A UOJ Review - "Word Salad Schizophrenia! Graphorrhea. Incoherent writing with excessive wordiness. Receptive aphasia. Fluent in speech but still not making sense. Logorrhea. Excessive incoherent talking."

 

Book Review of Samuel Lebens, A Guide for the Jewish Undecided: A Philosopher Makes the Case for Orthodox Judaism (New Milford: Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2022).

“If rabbinic Judaism has anything to say across its borders, it lies in how the voice of religion might be authoritative without being authoritarian, unifying without ceasing to be pluralist, and rational without lacking passion.”
-Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, Zt”l^[1]

Rabbi Dr. Samuel Lebens concluded his most recent book by stating: “For the person rooted in the Jewish community, reality is calibrated such that the only reasonable course of action is to commit oneself to live by and continue to shape the unfolding Torah from Sinai.”^[2] This claim, if true, has the potential to revolutionize Jewish discourse and pedagogy for the better.^[3]

Lebens frames his argument as “Pascalberg’s wager,” a Jewish alternative to “Pascal’s wager”: If God exists and wants Jews to be Orthodox, then Jews can only receive eternal reward if they are observant of Halakhah. If, however, it turns out that God does not exist or does not care about human actions, then nothing is lost by living such a life.

Importantly, this wager addresses only those who already cherish Judaism.^[4] In Lebens’s words, “Pascalberg’s audience are what we might call the Jewish undecided. They are certainly Jews, and they are committed to their identity. But they’re undecided about how religiously observant they should be; or at least, they’re open to reassessing how religiously observant they should be.”^[5] For such an audience, Lebens claims, the only thinkable options are to commit to being a religious Jew or to live as a Jew who is not religious. All other options are what he calls “unthinkable” in that they will not be factored into the practical deliberations of a person who already feels rooted in the Jewish community.^[6]

It should be noted upfront, though, that being a religious Jew and being an Orthodox Jew are not necessarily the same. Other denominations of Judaism also consider themselves religious.^[7] Lebens must, then, do extra work to demonstrate a “case for Orthodox Judaism,” as the Guide’s subtitle promises.

Unfortunately, Lebens provides no working definition of Orthodoxy in this book. Elsewhere, Lebens defines it as the sum of three propositions, based on R. Yosef Albo’s Sefer Ha-Ikkarim: One God created the world, revealed the Torah, and exercises divine providence.^[8] This definition is quite broad and allows for a very big tent of Orthodoxy. Such a move, however, comes with problems that will be discussed below.

Regardless, what is the threshold of confidence needed to embrace Orthodoxy? Lebens writes:

If there is a 50 percent chance that God exists, and a 50 percent chance, if He exists, that He wants Jews to observe Jewish law, then there is a 25 percent chance that both claims are true together. And if there is a 25 percent chance that God exists and that God wants Jews to keep Jewish law, and especially if the odds are better than that, as I think them to be, then it would be crazy for Pascalberg’s audience not to commit to a life of devout religious observance – however hard that may be.^[9]

The minimal threshold, then, is demonstrating at least a 50% chance that God exists and another 50% chance that, if He exists, He wants Jews to be observant of Halakhah. If both are provided, then a 25% total chance should be enough to warrant commitment to Orthodoxy by the Jewish undecided since they are already pragmatically predisposed to some form of Judaism. Though Lebens notes that the wager would still be effective even if one ends up with considerably lower credence, he assumes that “if you’ve taken Pascalberg’s wager, on the basis of this book’s argument… your confidence in the most fundamental principles of Judaism must be around 25 percent (or more).”^[10] Therefore, 25% total credence is the magic number that this review will measure toward. While there is perhaps room to critique the view that pragmatic concerns ought to influence one’s epistemic judgment, this review will work within Lebens’s assumptions, as laid out above.^[11]

Is there at least a 50% chance that God exists? Lebens defines God as “at least this: a supremely good and intelligent agent, powerful enough to bring this universe into being, and to govern its evolution, in accordance with Its will.”^[12] God, then, must minimally possess a mind, a moral capacity, and the ability to create the universe. Lebens’s first case for this sort of being is the sheer unlikeliness of life developing without a guiding hand and how that universe seems to be fine-tuned for the development of intelligent life.^[13]

Of course, this argument does not automatically prove God. Scientists may posit, for example, that we exist within a multiverse in which most other universes were not as lucky. Lebens rejects this idea since it replaces one unobservable God with an infinite number of equally unobservable universes.^[14] Does this really render God more plausible than a multiverse though? Naturalists may respond that the only theories that can be taken seriously are ones that are testable or follow from theories that are. Sean Carroll, for example, writes that “the multiverse wasn’t invented because people thought it was a cool idea; it was forced on us by our best efforts to understand the portion of the universe that we do see”^[15] (emphasis added). Ultimately, “some physicists would put the chances [of a multiverse] at nearly certain, others at practically zero. Perhaps it’s fifty-fifty… What matters is that there is a simple, robust mechanism under which naturalism can be perfectly compatible with the existence of life, even if the life turns out to be extremely sensitive to the precise values of the physical parameters characterizing our environment.”^[16]

The above case, however, is far from the only one that Lebens brings in defense of theism’s plausibility. A full chapter is dedicated to exploring nearly two dozen arguments for theism from Alvin Plantinga, perhaps the world’s most renowned Christian analytic philosopher.^[17] While Lebens acknowledges that no individual argument can ultimately prove the existence of God, they “can serve, cumulatively, as an important source of consideration for weighing up how likely – or plausible – it is that He does.”^[18]

Lebens then dedicates a chapter to examining personal religious experience. We generally assume that our experiences correspond to something real, so if you have ever had the experience of an encounter with the divine, you should take it seriously. Indeed, Jerome (Yehuda) Gellman argues that “the phenomenon of mystical experiences of God provides initial evidential sufficiency for the conclusion that human beings at least sometimes genuinely experience God” in the same way that our personal experience of anything provides initial reason to believe it, unless proven otherwise.^[19]

The atheist, though, can respond that they have no reason to change how they believe on the basis of another’s description. Such experiences can also come from many stimuli, and they do not necessarily have to be the result of an encounter with the divine. Gellman himself confirms that “the Argument from Perception [of religious experience] is not universally rationally compelling, in the sense of rationally obligating all who would ponder it.”^[20] Such an experience may be sufficient for the one who actually perceives it, but it need not influence one who does not share it. They can, of course, choose to assign weight based on the descriptions of others or based on the sheer amount of people who seem to share a common experience of the divine if they feel so compelled.

