Leading up to the 2020 election, surveys revealed that then-President Trump had the support of an astronomical 89 percent of the US Orthodox Jewish community. Indications are that Biden-Harris policies and current events have only increased the percentage of Orthodox voters who will support him this November.

One could be forgiven for believing that the current conflict in the Middle East has turned pro-Israel Americans into one-issue voters. Orthodox Jewish support for President Trump, however, has much deeper roots, and this has profound ramifications for future candidates and the fight to restore American values.

President Trump and others frequently attribute his wild popularity in the Orthodox Jewish community to his policies regarding the State of Israel — moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, pulling out of the suicidal nuclear deal with Iran, supporting the Israeli war on terror/right to total self-defense, the Abraham Accords, and more. It is undoubtedly true that, like many others in the Jewish community, Orthodox recognize and are immensely grateful for all of these.

Other significant factors, however, are possibly being overlooked. If one would ask the average Orthodox Jew why he supports President Trump, while his answer would certainly include Trump’s support for the State of Israel, it would extend much further. Most Orthodox would give similar answers to mainstream Republicans: they seek an America that has safe streets, a secure Southern border, a robust economy, strong international standing, and, of course, an America that is based on what are commonly referred to as traditional faith and family values.

The Orthodox Jewish community is among the most politically conservative groups in the US. Although one would expect that any sane person would support the rule of law, economic prosperity, high moral standards, and all that has historically been part of the formula for achieving “the American Dream,” for the Orthodox, even these policies only capture part of the picture. The truth is still much deeper than that.

The Torah-Biblical values are the lifeblood of Orthodox Jewry. Belief in God, in law, in what are known as family values, in respect, in responsibility and accountability, in personal freedom, and in justice and its strong enforcement are at the core and soul of the Orthodox community.

When a politician declares support for the LGBTQ lobby, for defunding the police, for abortion on demand, for taxation and regulations that impede religious and personal freedoms and hinder the livelihoods of the masses, and so forth — the Orthodox Jew cannot stomach it. Such concepts offend every fiber of his being and violate his most sacred convictions and values.

By contrast, when politicians advocate family values, safety and security, personal accountability, respect for the rule of law, and deference to traditional faith, the Orthodox community responds and casts its votes favorably.

While solid backing of the State of Israel, as well as unyielding denunciation of antisemitism, are crucial to the Orthodox Jewish public, conservative family and political values are also key to Orthodox Jewish support. In an ever-polarized political and social environment, in which the Democratic party is increasingly viewed as embracing anti-family values, softness on crime, and policies that appear to clash with traditional ideas of personal responsibility and accountability, Orthodox Jewish support for Republicans increases by the day. This is precisely why Trump, for all his behaviors that are at variance with traditional Jewish ideals, is phenomenally popular among Orthodox Jews.

A few Democrat-aligned commenters have assailed the solid Orthodox gravitation to Trump as inconsistent with the hallmarks of good character that the Torah extols and expects. How they ask, can upstanding, conspicuously religious Jews support someone who is identified by many as having substantial character flaws and is the defendant in numerous lawsuits?

This complaint is false and disingenuous. Most voters choose the candidate whose political positions best represent their own and whom they feel can best execute effective policy. Character is usually secondary; we have entirely different expectations of political office candidates than our clergy and spiritual leadership. And let’s be honest: Trump faces serious competition from Democratic opponents in the “ethical lapse” department, so we should not pretend that either side has a lock on the moral turpitude vote.

When I arrived home from the Saturday evening synagogue service seven weeks ago, my daughters immediately told me the news of how an assassin attempted to end the life of President Trump a few hours earlier and how Trump survived what would have otherwise been sure death. I discussed the circumstances of the shooting with my wife and children, and we all immediately concluded that Trump’s survival was an act of hashgacha pratis – Hebrew for “special divine intervention.” It was clear that had Trump not turned his head to a very peculiar angle at that specific moment, he would not have survived.

Shortly after that, Trump recounted the events in detail and pointed to the exceptional circumstances that caused the bullet to miss its mark by mere millimeters. Declaring this as a miracle, he said, “God was with me; it was God alone who prevented the unthinkable from happening.” For myself, my family, and our community, what we heard was another example of Trump speaking our language.

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore on Flickr

I write the following without any agenda other than to share information that has already been made public voluntarily by the parties under discussion. It pains me to write anything that can hinder people’s Torah learning, but due to the fact that this public information is largely unknown to many people, it is important to make them aware.

I so fondly recall my early days of yeshiva in Yerushalayim. I, like all of my friends, proudly displayed my newly-purchased Jerusalem Bible, the beautiful Koren Tanach, at my makom in the beis medrash. The print, translation, paper and binding of my Jerusalem Bible were so appealing – really stunning. It was the new “must-have” sefer for every American in yeshiva who learned or at least consulted pesukim in Tanach.

Likewise, much later in my learning and writing endeavors, how I loved looking up all types of references in Sefaria. The comprehensiveness, clarity and ease of use were unmatched. ALHATORAH.org, Mercava and other such sites did yet not exist, but even had they been around then, I would have had no need for them, as Sefaria had it all, both in terms of content and usability.

Not long ago, while doing a search in Sefaria for some lesser-known material, I came across other materials that bothered me; some of these materials were non-Orthodox, while others were Open Orthodox or fringe-Orthodox. At that point, I decided to stop using Sefaria and I instead moved over to ALHATORAH.org.

My impression was that this problematic Sefaria material perhaps crept in due to poor filtering or editors not adequately scrutinizing submissions before posting. But recently, as reported several days ago, Sefaria announced its release of The Contemporary Torah: A Gender-Sensitive Adaptation of the JPS Translation, in which male pronouns referring to Hashem are removed (e.g. “His voice” is replaced by “God’s voice”, “His covenant” is replaced by “the covenant”, etc.) and generic male nouns are neutered (e.g. “we are honest men” is replaced by “we are honest”, “the men enrolled” is replaced by “the persons enrolled”, etc.). Aside from this constituting Ziyuf Ha-Torah, the transgression of falsifying the words of the Torah (here in service of secular values that are not in consonance with the Torah, in this case), it also displays Torah ignorance, for every word or gender reference in the Torah is purposeful, and to disregard them and apparently assume that they do not matter stems from a troubling lack of knowledge.

For example, the Torah typically refers to Hashem in the male form, not because Hashem is male, but because Hashem’s attributes and interactions with the world are manifested by characteristics that are predominantly male in nature and in the human experience. On the other hand, the Shechinah is intentionally presented in the Torah as a female noun, as the Shechinah primarily represents Hashem’s attributes and interactions with the world as manifested by characteristics that are predominantly female in nature and in the human experience. Kabbalah likewise has specific male and female references for Hashem, depending on the unique Divine manifestation or illumination. To overlook this and conveniently make matters “gender-sensitive” distorts the Word of Hashem and exhibits ignorance.

If one does a more thorough search, it is clear that today Sefaria is packed with problematic material, from gay pride source sheets, to Rabbinical Assembly (Conservative movement) content, to Maharat (female Open Orthodox clergy) publications, and just about everything else from all “streams”, including the individual works of the founders of Conservative Judaism and contemporary Reform and Conservative clergy.

Sefaria’s newly-announced Jewish Women’s Writing Circle, led by Dr. Erica Brown, but also by Sara Wolkenfeld, the latter of whom is a rabbinic fellow of the David Hartman Center and is chief learning officer at Sefaria, consists of many Open Orthodox “rabbas” (female clergy, explicitly forbidden by an OU psak), and faculty members at Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS – Conservative), Yeshivat Chovevei Torah (YCT) and Maharat, and other fringe and non-Orthodox institutions.

