In-Tuition

The last two issues of the English Mishpacha magazine dedicated a long, two-part article dealing with the tuition crisis. The article was quite well written and encompassed the problem from most angles. Yet it didn’t offer too much that was not previously known, nor suggested seriously viable solutions. I am not sure if there are such solutions, but I do have a few ideas of my own. How effective they would be if implemented I cannot say for sure, yet I believe that from a rational, and maybe honest, perspective they are perhaps more valid than most on the market today.

The voucher program is often touted, yet practically it is almost impossible to implement: the majority of frum schools are in the tri-state area, in other words the nations most leftist, and therefore most anti private school and obviously the most averse to the idea of the voucher program. A law exempting parents of private-school educated children from the school tax (and the school tax only) part of property taxes would make more sense, and more palatable to the Democrats, choice party of most frum communities. However, with all the social services consumed by the frum community in general and the hassidim especially, the Orthodox delegates probably concentrate their energy on turning the attention away from this fraudulent parasitism rather than solve the entire community’s problem –especially for the honest working families who can’t or refuse to pay their rent with food stamps.

Another effective tool would be to establish a PTA –Parents for Transparent Accounting- panel. Personally, I have never seen a dean/owner of an educational institution who doesn’t live in a luxurious home, has no late-model fancy car, who can’t afford tuition and camp for their children, and generally don’t swim in money. Not that there is anything wrong with making money – education, in order to be effective and successful, has to be run like any other profitable business. Unless the most important variable is omitted from the equation: competition. Since the vast majority of educational institutions are tailored to the frum communities’ compartmentation, nearly all parents have only one moisad to which to send their children in their area - at least in the elementary years. That means that parents are being taken for granted by these establishments. Make the criteria for grouping children other than tribal adherence (child’s abilities, personality, school’s educational orientation and ideology) and you’ve got fair competition. But I guess until the prophecy of “v’Gur Zvihl im Litveks” isn’t fulfilled, such competition isn’t on the agenda.

Of course, many have spoken and speculated what would happen if all Orthodox parents in, say, the East Ramapo School district would swarm to register their children in the public school? Quite obviously, the school tax would be eliminated – as above suggested - before the first day of school. But the Rebbes wouldn’t like it: lower housing prices would mean less business in the real-estate industry, and of course lower pidyionos from the building moguls, not to mention the apathy and incapability of proactive exercise of the frum lemmings.

Of course, the mere thought of the powerful Jewish organizations demanding tough border control from the government, rather than one more block of margarine or pardon for some "frum" felon triggers hysterical laughter from the rational thinker. Yet it should trigger tears of fire. The sad fact is that many many taxes are driven higher and higher by the Mexican invaders. It is bad enough that in many places we must subsidize homegrown parsites’ uncontrolled offspring (conceived for the sole reason that Medicaid is easier to obtain than birth control) – we can’t afford to add tens of millions of third-world “immigrants” to the bill. If you’d pay 8 to 20 per cent less on everything you buy, tuition would be less of a pain. And when you realize that L.A. County alone spent $216 Million in 2005 on illegal aliens only for social services (excluding jail, legal and emergency health services) you understand that these numbers aren’t in the least exaggerations.

But if the Agudah, RCA, Satmar et al have easier means of lining their pockets, why would they move a little finger for you? If they can bamboozle you with the meaningless rhetoric reprinted in the papers you’re willing to buy, why bother? Why antagonize their big-business buddies who employ those aliens instead of the mentally weak or dropouts of our own community? Or at least an American citizen who could get off unemploymnent benefits?

And if the frum community would be just a bit more united and less tribally egocentric, we could have a quite strong economic structure of our own. But since Chaim Litvak can’t hire Yankel Belzer and Shimmy Vizhnitz’s daughter is barred from working for Berel Gerrer, what kind of independent economic infrastructure can you expect?

And finally, if you realize that you grew up in a totally different culture, without a degree and formal professional education (in most cases), take a pretty comfortable lifestyle for granted along with private education (which is quite bit of luxury according to all American standards) you don’t have it that bad. Besides, if you were a fairly good student in Yeshiva, you have an extremely powerful tool that no other community in the world possesses: the Gemora. The strong analytic mind and buttocks which it builds is the recipe for the worlds most potent propellant.
Use it.

Stiff Kin

I am very little acquainted with the whole Rabbi Nosson (or Nathan) Slifkin affair – in fact I haven’t read even one word of his books, and only recently heard about the ban and controversy.
I did however read Gil Student’s article in the Jewish Press (8/18/’06), which left me with more questions than answers.

Mr. Student starts by saying that the Slifkin controversy signifies the lack of centralized rabbinic authority in our globalized world. That there is a lack of such centralization is a clear fact, and unfortunately the source of many problems and lots of pain in the last 80 years or so. It has very little to do with world globalization and even less with the Slifkin controversy, except maybe that with the existence of such a centralized rabbinical body Slifkin would have written his books slightly differently.

Gil, throughout the entire article, takes the approach of calling all rabbis 'rabbis', without ever specifying whether they are MO rabbis or yeshivish rabbis. Although in a utopian world this should absolutely be the case, Student himself refers later in the article to communities as "yeshivish", "hareidi" and "MO". One would expect a little more consistency: if you relate to the world as it should be, then there are Jews, period and rabbis, period. If you look at the world as it sadly is, then you refer to yeshivish Rabbis and Modern Orthodox Rabbis, and the yeshivish community and MO community. I sincerely don't understand why he tried to blur the distinguishment between these factions as if it were an issue of individual rabbis disagreeing on a certain subject.

It is interesting to note that Mr. Student, who quite obviously is familiar with the world of science, isn't aware of the fact that the scientific community has absolutely zero tolerance for any kind of thought out of the party line: renowned scientists such as Fred Hoyle, Stephen Hawking, James Lovelock took serious flak - the kind that makes the Slifkin ban like a benign joke - for advancing theories which aren't accepted among the mainstream scientists, not to mention what poor Bill Dembski had to endure for the mere suggestion that the idea of a creator might be considered as a scientific option.

Of course, the fact that the scientific community is stubborn, obnoxious and completely averse to any thought that doesn’t fit its strict ideology is no justification for our rabbis to behave in the same way. Yet it should be at least as much as a warning for Modern Orthodoxy from being so infatuated with modern science. Whether many MO leaders’ obsession with reconciling Torah and science (which, by the way, is not to be confused with technology) emanates only from their desire to look ‘nice’ and ‘enlightened’ in the eyes of Gentiles and frei Jews, or is their excuse to adapt halocha to their lives and modify it at the same pace as scientists modify the theory of evolution, I don’t know. But I do know that after some rudimentary study of evolution (yes, from real scientific books, written by real goyim who really don’t believe in G-d), I came to the conclusion that regardless of one's beliefs, wishful thinking and ideology-driven agendas have turned science into a religion. And since scientific philosophy and the scientific method are both defined by the scientific community itself, they are formulated in a way that precludes any and all honest review and criticism. Thus, leading scientists can deride any and all dissent from within their impermeable “temple” as pseudoscience.

It is beyond the limits of my space and time constrains (60+ hours physical –yes, it still exists- workweek) to discuss this issue even in relatively short terms(Rav Avigdor Miller's books on the subject are a good start), yet an example must be brought: one of the criteria for a theory to be considered scientific, it must stand the test of falsifiability, i.e. that it is possible, in theory to disprove it thus rendering all their theories “true until proven false”. Only thing is, the disproof must be accepted by the scientists, and they are the only ones who can decide if a disproof is valid or not. Yet when a theory with which they aren’t comfortable arises -such as Jim Lovelock’s Gaia theory- the mainstream scientists immediately dismiss it as black magic.

Unfortunately, as Mr. Student points out, there is a similar situation in our midst as well. However, science is hardly the best framework to take example from. As I have mentioned before, I am hardly acquainted with the controversy, the ban and Slifkin’s books, so I really can’t take sides here. But even taking the article at face value, there might be justification in the Yeshivish rabbis’ actions; Slifkin, after all, is neither Rabbi Avrohom son of the Rambam, nor the Maharam Schick. These people were first and foremost immersed in intensive Torah study and piety, and investigated science only subsequently. I’m not sure this is the case with Nosson Slifkin. As for the Student’s question what exactly is wrong with the books –to which the rabbis gave no answer to this day- I think there might be some insight: although no one will be banned or excommunicated if, for example, he listens to rock’n’roll privately. But if he writes books about rock’n’roll being compatible with Judaism or that the Leviim in the Bais Mikdosh played Black Sabbath and Pink Floyd, I don’t think he should be surprised if a cherem is thrown at him. Even if factually there isn’t anything heretic in the books, these things maybe shouldn’t be shouted from the rooftops. Maybe we still need some barriers between the secular world and us. I’m not trying to imply that this was the rabbis’ intent, yet it might be possible. It is also possible that they were manipulated by powerful behind-the-scenes decision makers, such as the Hebrew Yated Lo Neeman’s Nathan Zochowsky, or other powerful scoundrels.