While none of the arguments presented by Lebens definitively prove God’s existence, he notes that “what speaks most strongly in favor of God’s existence is the stunning ability of this one simple hypothesis… to make sense of science itself, and mathematics, and philosophy, and value. When one simple posit can explain so much, you’ve got a very good reason to endorse it.”^[21] One can perhaps conclude like Graham Oppy that “theism and non-theism are both reasonable responses to the evidence that people have.”^[22] The atheist has a reply for each argument, but the theist remains on firm footing.

Lebens’s case for Orthodoxy, however, is less smooth. His personal reasoning is that “it seems very likely (on the assumption that [God] exists) that there was some sort of massive revelation to the Jewish people, quite unparalleled in global history: the revelation at Mount Sinai.”^[23] But what reason do the Jewish undecided have to believe in such a revelation? Lebens’s main argument is the “Jumbled Kuzari Principle,” championed by Tyron Goldschmidt, which posits:

A tradition is likely true if it is (1) accepted by a nation; describes (2) a national experience of a previous generation of that nation; which (3) would be expected to create a continuous national memory until the tradition is in place;^[24] is (4) insulting to that nation [e.g., it calls them stiff-necked and lists their sins]; and (5) makes universal, difficult and severe demands on that nation.^[25]

Lebens notes that “adding so many clauses to the principle makes it look ad hoc, as if it has been reverse engineered to bring people to believe in the biblical story of the Exodus and the revelation at Sinai” but also claims that “each clause of Goldschmidt’s version of the principle, when seen in action, contributes something compelling.”^[26] The issue with Lebens’s presentation of Goldshmidt’s argument, however, is that it calls for a thought experiment to bolster its claim rather than providing clear examples of stories that match the five criteria which we also know to be historically accurate and cases of proven myths not meeting those criteria. Additionally, while Goldshmidt’s argument may be enough to warrant belief in the divinity of the Torah, Lebens presents no argument to get from there to the Talmud and broader rabbinic tradition. The reader is therefore left unsure of how much credence to actually assign based on the argument alone.

Even then, the 50% chance of a revelation is only half the battle. Lebens still has to show that the Torah, and its Orthodox interpretation, authentically represents it. He does so by noting:

If an all-knowing God exists and orchestrated the Sinai event, then He foresaw the literature, ritual, and law that would come tumbling into being as a result of the Jewish experience at Sinai. And yet, God chose to initiate the experience.
    Consequently, I would argue that we should view the theophany at Sinai as something like a divine stamp of approval for the religious tradition that grew out of it.^[27]

Lebens notes that such an approach “ignores the fact that many competing traditions can be described as tumbling out of that one event. Presumably, God can’t have been endorsing them all – given their incompatibility.”^[28] How, then, can he argue specifically for Orthodoxy?

Lebens responds by limiting the scope of God’s approval: “Much of the time, God might not mind which particular route, within the parameters of Jewish law, is chosen by the process of rabbinic debate; God simply endorses the process.”^[29] At any time, in any generation, engagement with Jewish texts can lead to their own set of rituals, cultural expectations, and the like within the communities most committed to studying them and implementing the practices learned therefrom. As long as interpretation stays tied to the source texts, which had God’s initial approval, that which is learned out from them can also have been said to be approved by God. Most forms of non-Orthodox Judaism, in rejecting so many of those source texts and the lessons contained in them, then, are out of the running as candidates for divine approval. As Lebens points out, “If you’re looking for a community whose membership defines itself in terms of commitment to the Jewish textual tradition, you’re likely to find only Orthodox candidates.”^[30] We will see below, however, that this is not necessarily true.

But it’s also not easy to join an Orthodox community given the appearance of anti-progressivism, anti-intellectualism, elitism, sexism, and homophobia that many perceive. Right or wrong, this impression leads to Orthodoxy being seen as an intuitively unethical choice for many. Even convinced of the viability of revelation, then, Orthodoxy may be a hard sell for the Jewish undecided.

This, however, is not a problem for Lebens. For him, God need not be responsible for every decision that the Orthodox community makes. God endorsed the general process of religious development, not every particular twist and turn along the way. Halakhah, though binding as part of a divine process, is an approximation of God’s will rather than a reflection of it.^[31] Over time, Orthodox communities may develop in a different direction. If one does not have the patience to wait, though, Lebens advocates picking a sect that is more in line with their moral intuition:

If some pockets of Orthodoxy are unthinkable to you, because of the things that they stand for, and because of the ways in which they understand the tradition, then you might want to find that cross section of the Jewish community that (1) defines itself in terms of commitment to the Jewish textual tradition, but which also (2) embodies as much ethical sensitivity, and worldliness, as can be rendered consistent with that commitment to the Jewish textual tradition.^[32]

This however, need not lead one to Orthodoxy. While for Lebens “a modern Orthodoxy is the safest bet, since – to my ethical constitution – certain forms of ultra-Orthodoxy are simply unthinkable,”^[33] others may rule out even Modern Orthodoxy due to the same sort of concerns. As long as the community one joins meets Lebens’s criteria, why does it need to be Orthodox at all?

