Garbage In - Garbage Out!

Build, Baby, Build.

All bets are off after UN infamy

The silver lining to the UN’s act of infamy. 

  by Jack Engelhard

All bets are off now that the Security Council voted 14-0 to condemn Jewish settlement activity over Biblical Judea, Samaria, and even Jerusalem.

Israel now has the green light to build, baby, build and Trump will have all the incentive he needs to move the United States Embassy to Jerusalem.

All because that Security Council measure is so preposterous.

Coming as it does from the United Nations, which is in the hands of terrorists, mobsters and tyrants whose only business is to condemn Israel.

Blast and damn the gluttonous Liberals, here, there and everywhere who delivered Israel into the claws and arms of those jackals.

Their names will be associated together with Haman.

As of that day, another date that will live in infamy, Friday, December 23, 2016, Israel owes nobody nothin’.  Annex Judea and Samaria. Forget the Oslo Accord. Forget 800 trucks a day plying food and supplies into Gaza. Forget the illusion of Abbas as a partner in peace. Declare him and his PA (Palestinian Authority) persona non grata.

From Donald Trump and US Congress, cease $600 million a year in direct funding for the PA and millions more through UNRWA and other false-front agencies.

Dismantle the PLO’s office in Washington, D.C.

Forget the mirage of a two state solution. For Kerry, Obama, and Samantha Power, the action was taken to “further peace.”

Nothing can be further from the truth. This was an act of infamy against the Jewish State.

They say it was meant to advance a two state solution whereby two peoples live side by side in peace and security.


Letting it go through by the trick of abstaining, is an everlasting blight on Obama.


Where do Arabs live in peace and security even among themselves – Syria, Iraq, Yemen?

The two state solution is a trap – a device to swarm Israel out of existence.

That’s been the plan all along…to uproot the Jewish people from their ancestral homeland, by hook or by crook.

That the United States, under Obama, took part in this abomination, by letting it go through by the trick of abstaining, is an everlasting blight on Obama and his failed administration.

Senators Lindsay Graham and Ted Cruz say so. Here’s Cruz: "And for those who acquiesced or facilitated the UN resolution--especially President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and Ambassador Power--history will record your abiding and shameful legacy undermining our friend and ally Israel.”

How have the mighty fallen? This is President John F. Kennedy in 1961 at his inaugural address: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

Instead, friends of liberty were blindsided by Obama’s farewell address of sorts, his parting shot to sock it to the Jews.

So now the table has been set for Donald Trump to do what’s right.

As the news came in, in anger we wrote (on Facebook): “Donald Trump will have to DRAIN THAT SWAMP.

“Immediately end all financing for the UN, consider all resolutions against Israel flagrant, nonsensical, bigoted and non-binding...dissolve diplomatic status and immunity across the board...give all members 48 hours to pack up and leave town...and then destroy the building to a heap of rubble.”

Now that we’ve had a chance to calm down, we say it again, exactly as is, but add – Build, Baby, Build.

New York-based bestselling American novelist Jack Engelhard writes a regular column for Arutz Sheva. New from the novelist: “News Anchor Sweetheart,” a novelist’s version of Fox News and Megyn Kelly. Engelhard is the author of the international bestseller “Indecent Proposal.” He is the recipient of the Ben Hecht Award for Literary Excellence. Website: www.jackengelhard.com

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/19953

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made the following remarks on the first night of Chanukah this evening (Saturday, 24 December 2016) at an event in salute of wounded IDF and security forces veterans and victims of terrorism:

 

“Citizens of Israel, I would like to reassure you. The resolution that was adopted yesterday at the United Nations is distorted and shameful but we will overcome it. The resolution determines that the Jewish Quarter [in the Old City of Jerusalem] is ‘occupied territory’. This is delusional. The resolution determines that the Western Wall is ‘occupied territory’. This too is delusional. There is nothing more absurd than calling the Western Wall and the Jewish Quarter occupied territory. There is also an attempt here, which will not succeed, to impose permanent settlement terms on Israel. You might recall that the last one who tried to do this was Carter, an extremely hostile president to Israel, and who just recently said that Hamas is not a terrorist organization. Carter passed sweeping decisions against us at the UN of a similar kind, and this was also unsuccessful. We opposed this and nothing happened.

“All American presidents since Carter upheld the American commitment not to try to dictate permanent settlement terms to Israel at the Security Council. And yesterday, in complete contradiction of this commitment, including an explicit commitment by President Obama himself in 2011, the Obama administration carried out a shameful anti-Israel ploy at the UN. I would like to tell you that the resolution that was adopted, not only doesn’t bring peace closer, it drives it further away. It hurts justice; it hurts the truth. Think about this absurdity, half a million human beings are being slaughtered in Syria. Tens of thousands are being butchered in Sudan. The entire Middle East is going up in flames and the Obama administration and the Security Council choose to gang up on the only democracy in the Middle East – the State of Israel. What a disgrace.

My friends, I would like to tell you on the first night of Chanukah that this will not avail them. We reject this resolution outright, just as we rejected the UN resolution that determined that Zionism was racism. It took time but that resolution was rescinded; it will take time but this one will also be rescinded. Now I will tell you how it will be rescinded. It will be rescinded not because of our retreats but because of our steadfastness and that of our allies. I remind you that we withdrew from Gaza, uprooted communities and took people out of their graves. Did this help us at all at the UN? Did this improve our relations at the UN? We were hit with thousands of rockets and at the UN we were hit with the Goldstone report!

“So I will tell you what is clear, I know, to the vast majority of Israeli citizens: We learned this lesson, and we will not go there. But I also want to tell you something else: We are not alone. I spoke last night with many American leaders. I was pleased to hear from members of the American Congress, from Democrats and Republicans alike, that they will fight an all-out war against this resolution with all the power at their disposal. I heard the exact same things from our friends in the incoming administration, who said that they will fight an all-out war against this resolution. And I heard this from across the spectrum of American public opinion and American politics – Republicans, Democrats, Jews and non-Jews. As I spoke yesterday with leaders in Congress and the incoming American administration, they told me unequivocally: ‘We are sick of this and it will not continue. We will change this resolution. We will not allow anyone to harm the State of Israel.’ They are declaring their intention to pass legislation to punish countries and bodies that try to harm Israel. They say that this will also include the UN itself. I remind you that the UN receives a quarter, 25%, of its budget from the US alone.

“In my most recent speech to the UN, in September, I said that a storm was expected in the UN before it gets better there. We knew that this is possible and we expect that it will come. The resolution that was passed at the UN yesterday is part of the swan song of the old world that is biased against Israel, but, my friends, we are entering a new era. And just as President-elect Trump said yesterday, it will happen much sooner than you think. In the new era there is a much higher price for those who try to harm Israel, and that the price will be exacted not only by the US, but by Israel as well.

“Two countries with which we have diplomatic relations cosponsored the resolution against us at the UN; therefore, I ordered yesterday that our ambassadors be recalled from, Senegal and from New Zealand. I have ordered that all Israeli assistance to Senegal be halted, and there’s more to come. Those who work with us will benefit because Israel has much to give to the countries of the world.

But those who work against us will lose – because there will be a diplomatic and economic price for their actions against Israel. Additionally, I have instructed the Foreign Ministry to complete, within a month, a reassessment of all of our contacts with the UN, including Israeli financing of UN institutions and the presence of UN representatives in the country. But I am not waiting; already now I have ordered to halt approximately NIS 30 million in financing for five UN institutions, five UN bodies that are especially hostile to Israel. I have already ordered that this be stopped, and there is more to come.