Yet what puzzles me most is that this article, relating to a three years old event, not only made it to the Jewish Press, but merited an editorial. Mr. Student and the JP decision-makers apparently couldn’t find anything more important and relevant to contemporary Jewish life. Apparently six women shot, one killed, in Seattle by and Arab terrorist is no news for the Jewish press. The entire nation is ablaze about the border situation – the JP is silent. Forget that Zapata (TX) county sheriff and his men reported numerous incidents of Muslims paying up to $50,000 to cross the border into the States. Forget that they had Arabic propaganda and patches with planes flying towards buildings. Forget that drugs, gangs, illness, prostitution and violence are flooding in from Mexico. Forget that Jews and Jewish institutions are terrorist’s primary targets. That is not important. After all, publishing such articles might prompt some Jews to ask their Rabbis what they have done in order to protect them. Maybe if too many Yidden demand that their security be improved, the Orthodox organizations would have to bargain with politicians for sane borders, instead of cash. Maybe if Jews would decide to get prepared to defend themselves, they’d have less money to donate to the rabbinates. Maybe.

One thing is sure: even the tiniest and most “primitive” living creatures, such as the amoebae and algae have an instinct for survival - Jews don’t. Evolution disproved.

Ignoramus Anonymous

I’ll delve a little more into the j-blog topic, as it is a theme worth examining, and has important ramifications.

As I have noted in my previous post, grossly generalizing, many of the disgruntled religious bloggers share a somewhat left-to-center ideology, ultra-tolerance, and advocacy for the frum leadership (if such a thing exists) to ‘open up’ or ‘enlighten’ by acceptance of the modern times. In short, many ”frummies“, or rather, ex-frummies, are discovering the sixties: an open-minded compassion to homosexuality, the “liberation” of frum women, dropping the dress code, and many similar concepts are very much the order of the day on such blogs.

Somehow, they seem to believe, it is the rabbis stiffness and refusal to officially endorse TV, the internet, nightclubs and bars that creates most -or many- of our social problems. Of course, this is a rather unfair oversimplification and generalization, but an individual analysis of each entry in each blog is beyond the scope of such a post. What we seem to witness here is a tendency to graze on foreign fields instead of trying to solve the problems within our own society. But just as the rabbis concentrating their efforts on banning the internet and Indian-made sheitels while ignoring far more serious ails in the community, those criticizing them won’t solve those problems by promoting Led Zeppelin and touting different perceived freedoms from the secular world. This especially won’t fly from behind anonymous blogs, whose authors are shadow warriors, whispers in the night. What puzzles me is that many of these writers seem sincere, and write in a serious and respectful way, yet the hide for fear of communal reprisal. But why do they fear being rejected by a society, -or rather exactly that element of their society which they are most critical of- to which they don’t want to belong? Do they want their children to marry people who would refrain from that marriage would they know their prospective in-law is author of such-and-such blog? And if they want to belong to that community but wish to correct its faults, how will they achieve that incognito? And will those problems be solved via the internet blogs which aren’t widely read in their communes?

Apparently there is a broader concern lying herein. The ominous discontent cannot be blamed on communal and leadership crises alone. When one is aware and wary of problems within his community, his leaders and communal institutions, the least logical solution is to pick up fashionable tendencies from contemporary secular society. Yet this is what most disgruntled Orthodox bloggers do, almost religiously. Not only do many of these fads outright run against core principles of Judaism, their acceptance won’t solve any of our problems. Then, an avalanche effect manifests itself; the authors start lamenting the lack of these trends in our communities. I wonder what the acceptance of homosexuality and Arab terrorists have to do with corruption in frum institutions, child abuse, ignorance, white-collar crime, uncontrolled and unsustainable reproduction in certain circles and the establishment’s turning a blind eye to -or outright promoting- these and many other problems?

Truth is, when one starts emulating the ways of The Village Voice, The New York Times and other malicious pseudo-journalistic manifestos, there is something far deeper than discontent with the establishment. The fact that Modern Orthodox youth abandon Judaism in droves testifies to the fact that admitting TV as a family member, allowing children unlimited access to the internet, “liberated” women and interpreting the halocha at will are no solution to anything. The aforementioned bloggers may well face doubts and uncertainty about Yiddischkeit itself. And I can’t blame them. We are sick at the core, and few are willing to admit it. The Orthodox -including the Modern Orthodox- educational systems are out of par both with contemporary society, with Jews surrounded by that society and their relation to each other. To the best of my knowledge there isn’t one Orthodox education system that consistently offers a strong Jewish ideology and worldview that would prepare its graduates to face the real world as strong Jews with a deep and exhaustive understanding their faith and who would stay true to it in face of the secular world’s glittery offers, its traps and pitfalls. It is simply impossible to expect people to toe the line on their own and of their own understanding and agreement by giving them a few one-liners from Mesilas Yeshorim, Rabbi Cook’s writings or Noam Elimelech. This is especially true when the line expected from them to be toed is a specific party line, instead of Judaism per-se, or at least Judaism first and the specific party second. There is no excuse for this even if we are to accept the claim that each group truly believes its own way to be the true form of Judaism.

Some time ago I had a conversation with a “Modern Orthodox” woman, whose father I know well. He is a kind and intelligent person who takes Judaism seriously, and is well versed in halocha and gemora. His daughter was complaining about the rigid interpretation of the Torah in our time: why is it forbidden to flick the light switch on Shabbos, when she’d so much enjoy reading in bed. Nowadays making a fire isn’t such a big deal, after all, and she’s “sure” that that’s not what the Torah meant. I was sincerely baffled to hear that a religious born, raised and educated woman could actually express such thoughts in all sincerity. My initial reaction was to tell her that if she’s really so ignorant she might as well abandon Judaism altogether, or take some “Judaism 101” course, but I just kept quiet. A short time later I was listening to a Genesis track while she was present. Her only reaction was to say that Phil Collins (Genesis’ vocalist) is an anti-Semite. Sadly, I could bring many more such examples, but the main point is that such mentality can be attributed only to poor education and brainwashing by cheap and malicious media. Such shallow and superficial acquaintance with Judaism –and especially Jewish philosophy- while relating to the world at large on an “anti-Semites” and “non anti-Semites” model is unfortunately ubiquitous throughout all variants of Jewish society. Similarly, the bloggers who criticize the Orthodox establishment for their failings and shortcomings, seldom offer viable solutions, and even more rarely identify the core causes of these problems.

Albeit these blogs serve a good cause and many of them are good and entertaining, it is questionable whether they will be the source from which change will emanate – only time will tell. Yet it is sure that if they’d come out of anonymity they would become far more efficient; first, they could freely communicate and coordinate their communication with community leaders and other influential people. Second, they’d reach far more frum people who don’t regularly cruise the web waves. Third, coming forth would unveil the communities’ true attitude towards their ideas –which, in my estimation should be very positive, at least in general terms- and strengthen their position. Fourth, open and respective criticism of our leadership would cease to be de-legitimized, and the mocking and derisory blogs would lose their status and glitter. Last but not least, these blogs’ authors would necessarily have to hold themselves at least to those standards which they expect from our leaders.
The door is open now, and the bloggers’ reaction to these suggestions can be used as a litmus test to find out whether their concerns are truly sincere, or if they only want to grumble from the back row.

Blog, Blogger, Bloggest

I must admit, until very recently I was quite unfamiliar with the whole blog notion, let alone j-blogging. But through an interesting turn of events, I realized that among the wide array of free internet services, the free blogging sites earned a seat of honor, which has brought about a flurry of Jewish blogs. From personal diaries to jokes to news and assorted information to collectibles, it's all there. Yet the vast majority of Jewish blogs deal with the authors' grievances, or at lest some dissatisfaction, with the orthodox 'establishment', i.e. prominent Rabbis and batei-din, community leaders and the frum media. Whether and how justified these grumblings are depend vastly on the individual author and the reader's perception thereof; yet it is undeniable that there is indeed a grassroots wave of dissatisfaction - and a yearning for change - of the frum leadership from within the orthodox community.

The common denominator of these blogs, even the more intelligent and serious ones, is a certain aspect of the authors' mentality: a claim to an open mind, a rather superficial acquaintance with Western culture, and a leaning to centrist-moderate outlook on current events, as well as their perception of their world and the world at large. This is especially true to the blogs authored by ex-Hassidim or incognito-blogging Hassidim. Examples include bemoaning the war's claim of innocent Lebanese lives despite the author's taking Israel's side, or taking the grotesque and tasteless Brooklyn-style furniture for "a chair taken out of a French museum" (the author was deriding the Hassidim's obsession with covering those brute "masterpieces" with thick, child-resistant plastic). This is in fact nothing but a mental "nouveau-riche" state, in which a formerly schtreimel-enclaved soul discovers the other side of the street, causing his disc-changer to contain Pink Floyd, Eminem and Billy Idol at the same time, not realizing that this is the secular equivalent of wearing jeans and a schtreimel, or shorts and a black hat, which automatically give away the "baal-thsuvah" on sight. These bloggers, with all their merits and/or faults are in fact reverse baalei-tshuvah; not in the sense that they abandon Yiddischkeit lock, stock and bagel, but with their misreading and false impression of the "goy" street.