Hadar, for example, defines itself by its staunch commitment to “Torah, Avodah, and Hesed” in a fully egalitarian environment. Indeed, Rabbi Yitz Greenberg publicly posted on Facebook that “Hadar is my fantasy of the future modern Orthodox community… committed to Torah learning and full observance of mitzvot. At the same time, the principle of egalitarianism was so precious and important that they practiced it in the here and now, not in a distant future.” Furthermore, the Conservative Movement’s Statement of Principles notes that Halakhah “is an indispensable element of a traditional Judaism,” and Rabbi David Golinkin has written that “commitment to the centrality of the halakhah has been a hallmark of Conservative Judaism”^[34] for theocentric, ethnocentric, and anthropocentric reasons.^[35]

While one may argue that these communities do not practice what they preach in this regard, it is important to note that Lebens’s criteria is that a community “defines itself in terms of commitment to the Jewish textual tradition,”^[36] not that it always lives as such. If one is content being part of an observant minority, they can do so while still fitting within Lebens’s criteria for Orthodoxy, despite themselves being part of many different non-Orthodox streams of Judaism. Many of those streams, no doubt, even believe that God would prefer people join them than be Orthodox!

It is hard, then, for this approach to guarantee staying within Orthodoxy, especially since Lebens himself offers no practical definition of what Orthodox Judaism ought to look like outside of the abovementioned criteria. In a book with the subtitle “A Philosopher Makes the Case for Orthodox Judaism,” this is a glaring omission and major challenge to the premise.^[37]

Lebens seems to be aware of this critique, since he acknowledges in The Principles of Judaism that “Orthodoxy can only coherently claim that the warrant of Sinai flows most forcefully in the direction of Orthodoxy. But this is neither to say that Orthodoxy has a monopoly on religious truth, nor is it to say that Orthodoxy has no religious lessons to learn from other Jewish movements.”^[38] Lebens even argues that the existence of other Jewish denominations (and, for that matter, other religions) are themselves integral for Torah to properly unfold:

… Many factors play a role in bringing the Torah closer to its heavenly paradigm. Social and political movements, other religions, and more directly, non-Orthodox denominations within the Jewish world, all play a role in awakening certain sensitivities and attitudes within the Orthodox community. Liberal segments of that community agitate for change within the halakha. Conservative elements within the same community resist any change. The legal traditions themselves create obstacles to some changes, whilst being more amenable to other changes. The changes and evolutions that make it through this process can claim to be an echo of Sinai.^[39]

Under that assumption, one can easily argue that God wants them to be part of the element advocating for change. In doing so, whether on the liberal extreme of Orthodoxy or as a member of a competing denomination that still views Torah as divine, they can argue with total intellectual honesty that they are continuing the Sinai tradition under Lebens’s assumptions. As Benjamin Ish-Shalom wrote, “When every view and idea are seen as modes of revelation, skepticism and relativism become transformed into certainty regarding the truth value of any particular view, on the condition that awareness of its relative status within the framework of the all-inclusive unity is preserved.”^[40]

Lebens’s second argument, then, is mixed. If one presupposes the existence of God, there is some degree of plausibility that He also revealed Himself to the Jewish people. But does it reach the 50% threshold? That’s harder to measure and largely depends on how much weight one assigns Goldshmidt’s Jumbled Kuzari Principle. If one is convinced by it, then the likelihood may very well be over 90%. But if one finds it lacking, the chance may be more like 20% or 30% at most. It’s clear, then, that only those members of the Jewish undecided who are predisposed to accepting Goldshmidt’s argument will have sufficient credence to embrace observance. Though it remains unclear why one who accepts Lebens’s argument should specifically be Orthodox.^[41]

Since Lebens himself does not expect anyone to take the wager with less than 25% credence, it can be assumed that the arguments formulated in his book will not convince all of the Jewish undecided to become Orthodox, or observant in general.^[42] But even for those who reached 25% credence, does it really make sense to become observant on the basis of such a wager? Lebens notes in his 2022 book, Philosophy of Religion: The Basics, that allowing one to accept the claims of their current religion with minimal credence as long as there is no extreme counter-evidence can apply to any religion.^[43] Should a Jew really be willing to accept Orthodoxy on the basis that we need “better evidence for the falsehood of Judaism than we do for its truth” and that “all the evidence we really need is evidence sufficient to show that Judaism isn’t obviously false”^[44] if doing so implicitly allows for Evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, and more to be justified in doing the same?

Basing one’s faith on such a bet also requires responding to several additional objections. Perhaps it is selfish to base one’s faith on a wager, which effectively turns God into a means to an end. Lebens responds that obeying God’s commands, even without 100% certainty that He exists, is not turning God into a means to an end. It is just obeying what you understand His will to be. God commanded things with the understanding that following them entailed costs and benefits, so it is hard to call calculating those factors avaricious. Additionally, Judaism has a long tradition of encouraging people to initially do commandments not for their own sake, in order to eventually perform them for their own sake.

Another objection may claim that attempting to make yourself believe something despite a lack of sufficient evidence is inauthentic. One could respond that trying to force belief may lead to developing true belief over time, though Lebens relates this approach to “self-hypnosis.” One might also compare this response to the sunk cost fallacy, which mistakenly assumes that significant investment in a project automatically justifies its continuation, even if the project appears to be failing. In other words, a person would not automatically be justified to continue putting effort into making themselves believe in the absence of evidence just because they have already put in a good amount of effort. But Lebens would respond that this “doesn’t mean that [trying to believe] isn’t the reasonable and rational thing to do given the potential risks, and benefits, and the odds in question.”^[45] Despite a lack of clear evidence, then, it may be that the most rational thing to do is attempt to make yourself believe regardless of whether the minimal threshold is met.