“We are on a campaign of improving our relations with the nations of the world. And it will take more time, and I have said this as well, until our improved relations with countries on five continents are also reflected in their decisions in UN institutions. But I would like to tell you something else, and listen closely to what I’m saying. Contrary to what you might expect, it is very likely that last night’s scandalous resolution will accelerate this process, because it is the straw that broke the camel’s back.

 Last night’s resolution is a call to arms for all of our many friends in the US and elsewhere around the world, friends who are sick of the UN’s hostility toward Israel, and they intend to bring about a fundamental change in the UN. Therefore, this evening I tell you in the language of our sources, the sweet will yet come forth from the bitter and those who come to curse will yet bless.

“Here, on the first night of Chanukah, I stand next to the Maccabees of our times, IDF soldiers and wounded IDF heroes. I salute you and I say to you clearly: The light will dispel the darkness.

The spirit of the Maccabees will overcome. Happy Chanukah.”

Joseph Goldman was taken to Central Booking, where he has been charged with first- and second-degree rape, second-, third- and fourth-degree sex offense, first- and second-degree assault, perverted practice, and other related charges.

Man, 35, arrested in connection with child sex abuse

Joseph Goldman faces rape, assault charges

 

Joseph Goldman

SOURCE: Baltimore Police Department

 

BALTIMORE —

  Police said a 35-year-old man has been arrested in connection with child sex abuse.

Detectives arrested Joseph Goldman around 8:15 a.m. Monday at his home in the 3500 block of Taney Road.

A juvenile victim disclosed several incidents over a period of time to a third party, and that third party relayed the information to the Baltimore Police Department, which began an investigation, police said.

The incidents happened over the course of several years, but was disclosed in October this year, police said.

Police said they seized suspected marijuana, two handguns, one shotgun with an altered barrel, one rifle and a homemade silencer from his home.

Goldman was taken to Central Booking, where he has been charged with first- and second-degree rape, second-, third- and fourth-degree sex offense, first- and second-degree assault, perverted practice, and other related charges.

The investigation into the guns will continue, police said.

http://www.wbaltv.com/article/man-35-arrested-in-connection-with-child-sex-abuse/8520289

We know that drug use has become rampant among the yeshiva students. I was told by several mothers that they were aware that students were leaving school during lunch breaks to use drugs and somehow no one was the wiser. Why weren’t the teachers, administrators and parents on top of this? Drug addiction does not discriminate between the races, religions or genders. It affects us all in one way or another.

‘How did my son, product of an Orthodox family, educated in a yeshiva, become an addict?’

Ari Glassman a"h

By Rebecca Glassman

Rebecca Glassman of West Hempstead spoke at a gathering in Woodmere last week that confronted the issue of adiction in the Orthodox community. Her son, Aryeh Nathan Glassman, died from a heroin overdose in May.

When I was trying to figure out what I would say tonight, many well meaning friends and family strongly suggested that I speak from my heart. Most who have attended different functions at my home as well as Ari’s funeral have heard me speak and know that I always speak from my heart. But how do you speak from the heart when the heart is shattered to pieces?

Aryeh Natan, born June 12, 1988, died May 15, 2016. Ari died of a heroin overdose. I will no longer see the face that lit up my heart, the twinkling blue eyes and that magnificent smile.
Heroin took his life.

I could stand here and tell you all about Ari, how well-rounded he was, how talented and smart he was. I could tell you about what a great friend he was, how each of his friends considered themselves to be his best friend because they knew that he would always have their backs no matter what. I could tell you about how he shut down our street on the weekend with his organized hockey games … how much Ari loved to read … how much he enjoyed playing the piano, jamming with friends and even alone on the keyboard in his room. I could share with you Ari’s love of cooking and how he used to drive me crazy asking for different recipes. I could tell you how much Ari adored his younger sister and brother, and they him. But really, what would be the point of any of this. Ari is gone and the pain of his loss is immense.

Ari was brought up in an Orthodox home, not unlike many of the people here. He attended yeshiva from nursery aleph as a three year old, through the twelfth grade. He was given all of the things that parents give their kids including love and emotional support. He was cherished from the time he was born even through adulthood and through his addiction.

But here’s where I have a problem. How did my son, the product of an Orthodox family, educated in a yeshiva, become an addict? After all, doesn’t drug abuse only exist in the outside world? How can this happen to us? As far as I was concerned, drug addicts came from public schools and the inner cities, broken homes, and homes where there is abuse. Drugs were found in poverty stricken areas like the slums, and areas where there is a lack of education.

We know that drug use has become rampant among the yeshiva students. I was told by several mothers that they were aware that students were leaving school during lunch breaks to use drugs and somehow no one was the wiser. Why weren’t the teachers, administrators and parents on top of this?

Drug addiction does not discriminate between the races, religions or genders. It affects us all in one way or another. 

Many in the Orthodox community don’t believe it could happen to them. Sadly, my family is an example of the fact that it can.

I was told, that in the last year within the Orthodox community, we have lost 60 young men and women to drug overdoses. My heart breaks for the families of these children.

My Ari suffered from the disease of addiction. The surgeon general, Dr. Vivek H. Murthy wrote that “addiction is a chronic brain disease that has the potential for both recurrence (relapse) and recovery.”

Addiction is in fact a deadly disease. We need to take charge of it by saying we have a problem and not sweeping it under the rug. We need to understand that it is a disease not unlike cancer or diabetes. Would anyone deny that cancer or diabetes exists? Would we deny our children medical treatment for those illnesses? Absolutely not! So then why are we ashamed to say that the disease of drug addiction exists in our communities and in our schools? Our kids need help and there is help out there if we just reach out and ask for it.

Unfortunately, while Ari had been in many rehab programs, he could not get out of his own way and accept the help that was offered. …

Ari did however, choose to help others, while he was sober and in rehab.

After he died I received several messages from people who were residents with him in the various programs. They told me that if it hadn’t been for Ari’s encouragement, and insistence that they stay in rehab, they would have definitely relapsed or worse. One young man told me that he had been clean and sober for several years now, and was shocked when he heard about Ari’s death. It warms my heart to hear these stories because it confirms what I knew all along. Drug addiction was a disease that Ari battled with, but it did not define him as a human being. He was a kind and generous person who was ill.

I would like to help prevent what happened to Ari from happening to others. People need to wake up and understand that there is work to be done when it comes to drug abuse. And if the work starts now, we can hopefully save more children instead of watching them die. There have been too many deaths.

Education and programming within the schools for students, teachers, administrators as well as parents, is necessary for prevention. It is also necessary to have the tools to deal with those who are already unfortunately addicted.

Tomorrow it will be seven months since Ari died. … I firmly believe that he would want us to continue on this journey of life. Part of Ari’s legacy are the years that he should have lived. So now, we go on and live them for him. We cherish those years and make them count. Ari always wanted to help people. To that end I am addressing this crowd in his memory, in the hope that I can help even one person who is struggling.

Finally, I was reading through some chapters in Rabbi Maurice Lamm’s book, Consolation, the follow up book to The Jewish Way in Death and Mourning. There is a paragraph that I would like to share with all of you that gave me some comfort:

“As we separate and ‘die’ from the womb, only to be born to life, so we separate and die from our world, only to be reborn to life eternal. The exit from the womb is the birth of the body. The exit from the body is the birth of the soul.

“As the womb requires a gestation period of nine months, the world requires a residence of decades. As the womb is ‘prozdor’ (an anteroom) for the preparation of life, so our present existence is prozdor to the world beyond.”