These blogs might have passed unperceived, maybe even unnoticed, by the frum community and its aforementioned 'establishment', if not for the flagrant, confrontational, despicable and outright offensive attacks of the “Un-Orthodox Jew” against it, which recently created a storm in a teacup. The blog started as a vent pipe for grievances with everything that is wrong within the frum community, and quickly escalated to unbriddeled thrashing in every imaginable direction. Outright smearing of venerable Talmidei-Chachomim long deceased followed hammering of frum institutions for frauds and cover-ups, especially of child molestation, all done in a vile, disrespectful and confrontational tone. A chain reaction ensued, as opponents and supporters opened their own blogs, and some prominent rabbis got indirectly involved.

Unfortunately, instead of bringing these important issues to the forefront and open examination by the community itself, the strife played itself out on the internet and the pages of secular media, alerted partly by the “UOJ” and/or someone acting on his behalf. Yet so far none of these issues has been solved nor improved. I may even wander to think that it made things worse: albeit there might be a little more ghetto-wide awareness to institutional dishonesty and child abuse, the vitriolic commentators on the UOJ blog are anonymous, and the author himself still claims not to have been identified; no conviction has been brought about, and the child molesters and their accomplices are still at large. This can hardly be seen as a defeat for the criminals. Yet the UOJ is still vociferating victory, promising to provide more and more child molesters. And whenever one of his targets fails to be at least reasonably falling under public conviction, he leaves the subject and finds a new one. Many rabbis have been named, and then forgotten, without follow up or apology. This not only shreds the UOJ’s credibility, but turns away undecided people, or those who support the cause and oppose the modus operandi. And albeit there may be truth to his claim that without the use of four-letter monosyllables and besmirching revered names no attention would be paid to the issues he raised, the rush to see immediate results vs. slow, painful and not necessarily prompt, visible results have not been correctly weighted. For even in the unlikely event that the criminal-friendly judiciary would convict sexual predators, Mr. UOJ would still be considered the bad guy by the ‘establishment’ as well as the majority of the community. Just as his supporters and alleged supporters comment anonymously, so would they continue to hide their support in person. If bringing change has ever been his intention, Mr. UOJ has failed.

For change is hardly brought about by court rulings – and although this has happened before, it is questionable whether people’s attitudes and mentality really changed as a result. A series of convictions and harsh punishments may deter the individual perpetrator and per consequence decrease the occurrences, but the tribal psyche will not shift gears. Change must be brought from within, from the bottom up to the top. As long as parents are more concerned with a prestigious shidduch for their precious child more than the child’s well being, no court action will stop the coverup and tacit denial, or even worse –acceptance- of such crimes.

And changing an entire community’s mentality doesn’t befall overnight. Apparently anger and patience are traded for each other, and UOJ gave the latter for the former. The amount of responsible and serious blogs however testifies that it is possible to relate to a journal –even an anonymous one- unlike a highway. But it also testifies to something much more important: that there is a growing feeling of dissatisfaction with the current structure of orthodox Judaism; that the old walls of the new ghetto don’t retain water; that too many wrongs have to be righted; and that the black clouds aren’t at the horizon anymore. Slowly people not only realize, but even voice their discontentment with the compartmentation/segmentation of our community(ies) and the ills it drags in its path. True progress lies however in peoples’ bahvior, and whether peer pressure or pure reasoning prevails will be determined by the course of their actions; if the way in which schools are chosen, how dating will be approached, and how people relate to each other and different subjects arising in the community will change for the better.

A wise man once said that the toughest battlefield lies in the five inches between our ears. How true this is when multiplied by several millions – especially when those millions are Jews! We must pray and do everything in our power to smooth out those battlefields into one army, despite the deep differences between those battlefields. Unity does not mean unanimity, and equal and identical are very different. Unanimity and homogeny benefit tyrannical dictatorships. True unity is achieved by walking the fine line between diversity and adversity while together, to one goal.

Gibsomnia

I did not lose sleep over Mel Gibson’s tirade of ten days ago. But others did. A true flurry of angry comments and indignation flooded the media – especially the Jewish media. From Jewish papers to websites to radio programs to blogs, you couldn’t hear anything but “Gibson Gibson Gibson Gibson” and Gibson again. Every pundit and commentator became an expert prosecutor/lawyer to prove why and how Gibson was/wasn’t guilty/innocent of anti-Semitism/Judeophilia.

A few days later came the counter-attacks, mainly against people who didn’t toe the line that they were supposed to toe according to their opponents. It is really heart warming to know that so many people care about anti-Semitism and justice. It is really wonderful to see how many people won’t let hateful and incendiary speech pass them by and sit idle. It is very important that they check under their beds for Nazis every night, for they remember what happened not so long ago, and they take every step to help prevent it from happening again. Or almost. I’m not so sure they have stocked up on firearms and ammo, learned well how to use them, and are well trained in survival and tactical skills. But if screaming is the best they can do, screaming isn’t bad either.

Quite baffling is the mainstream media’s reaction to the Gibson incident – they didn’t miss an opportunity to jump at his throat, all the while cheering at each rocket falling in Israel. Perhaps they are worried about infringement of their exclusive rights by Gibson. But that is another story.

I just don’t understand why the Jewish medias only scream when it’s a drunken celeb from Hollywood who spews hate diatribe. Where are the angry protesters when the New York Times openly supports the Hizb’Allah? When the NPR, CNN, NBC, FOX, ABC etc., all take the side of the murderous maniacs and pat the genocidal madmen while showing how the evil Israelis wreak havoc and misery upon the poor practitioners of the religion of peace? Why don’t the Steve Weisses of the world check for Paula Zahns and Dan Rathers under their beds? And where are the Rabbi Lapins who to explain to us why the LA Times is really not a subdivision of the Völkischer Observer, and that Bill Clinton’s Mein Life contains only the truth, and nothing but the truth, including the truth that he orchestrated the slaughter of innocent Serbians who fought on our side and saved many Jews (my grandfather included) from the Nazi Croatians and Bosniaks during WWII, as well as the truth about who engineered the Oslo accords arming the PA, costing hundreds of Jewish lives and the eventual weakening of Israel. But that of course hasn’t anything to do with anti-Semitism, does it?

Did anyone raise as much as an eyebrow after the Seattle shooting, when the police chief assigned equal protection to synagogues and mosques? This de-facto implementation of the NPR/UN dogma of equating victim with predator (except if the predator is a Jew of course) somehow failed to arouse the ire the Jewish media (unless the Savage Nation passes for Jewish media – and according to David Duke and Jesse Jackson it sure does). Where were the Jewish crusaders for media accuracy? Where was the honorable “Rabbi” Abe Foxman? Did he forget about his Jewish brothers between the lobster and the cheeseburger? Where were the protests in front of the Seattle PD? How many shuls have implemented reciting Theilim in light of the situation here in the USA? Or are we really so blind as not to understand that if this is the police’s response to a single shoot-out, the government’s reaction to a major-scale terrorist attack won’t be different?!

Apparently yes. Apparently the sand is really warm and comfortable, so while keeping our heads therein we can afford lambasting people who besmirch the Jews – or some of them. That’s why we won’t see editorials in the Jewish media about what is being preached in mosques and Moslem schools in the USA, but we can read about evil people who attack the rabbinical establishment and smear innocent tsaddikim with false accusations.

Which leads me to think that maybe the infamous “UOJ” is none other than Mel Gibson himself.

The Wall

Mr. Gorbachev: Tear down this wall!
-Ronald Reagan, June 12, 1987

There is unrest in the forest
There is trouble with the trees
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas
…
So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
The oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light
Now there’s no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw...
-"The Trees", Rush (Hemispheres, 1978)

When G-D created the iron, the trees became very afraid, and they appealed to G-d: who will save us from the blade, now that you have created the iron? And G-d told them: The iron cannot harm you unless you give it a handle yourselves.
-Midrash Rabbah, Bereishis 5:9


As we’re speaking, rockets are falling into Israel by the dozens. After years and years of begging, pleading and caving in to their Arab brothers for peace, after giving in to demand after demand, it seems that they are finally learning the hard way that there is no pact with the devil. If it weren’t an utterly disgusting comparison, I’d venture to say that it reminds of how Stalin was stabbed in the back by Hitler. But slapped in the face they were, again and again by those with whom they dreamed to co-exist in peace and harmony. As a side note, I’d like to make the observation that the Hebrew term for coexistence, “du-kiyum”, translates literally into double-existence. And double-exist they must, on two sides of a wall truncating the frail country in its middle. A wall which cannot prevent Kassam rockets from flying above it, but at least sixteen year old boys with explosive belts can’t cross it (except where the Wall is missing due to violations of an olive tree’s human rights).

There is another wall, which proved far more durable and more effective, as it does not prevent prayers from flying above it to their intended destination. That is where rivers of tears have been shed for salvation, both personal and communal, and that is where now thousands of Jews gather to pray for their brothers’ and their own peace and salvation. That is where in tragic times Jews of all affiliation pray side by side. And the mere fact that Jews unite only when struck by tragedy is a tragedy – Jews should always pray together, and there should never be schism or separate communes.