Unfortunately, this response does not fully address the situation that many readers will end up in. Even for those who end up with more than 25% credence, it is far from certain that the only reasonable course for someone rooted in the Jewish community is to embrace Orthodox observance. As noted, there are many ways that one can potentially live as a Jew, each of which sees themselves as rooted in a divinely inspired textual tradition. If one is to view Orthodoxy as the only reasonable way to experience Judaism, they need to have good epistemic reason. 25% credence may be enough to justify general observance, but not necessarily within Orthodoxy.

Furthermore, even if one accepts a 25% credence for Orthodoxy, that still allows for 75% against it.^[46] This is a problem since Lebens himself notes that “to the extent that [the fundamental propositions of Orthodox Judaism] are ill-grounded by the evidence, and certainly to the extent that they are victim to counter-evidence, the religion will be less justified.”^[47] This problem is made all the more worrying by the fact that, as Sean Carroll points out, one of the principles of credential reasoning is that “evidence that favors one alternative automatically disfavors others.”^[48] Therefore, the 75% credence that does not support Orthodox Judaism ought to actively count against their credence in Orthodox Judaism. For many, this is likely an uneasy concession.

We are left, then, at an odd point. While there is ample room to demonstrate a 50% credence that God exists, revelation is a mixed bag. While many will be at least 50% convinced, others may reject the Jumbled Kuzari Principle to varying degrees. Furthermore, even those who end up with a 25% or higher total credence still run the risk of not ending up within Orthodoxy at all. Even those who do would need to find peace with the idea of resting their commitment to Orthodox Judaism on a wager that has a significant chance of not paying off. While this may be a wager that many accept, there seems to be little reason to assume that Orthodoxy is the only rational option for the Jewish undecided.

Regardless, The Guide for the Jewish Undecided is a remarkable step forward in a genre that can loosely be described as internal Jewish apologetics. This in itself is a major accomplishment since, as Etai Lahav noted in his own review, Jews in search of high-level analytic philosophical cases for theism could only find affordable and accessible works by Christian authors until now.

Lebens makes a strong, passionate, modest, and non-coercive case that does not shy away from difficult questions or sacrifice rigorous philosophy on the altar of popular spirituality. As an argument for commitment to Halakhah in general, it is one of the strongest yet made. In the spirit of Rabbi Sacks, his argument is truly “authoritative without being authoritarian, unifying without ceasing to be pluralist, and rational without lacking passion.” While it may not be fully convincing to some, it will no doubt strengthen and guide many on the path toward thinking actively about their Jewish identities and the place of Halakhah therein.

https://thelehrhaus.com/commentary/the-odds-of-orthodoxy/?utm_source=Lehrhaus+Readers&utm_campaign=a8e6530ffc-Lehrhaus+Latest+152_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_5effc5ad09-a8e6530ffc-19243567&mc_cid=a8e6530ffc&mc_eid=a570c54e7f

But as Einstein walked back into his office he told his own assistant, nodding in the direction of Oppenheimer, “There goes a narr,” or fool.

J. Robert Oppenheimer

 

One day in the spring of 1954, J. Robert Oppenheimer ran into Albert Einstein outside their offices at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J. Oppenheimer had been the director of the institute since 1947 and Einstein a faculty member since he fled Germany in 1933. The two men might argue about quantum physics — Einstein grumbled that he just didn’t think that God played dice with the universe — but they were good friends.

Oppenheimer took the occasion to explain to Einstein that he was going to be absent from the institute for some weeks. He was being forced to defend himself in Washington, D.C., during a secret hearing against charges that he was a security risk, and perhaps even disloyal. Einstein argued that Oppenheimer “had no obligation to subject himself to the witch hunt, that he had served his country well, and that if this was the reward she [America] offered he should turn his back on her.” Oppenheimer demurred, saying he could not turn his back on America. “He loved America,” said Verna Hobson, his secretary who was a witness to the conversation, “and this love was as deep as his love of science.”

“Einstein doesn’t understand,” Oppenheimer told Ms. Hobson. But as Einstein walked back into his office he told his own assistant, nodding in the direction of Oppenheimer, “There goes a narr,” or fool.

Einstein was right. Oppenheimer was foolishly subjecting himself to a kangaroo court in which he was soon stripped of his security clearance and publicly humiliated. The charges were flimsy, but by a vote of 2 to 1 the security panel of the Atomic Energy Commission deemed Oppenheimer a loyal citizen who was nevertheless a security risk: “We find that Dr. Oppenheimer’s continuing conduct and association have reflected a serious disregard for the requirements of the security system.” The scientist would no longer be trusted with the nation’s secrets. Celebrated in 1945 as the “father of the atomic bomb,” nine years later he would become the chief celebrity victim of the McCarthyite maelstrom.

Oppenheimer may have been naïve, but he was right to fight the charges — and right to use his influence as one of the country’s pre-eminent scientists to speak out against a nuclear arms race. In the months and years leading up to the security hearing, Oppenheimer had criticized the decision to build a “super” hydrogen bomb. Astonishingly, he had gone so far as to say that the Hiroshima bomb was used “against an essentially defeated enemy.” The atomic bomb, he warned, “is a weapon for aggressors, and the elements of surprise and terror are as intrinsic to it as are the fissionable nuclei.” These forthright dissents against the prevailing view of Washington’s national security establishment earned him powerful political enemies. That was precisely why he was being charged with disloyalty.

It is my hope that Christopher Nolan’s stunning new film on Oppenheimer’s complicated legacy will initiate a national conversation not only about our existential relationship to weapons of mass destruction, but also the need in our society for scientists as public intellectuals. Mr. Nolan’s three-hour film is a riveting thriller and mystery story that delves deeply into what this country did to its most famous scientist.