Ari had almost three decades of residence in this world as preparation for the world beyond. I would like to think that maybe he was extra special to Hashem, as he didn’t need as much time as the rest of us do to prepare for the world to come.

Ari struggled so much in this world and even through his struggles he tried to help others. Ari was a gift that we received and gift that was taken back earlier than anticipated. …
In Ari’s memory I hope that we can work together on getting the information about addiction out there, both on the level of prevention as well as assisting those who are in the midst of fighting the disease.

May Ari’s neshama have an aliyah. And may the neshamas of all of the beautiful children that we have lost to addiction have an aliyah.

http://www.thejewishstar.com/stories/How-did-my-son-product-of-an-Orthodox-family-educated-in-a-yeshiva-become-an-addict,11617

Rabbi Shimon Garelick had his rabbinic license revoked in August at the recommendation of the rabbinic disciplinary committee after accusations that he committed a spate of sexual crimes over many years.

Rabbi defrocked for alleged sex offences is still practicing — report

 

Shimon Garelick of Nahariya continues to present himself as a community rabbi and counselor, Channel 2 reveals

 

Former rabbi Shimon Garelick

A rabbi who was defrocked by the Chief Rabbinate after accusations of sexual assault still presents himself as a rabbi and counselor, according to a Channel 2 investigative report aired Sunday.

Rabbi Shimon Garelick had his rabbinic license revoked in August at the recommendation of the rabbinic disciplinary committee after accusations that he committed a spate of sexual crimes over many years. 

Garelick served as a neighborhood rabbi in the northern city of Nahariya, as a kashrut supervisor, and as a chaplain at the city’s hospital.

Accusations against Garelick have come from girls, boys, women and men, according to Channel 2. Some date back many years, while some are recent.

Police have closed all cases against him because the complainants were minors and there was not sufficient corroborating evidence to prosecute him.

Channel 2 found that he still serves as the head of a synagogue in his neighborhood. A reporter also went to the rabbi for counseling and secretly filmed him.

In response, Garelick’s lawyer told Channel 2 that “the complaints were investigated by the correct authorities. The claims are malicious rumors put about by people with vested interests. There are no criminal or disciplinary investigations against the rabbi at this time.”

Claims against the rabbi first surfaced in 2007 when he was detained for several days with many accusations against him. However, police closed all the cases against him due to lack of evidence, and Garelick, a father of 11, was released.

The matter was referred to the Takana Forum, which specializes in dealing discreetly with sexual abuse cases within the Orthodox community. In 2011, the body ruled that despite not having been convicted, Garelick should not serve in a public role. They warned the community to keep their distance from him, the religious website Kipa reported.

“Since we first heard of complaints against [Garelick] and without any connection to disciplinary court,” a statement on the website reads, “the Forum has heard other complaints against that rabbi, of serious claims of sexual attacks. Some of the male and female complainants have turned to the disciplinary committee of the Chief Rabbinate.”

Fliers were circulated in Nahariya against Garelick, warning people to be particularly careful not to be alone with the rabbi and to be particularly vigilant not to let young girls speak with him or be secluded with him.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/rabbi-disbarred-for-alleged-sex-offences-still-practicing-report/

Rabbi David Harrison was indicted by the Jerusalem District Court for acts of rape, sodomy, indecent assault and intimidation committed against a 14-year-old girl while serving as a rabbi in a religious school for girls.

Religious girls' school rabbi indicted for rape

Rabbi David Harrison has been charged with a dozen counts of sodomy, rape, indecent assault and threatening behavior for acts he committed while serving as rabbi of a religious girls' school in Jerusalem.

According to an indictment filed Sunday morning in the Jerusalem District Court, the acts attributed to him occurred two to four times a week.

Rabbi David Harrison in court

Esther Bar-Zion, who is representing Harrison, said, "From our point of view, nothing has been attributed to my client."

The court decided to release Harrison to house arrest, where he will remain with his son in Petah Tikva.

Harrison, aged 58 from Jerusalem, worked at Ulpanat Beit Shlomit between the years 2007-2010. He is accused of committing serious sexual offenses against teenage girls—including rape—while he was working at the school.

According to the indictment, in 2009 while serving as a substitute teacher, Harrison met a 14-year-old student who eventually filed a report with the police when she was 20. According to the victim, he would ask her to perform tasks in class, such as handing out papers, and touch her each time to judge gauge her response.

Harrison with his lawyer

Eventually, Harrison asked her to meet him alone in a teacher's lounge where he attacked her for the first time. Afterward, he would tell her to meet him again every week in the teacher's lounge or another area of the school where he would perform dozens of acts of rape, sodomy and indecent assault.

The indictment also alleges that Harrison threatened the girl and told her he would hurt her and tell everyone she was a prostitute. Harrison also threatened the girl that she would be kicked out of school and no other school would accept her. Additionally, he also threatened to tell her parents and others that she acted inappropriately with him.

According to the indictment, on one particular occasion, Harrison even forced the girl to take the "morning after" pill.

Harrison denied the allegations, saying "When I was arrested, I was told I'm suspected of rape. I went into questioning smug and didn't ask for a lawyer because I was sure this was a complete mistake. There isn't even a hint of an offense. I didn't touch (her). I ask to be allowed to undergo a polygraph test and to be confronted with the girl ... The school was full of people; I didn't even have a private office there."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4894796,00.html

Any rabbi similar to Rabbi Lookstein would be examined and evaluated, as well as his “ordination and his decision making in Jewish law.”

"RETROACTIVE ANNULMENT:  subsequent non-observance of the commandments annuls the conversion. 'The essence of conversion," R. Feinstein maintained, is sincere acceptance of the yoke of the commandments. In the case of converts who later disobey Jewish law, "it is obvious, even though he orally affirmed his acceptance of the commandments, that he possessed mental reservations."While one might contend that the would-be convert's intent at the moment of acceptance would be sufficient to establish true intent, Rabbi Feinstein rejected this as unacceptable. For such a person to be presumed a Jew, he would have to perform the commandments. Yet, in this case,he never did so. His promises and affirmations  before the rabbinic court were simply "empty talk designed to deceive the rabbinic court. Since he did not [sincerely] accept the commandment, he is not a proselyte and his betrothal is nothing,""

The Rabbinate’s new conversion criteria committee? Same-old, same-old, but now it’s official

 

HASKEL LOOKSTEIN

Israel’s Chief Rabbinate met this week to form a committee to draft criteria for recognizing the weddings, divorces and conversions of rabbis in the Diaspora. After the messy political firestorm following the rejection of a conversion conducted by Rabbi Haskel Lookstein as well as legal challenges demanding the full list of “approved” rabbis, the Rabbinate finally agreed to establish an official set of criteria.

To those who have hailed this move as an important step forward towards transparency and openness on the part of the Chief Rabbinate, I would caution a great deal of skepticism. From the details of the draft document that have been reported, the Chief Rabbinate seems poised to officially adopt its longstanding practices. 

According to the Jerusalem Post,

[Chief Rabbi David] Lau suggested that rabbis approved by the Chief Rabbinate must work where there are “established and organized rabbinical courts that work in accordance with the principles of Jewish law and whose status is accepted by the community rabbis.” He cited the rabbinical courts in London and Paris as examples.

In addition, Lau said rabbis who operate under the authority of rabbinical associations and rabbinical courts that are approved by such associations would be another criteria, citing organizations such as the Rabbinical Council of America; the US Agudath Harabonim and the Conference of European Rabbis.

Finally, the chief rabbi suggested that in instances where there is no “organized rabbinate,” the individual rabbis and their “path in Jewish law” must be examined by the Chief Rabbinate’s department with the rabbis of the community in question, along with an examination of the rabbi’s ordination and his decision making in Jewish law.