Again, this is all public information that has been voluntarily posted by Sefaria.

Some have addressed the concerns by stating that Sefaria does not claim to be Orthodox; while this may be true, Orthodox people use Sefaria with the assumption that it is indeed Orthodox, and my goal here is simply to inform people of what Sefaria contains and represents.

Koren Publishers is known for its many great sefarim, which almost all of us have and perhaps do use on a regular basis. Recently, I wrote a Times of Israel blogpost which addressed in part some problematic material found in the new Koren Lev Ladaat Humash. While one might have assumed that this was an odd exception to Koren’s normative adherence to tradition, attention must be drawn to some of Koren’s other publications, a few of which are cited in my post and others which do not appear there.

For example, Koren produces the Halakhic Realities series. Edited by Rabbi Zev Farber, who has publicly rejected the Torah’s Singular Divine authorship (see here and here), and issued under the auspices of International Rabbinic Fellowship (IRF), an organization of male and female Open Orthodox clergy, this series includes articles by Dina Najman and Shmuly Yanklowitz and other Open Orthodox clergy and persona.

Similarly, Koren publishes the Hilkhot Nashim series, edited by Rabba Rahel Berkovits, under the auspices of Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance (JOFA). Koren is likewise the publisher of a relatively new book by Rabbi Irving (Yitz) Greenberg, whose views on Halakha and whose post-Holocaust theology and more have placed him well outside the mainstream Modern Orthodox rabbinate and community.

Koren also publishes Robert Friend’s Found in Translation: Modern Hebrew Poets. The Koren website states about Robert Friend:

Robert Friend was gay, and his sexuality found expression in his poetry well before the Stonewall era. According to Edward Field in the Greenwood Encyclopedia of American Poetry, Shadow on the Sun is “remarkable in that, for its time, it contains so many poems about the author’s homosexuality.” Friend’s openness continued throughout his writing career.

This is all very disturbing, as while Koren publishes the works of some of the generation’s Torah luminaries, and it produces prominent sefarim for great and mainstream Orthodox organizations and institutions, it also disseminates the works of those whose views are decidedly not Orthodox, which can seriously mislead readers. When purchasing a Koren product today, the Orthodox buyer has to check whether the author is mainstream Orthodox or not.

Again, it truly pains me to write this, but people need to be aware of the facts.

Originally published in the Israel National News

Steven Greenberg’s Am I an abomination? An Orthodox publisher speaks to gay teens is highly problematic on multiple levels. Predicated on concepts that undermine and misrepresent the Torah, this blog post essentially gaslights normative, traditional Torah values and seeks to create a new reality that is at odds with the Torah’s worldview.

The very title of the blog post is a blatant inaccuracy, for the Torah’s use of the word “abomination” refers to the homosexual act and not to the homosexual person: “And you shall not lie with a male as with a woman, for it is an abomination (to’eivah, in Hebrew)”. (Vayikra/Leviticus 18:22) The word “it”, or “hee” in the original Hebrew, is a feminine pronoun that refers to the Hebrew word “shechivah” (lying [with another male]) in the verse. Shechivah is a feminine noun, and to it does the appellation of “to’eivah/abomination” refer, and not to the (male) sinner. Greenberg’s blogpost title portrays the Torah as labeling the homosexual person as an abomination, which is a clear distortion of the text, thereby garnering sympathy for homosexuality and engendering animosity toward the Torah.

Continuing on the trajectory of painting Torah values in a negative light, Greenberg cites the new Koren Lev Ladaat Humash, which unfortunately has departed from tradition and appears to present a softer and even modified stance toward homosexuality, mustering the mores and feelings of modern secular society to somewhat challenge the Torah and evoke sympathy for those who openly defy it:

For many, verse 22 is among the most challenging verses in the Torah, on both an emotional and intellectual level, as well as touching deeply on their faith and how they relate to God. Like other laws in the Torah, God gives a command that is difficult for us to comprehend, even at odds with accepted values and life experiences of family members, friends, neighbors, perhaps even ourselves. Our challenge, as Jews engaged with the modern world, is to remain faithful and respectful to the integrity of the word of God, while considering how we reconcile these values in our daily lives. This specific verse discusses a prohibited act. Our Jewish responsibility is to ensure that this verse, which has often been the source of much pain and confusion, should never prevent us from ensuring that every member of our community feels loved and respected.

Let’s take another case – intermarriage. There are certainly many more intermarried Jews than there are gay Jews, intermarriage is fully accepted in the secular world and in much of the Jewish world, and most people probably know more intermarried Jews than they know gay Jews. Liberal, secular society (including much of Jewish society) considers Judaism’s prohibition on intermarriage to be tribalistic and chauvinistic. Some even view the prohibition as cruel and offensive to the concepts of love and of uniting with one’s perceived soulmate.

Imagine if Koren’s Lev Ladaat Humash wrote the following regarding the prohibition to marry into the heathen nations (Devarim/Deuteronomy 7:3) or the story of Pinchas (Bamidbar/Numbers 25:1-9), or if a Koren Tanach (complete Bible) were to feature the following comment on chapter 10 of the Book of Ezra, which mandated the breaking up of intermarriages:

For many, the ban on intermarriage is one of the most challenging concepts in the Torah, on both an emotional and intellectual level. Like other laws in the Torah, God gives a command that is difficult for us to comprehend, even at odds with accepted values and life experiences of family members, friends, neighbors, perhaps even ourselves. Our challenge, as Jews engaged with the modern world, is to remain faithful and respectful to the integrity of the word of God, while considering how we reconcile these values in our daily lives. Our Jewish responsibility is to ensure that the Torah’s ban on intermarriage, which is often the source of much pain and confusion, should never prevent us from ensuring that every member of our community feels loved and respected.

Or what if regarding Sabbath desecration, the kosher laws, or other Torah prohibitions, Koren’s Lev Ladaat Humash wrote something similar? We would of course object that such a comment represents the compromise and dilution of Torah principles. Is the current case so different?

Although this is not the first time that Koren has trodden on thin ice – its Halakhic Realities and Hilkhot Nashim series are comprised of essays by quite a liberal clergy – I think that the citation from Koren’s Lev Ladaat Humash sets a very troubling precedent.

Steven Greenberg’s blogpost seeks to move the needle and basically place the Torah on the defensive – something that no Jew who refers to himself as Orthodox can ever do or countenance.

Originally published in The Times of Israel

Photo Credit: Jonatan Svensson Glad on Wikimedia Commons

Each of us seems to feel that he has a pretty solid grasp on the pulse of the frum community, be it in terms of levels of shemiras hamitzvos, attitudes, political outlook, and so forth. We typically feel this way about our own immediate community, and many of us feel this way about the broader Orthodox world as well – myself included.

I was thus a bit taken by surprise when reading the just-issued Nishma Research 2023 Profile of the U.S. Orthodox Jewish Community: Modern Orthodox, Chasidish & Yeshivish Sectors. This new study, spearheaded by Rabbi Mark (“Moish”) Trencher, a prominent business statistician and sociologist, and founder of Nishma Research, is a highly-expanded follow-up to 2017 and 2019 Nishma Research studies, which focused on the Modern Orthodox and baal teshuvah communities. As a member of the Study Advisory Group, who was privy to important discussions and analysis of this new study, I would like to present some of the highlights and insights that I feel are important and need serious follow-up.