Sadly, Oppenheimer’s life story is relevant to our current political predicaments. Oppenheimer was destroyed by a political movement characterized by rank know-nothing, anti-intellectual, xenophobic demagogues. The witch-hunters of that season are the direct ancestors of our current political actors of a certain paranoid style. I’m thinking of Roy Cohn, Senator Joseph McCarthy’s chief counsel, who tried to subpoena Oppenheimer in 1954, only to be warned that this could interfere with the impending security hearing against Oppenheimer. Yes, that Roy Cohn, who taught former President Donald Trump his brash, wholly deranged style of politics. Just recall the former president’s fact-challenged comments on the pandemic or climate change. This is a worldview proudly scornful of science.

After America’s most celebrated scientist was falsely accused and publicly humiliated, the Oppenheimer case sent a warning to all scientists not to stand up in the political arena as public intellectuals. This was the real tragedy of Oppenheimer. What happened to him also damaged our ability as a society to debate honestly about scientific theory — the very foundation of our modern world.

Quantum physics has utterly transformed our understanding of the universe. And this science has also given us a revolution in computing power and incredible biomedical innovations to prolong human life. Yet, too many of our citizens still distrust scientists and fail to understand the scientific quest, the trial and error inherent in testing any theory against facts by experimenting. Just look at what happened to our public health civil servants during the recent pandemic.

We stand on the cusp of another technological revolution in which artificial intelligence will transform how we live and work, and yet we are not yet having the kind of informed civil discourse with its innovators that could help us to make wise policy decisions on its regulation. Our politicians need to listen more to technology innovators like Sam Altman and quantum physicists like Kip Thorne and Michio Kaku.

Oppenheimer was trying desperately to have that kind of conversation about nuclear weapons. He was trying to warn our generals that these are not battlefield weapons, but weapons of pure terror. But our politicians chose to silence him; the result was that we spent the Cold War engaged in a costly and dangerous arms race.

Today, Vladimir Putin’s not-so-veiled threats to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in the war in Ukraine are a stark reminder that we can never be complacent about living with nuclear weapons. Oppenheimer did not regret what he did at Los Alamos; he understood that you cannot stop curious human beings from discovering the physical world around them. One cannot halt the scientific quest, nor can one un-invent the atomic bomb. But Oppenheimer always believed that human beings could learn to regulate these technologies and integrate them into a sustainable and humane civilization. We can only hope he was right.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/17/opinion/kai-bird-oppenheimer-christopher-nolan.html

Jacob Daskal will be sentenced to between 14 and 17 years in prison and will register as a sex offender after pleading guilty to transporting a minor with the intent of engaging in criminal sexual activity, according to an announcement Friday from the U.S. Department of Justice.

 

Former head of Jewish security patrol in Brooklyn pleads guilty to sex crime involving a teenager

 

(New York Jewish Week) — The founder and longtime head of a private Jewish safety patrol group in Brooklyn has pleaded guilty to a crime related to sexual abuse of a 15-year-old girl.

Jacob Daskal will be sentenced to between 14 and 17 years in prison and will register as a sex offender after pleading guilty to transporting a minor with the intent of engaging in criminal sexual activity, according to an announcement Friday from the U.S. Department of Justice.

The guilty plea comes more than five years after Daskal, then the head of the Boro Park Shomrim security group, was first arrested and charged with sex crimes related to the alleged abuse of a girl who became his charge after she reached out for help because of trouble in her family. According to prosecutors, Daskal groomed the girl for sex and had sex with her multiple times, in Brooklyn, upstate New York and Chicago, all the while using his status as a community leader to pressure her to stay quiet.

“The defendant has admitted he abused his power, trust and position in the community by committing deplorable acts against a child in his care,” Breon Peace, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, said in a statement Friday. “We want victims everywhere to hear this guilty plea as our Office’s continued declaration that no one is above the law and we will bring those who violate our children to justice.”

The plea allows Daskal to avoid a trial on additional charges that had been set to start this month. Elements of the prosecution’s case, including graphic text messages between Daskal and his victim, were revealed in court filings rebuffing Daskal’s efforts to delay a trial.

According to the New York Daily News, Daskal — who had close ties with local police and Brooklyn’s Orthodox politicians until his arrest — was tearful as he entered his plea in court in Brooklyn on Friday.

“I transported the 15-year-old victim from New York, Brooklyn to New Jersey,” he said in court. “I was 58 years old at that time.”

 

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/former-head-boro-park-shomrim-society-pleads-guilty-transporting-15-year-old-girl

https://www.jta.org/2023/07/16/ny/former-head-of-jewish-security-patrol-in-brooklyn-pleads-guilty-to-sex-crime-involving-a-teenager

The realization is slowly sinking in that more and more ultra-Orthodox families want to send their sons to haredi Orthodox schools that teach core curriculum subjects and are under government supervision.

 

What’s happening right now around secular studies in Israeli yeshivas is remarkable

The study hall at Yeshivat Ner Zerach in Otzem, Israel

 

(JTA) — The irony of history is that we can understand and assess the full meaning of current events only in retrospect. Only looking back can we know for certain whether an incident that seems historic really is a turning point, or whether it was really the quiet and hard-to-detect processes bubbling under the surface that were shaping the future.

Either way, in recent weeks it seems that something notable is happening in the Israeli haredi, or ultra-Orthodox, community when it comes to teaching math, English and science in schools almost exclusively devoted to religious instruction.

The realization is slowly sinking in that more and more ultra-Orthodox families want to send their sons to haredi Orthodox schools that teach core curriculum subjects and are under government supervision.

 In order to avoid losing control over these schools, the rabbis are considering offering them a “kosher” alternative — schools that teach core curriculum subjects but are under haredi supervision. 

A few days ago, Israeli media reported on a meeting of prominent leaders of the pious “Lithuanian” haredi sector, known as “Yeshivish” in the United States. According to one account, the leaders, including two rabbis who are among the favorites in the race to be crowned the next “rabbinical giant of the generation,” met to discuss the “state ultra-Orthodox school system, with the objective of considering the challenges in education and the best way to proceed.” The teaching of secular subjects was clearly the context of their meeting. 