In other words, no individual rabbis’ conversions would be recognized automatically, and these conversions would be examined and scrutinized by the Chief Rabbinate. Meaning, the Rabbinate will continue to do what it has been doing until now, only in an official capacity. This means that the conversions of the London Beit Din, or the Beit Din of America (or South Africa or Detroit) will be accepted without question, but any other conversion will be examined on a case by case basis. Any other rabbi similar to Rabbi Lookstein would be examined and evaluated, as well as his “ordination and his decision making in Jewish law.” That’s a pretty broad definition of scrutiny.

In America, this will mean that a rabbi who performs a conversion outside the RCA’s GPS system or another recognized Beit Din will not automatically be recognized, but will be evaluated individually. There will be no list of individual rabbis. Such a list is legally impossible to defend, ends up growing outdated (leaving many deceased rabbis approved to perform conversions), and generally smacks of favoritism and nepotism.

What does this mean for the thousands of converts who were converted by ad hoc batei din before the GPS system? For those that have been “approved” by the Beth Din of America and its poskim — and there are many — one hopes that the Rabbanut will have the good sense to automatically accept those conversions.

 On the other hand, I do not believe that conversions performed by individual rabbis who established their own Batei Din will enjoy automatic approval and acceptance by the Rabbanut.

Moreover, liberal Orthodox rabbis and their batei din stand little chance (to my mind) of gaining acceptance by the Chief Rabbinate for their conversions. Does this mean that they shouldn’t perform conversions? Of course not! But it does, in my view, obligate them to be honest and completely open with their prospective converts, and explain to them that currently, the Chief Rabbinate does not recognize them as Jewish for the purpose of marriage in Israel. Armed with that information, they will have the ability to make the best choice for themselves.

Finally, what’s most alarming about this report is the fact that the committee does not include any rabbi with any personal familiarity with the rabbis it will actually be evaluating. The joint committee will be comprised of rabbinical judges Rabbis Aharon Katz, Shlomo Shapira and Yitzhak Elmaliach, along with Council of the Chief Rabbinate members rabbis Yitzhak Ralbag and Yehuda Deri. I do not question the expertise, knowledge and piety of any of these rabbis. But their biographies demonstrate that each of the was either born in Israel or raised here from a young age — without any meaningful interaction with the English-speaking Orthodox community. How can rabbis who don’t speak English and have no personal knowledge of the rabbanim in question — their attitudes, writings or teachings — or the scope and nature of the congregations — realistically evaluate whether a rabbi is “appropriate” to conduct conversions, and whether his conversions should, or should not be recognized? If you don’t know the difference between “KJ” and “BMG” — nor what those letters represent, how can you have any understanding of conversions in those respective communities?

Rabbi Seth Farber of Itim has done important work to force the Chief Rabbinate to have taken this step at all. But it will have been in vain if they do not at the very least, add at least one member or advisor to the committee who speaks English, knows the communities in question, and can give the rabbis an honest and clear assessment of the facts on the ground. That, to me, seems to be a most basic demand that the rabbinate could and should accept.

—

Rabbi Reuven Spolter is the Overseas Rabbinic Coordinator for Irgun Rabbanei Tzohar, and coordinates Jewish status applications on behalf of Tzohar from English speaking countries.

Avrohom Gordimer adds: " Would we seek for a kosher agency to fail to properly assess the kosher status of a food product before certifying it? Would we fail to carefully make sure that our food bears reliable kosher certification before eating it? And as people who care about the well-being of others and of ourselves, would we approve of a hospital hiring a doctor or administering a drug before a comprehensive evaluation of competence and quality? Would we seek treatment from a doctor or take a drug that has not been thoroughly evaluated and vetted? Why should conversion not be held to the same high standards of scrutiny?" 

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-rabbinates-new-conversion-criteria-committee-same-old-same-old-but-now-its-official/?fb_action_ids=1173257439455854&fb_action_types=og.comments

Even though that Beit Din wrote a letter of support for Lookstein in June, Lau explained why he cannot accept conversions performed by Lookstein, even as he had promised in July that conversions performed by Lookstein would be recognized.

Rabbinate forms conversion vetting panel, raising hackles anew

Committee includes member who rejected New York rabbi Lookstein, who brought Ivanka Trump into Judaism and now apparently won’t be accepted despite chief rabbis’ promises

The Chief Rabbis of Israel, Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef (L) and Rabbi David Lau (R)

The state-appointed chief rabbis of Israel’s two main Jewish streams on Wednesday appointed members to a committee which will define the criteria according to which the Rabbinate will recognize conversions to Judaism performed abroad by Diaspora rabbis.

The Ashkenazi and Sephardi chief rabbis, Yitzhak Ysef and David Lau, convened a meeting Wednesday with the Chief Rabbinate Council and the Supreme Rabbinical Court to determine which overseas rabbis and their converts would be accepted by all the rabbinic courts in Israel. Previously, municipal city courts could rule on the issue.

The chief rabbis appointed five rabbis to the committee, including three judges from the Supreme Rabbinical Court — rabbis Aharon Katz, Shlomo Shapira and Yitzhak Elmaliach.

Elmaliach served on the court that in July disqualified a conversion performed by the New York Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, the rabbi who also converted Ivanka Trump, the daughter of US President-elect Donald Trump, before she married.

Jared Kushner and wife Ivanka Trump May 2, 2016

The high-profile case was one the factors that led to the rabbis setting up the committee.

Elmaliach has in the past faced strong criticism from Mavoi Satum, a nonprofit organization helping women denied a get, or Jewish divorce, for controversial rulings he had made in divorce cases.

The other two members of the committee are rabbis Yitzhak Ralbag, Lau’s father-in-law, and Yehuda Deri, elder brother of Shas MK Aryeh Deri.

Rabbi Yitzhak Ralbag

The head of Itim, an organization that helps Israelis navigate the state’s religious bureaucracy, was quick to condemn the decisions of the chief rabbis. Rabbi Seth Farber, founder and director of Itim, said the decision “gives cause for concern, especially when looking at the committee members and their history.”

“One of the committee members served on the bench of the Supreme Rabbinical Court that rejected the conversion overseen by Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, one of the most influential and senior Orthodox rabbis in the United States. Another one has been operating behind the scenes for years rejecting conversions from North America and is partially to blame for the chaotic situation that has been created.”

Farber claimed that despite their stated intention to ease the plight of converts, the Chief Rabbinate may have made it worse. He called for the rabbinate to enter into dialogue with the Jewish communities of the Diaspora and recognize the challenges facing local synagogue rabbis in their fight against intermarriage and assimilation with an eye toward building trust with Jewish communities around the world, not disenfranchising them.

Lau said according to the new system, local rabbis abroad will first need approval by the heads of organizations like the Conference of European Rabbis and the Rabbinical Council of America before being considered by the Israeli rabbinate.

The chief rabbi singled out the Beth Din of America headed by Rabbi Gedalia Schwartz as a reliable organization. The Beth Din is affiliated with the RCA.


 Nevertheless, even though that Beit Din wrote a letter of support for Lookstein in June, Lau explained why he cannot accept conversions performed by Lookstein, even as he had promised in July that conversions performed by Lookstein would be recognized. Last week his Sephardi counterpart Yosef made a similar promise.

Any rabbi who is a member of the RCA will need the approval of the Beth Din of America for any matter pertaining to Jewish identity, including divorce and conversion, Lau said. That body will be the final arbiter of Jewish status for America.