The new Nishma Research study reflects the input of Jews, principally throughout the US, who self-identify as Orthodox. 32% of respondents identify as Modern Orthodox (split into 32% “Liberal MO,” 42% “Centrist MO,” and 26% “Stringent MO” categories); 26% of respondents identify as Yeshivish (16.4% “Traditional Yeshivish” and 9.6% “Modern Yeshivish”); 36% of respondents identify as Chasidish (23.6% “Traditional Non-Chabad Chasidish,” 5.2% as “Modern Non-Chabad Chasidish,” 5.3% as “Traditional Chabad/Lubavitch,” and 1.9% as “Modern Chabad/Lubavitch”). It is important to note that the survey was issued to targeted audiences via email; hence, those members of the Chareidi community who do not have email were not included in the study. 82% of survey respondents live in the United States, 23% of these US respondents reside in New York City (10% in Brooklyn, 7% in Manhattan, and 4% in Queens), 16% reside in New Jersey, and the remainder resides elsewhere, mainly in sizeable Orthodox communities. (The remaining 18% of respondents reside primarily in Eretz Yisroel, Great Britain, and Canada.)

The Liberal MO subgroup requires a bit of explanation, as it actually represents two somewhat different and smaller groups whose responses basically coalesce and thus can be categorized together. The Liberal MO subgroup accounts for those who would identify as “Open Orthodox” or something similar, meaning that they are religiously liberal. The Liberal MO subgroup also accounts for the “MO-Lite” community, whose views can be more religiously traditional but is overall quite lax in Yiddishkeit. Those who identify as Open Orthodox embrace very problematic innovations, such as the concept of female rabbis and various changes to halacha and minhag, but they tend to be more interested in Yahadus – according to their acute misunderstanding thereof. (The 2017 Nishma Research Profile of American Modern Orthodox Jews indicated that 49% of the children of Open Orthodox Jews are moving away from Yiddishkeit, and 38% of MO-Lite youth are likewise going in this direction.)

The Nishma Research 2023 Profile of the U.S. Orthodox Jewish Community addressed a broad array of issues, including halachic observance, emunah, changes in levels of shemiras hamitzvos, women’s religious roles, connections with one’s shul, primary issues of concern for Orthodoxy, attitudes on current events, and much more. Here is a breakdown of some of the most salient points:

Halachic Observance 

Obviously, this category reflected high scores on the part of the Yeshivish and Chasidish communities, be it in the area of Shabbos, kashrus, reciting brachos, asking halachic shailos, etc. (There were a few surprising lapses here, though; more on this below.) The Modern Orthodox figures were quite different: 76% of Modern Orthodox men daven Shacharis each day, 78% lay tefillin daily, and 58% daven Mincha on weekdays. 67% of Modern Orthodox respondents recite brachos before eating, and 53% recite brachos acharonos. Shabbos and kashrus observance in the Modern Orthodox group were recorded in the mid-90% range.

Interestingly, as perhaps to be expected, when the various elements of the larger Modern Orthodox classification were broken down, the halachic observance level of the “Stringent MO” group was often the same as the Yeshivish and Chasidish groups (and in some cases surpassed them – please continue reading for an explanation of this below). This trend carried through the rest of the study as well, with Stringent MO beliefs and attitudes in all major areas equally strong as the Chareidi sector (and in certain instances even stronger). In contrast, the weak showing regarding halachic observance (and other areas) on the part of the general Modern Orthodox sector is due to the more liberal subcomponent’s responses, which lowered the overall Modern Orthodox numbers throughout. (For example, only 53% of Liberal MO males daven Shacharis daily, as do 73% of Centrist MO males. This impacted the overall MO numbers in this field.)

On a positive note, halachic observance across the Orthodox spectrum was deemed to have improved over the past decade, including a substantial uptick among the Modern Orthodox sector from 10 years prior.

Beliefs

Regarding acceptance of the Yud-Gimmel Ikkarei Ha-emunah, the Yeshivish and Chasidish sectors had a strong showing, but the Modern Orthodox sector was all over the place. Overall 52% of Modern Orthodox respondents fully believe in the authority of Torah Shebaal Peh (the Oral Torah), and 28% of Modern Orthodoxy respondents “tend to believe” in it. And in terms of Hashem being involved in daily life, 56% of Modern Orthodox respondents fully believe in it, and 24% of Modern Orthodoxy respondents “tend to believe” in it. Yet again, as revealed by the study’s detailed breakdown of Modern Orthodox subgroups, emunah on the part of the Stringent Modern Orthodox sector nears 100%, whereas the Liberal MO sector is considerably lower.

Communal Priorities

The Nishma Research 2023 Profile of the U.S. Orthodox Jewish Community asked respondents which communal issues need focus over the next decade in the order of priority. In the Yeshivish and Chasidish groups, the top priorities were dealing with those who commit abuse, the cost of Jewish education and the cost of maintaining an Orthodox home, people going off the derech, and shidduchim. In the general Modern Orthodox group, dealing with agunos and fighting anti-Semitism ranked respectively as priorities #3 and 5, while dealing with those who commit abuse, the cost of Jewish education, and the cost of maintaining an Orthodox home were likewise top-priority. As elaborated upon by Rabbi Trencher in his post-study observations, dealing with people going off the derech came in as priority #12 among the general Modern Orthodox community, and perhaps shockingly, it came in as priority #17 among the Liberal MO subgroup, with “access to reliable news/information” and “climate/environment” coming in way ahead as priorities #12 and 13, and “approaches to Orthodox [to’eivah]” ranking as priority #4 among the Liberal MO category (!). The fact that this group, whose Torah observance is notably lower than the rest and whose youth are departing from Yiddishkeit in large numbers, gives such low priority to the OTD problem truly stands out and desperately calls for action.

The New Israeli Government

Interestingly, this latest Nishma Research study polled respondents on their attitudes toward the new Israeli government, which is of course comprised of a plurality of Orthodox Jews and is officially more right-wing than any previous Israeli government. Even if one doesn’t agree with certain aspects of this government (I myself am no fan of Itamar Ben-Gvir on various issues), it’s clear that the new Israeli government represents Orthodox interests and perspectives far more than its predecessors, and one would expect that anyone who refers to himself as Orthodox would welcome this. (The survey was issued to respondents shortly after the election, and the responses relate to the composition and attitudes of the new government rather than to its performance.)

Whatever one thinks of some aspects and personalities within the new Israeli government, which frum Jew in his right mind would instead prefer Lapid-Lieberman and the like?

Hold onto your seat, as within Modern Orthodoxy, the 2023 Nishma Research study revealed that 27% of the MO Centrist subgroup is pleased with the new Israeli government, versus 38% which is concerned about it, while in the Liberal MO subgroup, 11% is pleased with the new Israeli government and 67% is concerned (!). This is absolutely stunning. (Needless to say, in the Stringent MO subgroup, the vast majority is pleased with the new Israeli government, and the “pleased with the new Israeli government” numbers are remarkably even higher among the Yeshivish and Chasidish categories.)

Yeshivish and Chasidish Group Statistics

It must be noted that the new Nishma Research study reported that among the Chareidi sector, observance in certain areas of halacha is not close to 100%. For example, 90-91% of Chareidi men responded that they daven Shacharis daily; davening Mincha daily was only in the 82-89% range; etc. Informal discussion among the Study Advisory Group determined that this does not represent the Chareidi norm, and that these deficient numbers reflect the responses of people from without who are not fully committed to halachic observance but who refer to themselves are Yeshivish or Chasidish due to their comfort or affinity for these groups. This would also include those who grew up in Yeshivish and Chasidish communities but later moved away from full Torah observance, yet still self-identify with these communities on a social level and do not view themselves as part of the Modern Orthodox or non-Orthodox communities.