This comes on top of last month’s report that the Belzer Hasidic movement, one of Israel’s largest, wants to revert to a plan, devised in the previous Knesset by legislator Moshe Tur–Paz, whereby their schools would receive full state funding contingent on their incorporation of core curriculum subjects under government supervision. (The sect had dropped the plan under pressure from Rabbi Gershon Edelstein, the last rabbinical giant, who died in May at 100.) Whether these reports are true or just a gun placed on the table by haredi members of the Knesset as part of budget negotiations, the mere threat would seem to indicate that the core curriculum is gaining increased legitimacy in ultra-Orthodox society.

The truly shocking news, however, came on a different front: higher education. David Leibel, a well known rabbi who is also a businessman and social entrepreneur with a long record of success, announced the opening of an advanced yeshiva (for students ages 16 through marriage) that would also teach academic subjects. 

The announcement was preceded by a heavily promoted speech that garnered major coverage inside and outside the haredi sector. Currently, most haredi men continue to study Torah full-time and do not work for a living. The rabbi proclaimed, in short, that there is more than one way to be an ultra-Orthodox Jew. Devoting one’s life to Torah study is a stellar virtue, Leibel said, but acquiring a vocation and going out to earn a livelihood is equally legitimate. 

The attacks were swift and brutal. The Orthodox weekly Yated Ne’eman declared it totally out of the question to discuss the idea and condemned Leibel as the spiritual murderer of the greatest rabbi of the next generation, who instead of devoting himself entirely to Torah will choose to focus on secular studies. 

Despite the fierce public opposition to Leibel’s move, leaders associated with several ultra-Orthodox yeshiva high schools and others have just announced their intention to open a post-secondary institution that would allow its students to combine Torah studies with vocational programs and academic courses. 

According to the manifesto they wrote, which has circulated within the community but not been formally published, the yeshiva will offer “studies in a range of disciplines and occupations offered both by universities and other quality institutions that pave the student’s way to professionalism and excellence toward a dignified life and honorable livelihood, while sharing and accepting responsibility both in the economy, society, and community, and in the State of Israel as a whole.”

Can the ultra-Orthodox in Israel really incorporate a secular education or is the haredi DNA dedicated solely to religious studies for boys?

In the American context, the opposition by Hasidic leaders to calls that they improve their secular studies would suggest the latter. An investigation by the New York City Department of Education recently found that 18 Hasidic schools do not uphold the requirements to teach secular subjects. (It also concluded that some yeshivas do meet the state’s standards.) Hasidic yeshivas in New York, and their political supporters, have so far resisted heavy pressure from activists and the media to teach secular subjects in a way that is “substantially equivalent” with non-Orthodox schools. 

But the situation among the “Yeshivish,” non-Hasidic yeshivas in the United States is quite different. Their yeshivas, in places like the burgeoning Orthodox enclave of Lakewood, New Jersey, are teaching secular studies even in high schools, and most of their graduates are earning high school and often post-high school diplomas. This stems from parents’ desire to provide their children with the life skills required in modern society. In research we conducted on Haredi boys’ education in the United States, a principal of a Lithuanian institution told us that removing secular studies would lead 90% of parents to remove their sons from the yeshiva.

*****(Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz (1886 – 7 September 1948)^[1][2] was a leader of American Orthodox Judaism and founder of institutions including Torah U'Mesorah, an outreach and educational organization. In 1921 he became principal of Yeshiva Torah Vodaas.  He subsequently added a high school and post graduate program to the yeshiva. His policies were often informed by the Orthodox philosophical movement Torah im Derech Eretz.^[4]")*****

No wonder that more than 25% percent of the Yeshivish stream hold academic degrees, and the annual average earning of a Yeshivish household is 60% more than a Hasidic one. 

The haredi experience in the United States shows that it is possible to combine religious and secular studies for high-school aged boys. Can this latter model be replicated in Israel?

Only time will tell whether the current changes in Israel are viable or whether they prove premature and wither away. 

But if there is a lesson to be learned from all that’s happening, it is that change takes place only when alternatives are made available. If these and similar yeshivas gain momentum, the decision-makers will have no choice. Just as they are now considering the establishment of ultra-Orthodox schools that teach core curriculum subjects under rabbinic supervision, in the future we may see Israeli yeshivas that include secular studies as an integral part of the haredi world.

https://www.jta.org/2023/07/10/ideas/whats-happening-right-now-around-secular-studies-in-israeli-yeshivas-is-remarkable?utm_source=JTA_Maropost&utm_campaign=JTA_DB&utm_medium=email&mpweb=1161-59524-25499

The Good Ol' Doctor's Note! The Joke Is On Every Thinking Jew Who Puts Their Fate In The Hands of Corrupt Batei Din!

 

Rabbinical court delays ruling on Berlin rabbi accused of sexual misconduct after he offers 11th-hour doctor’s note

 

 

BERLIN (JTA) – A Jewish religious court has convened to hear testimony against a Berlin rabbi who was fired following allegations that he preyed on young women, using religious arguments to lure them into sexual relationships.

The beit din, or religious court, of Germany’s Orthodox rabbinical association, the ORD, announced on Monday night that it had “heard several affected persons in the case of allegations of sexual assault by a rabbi.”

But the group, working together with the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the Conference of European Rabbis, said it was not prepared to make a ruling because the rabbi had presented a letter from his doctor saying he could not testify, two hours before he was scheduled to do so. He will be given another chance, on July 13, according to the beit din’s statement.

The rabbi, Reuven Yaacobov, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency on Tuesday that his doctors have told him to rest completely for a month because of the shock he had endured. “If we don’t end the situation, then the post-traumatic situation will follow,” he recounted via WhatsApp.

The ORD would not offer more specificity about the number of women who testified. But a source outside the ORD with knowledge of the proceedings said that at least 10 women took part, locally or remotely, in the hearings held before an international panel of rabbis convened specially to deal with this case.