Yet another wall, in its embryonic stage, is planned along the Mexican-American border. Its construction is not anymore a question of if but where. That wall would keep out drug smugglers, arms and gang contraband, infiltration by terrorists, and illegal invaders. You may raise an eyebrow at the definition, but the not-so concealed objective of the Mexican leadership

is to re-establish their alleged ancestral homeland of Aztlan, ancient site of the Incas and Aztecs, which, according to Mexican nationalists, spread from current day Mexico’s southern border to the northern borders of California, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas and Oklahoma. A good third of the USA. But we need no electrolysis to separate myth from history, and we can reassure you with utmost confidence that the Mexicans’ ancestral land is not Aztlan, but traditionally anti-Semitic and Hitler’s WWII ally, Spain. To their credit we will not hide from you that despite their alliance with Hitler, the ancestral home of the Inquisition actually hosted a large number of Jewish refugees during the war. But today they are at the forefront of the EU’s anti-Israel incite-media, and host to some of the most vile Der Stürmer-esque cartoons. And the Mexican immigration advocacy groups are ferociously anti-Semitic, and dead serious about taking back what they claim is theirs. As serious as the Palestinians. The people behind this ideology are not mere fringe loons; prominent politicians, professors, councilmen and local officials who make little effort to hide their nationalistic aspirations.


The Minutemen who initiated the projects to build the wall, and effectively brought its urgency to Congress and Senate, are still trying to rally more people to support their clause. And the spontaneous spur of websites, Internet groups and nationwide protests indicates that the American public is indeed very concerned about out of control immigration. Yet flying in the face of the hostile mainstream media and political environment is not easy – the proposition to build the wall was struck down at the Senate level. Unfortunately, the Minutemen leadership left out maybe the most important component from their struggle: unity. A good example is the “portgate” affair, wherein several major US ports’ management was offered for sale to a Dubai company. But as soon as the news came out, an unprecedented roar of opposition rose in unity, in spite of president Bush’s strong desire to complete the sale. For the first time in history, Rush Limbaugh disagreed with Bush, Michael Savage didn’t call anyone names, David Horowitz and Patrick Buchanan didn’t write articles against each other; - the alternative media unanimously condemned the sale. Republicans and Democrats opposed the sale as one; and though one might argue that the Democrats did so only to score points against Bush, their fervent opposition to close the border and approval of Bush’s call for amnesty indicates that that may not always be the case. Even the usually pro-Arab, anti-nationalist mainstream media reported unfavorably about the proposed sale. All either understood the potential dangers of letting such sensitive national assets in the hands of a company from hostile nations, or understood that the American public is so opposed to the sale that approving it would mean political or business suicide.

Unfortunately, the wall does not enjoy such widespread patronage. Albeit many talk show hosts pretend to endorse it, they de-facto prevent it, by refraining from forming similar unity. They all complained about the Senate sabotage of the wall – the day after the vote. But where were their rallying voices, calls for action and sanctioning the senate bill before the vote? Unfortunately, the patriotic right wing has again failed to unite by each individual putting his own gain before that of his country. With just a bit of collaboration, Simcox, Tancredo, and Co. could easily establish a highly effective web-based collaboration system that would keep all anti-immigration sites connected and informed, and in turn inform the common people about activities in their areas as well as Congress/Senate activities. Sadly, they have failed –or refused- to do so.

Even more sad is that the Jewish community seems to be totally silent and in complete denial of the issue. Not only because it is an urgent matter of national security, but because Jews are affected by immigration more than anyone else. The terrorists coming in from Mexico target Jews primarily. The Mexican Reconquista movement is ferociously anti-Semitic, and the vast majority of Jews are unarmed. The growing immigrant population will soon outweigh the political importance of the Jewish community. The immigrants are sucking up the social services faster and faster, and at a certain point there won’t be enough for everyone – you figure out who will be dropped first. And if that wall isn’t built soon enough, it will have to be built much further north, along the northern borders of California, Nevada, Utah, etc. Losing a third of our territory would be a severe national disaster, and what would happen to the residents -especially the Jewish communities- in newly re-conquered Aztlan is anyone’s guess. And the ensuing nationwide unrest wouldn’t benefit the Jews either. We need look no further than Israel, and what happened immediately after the withdrawals from Gaza, Judea, Samaria and Lebanon. Walls have to be built before losing territory. But retaining territory and building a wall require will. And I fear we don’t have it.

I wonder whether the various Jewish organizations attending the Annual Glatt Kosher Dinner in Shushangton, D.C. ever bring up subjects of general, national interest, or the stuffed-turkey face-stuffing is invariably followed by pocket-stuffing only? For just as Congress and Senate represent the interests of their direct constituents far more than the collective good of the American people, so too these Jewish organizations cater first and foremost to the groups who sent them, rather than the collective good of the Jewish people - and this is a very cautious and euphemistic way to put it. Perhaps if we would demand more of them - higher national security, lower taxes, push for the voucher program etc., we’d see better results. Maybe we’d be better off making sure that our delegates care for our well-being. Maybe we’d be better off taking our heads out of the sand. Maybe instead of schnorring another jar of peanut butter for our Yeshivas and a few more dollars of foreign aid to Israel -who must learn to stand on its own feet and boot its oppressive Stalinist government- we should demand more security, less taxes and less immigrants.

And more leadership in the Jewish community.

Tyranny And Mutation: When Tolerance Is Intolerance

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
-Barry Goldwater


We are well into the days of foregoing the osso buco in favor of fettuccine con alfredo, when the ancient miracle of the Bais Mikdosh, “Omdim tsfufim umishtachvim revuchim” repeats itself in kosher pizza parlors, and the tenor of Reb Yeedle Verdyger is replaced by irritating clapping, banging and barking from every CD-player branded with the prestigious stamp of revered Kosher cetrifications.

Only one thing goes unchanged: our steadfast conviction that everyone not belonging to our clan is either a certified sheigets, a fanatical extremist, or both. In either case, it’s people like them who caused the destruction of the Bais Mikdosh, and it’s because of them that I’m not allowed to take a good hot sauna in a luxurious SPA. And to think that I have to endure this torture punkt when the kids are out of school! A shande, mamesh a shande!

But the kids may be better off out of school. After all, imagine the embarrassment of a rebbe if he were to be confronted with an unruly five-years-old’s innocent question of what exactly is sinas chinom? For it sure cannot be the indoctrination of such youngsters with proper identification of kosher Yidden and treif Yidden, can it?

And since we are already big kids, responsible and reasonable, and we all know well that it isn’t right to relate to our brethren according to hat shape and hairstyle, -exactly the way we do-, we shall actually ask the question: what exactly is sinas chinom? For among the scores of halachic terms that are discussed and disseminated and investigated at length, the aforementioned kleinekeit somehow fell between the cracks. Not Chas VeSholem trying in the least to insinuate that the subject isn’t getting enough attention, -it’s being plenty lectured about- it’s just never really defined, and so the practical implementation remains rather vague.

The gemore in Yuma (8 A) mentions that the Second Temple was destroyed because of Sinas Chinom. The Gemore in Gittin 55/56 elaborates a little more, and tells the story of Kamtza and Bar-Kamtza, two people who constantly fought each other; one was mistakenly invited to the other’s celebration and thrown out despite the presence of prominent rabbis, who remained silent. He then took revenge by bringing a slightly blemished altar offering from the Roman Emperor, which he knew wouldn’t be accepted. The rabbis then started to deliberate about the course of action: either accept the offering in spite of the blemish, or bring down the traitor. Rabbi Zecharia Ben Avkolas objected to both solutions, and Bar Kamtza indeed reported to the authorities, who burnt the city in revenge. But the truly amazing thing is, that in sharp contrast with the story’s opening line that “The temple was destroyed because of sinas chinom”, it is concluded with “Rabbi Yochanan said: the humility of Rabbi Zecharia Ben Avkolas has burnt our city and destroyed our temple”. So which one is it that actually caused the destruction?
We can look at another incident that occurred a few hundred years earlier, when Gedalia Ben Achikam refused to take heed to the accusations against Ishmael Ben Nesania, and was indeed murdered by him as a result.

It seems that this tendency to prefer righteousness in the immediate, simplistic sense, at the community’s detriment, is in itself a form of sinas chinom all too common in most Orthodox circles.

So while mourning the lamb rosemary between the pasta primavera con pesto and the vanilla fudge, we shall ensure to omit from our nine-days recipe any thought about how our children are educated in our schools, and why kids as young as five are experts on all the latest developments in each Hassidic court, which dress apparel indicates a “sheine yid” and which one doesn’t. While we invest untold amounts of money, blood, sweat and tears to establish new yeshivas, schools, mikvahs and so on, we are reluctant to educate ourselves on basic decency, honesty, - plain mentschkeit. While we take great care to examine each leaf of lettuce for bugs, we refuse to see the bugs in our midst. For rather than having a bug with the neighboring kehilla we conveniently look the other way and pat ourselves on the shoulder for our wonderful mosdos.
Unfortunately, it is exactly this behavior that bred the most vile, pervert, degenerate and repulsive tendencies in far too many communities. That man is vulnerable, weak and prone to fail is well-known; that is why we have the Torah and leaders. But when entire communities accept, adopt and abet this kind of behavior, we become Sdom and Amora.