Some Takeaways for Us

Aside from this perhaps being interesting (and often tragic) material, what has it got to do with the Yated readership, which is seemingly not part of the problem? At face value, the Nishma Research 2023 Profile of the U.S. Orthodox Jewish Community is an alarm call for the “Non-Strident” segments of Modern Orthodoxy, as it exposes major lapses in observance and belief, and it bears witness to how far many in these groups have strayed from Yiddishkeit, despite self-identifying as Orthodox Jews. We dare not feel triumphal or be unperturbed that large numbers of our brethren, closer to our own camp, have veered away from Torah.

But let’s take a step back and think: How did many among the “Non-Strident” segments of Modern Orthodoxy descend to their current position? Were not the bulk of these people, or their parents or grandparents, originally from fully-Orthodox stock, totally shomrei Torah umitzvos? What happened?

Are not the same exact underlying forces that led large numbers of people in these Modern Orthodox subgroups away from Torah at play when it comes to our own communities? The robust pursuit of material wealth, immersion in the latest fashion and consumer trends, overexposure to secular media, and placing oneself in sevivos that are less than conducive to avodas Hashem – do these not acutely threaten our communities as well? These are the forces that distance people from ruchniyus, without those affected usually realizing it until after the damage is done.

There are popular and glossy heimishe magazines whose content consists almost entirely of articles about money-making, politics, fashion, and food. Are these the priorities with which we seek to identify? The mindset that results from this is one of gashmiyus and lack of focus on Hashem and Torah. And it has a profoundly negative impact.

As Torah Jews, we know that all that transpires in the world is due to the ratzon of Hashem, Hashgocha Protis. We do our hishtadlus and have bechirah, but Hashem runs the world, down to every atom, controlling global events and the decisions of leaders at the highest echelons. When we are overly immersed in politics – even if we support the right candidates and parties – through osmosis we begin to believe that everything depends on human beings and the strategies and political posturing of presidents, cabinet members, and legislators. We take Hashem out of the picture.

The more we become submerged in materialism, be it in the form of excessively exotic vacationing, the latest (and often problematic) fashion crazes, extravagant and over-the-top gastronomic delicacies, being fixated on wealth and enamored with business superstars, or the building of quasi-mansions with all the extras in neighborhoods that are not exactly mekomos Torah, we distance ourselves from Hashem, and our priorities become those of the secular street. We drift away without even realizing it, embracing inane fads and all that which is non-Jewish, while going through the motions of being frum Yidden, yet not realizing that a subterranean metamorphosis is occurring in our attitudes, priorities and mentality. The opulence and indulgence of a contemporary seudas Achashveirosh lifestyle transform our minds, hearts and souls to something we would never have imagined. And the same is true when we over-saturate our heads, ears and eyes with media and politics. It is frightening. Are we perhaps not on the direct path toward “Non-Strident” Yiddishkeit? We might bear a Chareidi shell, but the inner substance becomes emptied and replaced with foreign material.

It is no secret that in the world of education, the primary problem facing today’s students is lack of ability to focus for more than a moment. There is no sense of patience, and attention spans are close to zero, for students are accustomed to instant gratification as they spend every free moment and more rapidly clicking and scrolling through screens of social media Tweets and videos, with no focus or thought as they crave immediate, mindless “fun.” If an app takes more than a second to load, forget about it – no time for waiting. The more a ben Yisroel adopts and integrates this vacuous culture into his life, the more his Torah learning suffers. Real, serious limud haTorah requires patience, deliberation, and lots of time to grind through difficult material and try to analyze and digest it. It is the antithesis of contemporary social media norms. As much as we are concerned about online shmutz, let us be equally concerned about how electronic media infatuation and addiction destroy one’s ability to properly learn, appreciate and internalize Torah.

How does this pertain to the issue at hand? If one cannot become immersed in Torah, and, on the contrary, he is somewhat estranged from Torah learning, his Yiddishkeit is acutely affected. Rather than harbor a love for Torah and be enchanted by its profundity and awed by its sanctity, limud haTorah is something that is a bit alien and perhaps even uncomfortable to such an individual. This lamentably rings true when contrasting Liberal MO boys’ chinuch with that of the Chareidi community. Even in Modern Yeshivish schools, boys start learning Gemara in 5^th grade, quickly gaining proficiency in reading and understanding the basics, mastering the simple meaning of a few sugyos in Shas, along with some Rashi and a bit of Tosafos, and subsequently climbing to new heights of Torah accomplishment in each successive grade. Sadly, in Liberal MO high schools, it is not uncommon for boys in 12^th grade to have trouble even pronouncing a few words of Gemara. The contrast is striking and tragic. This is one reason that so many Liberal MO youth depart from Orthodoxy, as they feel no connection to Torah. This same lack of proper chinuch was faced by countless formerly-frum Jews who immigrated to the US a century ago, as they attended public school during the day and were enrolled in local Talmud Torahs after school, where there was not ample time to provide immersion in limud haTorah or mastery of any serious learning. The result of this, along with incessant inundation by secular American culture and these immigrants’ embrace thereof, was the churban of mass departure from Yiddishkeit.

The Nishma Research 2023 Profile of the U.S. Orthodox Jewish Community very much speaks to us. Every generation has its own unique nisyonos, often not faced by previous generations, although below the surface, the nisyonos are from the same root. Let us look to the underlying factors that enabled so many of our brethren to swerve off course and thereby be warned and resolve to be mechazeik our own trajectory in Torah umitzvos. Hashem ya’azor.

Originally published in Yated Ne’eman

In an effort to force the hand of Yeshiva University president Rabbi Dr. Ari Berman and the YU administration to grant undergraduate club status to YU Pride Alliance, over 1600 students, alumni and professors from YU’s many schools have signed petitions and statements demanding that YU Pride Alliance be given formal recognition and funding. The signatories range from current students, faculty and alumni to those of decades past, including some people who graduated from YU over half a century ago.

At first glance, the dozens of pages of signatures might appear to be a bit daunting. 1600+ seems like a large number for an institution that most of us consider to be on the smaller side. However, taking a step back, it is clear that these petitions and letters failed miserably, for despite being aggressively circulated for signatures, and despite the petition and its signature link having been featured in very prominent Jerusalem Post, JTA, and Times of Israel articles, the actual number of signatories represents a tiny fraction of YU’s student and alumni base. Of YU’s well-over 70,000 alumni (plus several thousand current students in the total YU system, and over 2000 RIETS rabbinic alumni), 1600 is a minuscule and basically insignificant figure. Even should we lower the number of total targeted signatories by taking into account those alumni who have passed away, the final number of those who signed is negligible.

Moreover, when we consider the overwhelming number of YU students and alumni who did not sign the petition, it emerges that the number of those opposed to the petition totally trounces the number of those who signed it. The petition was aggressively promoted and marketed all over the place, yet the clear and astronomical majority of those qualified to sign declined to do so. If anything, the tiny fraction of actual signatories from the aggregate potential and hoped-for number sends the message that the opposition to the YU administration’s stance on the YU Pride Alliance issue is more noise and smoke than reality, and that the numbers overwhelmingly stand solidly behind the YU administration’s position.

Taking a step back further, the entire enterprise of a petition on this matter is perplexing. Although a significant minority of signatories (mostly from YU’s graduate schools and faculty) are not Orthodox Jews or are not Jewish at all, those signatories with Orthodox backgrounds presumably realize that the issue at hand involves paramount Torah principles, such as identification with halakhically illicit relations (Giluy Arayos), and Chillul Hashem (Profaning God’s Name).