The hearing came one month after the Jewish Community of Berlin fired Yaacobov and locked the doors of his synagogue, the Sephardi congregation Tiferet Israel, a day after several women testified about what they described as years of sexual and psychological abuse.

The swift actions by both the Jewish Community of Berlin and Germany’s Orthodox rabbinical association stands in contrast to past responses to allegations against Yaacobov. JTA reported last month that multiple entities had received complaints about him during the 17 years that he was employed by the official Berlin Jewish community.

A Berlin rabbi has been fired amid mounting allegations that he preyed o... Toby Axelrod “The community has promised the victims unlimited support,” said a spokesperson for the Jewish Community of Berlin.

Yaacobov has not commented publicly on the allegations. He told JTA that he had not been told officially why he was fired. He also said he plans to contest his termination in German court and had informed the ORD he was “ready to come to a neutral Beit Din at any time and in any place as soon as my health condition improves and the labor court has met.”

Yaacobov had been a popular spiritual leader in a subset of Berlin’s large community of Russian-speaking Jews. Born in Uzbekistan and ordained by the Midrash Sepharadi Yeshiva in Jerusalem, Yaacobov, 46 and a married father of four, also studied at the Moscow Yeshiva in Russia and the Shavei Gola Yeshiva in Jerusalem before being hired by the Jewish Community of Berlin 17 years ago, according to a biography that was removed from the organization’s website last month.

Some of Yaacobov’s former congregants have joined him in a private Berlin location for services since his firing, he told JTA. Speaking Tuesday, he also questioned why Tiferet Israel, which operates inside an apartment building owned by the Jewish Community of Berlin, remained closed, with personal belongings locked inside.

“If the community has a problem with me, then they can solve the problem with me, but why does the synagogue have to be closed because of that?” he asked, noting that the Nazis had destroyed a synagogue on that same street in 1938. “Why should the worshippers pray in another synagogue?”

A spokesperson for the Jewish Community of Berlin told JTA on Tuesday that the closure of the synagogue was essential for demonstrating to women that their concerns were being taken seriously. The spokesperson, Ilan Kiesling, said additional women had come forward with allegations against Yaacobov since the closure.

“Many of Rabbi Yaacobov’s victims did not dare to report their suffering to the community board … because they thought that Rabbi Yaacobov might be able to return to his old place of work,” Kiesling said by email Tuesday. “The closing of the synagogue on Passauer Strasse also sends a clear signal that he will never serve as rabbi there again.”

The synagogue will remain closed until both civil and religious court proceedings have been completed, he said, adding, “The ban on Rabbi Yaacobov in all institutions of the Jewish Community in Berlin remains in force.”

The ultimate ruling of a rabbinical court could deepen that estrangement. A beit din can issue pronouncements that affect a person’s role in the Jewish community locally and beyond.

Elena Eyngorn, a Berlin Jew who originally brought some of Yaacobov’s alleged victims to testify to the Jewish community’s board, told JTA on Tuesday that she had arranged for a psychologist to accompany the women at the hearings by the Jewish court this week, if they so wished. The psychologist donated her time, she said.

Eyngorn, who did not attend the hearings herself, said she understood that the ORD also had permitted each woman to bring a support person.

One of the women who testified to the beit din told JTA that she had been asked to sign a statement that she was telling the truth. With her permission, she said, the religious court recorded her testimony so the three rabbinical judges could listen to it again. She estimated that she spoke with them for about 20 minutes.

“I told them at the end of the meeting that I thought it was very important to decide something about him, because we are very responsible towards the girls who are growing up in this community,” she said in a telephone interview with JTA, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Rabbinical court delays ruling on Berlin rabbi accused of sexual misconduct after he offers 11th-hour doctor's note - Jewish Telegraphic Agency

" The Orthodox Jewish Community (OJC) in particular, most essentially reflected universal aspects of sexual abuse....

Sexual Abuse in the Orthodox JewishCommunity: A Literature Review

 

Sexual abuse is a cross-cultural phenomenon related to multiple cultural contexts including religious affiliation. The Haredi, or Orthodox Jewish community (OJC), constitutes a significant minority group of the worldwide Jewish population, characterized by cultural conservatism, steadfast loyalty to the community, and strict religious behavioral codes. To date, only few empirical studies (as opposed to multiple media reports) have dealt with the issue of sexual abuse within the OJC.

Using  Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we conducted a systematic review of the literature on sexual abuse within the OJC and its subgroups that addresses experiences and reports of victims, perpetrators, the Jewish and general community, and professionals in the North America, Israel, and Australia. Articles were collected from peer-reviewed databases and bib-liographies; 13 quantitative and qualitative articles were included in the final sample.

Three themes emerged: disclosure of sexual abuse, perceptions and attitudes toward the abuse, and its implications. Results indicated that alongside several findings that were specifically grounded in the context of closed collective or religious societies and the OJC in particular, most essentially reflected universal aspects of sexual abuse. The results suggest promoting context-informed interventions based on community knowledge and resilience, together with appropriate training in order to better understand the needs of the OJC and of closed communities in general.

 

 READ THE ENTIRE RESEARCH PAPER:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339264609_Sexual_Abuse_in_the_Orthodox_Jewish_Community_A_Literature_Review

Israel's Second-largest Haredi Sect Starts Teaching Boys About Sexual Abuse Awareness

The Belz Hasidic sect, the second largest Haredi community in Israel, established a school program last month to protect students at its elementary schools …

The Belz Hasidic sect, the second largest Haredi community in Israel, established a school program last month to protect students at its elementary schools for boys from sexual abuse. Parents of students from grades 1 through 6 in the community’s boys’ schools were recently sent a letter regarding the “Sviva Betucha” (safe environment) program.

The letter explained that the program “will give the students tools and practices relating to cautiousness and protecting the body and the soul,” and that the educational staff has been given professional instruction “in keeping with the Belz outlook.”