Because each group wants to be independently organized, they all have their own institutions (Yeshivas, shuls, girls’ schools, mikvahs, kollelim etc.) The amount of tax-exempt properties and institutions relying on government-funds rise, while tax-generating properties decrease. Taxes rise, tuitions rise, and ehrilche yidden collapse.

Fraud, embezzlement, fiscal misconduct, deceptive accounting practices are ubiquitous in far too many orthodox establishments. The fact that the situation is similar in secular establishments is no excuse, not to mention the chilul hashem that is created and what it reflects on Orthodox Judaism.

Entire towns and villages live off a wide array of social services, many men don’t work, the businesses employ illegal immigrants instead of providing jobs to dropouts, families are larger than they possibly can afford and educate, while their children are outfitted with $300 apparels apiece, late-model cars and fancy houses are standard. When is the last time a rabbi explained that it is impossible –and forbidden- to have it both ways: not to work, having thirteen children and spending more dishonestly acquired money than one has?! When is the last time since the halahic status of fraudulently acquiring government funds has been discussed? Did anyone bother to clarify whether widespread and calculated reliance on those entitlements - coming out of our pockets – are considered moiser momon Yisroel b’yad Akum?

The groups most involved in such activities are also the most adverse to others – viewing them almost as non-jews, yet they come for donations in the communities whom they describe as “rashaim”, “treif” and “shkotzim”. And those communities, with naïve benevolence or other reasons, by contributing to their “charities” (read: ”hacnosa kala”) are encouraging this behavior and become accomplices.

Although some groups apparently cannot control fraud, embezzlement, welfare abuse, domestic abuse, inappropriate behavior, divorces and agunahs, they seem to have full control over family growth. Couples keep reproducing despite the fact that they can’t, and don’t want to cope with their children mentally, physically and fiscally. Two direct results are inappropriate education and an out of proportion rate of mentally ill children, especially in communities that promote cretinism. In turn, proper glatt-kosher frum institutions are built, as a mentally ill child would no doubt disrupt the harmony of a sixteen-child strong family. Besides, if the government hands out extra money for such noble purposes, why not benefit from it, especially since the CEO who can’t speak a proper English sentence makes a six-figure salary in the process?

When NYC cops were viciously attacked by a savage mob of promoters of the “obvious and well known halocha” prohibiting rebellion against other nations, Molotov cocktails were thrown, police cars damaged and fires lit in the streets. Yet not one condemnation by the rabbis was heard, not a peep in the frum media.

Is this your idea of “mamleches kohanim vegoy kodosh”???

If you believe that it is possible to destroy, you must believe it is possible to repair, to paraphrase rabbi Nachman of Breslov. It is not easy, but it is possible. Acknowledging the problem is half the solution, or so the saying goes. We first must stop burying our heads in the sand. Then we must stop the Jihad-style education for hatred. The honest and pious people who learn Torah in simplicity, and earn an honest living should be touted as our ‘national heroes’. There are plenty of examples, such as the Monsey bike repairman who learns most of the day and is an accomplished scholar. Or the eloquent speaker-rabbi who owns a small store, and learns every free minute. Or the rabbi who lives in a small basement, in greater poverty than his poorest kollel student. Many educational institutions must be consolidated and provide adequate attention to students at all levels. The shidduch-craze must stop as well. We must start loving each other again – and not only in times of dire.
If we work together, instead of against each other, we may find more and better solutions. Unity is the key, and unity is possible.

We just have to open our minds – and practice what we preach.


© Joseph Izrael 2006

From Nazareth To Medzhybizh To Las Vegas… at your expense

It was of utmost importance to stress, ever since the first budding of our nation, that our forefathers, prophets, leaders and rabbis - even those, an extremely rare occurrence, born with predestined greatness or superior powers - were flesh and blood, born of flesh and blood. As such it was obvious –nay, even stressed- that they were subject to the same urges, impulses, feelings and desires as everyone else. Their greatness emanated not from magic powers or charm, but from their conquering, limiting, and channelling their powers to serve G-d and the Jewish people. Therefore, it was understood that they were not infallible – and fail they did. Their failings were rare, and of extreme finesse – they were sins only compared to their own greatness. And though they were criticised only by G-d, these criticisms were made beknown to the children of Israel and engraved forever in our history. And from the generation following Moshe Rabeinu and on, criticism came from peers – prophets, judges and fellow rabbis. From the Beis of Bereshis until the last line of the Talmud, it is impossible to find even one leading figure or authority who wasn’t criticized for one reason or another. Our leaders were accountable and responsible for their words and deeds. This distinguished us from all other nations, where the kings, holy men and leaders were demigods who acted at will with no accountability.

From the Mishnaic era until the fall of the Roman Empire, Jews answered to one body of authority – the Tannaim, Amoraim, and the Reish Galusa systems. The people or communities were never led and instructed by a single leader – rather, a large group of scholars and rabbis who worked together and were interwoven with the general society. Even until the times preceding emancipation, Jews were grouped according to geographic constrains, not party affiliation. This meant that there was ample communication and collaboration, between most prominent Rabbis and community leaders. The leaders were readily accessible and reachable by the common man, and despite many halachic disagreements, had no party affiliation. The followers of Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai never refrained from intermarrying despite their disagreements. This meant that no single rabbi, or small group of leaders catered only to their own small community’s interests. All the rabbis looked after all of Klal Yisroel, or at least all Yidden living in their vicinity.

With the event of emancipation and the emergence of the Haskala movement, an urge for tighter separation and a more enclosed community emerged. Hassidism was also a major contributor to this trend, especially with its cult-like glorifying of the Rebbes and mystical aspects. Slowly, different groups of Yidden were formed, and started to segregate and distance themselves from each other, not only from the Gentiles and maskilim.

Yet never before was this tendency so strict and extreme as in our days. After the great Disaster some sixty years ago, the remnants of the Jewish people and their few great leaders undertook the near-impossible task of rebuilding of an almost extinct nation. This gigantic project wasn’t faced with few obstacles or little challenge, and yet, step-by-step, the Jewish phoenix rose again. But one unfortunate side effect was a radical fragmentation and factionalization of the Orthodox world. Not only the ideological disagreements between the three prevalent streams – Agudah, Mizrahi and Eidah Charedis, but also the different Hassidic and Yeshiva leaders caused the nation to split in different groups. With time the rift became more and more extreme, with each group catering to its own institutions and reaching the point of total estrangement, no marriage between different groups and a culture of separatism.

Hassidism bred an especially fertile ground for unfettered corruption. A crowd vastly ignorant of Jewish law and almost completely ignorant of all other matters, yet particularly meticulous about customs, clothing, the near-tribal folklore, and the legends about mythical Rebbes with supernatural powers, were extremely malleable at the hand of a single powerful and charismatic leader. As the old Hassidic song goes, „Wenn der Rebbe lacht, lachen alle Chassidim, wenn der rebbe weint, weinen alle Hassidim…“ (When the rebbe laughs, all the Hassidim laugh, when the Rebbe cries, all the Hassidim cry). In our days the song would ring more true with the lyrics “When the Rebbe doesn’t forbid theft, theft is permitted”

Unfortunately, this mentality and lifestyle have influenced the Yeshiva world and even the MO/Mizrahi communities. The advent of small, self-segregated groups strictly looking at their own advancement and interests, coupled with yeridas hadoros, lack of cooperation between rabbis and the desire to improve their image, the internal discipline and moral codes in most groups shifted more and more towards external marks and superficialities, while core principles of vital importance slowly waned and lost their objective importance. Among most such groups, behavior that is intolerable in most human societies is the norm, all the while appearing as holier than everyone else. The more isolated a group is, the less they are subject to scrutiny, the leader is not answerable to any authority, and as a consequence the unsuitable behavior becomes more and more radical and rampant.

This situation has created a climate of complete immunity to scrutiny and criticism. Many community leaders consider anything happening outside of their group totally irrelevant, and won’t address these issues. Another factor is that rebuke from someone not free of blemishes isn’t well received. Under such circumstances it was only natural that each group forms its own Beis Din. Is it any wonder that those Batei Din became quasi irrelevant? How can rabbinical courts obtain a get for a defenseless woman if it has no power and influence? How can debts be returned? If a Beis Din has zero authority outside it’s strict “jurisdiction”, how can anyone not defy them with impunity? Is such a community able -and willing- to moderate widespread deviance at all?

The recent wake of Loshon Hora awareness is vastly abused to hush painful subjects that are uncomfortable to hear. But as the Chofetz Chaim points out, loshon hora is the product of sinas chinom. A father who loves his son does everything to keep his son in the right path. When we see a Rebbe build a $4 million shul – especially when he already had an absolutely good one- yet sends his Hassidim who need a kidney transplant to knock on our doors, we should know that something is very, very wrong with us. When members of groups who’s largest source of income are our tax dollars, for the most part fraudulently obtained, who despise us, who wouldn’t make shidduch with us because the shape of our hats, yet come to schnorr in our shuls - isn’t providing them with “charity” a tacit seal of approval and encouragement to their despicable behavior? Isn’t closing our eyes to the widespread phenomenon of Hassidim – our brothers - spending their welfare checks and HUD-Sec.8 income in casinos and houses of ill repute, at least as great a Chilul Hashem as the act itself? If we refuse to acknowledge these problems –and, unfortunately, much more- and act upon them, we become full-fledged accomplices. Raising these unfortunate, and uncomfortable, issues is not sinas chinom.

Sinas chinom is looking the other way.


© Joseph Izrael 2006

Perfect Strangers

…and Israel encamped before the mount: as one man with one heart - Rashi.
…whither you go, I will go; and where thou lodge, I will lodge;
your people shall be my people, and your G-d my G-d;
Where you die, will I die, and there will I be buried;
Hashem do so to me, and more if aught but death part you and me.

- Ruth 1, 16-17

I am returning the echo of a point in time
And if you hear me talking on the wind
You've got to understand
We must remain
Perfect Strangers

- Deep Purple, “Perfect Strangers”, 1984


The unity of the Jewish people, the prohibition of sinas chinom, the notion of Ahavas Yisroel are not only of utter importance, but also the most essential tenets and principles of Judaism. As a matter of fact they are even a condition for Hashem’s blessing and the prosperity of Klal Yisroel. So why do we, along with our rabbis and leaders, adhere to the lyrics of Deep Purple more than the words of the Torah? Why do we seem to learn our lessons from a drunken rock-star and not Ruth? No truth? Then why is it that our nation, maybe the smallest on earth, is torn and divided into different groups who won’t even consider intermarrying, sending their children to the same schools, follow one leadership, and relate to each other as members of the same nation.

Though the schism is immediately evident to the honest observer, the good-natured ostrich who refuses to see, hear or speak any evil will easily fool himself that because we occasionally daven in each other’s shuls, shop in the same supermarkets (albeit we won’t Chas VeShalom accept the same hechshers) and sometimes attend the same shiur, we are as united as can be, and Moshiach (the real one) is literally at the door. It is interesting to note that our ostrich might well be a distinguished scholar who is able to disseminate the most intricate Tosfosen, rishonim and acharonim for many hours, yet fools himself with the aforementioned superficialities.

But if we would apply only a small percentage of the analytical skills required to understand even a simple Tosfos to what we see in our daily life, we would ask ourselves the simple kushia: how come that while the greatest theology scholars haven’t yet discovered the real difference between Hassidim and Misnagdim, let alone two different Hassiduses, we would be offended and appalled by the simple suggestion that, for example, my son Yanky should enroll in cheder X – they wear long jackets!!! Shocking!!! But it is an absolute taboo question, since an honest answer to this question would involve lifting The Magic Rug, -yes, that magic rug- under which four generations of problems were constantly swept.

And that is exactly what we are going to do. We will not do it because the time has come. We will not do it because many people are disgruntled with our leadership –at one level or another – and are becoming aware of the problem. We will not do it because today it is easier than ever, and neither will we do it because many yidden from all groups are more receptive to the idea. We will do it for the single reason that doing it is the right thing to do and not doing it is the wrong thing to do.

Now, you wonder, Achdus, Unity, Ahavas Yisroel – that’s all good and well, but it is impossible to solve the problem until Moshiach comes, and besides, what does it have to do with myriads of other ills ailing our society? Quite simple: a self-segregated group under narrow leadership is naturally immune to outside scrutiny and criticism. When adversity to criticism is an integral part of that society, it is virtually free to function with no reins other than the rules it sets for itself. In other words, this means that you can be expelled –or shunned and harassed until self-expulsion- from the village of Kiryas Joel for wearing a blue shirt or expressing some views of solidarity with Israel, yet child abuse, racketeering, welfare fraud and adultery are accepted as the norm. As far as they are concerned, these things just don’t exist. An honest man from a different group is lower than dirt, and the mere thought of a shidduch with him unconceivable, yet a thief or child-rapist from his party is perfectly fine. And every single faction and sub-faction of Orthodox Judaism (yes, including the Modern Orthodox and Mizrahi) is full of these destructive idiosyncrasies.

And so, in tacit complicity we all let each other get away with the most vile and despicable actions while pretending that the greatest problems facing our generation are the internet, lack of support for Zionism or too much of it, or not wearing a hat for shul. This separatism is the source of most our problems, and only unity can solve them. And although I don’t expect Skver hassidim and Teaneck Mizrahis to start intermarrying tomorrow, I would like to kindly remind them that no matter what they do, they are brothers, and accountable for each other’s actions nearly as much as for their own. To the Gentiles –and to G-d- a Jew is a Jew is a Jew, period. Whether you live in East Brunswick or Kiryas Joel is completely irrelevant. So when a tremendous chilul hashem occurs and you look the other way because it didn’t happen in your shtetl, you are as accountable for it as its perpetrators.

And while you’re waiting for Moshiach to address these issues, please take a moment to remember that no matter what hecsher you eat, what nussach you daven, what hat, yarmulka, pants and tallis you wear, you and the guy whom you shun and despise for belonging to a different ‘team’ can be made into totally identical lampshades.

© Joseph Izrael 2006

Baptizm Of Fire -EJF Giyur Articles

Feature: Many Paths to a People By Sue Fishkoff Hadassah Magazine 10/'06

Courtesy of Sarah Hoffmann

From Orthodoxy to Reform, the word is in: Bringing a non-Jewish spouse into Judaism is good for the Jews.

Sarah Hoffmann of Kansas City, Missouri, waited 18 years after marrying her Jewish husband, John Spertus, before she went to the mikve. The 47-year-old mother of three, ages 15, 13 and 8, raised her children Jewish and the family belongs to a Reform synagogue. But at the time of her marriage, she balked at making the formal commitment. “I had trouble with the belief-in-God thing,” she says.

That changed as her children grew and she became involved in synagogue life. Three years ago, her daughter began preparing for her bat mitzva. To keep up with her child’s studies, Hoffmann signed up for a two-year course at the Florence Melton Adult Mini-School. Her teacher, Rabbi Amy Katz, guided her to a new understanding of what faith means in Judaism and how she could find her place in the community. On June 16 of this year, Hoffmann converted. There was no flash of spiritual lightning, more a quiet acceptance of what she had already become. “It’s been a very slow evolution,” she says, “so when I did it, it was a very natural part of what had been happening for the past 18 years.”

And when her son celebrated his bar mitzva last month, Hoffmann says she was “committed to it. Instead of hanging back and watching my kids and husband up there on the bima, I felt connected.”

In many ways, Hoffmann is typical of people converting to Judaism in the 21st century. They are more likely to be older, sometimes coming to Judaism after years of marriage to a Jew. According to the 2000-2001 National Jewish Population Survey, women converts continue to outnumber men by two-to-one among those who are married. Hoffmann is one of about 96,000 converts married to Jews. The NJPS reports about 164,000 converts in the United States.

In total numbers, notes sociologist Bruce Phillips of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in Los Angeles, there are more converts now than at any time in the past. But the percentage of those who convert has declined steadily for 35 years—more Jews are marrying non-Jews, but fewer of their spouses are converting. In the 1960’s, the peak decade, 24 percent of non-Jews married to Jews went through formal conversion. In the 1970’s, the rate dropped to 17 percent, then fell to 11 percent in the 1980’s and 7.7 percent in the 1990’s. According to Sylvia Barack Fishman, professor of Jewish studies at Brandeis University, today fewer than one in five intermarriages involves conversion.

And the rate continues to drop, fueled by such factors as Reform acceptance of patrilineal descent—why convert if your children are considered Jewish?—better integration of intermarried families into synagogue life in all non-Orthodox streams and increased acceptance of interfaith marriages in society in general.

It’s hard to know precisely how many people are converting. Some experts believe the NJPS figures are too low. The movements don’t keep their own figures—once a person converts, he or she is considered fully Jewish. Most conversions in the United States, however, take place under Reform auspices. Kathy Kahn, outreach director of the Union for Reform Judaism and herself a convert, gives a ballpark figure of 10,000 a year.

Rabbi Jerome Epstein, executive vice president of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, says that while his movement “has not seen a decline in conversion, we haven’t seen tremendous growth.” Most of those who convert to Conservative Judaism are married to Jews or contemplating such a marriage.

Orthodoxy has the fewest converts; the smallest movement, it has the least intermarriage and the most stringent conversion process, requiring a year of study and clear demonstration of intent to lead an observant Jewish life.

How have things changed? Up to the mid-1960’s, Phillips says, Jews who married outside their faith did not tend to be active Jewishly. Neither they nor their spouses were looking to be part of the Jewish community. That is no longer true. Increasingly, intermarried couples are building Jewish homes and raising Jewish children, even without conversion. The NJPS found the rate of intermarried couples raising their children as Jews has grown 5 percent this past decade to 33 percent.

That still leaves more than 60 percent of intermarrieds not raising their children as Jews. In addition, sociologist Steven Cohen of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in New York has conducted several studies indicating it is far more likely that children will be raised Jewish and stay Jewish when the non-Jewish parent converts.