Even if one were to argue that these two principles should not determine the final outcome, all must agree that they are serious factors and considerations. As such, every Orthodox Jew knows (or should know) that guidance on these weighty topics must be sought from preeminent Torah authorities. Precedent for pushing an issue of halakhic import by way of populist petition and protest derives from Korach and is totally outside the parameters of accepted Orthodox thought and deed.

Let’s take a step back more and cite the Torah sources regarding this issue:

“And a male shall not lie with another male; it is an abomination.” (Vayikra 18:22)

“And a male who lies with another male as with a woman – they have committed an abomination; they shall surely die – their blood is upon them.” (Ibid. 20:13)

Note: Although the Torah employs the verbiage of “to’eivah”/abomination with regard to various other offenses, such as consuming certain types of forbidden foods and the use of corrupted weights and measures, those sins do not carry the death penalty; recent efforts to downplay the severity of homosexual relations by equating them with lesser acts that are likewise labeled by the Torah as to’eivah are hence off the mark. To’eivah as used in the Torah can refer to physical, spiritual or moral abomination, none of which are equal or necessarily parallel.

There are plenty of additional sources in classical rabbinic literature regarding the acute offense of homosexual relations (v. Sanhedrin 82a, Chullin 92b, etc.), and the prohibition has been codified in the Yad Ha-Chazakah, Tur, Shulchan Aruch, and literally every other halakhic code that discusses illicit relations.

As with any Torah transgression, the sin lies in the act and not in the desire; a person who harbors an uncontrollable lust for another of the same gender is not held culpable in any way, just like anyone who has an involuntary desire to violate the Torah in other areas is not liable unless he acts upon that desire. One who instinctually desires that which the Torah forbids and does not act upon his urge is praiseworthy, heroic, and righteous.

Taking into account the Torah’s strict stance about our topic, the YU administration’s words are surprisingly soft:

“The message of Torah on this issue is nuanced, both accepting each individual with love and affirming its timeless prescriptions. While students will of course socialize in gatherings they see fit, forming a new club as requested under the auspices of YU will cloud this nuanced message.” (JTA)

“We welcome, love, and care for all our students, including our LGBTQ students. We place a specific emphasis of importance on supporting our LGBTQ students. There are a number of ways we express this support, including hosting an LGBTQ support group, requiring LGBTQ sensitivity training to all of our rabbis and faculty and presenting public events so that all of our students better understand the experience of being LGBTQ and Orthodox. And, of course, we uphold our strong anti-bullying and anti-discrimination policies. We understand that a number of our LGBTQ students think YU should be doing more for them including establishing a student club. We had been engaged in a constructive dialogue with our students to work on building an even more inclusive campus experience.” (YU – FAQS)

YU has been more open and welcoming on this matter than probably anybody expected, and it is thus nothing short of shocking that rather than YU Pride Alliance appreciating Yeshiva University’s understanding attitude, YU Pride Alliance and its supporters resorted to litigation and protest to demand that YU go even further by endorsing and funding YU Pride Alliance as an official Yeshiva undergraduate club.

As Rabbi Rodney Weiss writes, those pushing for this endorsement and funding are quite aware of the Torah’s prohibition of and strong objections to an active LGBTQ lifestyle, and they are quite aware as well that YU is a conspicuously Orthodox institution with a rich Torah tradition. To knowingly force YU into this position is a very dishonorable gesture, to put it lightly.

YU Pride Alliance and its supporters claim that they merely seek a venue for personal support. However, the very name of the organization belies this assertion, as it proclaims pride for homosexuality and transgenderism. To think that this has a public place at Yeshiva is patently wrong. (As this article goes to press, Open Orthodox YCT appears to be going in the very opposite direction of YU on these issues.)

No amount of mental gymnastics can allow a Torah Jew to endorse YU Pride Alliance. Those who are on the fence about the issue and those who have signed the petition would do well to read Rabbi Steven Pruzansky’s new article, Torahphobia.

In these Yemei Teshuva (Days of Repentance), let us take a step back and realign our minds and hearts with the Torah’s values, casting aside all specious arguments and unsupported justifications for that which is blatantly wrong.

If our values are those of secular society, let us not call them Orthodox values and attempt to use the Torah to uphold and bolster that which is its antithesis.

If our values are those of the Torah, we must unapologetically affirm them and not endorse the official establishment of a gay pride club under the banner of Yeshiva.

Originally published in the Israel National News

It has been a long time since I have written about the innovations of the Open Orthodox movement – for good reason, boruch Hashem. For the most part, the movement has not done anything new and seems to have taken a downturn: the two Open Orthodox, co-ed (!) “semicha” programs in Eretz Yisroel (Beit Midrash Har’el and Yashrut) appear to not have graduated anyone this year, and Yeshivat Chovevei Torah (YCT), the Open Orthodox seminary in Riverdale, only graduated two people at its annual ordination ceremony. Similarly, unlike in years past, when there was a steady flow of new “teshuvot” and innovations by Open Orthodox leaders introducing major changes to halacha and hashkafa, as of late, not much has been issued, and one gets the sense that things are dwindling down on that front.

However, there is one notable exception to this trend: the ordination of female “Orthodox rabbis”. In contrast with an acute decrease in the ordination of male Open Orthodox clergy, the female side of this enterprise has quietly mushroomed both in Eretz Yisroel and in the US, as two seminaries and a network of pseudo-Orthodox congregations have been involved in trying to radically change the Orthodox landscape and its future leadership profile.

Ever since the major American Orthodox organizations effectively banned the notion of female clergy (see sidebar for details), efforts have been made to surreptitiously undermine the ban and sneak things in under the radar. For example, Congregation Beth Sholom of Providence recently hired “Rabba” Amalia Haas as its “Director of Spiritual Engagement.” Haas, who completed the Executive Ordination program at Yeshivat Maharat in Riverdale (the Open Orthodox seminary that grants “semicha” and full rabbinic titles to women), not only teaches at Beth Sholom, but also delivers occasional sermons from the pulpit on Shabbos mornings and provides pastoral guidance, according to the congregation’s literature.

Rather than refer to Haas as “Assistant Rabbi” or “Associate Rabbi,” Beth Sholom has cleverly employed the title of “Director of Spiritual Engagement” for Haas in order to evade censure by the Orthodox establishment. So too, prior to this, Congregation Anshe Sholom B’nai Israel (“ASBI”) in Chicago retained “Rabbanit” (i.e., female rabbi – her husband is not a rabbi) Leah Sarna as its “Director of Spiritual Engagement.” Sarna, too, was ordained at Yeshivat Maharat and was listed as clergy at ASBI, where she periodically delivered sermons on Shabbos mornings from pulpit. Again, ASBI utilized the artifice of a title that was fabricated for female clergy to slip past the system.

Similarly, Congregation Beth Abraham of St. Louis retains Maharat Rori Picker Neiss as “Religious Consultant,” Congregation Beth Israel of Berkely, CA retains Maharat Victoria Sutton as “Director of Education and Community Engagement,” and Congregation Shaar Hashomayim of Montreal retains Rabba Rachel Kohl Finegold as “Director of Education and Spiritual Enrichment.” So long as these contrived and distortive titles are used for their female clergy, these congregations basically get a free pass.

ASBI has hired a new “Maharat intern” for next year. Other congregations that have hired Maharat interns as of late are Beth Sholom of Potomac, MD, ACT Jewish Community of Canberra, Australia, and Prospect Heights Shul of Brooklyn. 19 other congregations have hired Maharat interns over the past several years, and a total of 13 congregations have hired Maharat graduates as clergy.