Prior to this, similar programs were only instituted in schools that are considered more marginal in the Haredi community, including girls’ schools, private elementary schools for boys and in some of the Bnei Yosef schools affiliated with the Shas party. By contrast, the Belz school system has roughly 7,000 students, and the expectation now is that other Hasidic schools could follow suit.

The program is sponsored by Yedidut Toronto, a Jerusalem-based nonprofit, for ultra-Orthodox schools. According to the organization’s website, the program has been introduced into 185 schools in about 1,100 classrooms, having trained 3,000 teachers and involving 58,000 students (about 16 percent of all of the country’s Haredi students)

Among the skills that the program is designed to teach students is “observance of rules that will help them avoid getting into situations of risk and of overstepping boundaries.” The students are also to be taught “to spot from the beginning when a boundary has been overstepped that might lead them to a risk of being harmed and how to prevent that in time.” Finally, students are taught how to respond by sharing any inappropriate conduct with people in authority.

The issue of protecting students from sexual abuse is highly sensitive in Haredi schools and in the ultra-Orthodox community in general. Rabbis and educators in the community have therefore faced a dilemma, wanting to address the issue but not knowing how. In recent years, however, there has been a dramatic change and greater openness. One source told Haaretz that this is also just one aspect of greater openness on the issue of mental health in the Haredi community in general.

The rabbis involved in the project obtained the approval in advance of the community’s spiritual leader and worked with Yedidut Toronto to adapt the program to the Belz schools’ needs. “We didn’t wait for the coming school year due to the immediate need to act on the issue before summer vacation,” a source from the community said, noting that summer vacation is a period during which such abuse is more likely to occur.

“Students have proven that when adults in a child’s environment … set clear boundaries maintaining and respecting the sensitivities and needs of the child through healthy communications, the child is less likely to be in situation of risk,” the letter to Belz school parents explained. Unlike limited instruction in the past in the country’s Haredi schools that emphasized the need to be cautious of people from outside the community, this program actually focuses on the students’ immediate environment, where the risk of harm is greater.

“Statistics in Israel show that there is a higher percentage of harm to children, boys and girls, under the age of 12,” the Yedidut Toronto website notes. “In a large proportion of the cases, it involves an offender from the immediate environment with which the child is familiar. It’s important to prepare the children for situations in which they would exercise awareness, spot behavior that is not appropriate and report it to a person of responsibility.”

Yedidut Toronto, which works extensively with mainstream ultra-Orthodox institutions, refused to comment for this article or to explain the program, but the program content becomes clearer from the information on its website. “Preventing sexual harm is based first and foremost on teaching children basic cautionary rules, developing and normalizing protective discourse with the child, imparting the child’s self-confidence in his body and familiarization with the rules of ‘do’ and ‘don’t’ in personal and public space,” it states.

As the parents of the children gain greater awareness of the issue, they may also discover that their children have been abused. The parents also receive training and have access to counseling resources in the event that they have a child who has been abused.

 

Haaretz - Aaron Rabinowitz • 9h

Read more on haaretz.com

Izzy Posen grew up in London's Ultra-Orthodox Hasidic Jewish community, receiving the bare minimum of secular education in an illegal school that still practiced corporal punishment. Ash talks to Izzy about Zionism, how much the state should interfere with child rearing and the correct way to cut your nails in the eyes of the lord.

 This post is for informational purposes only! I do not advocate or condone the path Izzy has taken whatsoever. My posting is simply to demonstrate the various factors that contribute to Orthodox children  leaving the path of their forefathers. PM

 

 Izzy Posen grew up in London's Ultra-Orthodox Hasidic Jewish community, receiving the bare minimum of secular education in an illegal school that still practiced corporal punishment. Even with the strictures of this ultra insular community, he still managed to develop an acute curiosity about the world, something that resulted in him teaching himself english and eventually leaving the community to study physics and philosophy. Ash talks to Izzy about Zionism, how much the state should interfere with child rearing and the correct way to cut your nails in the eyes of the lord.

"Taliban Ban" on AI - ChatBot!

READ ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THIS RIDICULOUS BAN:

https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/general/2204647/25-leading-rabbanim-and-roshei-yeshiva-issue-ban-on-using-ai-chatbots.html

Why Not Scar A Child For Life Over Some BOZO "CODE"?

 

Against school code: Girl suspended from haredi school after celebrating Bat Mitzvah

 

The school claims the party went late, the songs at the event were not from the approved list, and several male relatives were present.

---

Hadar, a 12-year-old student at a haredi school in Ashkelon, was suspended after, according to the school, her Bat Mitzvah celebration violated school policy. According to Kan News, since then nearly two weeks, the school administration has not allowed her to return to class.

According to the girl's mother, the event was organized per the school's strict code, with strict kosher supervision and a female photographer, DJ, and waitresses. She says the trouble began in the middle of the event when the Hadar's friends began to leave early. "During the party, there was a commotion because the party was supposed to end at 9:30 PM. I explained the problem to the assistant principal that I already had invited people for a specific time, and I couldn't change it. The whole point of having a party for only girls is so her classmates could come."

Hadar recounted, "I was sad, I cried, I told my friends the principal wouldn't do anything, don't worry, stay. Some said, 'You're right,' they stayed, and some left."

Two days later, Hadar, a sixth grader at the Netzach Israel school in Ashkelon, received a letter notifying her that she would not return to class until her mother signed the letter admitting that she was wrong. According to the school, the party continued past the accepted time, the songs played at the event were not from the approved list, and several male relatives, including Hadar's father and grandfather, were present.

The school's principal claims that "the girl's mother keeps refusing to sign the letter she received after she violated several articles of the school's code."

The Ashkelon Municipality stated: "It was made clear to the student's mother that she can return to school, but she chose not to." (LIE)

 

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/373284?utm_source=activetrail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl