. Far too often children are literally thrown out of yeshiva because of the most minor transgressions or, perhaps worse yet, because there may have been a minor transgression.

There is much more to say about this subject and maybe one day I will have the opportunity and courage to say all that is on my mind about the violation of basic Torah precepts by people in chinuch who do not have the open hearts and the open minds referred to by the mother of this boy. I will say no more now than perhaps as much as anyone else in this country, I have devoted my life in every single way possible to Torah chinuch. This has been the focal point of my life for more than fifty years. I am ashamed of the behavior of too many in the field. There is much pain inside of me because I have been involved in too many situations in which Jewish parents and Jewish children have been treated cruelly.

When the first English speaking olim came to Beit Shemesh or actually Ramat Beit Shemesh, they encountered a fair amount of difficulty. As I recall, there were many burglaries and there was tension between the newcomers and the poorer Israelis, mostly Sephardim. After the initial period of adjustment, relations improved and the newcomers went about their jobs and their important contributions to the Jewish State.

As Ramat Beit Shemesh grew, there were sections that were occupied by charedim, mostly Chassidic families coming from other parts of Israel. There have been a number of incidents involving attempted intimidation by charedim of the Anglos and the situation has worsened considerably in the past year. On Yom Ha-Atzmaut, there was an event for school girls, a number ... Read More >>]]> I imagine that most of us know Americans who made aliyah and settled in Beit Shemesh. These are in the main people who can be characterized as Leumi Dati, with a bit of charedi instinct thrown in. They are men and women with wonderful values, good midos, sincere religiosity and a love for Israel and the Jewish people. They are certainly among the best that we have.

When the first English speaking olim came to Beit Shemesh or actually Ramat Beit Shemesh, they encountered a fair amount of difficulty. As I recall, there were many burglaries and there was tension between the newcomers and the poorer Israelis, mostly Sephardim. After the initial period of adjustment, relations improved and the newcomers went about their jobs and their important contributions to the Jewish State.

As Ramat Beit Shemesh grew, there were sections that were occupied by charedim, mostly Chassidic families coming from other parts of Israel. There have been a number of incidents involving attempted intimidation by charedim of the Anglos and the situation has worsened considerably in the past year. On Yom Ha-Atzmaut, there was an event for school girls, a number of adult charedim pelted the girls with eggs for the sin of celebrating Yom Ha-Atzmaut. This has had a traumatic effect on the children, some of whom are questioning whether a religious path is for them, and it has been traumatic – in conjunction with other incidents – for the English-speaking residents. I have been told of one meeting in which some of these residents discussed the question of whether they should move away.

I have heard about this from a Beit Shemesh resident who is as sweet a person as one can imagine. He is worried about the impact on his daughter and he is worried about the impact on how he looks at the charedi community. What happened on Yom Ha-Atzmaut has for him “burst the bubble,” and tainted how he looks at the community and other Jews.

The Beit Shemesh story is but one new episode in the larger story of how people are being driven away from Yiddishkeit. I have said repeatedly over the years that we are “merachek krovim.” It is evident that both in Israel and here we are losing people because some of us have taken the beautiful religion that Hakadosh Boruch Hu gave us and perverted it.

When will we ever learn, when will we ever learn?

It has been evident for many years that if somehow Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Eliezer were transplanted into contemporary religious Jewish life at the time that they were beginning their study of Torah, it is highly unlikely that they would be admitted to our best yeshivas. They would be sent to a kiruv school or perhaps one of the weak day schools that dot our communal landscape. Only after they were thoroughly cleansed of the baneful effects of bad parentage and background might they be accepted by our strongest schools.

It is also true that children of many Talmudic sages and Torah scholars of subsequent generations, including the recent period, would also be turned away from some yeshivas and Beth Jacobs. Although these parents were transcendent scholars and spiritual giants, alas they had the serious defect of earning their livelihood outside of the four cubits of Torah, perhaps by being in business or a professional or working for government or a private employer. ... Read More >>]]> [The following is from the Iyar/May RJJ Newsletter. It has elicited a considerable response, including the suggestion that it receive wider circulation and that is the reason why I am posting it.]

It has been evident for many years that if somehow Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Eliezer were transplanted into contemporary religious Jewish life at the time that they were beginning their study of Torah, it is highly unlikely that they would be admitted to our best yeshivas. They would be sent to a kiruv school or perhaps one of the weak day schools that dot our communal landscape. Only after they were thoroughly cleansed of the baneful effects of bad parentage and background might they be accepted by our strongest schools.

It is also true that children of many Talmudic sages and Torah scholars of subsequent generations, including the recent period, would also be turned away from some yeshivas and Beth Jacobs. Although these parents were transcendent scholars and spiritual giants, alas they had the serious defect of earning their livelihood outside of the four cubits of Torah, perhaps by being in business or a professional or working for government or a private employer. There are mosdos at the elementary school level in Israel and now in this country that will not accept children from such homes, presumably to protect those who are admitted from harmful influences.

Whatever the explanation, this is madness, an example of the spreading sickness known as extreme frumkeit. It is said that children with working fathers live in more affluent homes, have nicer clothing, tend to show off, or that their appearance makes other children feel inferior, etc. This is inaccurate on several grounds, most notably the obvious fact that at least in this country, a majority of yeshiva-world families with a working father struggle to make ends meet. The more likely explanation is that schools with an exclusionary policy seek to proclaim that they are better because their students come from pure Torah homes.

Because this sort of frumkeit is a dynamic force, what we are now witness to is likely to be followed by even greater deprecations against sense and sensibility. Admittedly, it is hard to figure out what the next step might be. Unless we are willing to protest against a policy that to my knowledge has no antecedent in all of the annals of Torah chinuch, worse tidings await us. Too many of us – and I specifically refer to Torah leaders – are unwilling to criticize what is wrong. It is a sure bet that the protest expressed here is one more fruitless tilting against the windmill of good intentions gone awry.

It is obvious that kollel-only schools survive because they have the support of affluent people whose children and grandchildren would not be accepted by such schools. I imagine that they contribute in order to atone for the sin of making a living. Or could it be that they believe that exclusive schools are desirable? If so, they are mistaken. There isn’t as much as a line in the speeches and writings of the Great Rosh Yeshiva of Lakewood or, for that matter, other Gedolei Torah who led the yeshiva world in the last two generations, that can be marshaled in support of an exclusionary policy. I am told that one of the yeshiva world’s most revered and senior Rosh Yeshiva was appalled when told of such a policy and referred to it as “rishus” or evil.

(I will not dwell on the inadvertently mistaken reference to Jerusalem. Alas, if the letter writer were there during Pesach and went to the places frequented by charedim – as a notable example, the Zoo – he will for sure encounter a significant number of people who are not Jewish. I hope that he does not decide against going to Israel on this ground.)

It is understandable that people want to be together with those who whom they are comfortable, whether the other people are friends or colleagues or of the same age group or the same ethnic group. This is an acceptable and far-reaching social phenomenon. If an Orthodox Jew wants to go to an event or a place where the other people are ... Read More >>]]> The current issue of Yated Ne’Eman (U.S. edition) has a letter from a fellow who extols the trips that were available during Chol Hamoed. He writes: “It comforted me that we were surrounded by Yidden only, and were not exposed to the hashpa’ah of some of the parks and sites that were not open exclusive to Yidden on Chol Hamoed. Next year, may we be in Yerushalyim Ir Hakodesh.”

(I will not dwell on the inadvertently mistaken reference to Jerusalem. Alas, if the letter writer were there during Pesach and went to the places frequented by charedim – as a notable example, the Zoo – he will for sure encounter a significant number of people who are not Jewish. I hope that he does not decide against going to Israel on this ground.)

It is understandable that people want to be together with those who whom they are comfortable, whether the other people are friends or colleagues or of the same age group or the same ethnic group. This is an acceptable and far-reaching social phenomenon. If an Orthodox Jew wants to go to an event or a place where the other people are Orthodox, that too is certainly acceptable. I believe that the message conveyed in the letter to Yated is not acceptable because essentially it speaks not of wanting to be together with one’s own but not wanting to be with people who are inferior. Putting aside the relevant question as to whether such a position is legally defensible, I believe that it is despicable.

We have been on these shores for approximately two generations. We have benefited from the blessings of liberty, from the ideal of tolerance. Do we expect that others will respect us if we can’t show a modicum of respect toward them? I am increasingly pessimistic about what is happening in much of Orthodox life. I do not want to develop this theme, except to say that dislike of others is a dynamic force. What will be in another two generations?

Is this what G-D wants of us?

I have been president of RJJ – and this is a voluntary responsibility – for thirty-two years and for much of this period the yeshiva and its several schools have taken the lion’s share of my time. Because fundraising is inherent to this job, what I write and especially in the Jewish Week may have an impact on my ability to do what I have to do. My writing is opinion-oriented, at times sharply. I haven’t found this a problem with much of what I have to say, even in such hot button areas that ... Read More >>]]> Writing is not the only thing that I do, nor is it the main thing that I do. I suppose that much the same can be said about most writers, but there is a difference – I think – in my situation. My primary responsibility is active involvement in Jewish communal life, notably in yeshiva and day school education but in other areas, as well. There’s no reason to describe this activity because it has scant bearing on what I am writing here, except for the important zone of my life that is called the Rabbi Jacob Joseph School.

I have been president of RJJ – and this is a voluntary responsibility – for thirty-two years and for much of this period the yeshiva and its several schools have taken the lion’s share of my time. Because fundraising is inherent to this job, what I write and especially in the Jewish Week may have an impact on my ability to do what I have to do. My writing is opinion-oriented, at times sharply. I haven’t found this a problem with much of what I have to say, even in such hot button areas that might offend the non-Orthodox and even though some of the funds that I raise come from people who aren’t Orthodox.

The problem that I am attempting to address here is most pronounced when I write about Israel and therefore it is most pronounced in terms of my interaction with other Orthodox. I am a strong believer in Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, something that most Orthodox Jews oppose. There is scant evidence that my advocacy of Gaza withdrawal has resulted in anyone saying the heck with my contribution to RJJ. But I cannot be sure. I am certain that something that I wrote some months ago sharply criticizing those who excused Baruch Goldstein’s murderous attack in Hebron has directly resulted in at least several people deciding that they will no longer contribute to the yeshiva.

Is this an issue for me to consider? Does my responsibility toward RJJ carry with it the obligation not to speak out when there is a prospect that speaking out might hurt the school? Is this a practical question? Or a moral question? Or both?

My raising this matter is at least as much an intellectual exercise as a process that might lead to practical results. I hope that there will be feedback.

But for all of the good reasons why so many go away, this is a stunning phenomenon that departs by nearly 180 degrees from what had been standard practice among Orthodox Jews. In my youth and well into adulthood, there was the simple precept that during Pesach “mir mishich nisht,” which as a practical matter meant that people ate in their own homes and in no ... Read More >>]]> There are good reasons why so many religious Jews – and the number is growing – go to hotels for Pesach. Some have too few people around the table to make a seder, while others have too many. There are the elderly and frail who cannot cope and there are the families with working mothers who do not have the energy or time to prepare properly for Yom Tov. For many, this is the only or primary vacation. Affluence is obviously a factor, if only because it is costly to go to a hotel and there are religious Jews who can afford the cost. Affluence also has meant larger homes and this means more space to clean and supervise and this factor also contributes to the exodus.

But for all of the good reasons why so many go away, this is a stunning phenomenon that departs by nearly 180 degrees from what had been standard practice among Orthodox Jews. In my youth and well into adulthood, there was the simple precept that during Pesach “mir mishich nisht,” which as a practical matter meant that people ate in their own homes and in no one else’s, except perhaps for the last day of the holiday. This certainly was the rule in pre-churban Europe.

Even if we acknowledge that there are those who need to or should go away, what has happened is unsettling. In the aggregate, the Pesach-in-hotel phenomenon costs in the tens of millions of dollars, perhaps above $100 million. There are people who go away and who are generous in giving tzedakah. It remains, however, that our charity has not kept pace with our self-indulgence. I know more than a few people who give next to nothing in tzedakah and yet who splurge on the Pesach trip.

As others have noted, there are children who have never seen how a house is prepared for Pesach or how to prepare for a seder. Not all, but most, experience a quickie seder, at least in the v’higadta l’vincha portion ["and you shall tell it to your children"], with the meal constituting by far the major event. It is nice, in a way, that some families stay home for the first two days and then leave for a hotel.

If we can excuse the lay people who go to hotels, can we also excuse the Rabbis – some of them prominent – who leave not only their homes but also their congregations? I have my doubts.

I have no doubt that the phenomenon will continue to spread, not only because there are people who can afford to go away but far more importantly because the idea of going away has taken strong root. In a sense, there is the attitude that the best way to commemorate the Exodus is to have our own personal Pesach exodus.

A noted Harvard University professor who is a committed Jew recently told of a student from an Orthodox home and strong day school background who had abandoned religious life because his experience at Harvard showed him the falsehood of what he had been taught about Gentiles.

Likely, there’s more — perhaps much more — to this young man’s story and journey. Doubtlessly, other factors were at work. Yet, what strikes as too close to home is the reference to derogatory remarks about non-Jews, the sort of gratuitous and nasty fare that ... Read More >>]]> Except for one point, I will not respond to comments on my previous posting “Have We Become Right-Wingers?” The exception is the attitude of Orthodox Jews to persons who are not Jewish. This is an issue that I feel strongly about, as the following note indicates. I have published it twice before, initially in the RJJ Newsletter and then in the Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society that is published by the Rabbi Jacob Joseph School. While I received many comments — including from persons within the yeshiva world — no one indicated disagreement with the position that I took. Here is the note:

A noted Harvard University professor who is a committed Jew recently told of a student from an Orthodox home and strong day school background who had abandoned religious life because his experience at Harvard showed him the falsehood of what he had been taught about Gentiles.

Likely, there’s more — perhaps much more — to this young man’s story and journey. Doubtlessly, other factors were at work. Yet, what strikes as too close to home is the reference to derogatory remarks about non-Jews, the sort of gratuitous and nasty fare that is all too common in our religious life and our schools. Such remarks have become part of our vernacular. I have heard far too much inappropriate talk, specifically including by people who declaim readily about shmiras halashon, of the need to be careful in speech.

It is lamentable that we have to stress the obvious principle that no individual or group is elevated by putting down other people. Groups and individuals are elevated by what they do, not by the behavior of others. For Jews, the concept of chosenness arises only out of our living sanctified lives in accordance with the Torah’s commandments. When we speak pejoratively of Gentiles, we may in a sense diminish them, but for sure in the process we are diminishing ourselves.

We also come dangerously close to the forbidden zone of Chilul Hashem, of desecrating G-D’s name, by deprecating for no other reason other than that they are not Jews those who are created in the image of G-D. It pains me to say that some of the things I have heard are a form of nivil peh, of vulgarity.

There are, we must acknowledge, deep and still open emotional and physical wounds arising from our encounters with the outside world, most horrifyingly in the ineradicable experience of the Holocaust. The admonition expressed here is not intended to soften our feelings about the murder of millions of Jews or the centuries of persecution that preceded the European Churban. Nor should we turn a blind eye toward contemporary anti-Semitism or to cultural excesses and life-styles that are antithetical to Torah values.

In fact, derogatory language against Gentiles generally is not intended to express hostility to that which merits hostility. In a curious way, the impact, if not the intent, of blanket negativism toward non-Jews makes the inadvertent point that it is not anyone’s wrongful actions that are evil but merely one’s status as a non-Jew. This notion is at once absurd and abhorrent. It is also rather poor strategy for the Jewish people. After all, there are only a handful of us and I very much doubt that G-D put us on this earth to wage war against six billion of its inhabitants.

Even if as I have suggested the tale of the Harvard student has more to it, it remains that some in our ranks are repelled by the words that they hear about Gentiles and, as a consequence, they move further away from Judaism. Surely, kiruv efforts are being undermined by inappropriate language and attitudes.

Those of us in the yeshiva world who have become inured to and accepting of the language that I regard as wrongful are likely to be critical of what I have written here. My suggestion is that they reflect on the example of Torah leaders whom we turn to for guidance. In my experience, I never heard such transcendent leaders as the great Rosh Yeshiva of Lakewood or Rav Moshe Feinstein or Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky or Rav Pam ever employ the kind of language that is so promiscuously used these days by lesser figures in our community.

My further suggestion is that they keep in mind that no one is ever elevated by putting down someone else.

But if Orthodox Jews reject liberalism, does this mean that we need to or should reject liberal policies on a number of public and social issues where there are no clear halachic requirements? As an illustration, are we to reject what liberals advocate regarding a minimum wage? I don�t know a single Orthodox Jew who can make do on what is now the minimum wage. What about racism? Or the environment which encompasses a number of increasingly frightening concerns? I could readily give other examples.

And even if we are not comfortable with anything espoused by liberals, shouldn�t it be sufficient � ... Read More >>]]> I understand why many, perhaps most, Orthodox Jews have come to reject liberal positions on a number of public issues. In some instances, such as abortion, there is conflict between what halacha requires and what is essentially being embraced by people of a liberal orientation. More generally, there is disagreement over the role of religion in society, particularly in what is referred to as the public square. Finally, there is that nebulous term called �values� which was a feature of the recent presidential election and subsequent political analysis.

But if Orthodox Jews reject liberalism, does this mean that we need to or should reject liberal policies on a number of public and social issues where there are no clear halachic requirements? As an illustration, are we to reject what liberals advocate regarding a minimum wage? I don�t know a single Orthodox Jew who can make do on what is now the minimum wage. What about racism? Or the environment which encompasses a number of increasingly frightening concerns? I could readily give other examples.

And even if we are not comfortable with anything espoused by liberals, shouldn�t it be sufficient � and probably religiously correct � to eschew all ideologies? Yet, it is evident that a great number of Orthodox Jews are comfortable with the right-wing. They agree with the right-wing on gun control. What is emerging is an increasingly expanding comfort zone between Orthodox Jews and right-wingers. Are we forgetful of history? Do we delude ourselves and forget that those on the right include far too many who have articulated anti-Semitic views? Are we forgetful of what Jews experienced for centuries at the hands of devout Christians?

I am not advocating that we come out against the right or become liberals. I am advocating that we be true to Judaism and recognize that halacha is our guide, not any political ideology.

The statistics cast a certain light on the issue that is now raging in certain Orthodox circles. I am not concerned here at all with what a particular Rabbi or Mohel may have done or said. What I am concerned about are the statements signed by dozens of Roshei Yeshiva and Rabbonim and published in Yated Ne’eman and on public posters denouncing the failure to do matzitza b’peh. The language is nearly violent.

Are we being told that half the brisim in the yeshiva world were not properly conducted? Are the signers of these statements unaware of the fact that, for example, the Breuer’s community does not sanction matzitza b’peh? Isn’t it likely that virtually all the signers have been at brisim where a tube is used? Isn�t it likely that some of the signers ... Read More >>]]> On March 4, 2005 Agudath Israel sent a letter to Dr. Tom Frieden, New York City’s Health Commissioner, estimating that in the yeshiva world half of the brisim have been conducted with matzitza b’peh, while the other half have utilized a tube. In Modern Orthodox and even Centrist Orthodox circles, overwhelmingly the brisim have been with a tube.

The statistics cast a certain light on the issue that is now raging in certain Orthodox circles. I am not concerned here at all with what a particular Rabbi or Mohel may have done or said. What I am concerned about are the statements signed by dozens of Roshei Yeshiva and Rabbonim and published in Yated Ne’eman and on public posters denouncing the failure to do matzitza b’peh. The language is nearly violent.

Are we being told that half the brisim in the yeshiva world were not properly conducted? Are the signers of these statements unaware of the fact that, for example, the Breuer’s community does not sanction matzitza b’peh? Isn’t it likely that virtually all the signers have been at brisim where a tube is used? Isn�t it likely that some of the signers served as the sandek or some other important function at brisim where tubes were used?

The issue of safeguards against the transmission of disease is not a trivial matter. Of course, I feel strongly that those who prefer matzitza b’peh should be allowed to go forward without government interference. But we must be cognizant of the reality that there are now powerful viruses that are transmitted through what seems to be quite innocuous contact. When we go into food establishments, we see workers wearing latex gloves. Are they wearing them because they want to help the latex glove industry? In hospitals and medical offices, there is scarcely a procedure anymore without such gloves being worn. Obviously, there are legitimate concerns that have generated changing practices. At the least, we need to be cognizant that those who prefer to use a tube in a bris have good grounds for this preference.

There is a second issue. Forty years ago I wrote an article for Jewish Life (then the publication of the Orthodox Union) called “The New Style of Orthodox Jewry.” This was a landmark article indicating how the Orthodox were breaking away in communal activity from the dominant pattern of the non-Orthodox. If I had to write an article in 2005 on the new style of Orthodox Jewry, I would have to focus on the proclivity for prohibitions, for statements signed by rabbis taking positions that are untenable, for constantly harsh language that is critical of what many and perhaps most Orthodox Jews are doing.

As I have written often, in the great formative years of American Orthodoxy, when we were blessed with true Torah giants, prohibitory statements were rare and they were reserved for major issues. Each day now, we tragically see what we have lost. We tragically see, as Rav Schach, ztl, said in his remarkable hesped for Rav Moshe Feinstein, ztl, the period of the Acharonim has come to an end.

More Fiction Posing as Fact

When novelists create stereotypical figures that distort Orthodox life, they claim that, after all, they�re novelists who can write as they please. Academics and others who purport to describe the real religious Jewish world do not have this fig leaf to shield them when they are criticized because what they write is off the mark. It is hard to imagine any greater distortion of Orthodox reality than the pseudo-scholarship palmed off by Jacob Ukeles at the annual gathering of Edah, the ultra-Modern Orthodox fringe group.

Jewish survey research is in a sorry state. We have been presented dubious findings regarding Jews in the Former Soviet Union, American Jewish poverty and the impact of Israel experiences on Jewish identity. A top Jewish demographer told me that he once distorted data in order to achieve a desired result. We are ... Read More >>]]> I am acceding to the request that I post this week�s column which deals with the claim by Jack Ukeles that 75% of Orthodox households are Modern Orthodox. If there are comments, they should be emailed to me at mschick@mindspring.com.

More Fiction Posing as Fact

When novelists create stereotypical figures that distort Orthodox life, they claim that, after all, they�re novelists who can write as they please. Academics and others who purport to describe the real religious Jewish world do not have this fig leaf to shield them when they are criticized because what they write is off the mark. It is hard to imagine any greater distortion of Orthodox reality than the pseudo-scholarship palmed off by Jacob Ukeles at the annual gathering of Edah, the ultra-Modern Orthodox fringe group.

Jewish survey research is in a sorry state. We have been presented dubious findings regarding Jews in the Former Soviet Union, American Jewish poverty and the impact of Israel experiences on Jewish identity. A top Jewish demographer told me that he once distorted data in order to achieve a desired result. We are increasingly subjected to numbers games impelled by ideology or some other pre-selected goal, in much the same way that pharmaceutical companies advertise that so many doctors prefer their product.

Ukeles� assertion that three-quarters of Orthodox households in the New York Federation service area are Modern Orthodox is based on seriously flawed methodology and is wrong. He isn�t even close. In arriving at his absurd figure, Ukeles obliterates the Centrist Orthodox subcategory that is meaningful to many, including Rabbi Norman Lamm in his description of Yeshiva University and especially its highly regarded Rabbinical Seminary. He also departs from basic rules regarding the establishment of identity.

In determining political or religious affiliation or other categories of personal identity via quantitative research, the key determinant always is how people identify themselves. This inevitably results in some distortion, as when persons who violate Sabbath obligations identify themselves as Orthodox because of their synagogue affiliation. The National Jewish Population Surveys and the more sophisticated Guttman studies on the religious practices and beliefs of Israeli Jews rely on self-identity. In Guttman, this led to �mapping sentences� or typologies encompassing a range of behavior and attitudes.

Ukeles did not ask Orthodox respondents which subcategory they identified with, an easy enough task. Had he done so, the findings would have been far more accurate and light years away from the erroneous data that is now posing as fact. He utilized a single issue � attitude toward college � as a litmus test and this produced bogus statistics. In Brooklyn, where last year 55,000 out of 67,000 dayschoolers were enrolled in charedi or fervently Orthodox schools, Ukeles claims that 55% of the Orthodox are in the Modern category. Dream on.

Whatever his reasons for abandoning self-identity, Ukeles should have constructed a typology encompassing a number of variables, including dress, education, associations, attitudes and much else. His reliance on a single factor severely distorts the results. He also doesn�t understand how yeshiva-world Orthodox view higher education. Many attend Touro or other non-coeducational programs and otherwise tailored to their specifications. Few go to conventional undergraduate colleges such as those in the CUNY system. Many more utilize their seminary degrees to go directly to graduate or professional schools. In charedi circles, secular higher education is regarded as career-preparation.

Had Ukeles understood the place of college in the yeshiva world � but not in the Chassidic sector � he could have made the useful point that many of these Orthodox are to an extent affected by modernity, a development that I have underscored, most recently in a column on Internet use among charedim.

The suggestion to use attitude toward college as the litmus test came from Samuel Heilman, another Edah speaker and a man who has misrepresented Orthodox life. At Edah, as elsewhere, he deplored the �haredization� of the Orthodox, as if the fervently Orthodox are unsavory folks deserving of condemnation.

His overly pessimistic view of the Modern Orthodox is not supported by available evidence, including the seminary established by Avi Weiss, the vigorous role of Edah, indications that under Richard Joel Yeshiva University is moving away from the center and my day school census which shows a significant rise in enrollment at Modern Orthodox schools.

Heilman reprised at Edah an article published last year in the Jerusalem Post which managed to be both offensive and ignorant. Why do too many Modern Orthodox defect altogether? Because they are rebelling against pressure from the right and not, as scholars have noted, because this is an open society teeming with secular attractions. Why do some embrace greater religiosity? Not because they see the glory and valor of a more religious life but because of a charedi conspiracy. There is, in his words, a �complete handover� by Modern Orthodox families of educational responsibility to yeshivas and day schools whose Judaic faculty are charedi and these teachers are �agents provocateurs.�

This is nonsense and offensive. Our Judaic teachers don�t set the curriculum, nor do they determine school ambiance. Most are badly underpaid and most work with super-dedication. They deserve praise, not designation as agents provocateurs. If students are influenced by them, it is because of their piety and example. Heilman is also wrong about the involvement of parents. As veteran day school principals know, one of the sea changes in our schools is the expanding extent to which parents are actively involved in what their kids are doing in school.

It doesn�t take courage to be modern and Orthodox and there is too much evidence that it doesn�t take courage to traduce those who are Orthodox but are not modern. There is growing revulsion among the more than seventy-five percent of the Orthodox who do not identify themselves as Modern, including the Centrists, against the way these Jews are depicted in the media by fiction writers and by some who pose as scholars. No one is advocating that the Orthodox be immune from criticism. We are advocating truth in scholarship.

Nowadays, we glorify check-writers and, at times, persons who devote themselves occasionally to good causes. We do not celebrate askanim because the breed is nearly extinct. There is, of course, merit to giving tzedakah or to spending a bit of time here and there on community needs. Unfortunately, our institutions and especially yeshivas and day schools require more. They need the involvement of lay people who eat, drink and sleep the needs of the community, people for whom other work is secondary.

The nature of communal activity has changed because our community has changed. Most of us are always busy. Family size has grown significantly and this inevitably brings additional responsibilities and time pressure. There are too many events to go to and too many tasks to get to. Nearly every ... Read More >>]]> Lay leadership or askanos is a term that can be translated as the nearly all-consuming commitment to communal activity. An askan is someone whose primary life mission is service to the klal. In my youth, these terms – askanos and askan – were part of the ordinary religious Jewish lexicon. But no more. What has changed is more than usage, but the role of lay people in communal affairs.

Nowadays, we glorify check-writers and, at times, persons who devote themselves occasionally to good causes. We do not celebrate askanim because the breed is nearly extinct. There is, of course, merit to giving tzedakah or to spending a bit of time here and there on community needs. Unfortunately, our institutions and especially yeshivas and day schools require more. They need the involvement of lay people who eat, drink and sleep the needs of the community, people for whom other work is secondary.

The nature of communal activity has changed because our community has changed. Most of us are always busy. Family size has grown significantly and this inevitably brings additional responsibilities and time pressure. There are too many events to go to and too many tasks to get to. Nearly every day is a balancing act, a challenge to squeeze in more activity than we have time for. Mothers, so many of whom work, must find the time and energy to devote to their children and fathers want to find time for Torah study. Were it not for Shabbos, we would all be lost.

There is yet another factor. We do not value askanos, certainly not like we once did and certainly not to the extent that we value check-writing. What isn’t highly valued does not attract. Apart from the good reasons why our schools (and other causes) put so much effort into fundraising and the wooing of check-writers, there is an attitude that the notion of lay leadership is something like an alien belief. For things large and small, including matters that are not halachic or hashkafic, the attitude is that Torah leaders alone can decide and the rest of us should be followers and workers, but not leaders.

There still are pockets of askanos but they are few and they are contracting. This is in contrast to the pattern that prevailed for generations in Jewish life in pre-Holocaust Europe and the pattern that prevailed during the formative years of American Orthodoxy when great Torah leaders, notably the transcendent Rosh Yeshiva of Lakewood, worked closely with lay people who had leadership roles. We now are enveloped in a mood or climate which discourages lay leadership, which says in effect that it isn’t appropriate for people who are not Roshei Yeshiva or respected rabbis to make decisions for the community.

These factors contribute to the situation of many, perhaps most, of our institutions – again, primarily yeshivas and day schools – operating without the intensive involvement and commitment of people who can help with important tasks. The administrative staffs of our schools are too thin and often unprepared to deal with the serious financial and legal matters that inevitably arise from time to time. Because askanos is effectively discouraged, schools and institutions have diminished fundraising capacity. More importantly, they do not have available the creativity, experience, knowledge and talent of lay people who can make a huge difference. Far more often than not, the involvement of lay people has become a hit and run affair.