There are also some important changes at those congregations that hired Yeshivat Maharat graduates several years ago. Most notable is Congregation Ohev Sholom (which refers to itself as “The National Synagogue”) of Washington, DC, whose rabbi, Shmuel Herzfeld, retired last year to found “Yeshivas Reb Elimelech” – a pluralistic institution described by The Washington Post as an alternative yeshiva that “welcomes people of all religious backgrounds, genders and … orientations… it will offer them types of ordination.” (This planned “yeshiva” was hit with a work-stop order by city regulators for noncompliance with its construction permit and has not opened.) After Herzfeld’s departure from Ohev Sholom, the congregation did not hire a new rabbi, but instead made its clergywoman, Maharat Ruth Friedman, into its sole spiritual leader. Yes, this “Orthodox” house of worship is led exclusively by female clergy. Two other pseudo-Orthodox congregations likewise are led solely by female clergy, who were ordained by Yeshivat Maharat: Walnut Street Synagogue, led by “Rabbi” Lila Kadegan, and South Philadelphia Shtiebel, led by “Rabbanit” Dasi Fruchter. And let us not forget Hebrew Institute of Riverdale (HIR), whose founding rabbi, Avi Weiss, created the Open Orthodox movement. HIR houses Yeshivat Chovevei Torah (YCT) and Yeshivat Maharat, and its clergy roster includes “Bracha Jaffe – Associate Rabba” and “Sara Hurwitz – Rabba (Part Time).”

It is interesting to contrast YCT and Yeshivat Maharat. YCT has a total enrollment of 18 students in its four-year program and graduated only 2 students this year; mathematically, only 4.5 students will graduate from YCT each year over the next four years. Yeshivat Maharat currently has 28 students, divided into two tracks, and it graduated 9 students this year. What this means for the future landscape of Jewry can be significant.

(Although YCT’s future impact appears to be somewhat muted, due to record-low enrollment, it has not stopped YCT from forging ahead on occasion with outrageous innovations that are further poretz geder. YCT just announced that it is hiring a “Director of *Toeivah* Initiatives,” and the job posting does not even specify that the candidate should be Orthodox. There is no limit to the insanity and the stark rejection of halacha and mesorah Furthermore, Rabbi Dov Linzer, rosh yeshiva of YCT, along with the heads of Yeshivat Maharat/ “Rabba” Sara Hurwitz and other Open Orthodox institutions, such as JOFA-Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance, Torat Chayim Rabbis/Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz, and Yashrut/Rabbi Daniel Landes, have been fighting tooth and nail to keep abortion legal. This includes speaking at rallies, publishing open letters “on the part of the Orthodox rabbinate”, and flooding the media with op-eds “by Orthodox rabbinical leadership”.)

Let us now turn our attention to Eretz Yisroel, where the female ordination issue has unfortunately gotten even more out of hand. Ohr Torah Stone (OTS), founded by Rabbi Steven/Shlomo Riskin and now led by Rabbi Kenneth Brander, created and houses the Susi Bradfield Women’s Institute of Halakhic Leadership (WIHL), which runs a full-blown semicha-type program for women, and whose website states that:

“Over an intensive period of five years the following subjects are covered:

Hilkhot Niddah (rituals involved in family purity);

Shabbat and the Jewish Holidays;

Kashrut;

Aveilut (the laws of mourning);

Kiddushin and Gittin (Jewish marriage and divorce);

“Graduates of the five-year WIHL program are certified as spiritual leaders and Morot Hora’ah [authorized to provide direction in matters of halakha-Jewish Law]… In May 2019, the WIHL hired a director of career development and placement, to strengthen the practical impact of the WIHL by opening doors and making connections so that graduates can acclimate into leadership positions within the religious public realm. Ultimately, the aim of the WIHL is to empower Jewish women with the proper skills and credentials not only to achieve self-fulfillment and earn a meaningful livelihood, but to educate, guide, inspire and provide meaningful leadership to the world Jewish community.

“Until now, WIHL fellows studied a wide and diverse body of halakhic literature over the course of five intensive years, at the end of which they took the same tests that men take with the rabbanut. Our fellows become certified halakhic and spiritual leaders and have the opportunity to play halakhically appropriate roles in the Torah and larger Jewish community,” explains OTS President and Rosh HaYeshiva Rabbi Kenneth Brander. “The training we offer is both extensive and unique, but we recognize that we must also take it to the next level in terms of professional guidance, internships and employment.”

Although WIHL and OTS leadership cleverly maneuvers so as to avoid referring to WIHL graduates as “rabbis,” thereby evading censure by the Orthodox establishment, it is clear that WIHL is a female semicha program and that its intent is to ordain female clergy. If WIHL’s conferral of “Morot Hora’ah” titles upon its graduates, and its provision to these women of a semicha curriculum and rabbanut semicha exams, is not the equivalent of creating female rabbis, I have a bridge to sell you…

Moreover, Yeshivat Maharat outright grants women semicha, with a rabbinic klaf and all; it does not hide the fact that it ordains female “rabbis.” It is thus quite telling that among the Yeshivat Maharat Advisory Board members, we find the names “Rabbi Shlomo Riskin,” “Rabbi Shmuel Klitsner” and “Rabbanit Devorah Evron.” Rabbi Riskin is the founder of OTS and WIHL, Rabbi Klitsner is WIHL’s chairman, and Rabbanit Evron is WIHL’s director (!). So much for WIHL not endorsing semicha for women and merely masquerading as providing some type of vague “halachic leadership” role.

WIHL’s cohort of this past year consisted of 13 students – more than Yeshivat Maharat.

OTS is planning on flooding the Orthodox world (at least according to OTS’ definition of “Orthodox”) with the equivalent of female rabbis. OTS’ mission and trajectory exceed those of Yeshivat Maharat and display blatant disregard for traditional Yahadus. (Thus far, one OTS-WIHL graduate serves as the sole spiritual leader of a congregation. Rabbanit Shira Marili Mirvis was chosen last year to lead Kehillat Shirat Ha-Tamar in the Israeli city of Efrat, with the blessings of OTS senior leadership and the acclamation of the Israeli Masorti [Conservative] movement. In an interview with LA Jewish Journal last April, Mirvis referred to her role as one of “rabbinic leader…  My duties in the synagogue are to serve as the sole halakhic authority for our community, teach Torah and rule in halakhic matters, which [were] always the traditional [duties] of a rabbi in halakhic Orthodox communities. I will also counsel families and individuals, deliver sermons and teach Torah classes for our community. There are no other rabbis serving in our synagogue; I will be the sole ‘rabbinic voice’ and ‘spiritual leader’ in all religious matters.” And, quite ironically, Rabbi Brander remarked, “The chance to witness Rabbanit Shira Mirvis take on this role represents an important moment as we recognize that the place of women in Jewish leadership can go fully hand in hand with halacha and our mesorah (tradition).” How anyone can claim this with a straight face is beyond me.)

It is also important to note that there is a proliferation of subpar geirus occurring under the auspices of Open Orthodox/pseudo-Orthodox clergy. Young YCT graduates who espouse very problematic hashkafic positions and are certainly not poskim or talmidei chachomim go about performing “Orthodox” conversions for people who clearly are not committed to full halachic observance, with these YCT graduates posting on social media about being “megayer” loads of people, along with pictures of the immodestly-clad intermarried couples and groups of people in Latin American countries whom these rabbis “converted” – converts who did not fully undertake mitzvah observance and who did not appreciate the gravity of halacha. Geirus on the part of a person who is not mekabel ol mitzvos is invalid, and these cases are no exception. Boruch Hashem that the Israeli Rabbanut and mainstream American botei din do not accept these conversions. (Additionally, OTS offers conversion through the Jewish Learning Center of New York (JLCNY); the director of this program is a fringe Open Orthodox clergyman who, among other things, marches in the [toeivah] Pride Parade and celebrates other such events.)