That presents a dilemma for the Reform, Reconstructionist and Conservative movements: On one hand, they want to welcome intermarried families into their congregations and encourage them to raise their children as Jews; on the other hand, they would like to see the non-Jews in these families become Jews.

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the URJ, captured that dichotomy poignantly during his keynote sermon at the movement’s biennial last November in Houston.

While urging congregations to honor the non-Jewish adults who are active in their synagogues and are raising Jewish children—people he deems “heroes of Jewish life”—Yoffie also called on Reform movement communities to invite them—delicately, noncoercively—to convert.

Noting that Reform has for a quarter-century made non-Jews feel comfortable and accepted in the synagogue and community, he continued, “Perhaps we have sent the message that we do not care if they convert.” That is, he said, “not our message…. It is a mitzva to help a potential Jew become a Jew-by-choice.”

Epstein issued a similar call at the Conservative movement’s biennial last December in Boston. Unveiling what he called a new kiruv, or outreach, initiative, he urged congregations to continue inviting non-Jewish spouses or potential spouses to convert, while opening the doors to their, and their children’s, increased participation in synagogue life. “We’re in a world where if we don’t deal with these things, we’re foolish,” he said.

Yoffie’s invitation to convert got a mixed reception, particularly from Reform leaders who felt it might offend their non-Jewish friends and relatives. Rabbi Donald Weber, chair of the conversion committee of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Reform rabbinical association, says it’s not easy to ask someone to convert. “My colleagues are trying to walk a very fine line between encouraging someone to convert without telling them that raising a Jewish family is not sufficient,” he says. “Yet the more involved they are, the better candidate they’d be.”

Ed Case, president of InterfaithFamily.com, a nonprofit that supports intermarried families making Jewish choices, feels Yoffie’s and Epstein’s initiatives put too much pressure on non-Jewish spouses who have already proved their allegiance to the Jewish community. “The most important thing for Jewish continuity is for more interfaith families to raise children with Jewish identities,” he states. “That’s more important than having the non-Jewish spouse convert.”

In fact, he fears a possible backlash. “I’m concerned that the more aggressively you promote conversion, the fewer Jewish children you’ll end up with,” he warns.

Interestingly, some non-Jews have a different reaction. Karen Kushner, director of the Reform movement’s San Francisco-based Project Welcome outreach initiative, convened a panel of half a dozen non-Jewish spouses and Jews-by-choice. All of them said they would welcome being invited to convert.

“One woman said, ‘No one ever told me I could convert,’” Kushner relates. “Others said, ‘I don’t know Hebrew, I don’t know Talmud,’ as if that were an insurmountable barrier.”

“We’re always so careful around people, but the reality is we want people to be Jews,” remarks Lorel Zar-Kessler, cantor at Reform Congregation Beth El in Sudbury, Massachusetts. “To be in the club for years and years without being asked to join is not a good thing. It’s freeing to say, ‘Yes, we love you and we want you.’”

Even the Orthodox are feeling the pressure of increased intermarriage. Traditionally, Orthodox rabbis have been reluctant to convert someone after he or she marries a Jew. But that is changing, says Rabbi Basil Herring, executive vice president of the Rabbinical Council of America, the Orthodox movement’s main rabbinical body. Orthodox rabbis are beginning to reach out to invite the non-Jewish spouse to convert, to ensure future children will be Jews, instead of writing off the entire family.

“There are some leading rabbis who say, if the non-Jewish spouse and the Jewish spouse say, ‘what was, was, today we want to live a Jewish life and raise Jewish children,’ then we should make it easier for them...,” Herring says. While urging continued caution to ensure that the potential convert intends to follow Orthodox strictures, he declares, “we should not make it needlessly difficult…[but] should embrace someone who wants to be part of the Jewish people.”

Last fall, Eternal Jewish Family, a nonprofit based in Monsey, New York, brought ultra-Orthodox rabbis from around the world to a conference in Newark, New Jersey, aimed at standardizing Orthodox conversion and setting up specialized batei din, rabbinical courts, as a central place for non-Jewish spouses (and children of non-Jewish mothers) to undergo an Orthodox conversion. Potential converts working with these batei din go through a traditional Orthodox conversion process, but are assured that the rabbis on the beit din are “experts in conversion,” according to EJF conference chairman Marvin Jacob.

The group has held two more conferences, established eight batei din for conversion in the United States and performed, as of April 2006, more than 70 conversions. Hundreds of Orthodox rabbis, including the chief rabbis of Israel and heads of major yeshivas, have signed on.

Traditionally, one may not refer to a person’s conversion after it’s complete. That delicacy has shrouded the subject in secrecy, even negativity.

That, too, is changing.

Rabbi Richard Shapiro of Temple Sinai in Palm Desert, California, is on the Reform’s CCAR conversion committee. He sees “a much greater openness and acceptance.”

Hundreds of Reform congregations now hold public ceremonies of welcome. Sudbury’s Congregation Beth El announces conversions in its newsletter, just like any other joyful event. New converts are called up to the Torah on the Sabbath after they convert.

And on Rosh Hashana, before the first blowing of the shofar, the names of all the new babies and converts of the previous 12 months are called out from the bima. They’re read in alphabetical order, “all our new Jews, the Shlomos and Rivkas and the MacDonalds,” says Zar-Kessler.

There is also greater attention to making the conversion ceremony more meaningful and aesthetically pleasing. In the Reform world, which has a tradition of individualized ceremonies and family participation, this heightened attention to aesthetics has been accompanied by a revived interest in using mikve for conversion. More than two dozen liberal mikvaot have been built this past decade in North America, most of them because Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist rabbis were not able to use local Orthodox ones for conversion.

Last June, the URJ sponsored the first national conference on liberal mikvaot at Mayyim Hayyim, a two-year-old community ritual bath in Newton, Massachusetts.

Sponsoring the conference is a far cry from the Reform attitude toward this ritual little more than a decade ago. Kathy Kahn remembers calling her mother-in-law before her conversion 15 years ago to ask about immersion. “She said, ‘No, Kathy, it’s mitzva, not mikve,’” Kahn recalls, laughing. “She was a classic Reform Jew. When she was growing up, mikve wasn’t ‘American.’”

Other traditional rituals increasingly embraced by Reform converts and their rabbis are the use of batei din and hatafat dam brit, taking a ceremonial drop of blood from the penis of an already circumcised male convert. “These discussions weren’t happening 10 years ago” in non-Orthodox rabbinical circles, Shapiro says.

Reform conversions also require more serious study than they used to. When Rabbi Steven Foster came to Denver in July 1970, his senior rabbi told him to convert a 21-year-old woman sitting outside his office because he was officiating at her marriage in August.

“I said, ‘August of next year, right?’” Foster recalls. “He said, ‘No, this August.’”

Now most of Foster’s converts are in their midthirties and have considered the decision carefully. “There’s more maturity, they bring with them a seriousness to the process.”

Within the Conservative movement, growing numbers of children of non-Jewish mothers and Jewish fathers are converting to normalize their status. Some of them are calling it an affirmation rather than conversion, saying they are going through a different, less life-altering process than a person with no former connection to Judaism.

But it still brings up a host of emotions. Kathy Bloomfield, mikve center director at Mayyim Hayyim, has seen many children of non-Jewish mothers who were raised Jewish and then learn before their bar or bat mitzva that they need to convert. “We need to respect the fact that they’re raised as Jewish people, and now they’re told they’re not,” she says, urging the adoption of the affirmation category.

For many adult children of mixed marriages, the decision to convert comes more slowly. Thirty-six-year-old Karen Stephenson of Denver had a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother. Ten years ago, her mother, Ann Breslaw, converted and asked Karen to join her. But Karen, who wasn’t raised Jewish, wasn’t ready.

“I was 25, easily distracted, not focused,” she recalls. And she was married to a non-Jew.

When her son was 2, she divorced and decided she wanted to convert. But when she approached Rabbi Foster, he told her to “wait until I’d put my life in order,” she recalls. Four years later, in September 2005, she started studying for conversion. She began attending services regularly at Congregation Emanuel, where her mother is president of the sisterhood.

Two days before her conversion in July 2006, she admitted she was nervous. “I recited the Shema in my head every chance I got,” she says. She was also impatient. “It’s like, come on, I just want to be Jewish! But they don’t want you to take it lightly. You have to sit back and process what’s going on.” In August, her son, now 6, was converted as well.

As intermarriage continues to rise and old attitudes soften, outreach experts believe more intermarried families will make Jewish choices. It remains to be seen whether the new Reform and Conservative focus on conversion, combined with a reexamination of traditional Orthodox barriers, will lead to a resurgence in the number of converts or not.

But current trends point to increased acceptance of conversion. “I think conversion is going to be seen more and more as a life-cycle event,” says Kahn. “It will be normalized. People won’t view converts as some kind of odd fanatic, but will congratulate them in a warm, open way. These people are joining our family and we need to celebrate with them.”

As the conversion scene becomes more multifaceted, so does the profile of those who convert.