This is a more serious problem than nearly all of us recognize. Our schools are being hurt because they are bereft of effective lay leadership.

In one way or another, much of what I do involves day schools, including those that are Modern Orthodox or non-Orthodox. I approach each school in an empathetic way. Without going into all of the details, what has emerged from my activity is a nearly lifelong record of assisting Jewish schools around the country.

Perhaps the major expression of my efforts in the day school field is my work as president of the Rabbi Jacob Joseph School, a voluntary responsibility that is now in its thirty-second year. RJJ now encompasses four schools, including the Jewish Foundation School of Staten Island, a Modern Orthodox co-educational day school. This relationship came about because some years ago JFS ran into severe financial difficulty, owing nearly $1.5 ... Read More >>]]> The comments on my previous posting taking Edah, Ukeles and Heilman to task have been mostly critical. While there is always the possibility that those who are in agreement with me are silent, in the main my critics have made some good points and I hope that it will be useful for me to respond, in the course of which I will say some personal things about my work.

In one way or another, much of what I do involves day schools, including those that are Modern Orthodox or non-Orthodox. I approach each school in an empathetic way. Without going into all of the details, what has emerged from my activity is a nearly lifelong record of assisting Jewish schools around the country.

Perhaps the major expression of my efforts in the day school field is my work as president of the Rabbi Jacob Joseph School, a voluntary responsibility that is now in its thirty-second year. RJJ now encompasses four schools, including the Jewish Foundation School of Staten Island, a Modern Orthodox co-educational day school. This relationship came about because some years ago JFS ran into severe financial difficulty, owing nearly $1.5 million in short-term debt and it was at the brink of collapse. RJJ assumed all of this debt and maintained JFS as it was, because I could not accept the notion that a day school with 400 students would close. This action hurt RJJ enormously and we have never recovered from it because in addition to the direct financial cost, certain supporters could not accept what we had done inasmuch as it was contrary to RJJ�s approach to chinuch and they walked away.

About Edah, which incidentally I helped get a significant grant for a project that it did not handle well and therefore was not continued, I am offended by its slogan. The message that it takes courage to be modern and Orthodox is not only not true, it is deliberately aimed as a taunt to the rest of the Orthodox community. As the programs at its conferences show, Edah is far more comfortable with speakers from the non-Orthodox world than it is inviting persons from other Orthodox sectors. I have a particular grievance relating to the place that day school education is given each year in the program. Not once has Edah invited persons who are responsible for day school education or those who have researched and written on the subject. Its attitude toward day school education is overwhelmingly ideological, namely an attack against what it regards as pernicious charedi influences in day schools. There is hardly any empathy for those who teach in these schools, at low salaries and with great sacrifice. These teachers are made to feel as exploiters of the young. This from an organization that preaches tolerance.

I attempt to deal with Ukeles� bogus research in my next column. Are we to accept the claim that 75% of New York Jews are Modern Orthodox? Are we to obliterate the subcategory of Centrist Orthodox? Are we to ignore the data in my day school census, a project that was conducted with total objectivity and without a single ax to grind? I believe that Ukeles was driven by an ideological agenda. His data which are not at all based on acceptable research techniques will now be accepted as holy writ. I think there is an obligation to write the truth about how badly he has mishandled his research.

I make no apologies regarding Sam Heilman. He is a good writer who detests much of the Orthodox community. I wonder whether those who have criticized what I wrote feel as strongly about Heilman�s nasty and often repeated claim that the Judaic faculty in Modern Orthodox schools serve as �agents provocateurs� who coerce their students to become charedi. This is nonsense and offensive and there is no reason why anyone should shy away from saying so.

It has become something of a custom among persons who criticize what I write to poke fun at the fact that my Jewish Week column is paid for. That bit of infantilism conveniently ignores the substance of the column. In the event, the paid-for status came about because there were people who were fed up with the constant disparagement of Orthodox life in the pages of the Jewish Week. They felt that there should be an antidote. It should be of interest that the column is paid for by people who are Modern Orthodox.

I expect that what I have written here will generate further criticism. That�s fine. But those who care about fairness might reflect on my work to assist Modern Orthodox schools. I conclude by saying that later this week I will write a paper on behalf of the Westchester Day School, certainly a Modern Orthodox institution, in connection with the difficult zoning case it is involved in and which shortly will result in a trial in Federal District Court. In line with my longstanding policy, I have refused compensation for this difficult work which comes at a time when there is a great deal else on my plate.