One can speculate with much confidence that the compromised geirus policies of former Religious Affairs Minister Matan Kahana and Rabbi Eliezer Melamed’s very public (and roundly condemned) endorsement of conversion without kabbolas ol mitzvos played no small part in inspiring the above subpar geirus endeavors.

How did this all come about?

As one who has had previous personal contact and familiarity with many of those who are behind these wayward “semicha” and “geirus” programs, I can attest to the fact that detachment from one’s rabbeim is the enabling force behind this all (as well as the fact that the younger people involved with these innovations often never had real rabbeim in the first place). The more senior leaders of Open Orthodoxy/pseudo-Orthodoxy began their misguided initiatives either after moving to countries far from their rabbeim and/or after their rabbeim passed on or were not with the mental capacity to rein in delinquent talmidim. Just like we find that those who depart from communal norms in the yeshiva/chareidi world and pioneer controversial and often problematic ventures are most often those who have moved away from the influence of their rabbeim and their former tight-knit communities, where standards were expected and enforced, so too is it with those who are poretz geder in Yahadus and launch unconventional new modes of “Orthodoxy.” Once these people left the shadow of their rabbeim, many of whom were anoshim gedolim, they felt free to foment upheavals and to overturn Torah norms in the name of progress.

Although the average Yated reader will probably never be personally exposed to or challenged by the damaging reforms of Open Orthodoxy/pseudo-Orthodoxy, let everyone see clearly what happens when one does not have a live rebbi to whom one submits, and what transpires when one moves away from the sphere of rabbinic authority and a communal Torah structure. The hefkeirus that ensued in the situations described above did not come in a vacuum. It was the direct consequence of a state of affairs that enabled the destructive goals to be achieved. This was a preventable churban. Let us take note and take heed.

Originally published in the Yated Ne’eman

Imagine that a new statute prohibiting larceny was enacted and that people claiming to speak on behalf of the Orthodox rabbinate came out against this new statute designed to curb theft of people’s property, due to the fact that the statute clashes with Halacha. The reason is that Halacha allows one to steal an object in an emergency situation in order to save a life and this new statute fails to specify this exception.

Or imagine that a university institutes a new code of ethics that emphasizes the importance of always being honest but that Orthodox professors and students rise up in vocal opposition since there are exceptional instances when Halacha allows one to bend the truth in order to avoid offending other people and to spare them from embarrassment.

Obviously, Judaism opposes larceny and requires that one be truthful. There are a few drastic circumstances, as mentioned above, when Halacha rules that other considerations override the prohibition to steal and the mandate to be honest, yet, these are the exceptions to clear halachic norms and are not the norms themselves. To claim that the Torah is pro-theft or pro-lying would be a massive distortion of Halacha.

So too, when it comes to abortion there are various opinions in Halacha regarding when an exception to the Torah’s strict ban on abortion applies, and a woman should follow the halachic guidance she receives, should she be in a situation where abortion might be allowed or necessary. But to state that Halacha is pro-choice regarding abortion is the equivalent of claiming that Halacha is pro-theft or pro-lying concerning the Torah’s prohibition to steal and its requirement to be honest. There are legitimate exceptions to the rule but they are not the rule.

In a JTA article also published online in The Jerusalem Post, “Roe v. Wade: Overturning would be unconscionable infringement on religious freedom,” Dov Linzer and Sara Hurwitz, claiming to represent the Orthodox rabbinate, label themselves as pro-choice (“our pro-choice beliefs”) and castigate “the anti-choice camp.” They further distinguish between the Orthodox Jewish approach to abortion and that of the Catholic Church, portraying the two approaches as worlds apart.

Halacha and abortion rights

BY IDENTIFYING as pro-choice, Linzer and Hurwitz place themselves outside of halachic thought, for Orthodox Judaism views abortion as a strict prohibition that has some overriding exceptions. Halacha is not pro-choice, just as it is not pro-theft or pro-lying. And although some halachic authorities allow abortions in cases where the Catholic Church would proscribe it, the difference between the two approaches is one of the degrees rather than a fundamental schism regarding the permissibility of abortion in principle.

Once the Supreme Court draft decision overturning Roe v. Wade was leaked several weeks ago, a number of states immediately responded by setting aside hundreds of millions of dollars in order to facilitate abortions for any woman who wants one, including flying in women from out of state and paying for their travel, lodging and all else, so that they can have abortions without any hindrances or limitations. Additionally, many states are enacting laws designed to assure the ability to legally undergo an abortion irrespective of the final Supreme Court decision. In short, every woman in America will have full and free access to abortion, as provided by a large number of major states.

It thus strikes one as odd that Linzer and Hurwitz assert that “If the Supreme Court removes the protections of Roe v. Wade and states adopt legislation that limits or eliminates a woman’s right to choose, we and our co-religionists will be effectively barred from acting in accordance with our religious beliefs and from being guided by our moral compass.” I know many people who have traveled across the country and across the globe for crucial medical care, often paying very high travel and lodging fees in the process.

Should Roe v. Wade be overturned, a woman seeking an abortion can get free round-trip tickets and lodging from New York State and a host of other major states that provide unfettered abortion access and services; no one is being barred from anything, contrary to the above hyperbolic and inaccurate assertions.

It must also be noted that every single trigger law banning abortion clearly allows for the procedure in order to save the life of the mother; in some states, these trigger laws include far more exceptions. Let us not falsely depict a scenario in which women’s lives will be lost due to proscriptions on abortion with no exceptions, as there are indeed such exceptions built into every trigger law, even in the strictest of anti-abortion states.

Halacha does not view abortion as a choice that one makes – in contrast with the thrust of the Linzer/Hurwitz article – but rather as a serious prohibition that may be overridden in certain crisis situations, upon the determination by a posek (qualified halachic authority) who rules on the case based on the specifics. To claim otherwise is tantamount to a forfeiture of halachic integrity.

The writer is chairman of the Rabbinic Circle at Coalition for Jewish Values.

In an attempted rebuttal that is disparaging and is truly confusing from an Orthodox perspective, Rabbi Hayim Leiter makes assertions about conversion and about Rabbi Matanky’s article that are wholly implausible and downright untrue. Let’s take a look, as readers are being seriously misled by Rabbi Leiter’s article, which is a Featured Post and has received enough clicks to now be in the Popular category.

The Shulchan Aruch/Code of Jewish Law (Yoreh Deah 268) clearly stipulates that according to Halacha, a convert must accept the Commandments as a central part of his conversion. The main concern about decentralized conversion is indeed that some conversion courts do not adequately assure that prospective converts accept the Commandments and seriously commit to halachic observance. This is a legitimate concern.

Rashi famously begins his commentary to Sefer Bereshit with the words of a midrash:

Rabbi Yitzchak said, “The Torah should have begun with Kiddush Ha-Chodesh (Sanctification of the New Month), which is first mitzvah commanded to B’nei Yisrael/the Children of Israel (and is found in Sefer Shemot/the Book of Exodus). Why did the Torah instead begin with Bereshis (Creation)? Due to the pasuk (verse – Tehillim/Psalms 111:6) that states, ‘The strength of His actions did He relate to His people’, which justifies God giving Eretz Yisrael to the Jewish People. For should the nations of the world accuse the Jews of being thieves by conquering and possessing the Canaanite lands, the Jews can reply that the entire world belongs to Ha-Kadosh Baruch Hu (the Holy One, blessed is He), Who created it gave it to whom He saw fit. He gave it (Eretz Yisrael) initially to the nations of Canaan and decided to then take it and give it to us.”

The obvious question is how will the Jewish people invoking Bereshit as the basis of our right to Eretz Yisrael convince the nations that we are not thieves regarding the Land? The nations of the world do not accept the Torah and will surely reject our use of it as proof for our rights to the Eretz Yisrael. What is the midrash quoted by Rashi actually telling us?

I believe that there are two answers, which form a unified idea.

Although the nations of the world do not accept the Torah, at least not as their final authority, the Torah is the source of profound universal and eternal truths which people do accept on a subconscious level, despite their denial thereof:

The unparalleled and unique primacy of man as the most advanced creature in the biosphere; people’s almost uncontrollable inclination to break rules and violate their dearest values in the face of carnal temptation, as well as for personal honor and control; deep-seated characteristics of the male and female personality, and of human nature in general, especially pertaining to siblings and their rivalries; the role of the Jew in Galut (Exile) as accused and persecuted, thereby forced to scheme for his survival, as per the prototype of Yaakov Avinu (Jacob, our Patriarch) in Lavan’s house – as well as notions of an all-powerful Being and Force of Creation, of a Higher Morality, and so much more, are universal concepts that the Torah presents in Sefer Bereshit; the world at large has accepted these ideas outright or at least subconsciously.

Among these universal truisms is the divine and historical connection of the Jewish People to Eretz Yisrael. Hence, although this connection might be robustly denied by the nations of the world, in their innermost minds and souls does it resonate, and when the Jews make their claim to the Land as articulated by the midrash, it strikes an intuitive chord, as much as the nations will consciously deny and fight it.

There is another perspective to this all. When the Jews lay forth their claim to the Land based on the Torah, it is not for the sake of the nations that they need to do so – for even if the nations deep down accept the words of B’nei Yisrael, fierce denial and refusal will usually be expressed by the nations, until the time of Moshiach, the Messiah.

What is the function of B’nei Yisrael’s assertion of their right to Eretz Yisrael based on the Torah, on the story of Bereshit? The function is to encourage and inspire B’nei Yisrael themselves. We must always know that our rights to the Land are by virtue of God creating and gifting the Land to us; once we overlook this and resort solely to pragmatic arguments, as powerful and true as they often are, we strip away notions of sanctity and of our relationship with God through the Land.

Therefore, our instinctive and immediate claim to Eretz Yisrael must flow from the words of the Torah, which affirm God’s authority over the world and His unchallenged ability to apportion its lands to whom He sees fit.

This is the deeper and paramount significance of the first words of Rashi in his Torah commentary.

Several years ago, I was sitting with an adam gadol – an internationally-renowned rosh yeshiva and posek, who said that he had just privately spoken on the phone with a man who confided that he is attracted to males yet has fathered and raised a beautiful Torah-observant family with his wife of many years, as this man controlled his SSA urges and would never dare act upon them. This great rav broke down crying several times as he told me that the anonymous caller was such a tzaddik and a gibbor (hero), who painfully overcame his indescribably strong impulses his entire life in order to comply with Halacha.

Although, as Rav Aharon Feldman posited, it is not expected that every person with homosexual urges marry, and such people can live Torah-true lives as they serve Hashem with sincerity and contribute to Klal Yisroel in numerous ways, in none of these cases do the people under discussion consider themselves to be part of an “LGBTQ+ community”. In fact, these individuals, in their ever-challenging and saintly quest to remain loyal to the Torah, would never define themselves by their SSA impulses, much less seek to be designated as part of an SSA community, as it were, just like Orthodox Jews with other impulses that the Torah forbids acting upon, even if these impulses are in no way as strong as SSA, would never want to label themselves as part of a community which identifies with those acts. (And if it makes a difference, I personally know Orthodox Jews who struggle heroically and successfully to control their SSA urges, and who shun and are repulsed by the notion of their being part of an “LGBTQ+ community”.)

With this in mind, which I believe is the authentic Torah attitude, I was troubled to read Rabbi Yisrael Motzen’s article A First Step:LGBTQ+ and the Frum Community. Rabbi Motzen continually refers to Orthodox Jews who are part of the LGBTQ+ community and in effect downplays the objectionability to open identification with this community. While of course not endorsing the homosexual act, Rabbi Motzen waters down the stigma:

Is there any justifiable reason that many shuls do not hesitate before giving aliyos to people who are not Shomer Shabbos, but there is an uproar if a gay man is given the same honor? I cannot imagine Hashem loves such a person any less, and neither should we.

Rabbi David Rosenthal hit the nail on the head regarding this sorely inaccurate analogy:

The comparison between active members in the LGBT community to those that desecrate Shabbos is flawed. The author fails to make the distinction between behavior which is not according to Halacha and an ideology which is against the Torah. For example, if a group of Shabbos desecrators would proclaim that they proudly violate the Shabbos laws, belong to a chilul Shabbos society, and declare that they have no intent to change their behavior, would the author not reject them?

I must add that even if it is technically permissible according to Halacha to give an aliyah to a mechallel Shabbos b’farhesia – one who publicly and knowingly desecrates Shabbos, understanding exactly what he is doing – a shul that gives such a person an aliyah, absent a special kiruv situation or the like, should seriously reconsider its policy. A person who is mechallel Shabbos b’farhesia is deemed by Chazal to reject Hashem’s authority over the world and thereby commits a very conspicuous act of kefirah (heresy); for this individual to be publicly honored in Hashem’s house with reciting a blessing on the Torah, which he desecrates and essentially denies, is the height of hypocrisy and perhaps chutzpah. And this is where Rabbi Motzen’s comparison ironically has a tinge of legitimacy, as one who publicly identifies as part of a group that defines itself as maintaining a position that is extremely contrary to the Torah should likewise not be honored with the Torah.

With this in mind, Rabbi Motzen’s rhetorical remarks thus strike me as odd:

Is there any justifiable reason that many shuls do not hesitate before giving aliyos to people who are not Shomer Shabbos, but there is an uproar if a gay man is given the same honor? I cannot imagine Hashem loves such a person any less, and neither should we.

I must absolutely emphasize that a man who privately has SSA urges yet remains loyal to the Torah in public and in private (to our knowledge) should indeed be called up to the Torah. In contrast, Rabbi Motzen refers to people who openly identify with a movement that runs counter to Torah values.

Rabbi Motzen advocates for gay people to speak openly with their rabbonim about their struggles, and for rabbonim to have an open ear. This is not an issue of dispute; individuals with SSA impulses and self-identity questions should of course privately seek and receive guidance from their rabbonim and rebbeim, as should everyone else with personal struggles and challenges. But contrary to the message that readers of Rabbi Motzen’s article might receive, this is not something that shows a change in policy or is a “first step” for “LGBTQ+ and the frum community”.

Similarly, Rabbi Motzen’s call for being kind and compassionate is not new and does not represent a change in what should be communal conduct; but again, discussion of these issues must be on a private, discreet basis between individuals and their rabbonim/rebbeim (and rebbetzins, for women) – it is not something for public consumption.

We must be ever so careful not to give the impression (even unintentionally, as I believe is the case here) that we are committed to Halacha on a technical level yet do not fully embrace the Torah’s value system. In no uncertain terms does the Torah twice refer to the homosexual act as to’eivah (an abomination), and we publicly read this description on Shabbos and on Yom Kippur – not to mention Chazal’s words about homosexual relationships, as found in the midrashim about the generation of the Mabul (the Flood) and elsewhere. While those individuals about whom Rabbi Motzen writes assumedly do not act upon their SSA urges, any effort to craft a new position regarding public homosexual identity, especially as a community, is flawed and will lead to widespread deviation from the Torah and abrogation of its values.