However, “Rabbi Lookstein, as we know also in Israel, is not prepared to accept the authority [of the Beth Din of America],” Lau said. “He is a member of the RCA but he will not allow the RCA to rule for him.”

Gedalia Dov Schwartz

In effect this means that Ivanka Trump’s conversion would not automatically be recognized by the Israeli rabbinate.

Lookstein, 84, is now rabbi emeritus of Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun in Manhattan after serving as senior rabbi there since 1979. Schwartz, 91, and has headed the Beth Din since 1991.

Lau also proposed creating a register of marriages and conversions from abroad — in effect a list of who is a Jew, which would allow those people and their children automatic recognition as Jews by the Israeli rabbinate.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/chief-rabbis-set-up-committee-to-rule-on-conversions-performed-abroad/?utm_source=The+Times+of+Israel+Daily+Edition&utm_campaign=90f66ba33c-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2016_12_15&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_adb46cec92-90f66ba33c-55186525

רב לוקשטיין: "כופר, אסור לקבל גיורים שלו" Rabbi Lookstein has been responsible for the conversion of Ivanka Trump, daughter of the new US president.

רב לוקשטיין: "כופר, אסור לקבל גיורים שלו"
 

 Rabbi Avraham Sherman is against the conversions of certain US rabbis, including Rabbi Haskel Lookstein and Rabbi Avi Weiss. In an interview with Radio Kol Chai he calls them ("Apikores/Heretic)" and we should not accept their conversions. This discussion took place at the Chief Rabbinate Council, about conversions abroad, with an emphasis on the United States. One of the allegations being examined is whether the rabbis (in Israel)  can give a blanket approval for any conversion without examining all the conversions and each individual conversion.

At this time there is discussion in the Chief Rabbinate, on the formation of an orderly criteria by which these rabbis abroad shall receive recognition for the purposes of marriage and divorce and the Jewish credentials of their converts. Sherman said that "Rabbi Haskel Lookstein who converted Ivanka Trump, published rulings contrary to the Shulchan Aruch. He is an 'Apikores/Heretic' and should not have his conversions accepted.

הרב לוקשטיין: "כופר

הרב שרמן על הרב לוקשטיין: "כופר, אסור לקבל גיורים שלו"

 

לקראת הדיון של הרבנות הראשית בגיוריהם של רבנים מחו"ל תוקף הרב שרמן ואומר: "הרב לוקשטיין פרסם פסקי הלכות המנוגדות לשו"ע. המגייר הליברלי הרב וייס מינה רבות בביכ"נ". עורך דינו של הרב וייס: "עמדת הרב שרמן מנוגדת לעמדת הרבנות"

משה ויסטוך

 
י"ד כסליו תשע"ז, 14/12/2016 12:12

הדיין, הרב אברהם שרמן, יוצא נגד הגיורים של רבנים בארצות הברית, ביניהם של הרב יחיאל לוקשטיין והרב אבי וייס. בראיון לרדיו 'קול חי' הוא מכנה אותם "כופרים" שאסור לקבל את הגיורים שלהם. בשעה זו מתקיים דיון במועצת הרבנות הראשית, סביב הגיורים בחו"ל בדגש על ארצות הברית. אחת הטענות שנבדקת היא האם לרבנים המגיירים בחו"ל ניתן אישור גורף לכל גיוריו מבלי לבחון כל גיור וגיור.

עוד כותרות בכיפה

• יאיר לפיד: מתנער מדבריו של ח"כ שטרן
• הרב דרוקמן לתושבי עמונה: קבלו את המתווה החדש
• כל חדשות המגזר בעמוד הפייסבוק שלנו

שני רבנים שעומדים במוקד הסערה הם הרב יחיאל לוקשטיין והרב אבי וייס. הרב לוקשטיין הוא ממובילי זרם היהדות האורתודוכסית בארה"ב וסגן נשיא 'בית הדין דאמריקה', הגוף המרכזי המפקח על נהלי הגיור האורתודוקסי בארה"ב כולה. הרב לוקשטיין הוא זה שהיה אחראי על גיורה של איוונקה טראמפ, בתו של נשיא ארה"ב החדש. בראיון שנתן בעבר ל'כיפה', הוא תמה על כך שלרבנות הראשית יש בעיה עם גיוריו, "אני מכהן בתור רב 58 שנה והעבודה שלי ידועה בארה"ב. אני לא מבין למה באופן עקרוני הרבנות הראשית לא מקבלת את הגיורים שלי".

הרב אבי וייס הוא רב אמריקאי המשתייך לצד הליברלי של זרם האורתודוקסיה המודרנית. עמד בראש בית הכנסת "המכון העברי ריברדייל" שברובע הברונקס בניו יורק, והיה נשיא ומייסד ישיבת "חובבי תורה". בשנת 2013 הודיעה הרבנות הראשית לישראל שלא תקבל עדות שלו על יהדות ומצב משפחתי של אדם, בנימוק שקיים ספק ביחס ל"מידת מחויבותו להלכה היהודית הנהוגה והמקובלת". הרבנים דוד סתיו, שלמה ריסקין, יהודה גלעד ואחרים התייצבו לצדו של הרב וייס. בעקבות הסערה שהתעוררה הודיעה הרבנות הראשית לרב וייס שתכיר במסמכים החתומים על ידו.

(צילום: דובר הרב לאו)

בשעה זו מתקיים דיון ברבנות הראשית, בעניין גיבוש קריטריונים מסודרים לפיהם יקבע אלו רבנים מחו"ל יקבלו הכרה לצורכי נישואין וגירושין ואישורי יהודות. במהלך הישיבה הקודמת, הגיש הרב לאו לחברי המועצה מסמך עקרונות להכרה ברבני חו"ל ועל בסיס המסמך.

לקראת הדיון המחודש בעניין גיורי השניים אמר הרב שרמן כי "הרב יחזקאל לוקשטיין שגייר את איוונקה טראמפ פרסם פסקי הלכות המנוגדות לשו"ע. הוא 'כופר' ואסור לקבל גיורים שלו. גם המגייר הליבראלי הרב אבי וייס מינה רבות בביכ"נ. מגיירים אחרים נעצרו או נאסרו בגין התנהגות מביכה ולא הולמת לרב. איך אפשר להכיר בגיורים שלהם?".

מי שמתקומם על דברי הרב שרמן הוא עו"ד אסף בן מלך שייצג בעבר את הרב וייס מול הרבנות, "אני ייצגתי את הרב וייס מול הרבנות כשהיא סירבה לקבל את אישורי היהדות שלו למתגיירים. לאחר דין ודברים הרבנות חזרה בה מסירובה, כך שמה שהרב שרמן אומר זה מנוגד לא לדעות של רבים וטובים בציונות הדתית ומחוצה לה, אלא מנוגד גם לעמדתה הרשמית של הרבנות הראשית".

בנוסף לכך, עו"ד בן מלך מצר על סגנון ההתבטאויות של חלק מהרבנים, שלדעתו הופך לבוטה יותר ויותר, "בחודשים האחרונים יש תחרות והקצנה בהתבטאויות. זה לא תהליך בריא, הדרך שבה מדברים היא דרך שבה אי אפשר להגיע להבנות ול הסכמות ואי אפשר לנהל דו שיח אמיתי. הרב שרמן לא מעוניין להידבר, הוא חלוק על הרבנים האחרים והוא מעוניין להבאיש את ריחם. הבעיה היום היא שהסגנון יוצר את הטענות ולא הטענות את הסגנון".

בנאמני תורה ועבודה הגיבו לדברי הרב שרמן ואמרו: "הרבנים לוקשטיין ווייס קירבו אלפי אנשים לתורת ישראל ולשמירת מצוות. לרב שרמן השקפות עולם שונות, אולם רוב עם ישראל קרוב לדרכם של הרבנים  לוקשטיין ווייס, וסולד מהדרך המנכרת והמסתגרת שמייצג הרב שרמן. אנו מאמינים ומקווים כי הרבנים הראשיים, שהודיעו כי יגבשו בקרוב קריטריונים להכרה בגיורי חו״ל, יכניסו גם את גיורי יהדות התפוצות אותם פוסל הרב שרמן

http://www.kipa.co.il/now/70131.html

Most likely, the answer would have something to do with the powerful sense of fragility and vulnerability that has seized the ḥaredi world. Its watchmen have constructed high walls, fearful lest the slightest tap of doubt—like knowing that the “good” Auerbach and the “wicked” Kook were once friends—could cause the entire edifice to crumble. They have done so in order to protect the community they have created. Yet the walls are so high as to be, of necessity, unsturdy, and the fear so palpable as inevitably to trigger the doubt it guards against.

Do the Ultra-Orthodox Censor Historical Truth?

 

A new book explains, and over-explains, why ultra-Orthodox authorities resort to Photoshop.

From the cover of Changing the Immutable, by Marc Shapiro. Littman Library Of Jewish

Andrew Koss

Dec. 14 2016

About the author
Andrew N. Koss is an associate editor of Mosaic. A Ph.D. in history from Stanford, he recently completed a Mellon postdoctoral fellowship at Colgate University and is writing a book about the Jews of Vilna during World War I.

---

In 1994, an Israeli ultra-Orthodox publishing house released a volume of writings by a highly respected sage named Rabbi Isaac Kossowsky (1877-1951). Among its contents is a curious piece, titled “A Eulogy for One of the Rabbis,” which never mentions the name of the rabbi in question or any specific markers of his identity. Comparison with other sources makes clear, however, that the deceased was none other than Abraham Isaac Kook (1865-1935), the first Ashkenazi chief rabbi of Palestine and the spiritual and intellectual godfather of religious Zionism.

The omission was no mere oversight. The volume’s editors had deliberately scrubbed any mention of Kook, who is today considered a heretic in ḥaredi circles, along with the names of rabbis associated with him. In other words, the eulogy had been revised to conceal the fact that an upstanding figure like Kossowsky would have praised a figure so discredited in ḥaredi eyes.

The contemporary scholar who made this discovery, Marc Shapiro, had been noticing similar instances of selective editing in other religious texts and took to reporting them on the invaluable blog Seforim (“sacred books”). He has now collected these cases of censorship, as he characterizes them, in Changing the Immutable: How Orthodox Judaism Rewrites Its History. While the case of Kook and Kossowsky typifies those of greatest concern to Shapiro, he also includes an array of phenomena from other eras and circumstances. These include the Talmud’s apparent repression of certain views and anecdotes; the sanitized history found in 21st-century rabbinic hagiographies; the deletion, in venerable texts, of halakhic or theological opinions no longer deemed acceptable; politically “corrected” translations of Hebrew liturgical texts found in Conservative and Reform prayer books; the bowdlerization, in the 1918 Soncino English translation of the Talmud, of sexually explicit passages; the erasure of women from photographs in ḥaredi newspapers; and many more things besides.

The first seven chapters of the book catalogue these and other cases, sorted into categories. In the final chapter, Shapiro presents a comprehensive examination of attitudes toward truth-telling and lying in Jewish thought. Combining his conclusions with explicit statements made by some editors themselves and by the rabbinic authorities who have encouraged them, he argues that his discoveries are evidence of a callous attitude toward truth that can be justified from within Jewish tradition. When faced with a conflict between the past as it was and as it should have been, compilers and editors have felt not just free but positively obliged to sacrifice truth in favor of the greater good. Although he doesn’t say so outright, Shapiro would clearly prefer the opposite situation in which publishers of rabbinic texts, and Jews in general, would look more to those voices in the halakhic tradition that put a higher value on open honesty and make fewer allowances for evasion or mendacity.

Thorough, comprehensive, based on the painstaking examination and comparison of primary sources, Changing the Immutable is an impressive feat of scholarship. Yet, for all its erudition, it fails to make sense of its data in a satisfying way. The problem is not that Shapiro’s assemblage of halakhic loopholes sound as if gathered from an anti-Semitic handbook (though they sometimes do). Nor is it his slighting of the fact that only in the modern West did the assumption take hold that all information should be revealed. Nor would it have fundamentally mattered, as Allan Nadler urges in his perceptive review of the book, had Shapiro included in his final chapter a more sophisticated discussion of philosophical and theological conceptions of truth. The real problem is that, in lumping together so many disparate phenomena as instances of “censorship,” Shapiro not only obscures his most important discoveries but permits only a single, true-or-false criterion of judgment—and this criterion is the wrong one entirely.

For instance: emending an edition of the Kitsur Shulḥan Arukh—a popular 19th-century digest of a major law code, intended for lay use—to reflect current standards of halakhah isn’t really censorship or an instance of “rewriting history,” any more than would be the updating of a medical textbook to include information about the Zika virus. In this case, the intended audience is composed not of historians seeking to ascertain the authentic opinions of the work’s 19th-century author but pious Jews looking for guidance in practical matters of observance.

Worse, the book’s excessive breadth renders it ahistorical. Never does the author investigate how the exercise of selective editing might have changed over time, or how contemporary Gentile culture has affected Jewish opinions of what does and what does not constitute censorship. Since the subtitle announces a concern with “Orthodox Judaism,” one might like to know when and why selective editing under Orthodox auspices became more common, or different in kind. Was it in the early 19th century, when Orthodox Judaism first emerged in contradistinction to Reform?

 

 Or perhaps in the past half-century, due to an increasing tendency toward ideological and halakhic stringency? Or just after World War II, with the felt need to construct an image of pre-Holocaust Eastern Europe as a utopia of Jewish piety? Not only does the book neglect such questions, the reader isn’t even given a clue to how they might be addressed.

 

Rabbi Isaac Hutner (CENTER) Rosh Yeshiva Chaim Berlin in Slobodka Yeshiva 1930 - Invisible Yarmulke & Goy Hair (UOJ ADD-ON)

Picture of five young men, of a group of men who traveled to study in Slabodka Yeshiva abroad in 1930 (after the 1929 pogrom). Rabbi Dov Zochovsky, [Rabbi Eliezer Goldshmidt ], Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner, Rabbi Moshe Tikochinsky and Rabbi Zevulun Graz. Photographed in Kovno near Slabodka.].

Shapiro would have done better to focus more narrowly on the specific type of censorship that evidently drove him to his subject in the first place: the erasing of any acknowledgment that current standards of ultra-Orthodoxy were not in place from time immemorial. Had he done so, he would have necessarily had to restrict his discussion to the past century or so, which in turn might have enabled him to attempt an answer to the right questions.

Before returning to those questions, it helps to be aware of some missing historical context. For that purpose, let’s go back to Rabbi Kook, to whom Shapiro dedicates an entire chapter. Born in 1865 and educated in the great yeshivas of northwest Russia, Kook belonged to a small circle of rabbis eager to embrace Zionism and open to a variety of secular and non-Jewish influences. In Kook’s dynamic theology, which draws on kabbalah, ḥasidic teachings, secular thought, and various Western influences, the Zionist movement emerges not only as part of the divine plan but as an opportunity for a rebirth of Judaism itself within parameters that at the time, and now, could only be categorized as Orthodox.

Orthodox though they were, however, Kook’s opinions aroused serious controversy in his day. A large proportion of his Orthodox colleagues were, to varying degrees, anti-Zionist, and even those supportive of Zionism found talk of spiritual rebirth dangerous. By the 1920s, Orthodox Jews had organized themselves into two separate political parties, one Zionist, the other ultra-Orthodox—a split that, abetted by a number of social and historical factors, gave rise to two sub-denominations. In today’s Israel, the groups are characterized not only by separate political parties but by separate neighborhoods, modes of dress, educational institutions, and so forth. A similar, if less dramatic, split occurred in America between Modern Orthodoxy and ultra-Orthodoxy.

But at the time, nobody threatened Kook, or his contemporaries, with ostracism. He maintained close relations throughout his life with rabbis who would today be considered ḥaredi—and who sometimes defended him against his critics even as they disagreed with him on substantive issues. Although he was indeed involved in bitter controversies, these were seen as intra-denominational squabbles, not fights that would demarcate the boundary between two forms of Orthodoxy.

A generation later, though, such a schism was already in evidence—and nowadays the very fact that, for example, Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, a founding father of Jerusalemite ultra-Orthodoxy, had associated with Kook is a scandal that must be covered up. In this respect, the treatment of Kook, unlike many of the other examples adduced by Shapiro, really does constitute a “rewriting of history.” Pious biographies of ḥaredi figures like Auerbach studiously avoid mention of Kook and other “modern” figures.

Still, to an extent Shapiro doesn’t completely acknowledge, such proactive editorial tampering is very different from, say, just omitting a no-longer-followed halakhic opinion from a manual for practical observance. Moreover, there is also a gap—as Jacob J. Schacter pointed out in a 1990 article on a related subject—between the propagation of outright falsehoods and simply deeming certain facts best left unpublicized.

Beyond the question of how and why specific facts come to be repressed, whether by omission or by deliberate falsification, is the question of how history itself, and in particular the history of halakhic change, comes to be denied. Take the fact that Abraham, Jacob, and other biblical heroes practiced polygamy, which later became impermissible. Ask any Orthodox rabbi why, and you’ll get a variation of the following: in the 10th century, a leading halakhic authority declared polygamy forbidden for Ashkenazim. You’d get a similar story from an academic scholar of medieval Jewish history, who might add that by that date polygamy had already long ceased to be commonplace among Jews living in Christian lands. Both parties would agree that the law simply changed: what was kosher for Abraham became treyf. The Talmud has more subtle, and more historically immediate, examples of halakhic change, but the upshot is the same. There’s no theological problem involved.

What’s different in the case of the ultra-Orthodox rabbis guilty of “censorship” is that they dispute this point, to the point of denying that either attitudes or laws have in fact changed. And here another set of cases from Shapiro’s book becomes pertinent. As he notes, photographs or other visual renderings of bareheaded rabbinic figures—from the 18th-century Italian sage Moses Gentili to an early picture of the 20th-century Lubavitcher rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson—are regularly doctored to give them clearly recognizable kippot. The halakhic history here is murky, but the positive obligation to keep one’s head covered may not have become a definitive and mandatory sign of religious observance until a few decades ago. At least until World War II, it was common for even devout men to remove their head coverings when posing for pictures.

Nowadays, however, appearing without a hat or yarmulke is a clear sign of non-Orthodoxy. So today’s ultra-Orthodox establishment has faced a choice. It could say: “yes, Jacob had four wives, and Rabbi Gentili didn’t have to cover his head, but you only get one wife, and keep that kippah on.” Instead, it has resorted to Photoshop.

This response, to repeat, is very modern. Talmudic rabbis, without a modern sense of historical development, enthusiastically engaged in anachronisms but were also perfectly willing to acknowledge that Judaism had changed over time. Thus they made frequent mention of the rival schools supposedly founded by the 1st-century-BCE sages Hillel and Shammai, and their differences on many points of halakhah. According to the Talmud’s account, there was a period during which the opinions of both schools were acceptable alternatives; only later did the opinions of Hillel and his disciples become, for the most part, indisputably authoritative.

Today, one has the impression that, confronted with the task of redacting the Talmud, the targets of Shapiro’s criticism would omit any mention of Shammai and his school and simply paint a picture of continuous and universal acceptance of Hillel’s opinions. Certainly there would be no mention of Elisha ben Avuyah, the famous sage-turned-heretic whose words are quoted with approval in Pirkei Avot (“Ethics of the Fathers”). Either we wouldn’t know that he became a heretic or we wouldn’t know that the great Rabbi Meir was his student, and we certainly wouldn’t know that Meir maintained warm and admiring relations with his former mentor even after he’d left the fold. (As for Shapiro, he does mention the case of Elisha and Meir but, tellingly, only to emphasize its supposed similarity with contemporary “censorship,” not the yawning difference.)

Here we arrive at the most serious problem Shapiro has uncovered: the impulse to deny the existence of any sort of ideological diversity. An inability to say, in the Talmud’s memorable phrase, “both these opinions and those opinions are the words of the living God,” or “we disagree with the approach of Rabbi Kook and his disciples, but see no need to anathematize him,” robs Judaism of one of its most compelling and powerful doctrines, one that should appeal to believers and non-believers alike. By contrast with the contemporary mood, rabbinic literature makes the point time and again that fierce internecine debates could and should be coupled with mutual respect, and that even revered figures erred when they allowed these debates to become too acrimonious.

How did this turnabout come to be? One wishes Shapiro had sacrificed a few examples and spared us so exhaustive a discussion of truth-and-falsehood and instead broached the question head-on. Most likely, the answer would have something to do with the powerful sense of fragility and vulnerability that has seized the ḥaredi world. Its watchmen have constructed high walls, fearful lest the slightest tap of doubt—like knowing that the “good” Auerbach and the “wicked” Kook were once friends—could cause the entire edifice to crumble. They have done so in order to protect the community they have created. Yet the walls are so high as to be, of necessity, unsturdy, and the fear so palpable as inevitably to trigger the doubt it guards against.

http://mosaicmagazine.com/observation/2016/12/do-the-ultra-orthodox-censor-historical-truth/

Rushing Away From Hasidic Jail - To Rush! Teach Them Or lose Them!

The Hasidic Boy Who Learned English by Secretly Listening to Rush Limbaugh 

 

Mendel Taub couldn’t get a real education in the strict religious town he was raised in, so he bought a contraband radio and began teaching himself.

ROCKLAND COUNTY, New York — Mendel Taub grew up in a village where residents obey every utterance of their grand rabbi. The rebbe commands all aspects of his followers’ lives and rails against the secular world, banning its modern channels—smart phones, computers, television. Yiddish street signs direct men and women to walk on opposite sides of the street. Women are forbidden to drive. Wives must shave their heads, cover their wigs with scarves and wear skirts that extend at least five inches below the knee. “Modesty squads” report wrongdoers to the rebbe.

But this isn’t in a foreign country: it’s Rockland County, New York, just 30 miles north of the city.

New Square is one of the most insular communities in the country. Nearly all of its 7,700 residents are part of the Skverer sect of Hasidism, which originated in 19th century Ukraine. Post-war immigrants founded the Rockland village in 1954 to continue their Hasidic ideal of living a sanctified life, uncorrupted by the secularized Brooklyn, where they originally settled.

New Square has one large, multi-building school for all its children. Yeshiva education for boys focuses on religious texts, with little study of English and math, and no study of science or social studies. Around the age of 13, boys begin to focus almost exclusively on Judaism’s holy books, the Torah and Talmud.

Seven year ago, Taub was a good yeshiva student and very inquisitive. But after teachers punished the 15-year-old for questioning the fundamentals of Skver beliefs, he dropped out.

“I realized that Talmudic law wasn’t really going to help me get a job.” Taub said.

Taub didn’t know English and was determined to emerge beyond his native Yiddish. So he convinced an itinerant salesman, who mostly peddled watches and calculators in the village, to sell him a pocket radio. He had saved $20 of his Bar Mitzvah money to buy the contraband.

“It went down like a drug deal, at night, under a dark roof,” he said. “We didn’t talk much. I slipped him the money. He passed me the radio. And we both walked away knowing exactly what we did.”

If religious authorities were to catch wind of his actions, Taub would destroy his chances of getting a desirable match in his sect's customary arranged marriages or risk becoming an outcast in the only community he had ever known.

Taub used the device to turn Rush Limbaugh into a surrogate English teacher.

He tuned into Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other conservative radio show hosts during 12-hour days packing hard candies into cardboard boxes in a New Square warehouse. Low wage manual labor was his only employment option. He would set the volume just loud enough to hear Limbaugh rant.

Taub chose to learn from the right-wing radio preachers because, at the time, he identified with their ethnocentric attitude.

“I came from a community of ‘chosen people’ and here were people basically saying the same thing,” he said. Other beliefs resonated for him as well. For instance, Taub had been taught homosexuality was a sin against God.

Plus, the teenager figured, their vocabulary was good, despite words that heavily skewed toward the political.

"I knew what ‘unilateral agreement’ and ‘hegemonic power’ meant but didn’t know understand the world ‘stove’,” he said. “It was funny.”

With the help of a dictionary, Taub drew up a complex word map to help him understand sentence structure and spelling.

He bypassed FM stations altogether.

"I couldn’t relate to any of the news about sports,” he said. “And music hurt my ears. I still felt guilty when I heard voice of a woman because it would elicit 'impure' thoughts."

At 16, Taub summoned the nerve to call the local school system on a public pay phone, asking in broken English how he might register for classes.

“My dream was to get a high school diploma,” he said. “With that, I would be able to hold a job and have a family. For me, it was the measure of an educated man.”

He was directed to a state-backed education program called the Board of Cooperative Educational Service.

The next day, he called Albert Moschetti, BOCES’ adult education director at the time.  When the two met in person, Moschetti offered his hand to greet the teenager.

“He didn’t know what to do with it,” Moschetti said. “Hand-shaking wasn’t natural for him.”

On his 17^th birthday, Taub began to study English as a Second Language in a classroom filled with students born in other countries.

“My classmates couldn’t believe I grew up in America. Who in America doesn’t speak English at 17 or 18?”

New Square is an extreme case but Hasidic yeshivas around the world have similar educational practices for boys relegating many to lives of poverty and public assistance. (Girls do not study the Talmud and thus have more time for nonreligious coursework.) Deficient general studies “have been an ongoing problem in Israel, London, and Quebec,” said Naftuli Moster, a former Hasidic yeshiva student and founder of Young Advocates for a Fair Education or Yaffed. “The high rates of poverty in the Hasidic community have been well-documented,” he said.

The issue is beginning to draw attention in New York, where Yaffed has partnered with famed civil rights attorney Norman Siegel and law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher to pressure the city and state to provide better general studies in the private religious schools.

On the eve of beginning at school, Taub confided in his older brother, Abraham, that he was about to break their community’s taboo against secular studies. Sitting in a gray Honda minivan outside the family’s home, Taub was shocked by Abraham’s response:

“He told me, ‘You think I’m uneducated. You think I’m illiterate. Well, I’ll tell you something you don’t know. I have a New York State GED and I’m going to college,’” Taub recalled. His brother was studying at Rockland Community College, a State University of New York school.

"I was flabbergasted. I was shocked. I felt like I was living in a fictional novel,” Taub recalled. “I viewed my brother as a nice Hasidic man who didn’t even speak English. I even looked down on him a bit because I thought I knew more than he did.”

Abraham Taub, who was married with children at the time, was risking his young family’s reputation and even his children’s enrollment in only school in town. New School authorities use expulsion as a means of mandating conformity, as evidenced by a long list of social rules parents must sign in order to register their children each year.

The brothers soon spent a semester together at Rockland Community College and both would eventually win a State University of New York Chancellor’s Award for academic excellence. Attending college with his brother “was the best thing that could have happened to me. I was a strange man in a strange land. He taught me about GPAs, college credits, how the system works.”

His brother didn’t prepare him for one thing, however—female classmates.

 On the first day, “I thought, ‘Holy crap. Girls! Front, left, right, back. Girls! Do you say hello to them? I can’t believe they’re part of this class or that I am.”

Taub hadn’t so much as walked on the same side of the street as a girl and had been forbidden from looking directly at them.

Abraham, who is studying to become an emergency-room doctor, still lives in New Square with a wife, three children, his own home and a business selling booths for security guards and parking attendants. He is graduating from the NYIT College of Osteopathic Medicine on Long Island this spring and will then begin his residency. Mendel said the community now reluctantly tolerates his brother's pursuits because he has continued to respect most communal norms doesn’t try to influence anyone to break with tradition.

Mendel, however began to slowly shed his regulation white shirt, black suit, and black brimmed wool hat soon after he started studying outside of his village. At first, he carried his books in a shopping bag because no one in his village uses backpacks. The day he finally slipped on one and walked through the village, he felt stares of disapproval and knew gossip about him had begun in earnest.

“At that point, by walking around like that, and without all the garb, I finished any future I had in the community,” he said. His chances to find a marriage match were through. “I was ostracized from that point on.”

He lost lifelong friends. “My worst fears had come true,” he said.

But outside New Square, Taub excelled. After graduating Rockland Community College with honors, he was asked to become a trustee. In May, he earned a bachelor’s degree in political science and criminal justice at Pace University, which he attended on full scholarship. He earned his Emergency Medical Technician certification and has worked for two ambulance corps. Now a certified Yiddish court translator, he is studying for the LSATS, with hopes of attending law school in the fall.

Taub no longer identifies with conservatives. His multi-ethnic classmates helped him appreciate the value of racial and cultural diversity, he said. He attended the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia July and credits Democratic policies—those that support school loans and grants—with allowing him to fulfill his dreams.

Though there were tearful times with his parents and plenty of disagreements, they allowed him to live with them for several years while he earned his degrees. His friends abandoned him but when he began to show success in the outside world, a few softened and began speaking with him again. He now has a “beautiful” relationship with his parents and siblings and lives in an apartment close to New Square.


 He respects the Skverer’s communal values but insists that “Community leaders have a responsibility to provide people with a basic secular education,” he said. “Depriving students is blatant injustice.”

“Mendel is an amazing young man. He is courageous, tenacious, poised, and really smart,” said Thomas Della Torre, RCC’s associate vice president for academic and community partnerships. Perhaps more importantly, Della Torre said he carries no overt bitterness.

 “His attitude is: This is what’s best for me and I want others to know it’s available to them.’”  

Taub has helped Orthodox Jewish organizations design curricula to improve vocational training for Hasidic men. And people from his hometown secretly reach out to him for advice all the time, often through the banned WhatsApp messaging platform.

In the last year, he said as many as 80 people have contacted him. “I talk with them. I give them information about BOCES and RCC. It is such a crisis for them when they realize they have options. There are so many decisions to make. Being socially isolated comes with a certain peace of mind.”


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/11/the-hasidic-boy-who-learned-english-by-secretly-listening-to-rush-limb-augh.html?via=desktop&source=twitter