In Choosing Judaism: Conversations About Conversion, her study for the American Jewish Committee, Sylvia Barack Fishman sees three types of converts: the activist convert—the 30 percent who are very drawn to Judaism, often becoming the driving Jewish force in their family; the accommodating convert—the 40 percent who “feel warmly” toward Judaism but let their Jewish spouse set the religious tone; and the ambivalent convert—the 30 percent who retain ties to their birth religion and have mixed feelings about being Jewish.

Fishman’s findings contradict current wisdom, which holds that people who choose Judaism are converting more to a faith than to a people. She says this depends on what kind of convert they are, that most start out being attracted to Jewish culture or religion, but the activist converts continue on to embrace Jewish ethnicity.

That sums up Clint Gillom’s experience. The 37-year-old marketing analyst from Kansas City, Missouri, had no Jewish family ties. He was first attracted to Judaism intellectually and began attending services at area synagogues and studying Jewish subjects.

Now, two years after his Conservative conversion, he says his connection to Judaism “has evolved” and includes a strong bond “to the people and the community.” He’s a true activist convert: He tries to wear tefilin daily, sits on the board of his federation’s young adult group and visited Israel with his wife this past March as part of a solidarity mission. (His wife is in the process of converting, too.)

Despite the different reasons for converting, Fishman believes most Jews-by-choice want to deepen their ties to the Jewish people. She urges synagogues and other organizations to develop support services including ongoing mentoring for conversionary families as part of a larger project of nurturing Jewish experiences for the whole community.

“We need to engage Jews and make Jewish culture more dynamic,” she states. “That will help in terms of conversion as well.”

Sue Fishkoff, author of The Rebbe’s Army: Inside the World of Chabad-Lubavitch (Schocken), writes for the JTA from her home in Oakland, CA.



Universal acceptance
Group addresses conversion for interfaith couples
SALVATORE CAPUTOSenior Staff Writer

Eternal Jewish Family, an organization that helps non-Jewish partners or spouses undergo what it describes as a universally accepted conversion to Judaism, plans to hold a seminar on the subject for interfaith couples next month in the Valley.The seminar will take place May 13-15 at the Arizona Biltmore.With intermarriage rates skyrocketing, a traditional resistance to converting intermarried spouses is counterproductive, said Rabbi Leib Tropper, who heads Eternal Jewish Family."It would be devastating if we ignored them," Tropper said, adding that Maimonides' teachings on the subject almost prophetically address modern issues of intermarriage and conversion."According to Jewish law before Maimonides, there was a suggestion in the Talmud not to make conversions for the sake of marriage," Tropper said, "but Maimonides said it's better, without compromising the standards of conversion, to try to get the non-Jewish spouse to convert."But isn't converting for the sake of marriage considered a bad reason to convert?"It's not a problem that somebody undertakes study for conversion because they want to get married," said Rabbi David Rebibo, president of the Orthodox Rabbinical Council of Greater Phoenix. However, he added, it's hoped that through study, the non-Jewish partner will learn that the decision is about the religion they are embracing."If the conversion is purely 'because I'm married' but there's no commitment to the religion, it's less of a valid reason," he added.Reform Rabbi Andrew Straus of Temple Emanuel of Tempe agreed, saying, "Reform Judaism says, 'No. We don't want people converting for the sake of marriage, but if Judaism speaks to their hearts, their souls and their brains, our doors are wide open.'"All of which begs the question of why Eternal Jewish Family is needed.Rebibo said that the conversion process in America was in a "free fall.""Reform does what they want, Conservative does what they do, and the result is that all of a sudden we have a serious crisis. Questions arise about how good the conversion is. 'Is this person Jewish?' It's not pleasant and there are no easy answers."Straus said his Conservative colleagues will accept conversions over which he presided, "but no Orthodox rabbi will," even if his converts meet all the halachic requirements for conversion. These include brit milah (circumcision) or tippat dam (ritual circumcision, for those who have already been medically circumcised) for males, an appearance before a beit din and immersion in a mikvah, he said.Straus, president of the Board of Rabbis of Greater Phoenix, said he had not heard of Eternal Jewish Family before but added that the emergence of the group marks what he called a "crack in the door" among Orthodox religious officials.Tropper said the Eternal Jewish Family conversions are Orthodox and halachic, according to Jewish law, and the organization works to ensure that if there are any questions about the conversion they are ironed out."It began with a session with the philanthropist Thomas Kap-lan," Tropper said. "We talked about the assimilation issue and some of the problems," including conversions of a spouse being rejected out of hand and some spouses having to undergo conversion two or three times. (The Lillian Jean Kaplan Jewish Pride Through Education Project, named after the philanthropist's mother, sponsors Eternal Jewish Family).So in September 2005, a rabbinic conference was held in Newark, N.J., where it was decided that the first step to address the problem was to write a manual based on what's acceptable to all rabbis, Tropper said. There have been four rabbinic conferences since then to create awareness of the issues and the standards in the manual in a bid to create consensus, he said.There are still shades of interpretation, he said. "You'll never get 100 percent consensus, but the shades are all of the same color, not shades of purple, green and yellow."The problems facing people who find their conversions challenged range from whether they can send their children to a Jewish school, to Jews not wanting to marry their children, to whether they can be called to the bimah in synagogue and more, Tropper said, adding, "It can be complicated."When a spouse's conversion is not accepted, Rebibo said, "it's destabilizing the marriage and seriously impacting their relationships."Eternal Jewish Family has "performed a really considerable service to the community at large, to highlight this problem and give it the urgency that it deserves," Rebibo added.Tropper said that part of the problem was that individual rabbinic courts often would not provide the feedback a person would need to correctly fulfill requirements or would give only a fuzzy picture of the requirements."We give people a path to learn to become observant and to do it properly," Tropper said. "We're streamlining the process."He said the group has involved 11 rabbinic courts (batei din) across the country and in Israel and hopes to have one in Europe soon.Eternal Jewish Family is based in Tallman, N.Y., and operates under the guidance and halachic rulings of Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashev of Jerusalem, a contemporary leading authority on halacha, and Rabbis Dovid Feinstein and Reuven Feinstein, sons of the late Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, a pre-eminent halachic authority.Although there are no insignificant commandments, Tropper said, the key pillars of conversion are keeping Shabbat, observing kashrut and keeping the laws of family purity.The Valley was chosen as the site for the May seminar because "we have so many people come from Phoenix to have their conversions done." In addition, Eternal Jewish Family plans to open a local office in the next six months, Tropper said.Ken and Lucia Schnitzer of Phoenix, one of eight Valley families who have been helped by Eternal Jewish Family, praise the program.So much so that Lucia will speak on "Becoming Part of a Jewish Community - Firsthand Experience" at the seminar, and Ken sits on the national board of Eternal Jewish Family. They both represent the group in Phoenix and work with intermarried couples seeking conversion here."If we ever make aliyah, there isn't going to be any question of my Jewishness," said Lucia. "If my daughter wants to marry a kohen, there isn't going to be any question."
Details
Who: Eternal Jewish Family
What: Universally Accepted Conversion in Interfaith Marriage seminar
When: May 13-15
Where: Arizona Biltmore Resort and Spa, 2400 E. Missouri Ave., Phoenix
Cost: Travel and hotel costs are being defrayed through a grant by the Lillian Jean Kaplan Jewish Pride Through Education Project.
Contact: (845) 425-3863, info@horizons.edu or eternaljewishfamily.org


Jews begin pushing for conversionsRachel Zoll Associated Press

NEW YORK -- Christine Benvenuto embodies a Jewish ideal.
Her kitchen is kosher, she attends synagogue and has read rabbinic writings and the Torah.
But for many American Jewish leaders, she has an even more compelling quality. The mother of three, whose husband was born Jewish, is a convert.
"A lot of things attracted me to Judaism," said Benvenuto, whose book "Shiksa" chronicles her path to conversion and the choices of other non-Jewish spouses. "I grew up in a Jewish neighborhood in New York, and my friends were always Jewish."
As intermarriage continues at a high rate, many community leaders believe the survival of Judaism lies with people like Benvenuto. Over the past year, top rabbis have urged Jews to overcome their fear of offending non-Jewish spouses and suggest outright that they convert.
Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, and Rabbi Jerome Epstein, executive vice president of the United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism, each called for a more assertive approach at national religious meetings of their movements in the past year. Together, their organizations represent about 75 percent of North American synagogue members.
The American Jewish Committee, a leading advocacy group based in New York, released the first major study in nearly two decades of why people decide to become Jewish. Among the central findings is that advocating for conversion works.
Even some Orthodox, who have traditionally discouraged conversion, have joined in.
Rabbi Leib Tropper, who runs a school in Monsey, N.Y., for Jews who lack basic religious education, started Eternal Jewish Family a year ago to train rabbinic courts on proper conversion for non- Jewish spouses. Tropper says hundreds of rabbis have attended the training sessions.
"One has to look at how Orthodox leaders are acting rather than what they're saying," said Steven Bayme, an expert on contemporary Jewish life for the American Jewish Committee. "On the ground, the attitudes toward conversion have been more open, although they vary from community to community."
Jewish leaders have tried before, unsuccessfully, to promote the idea.
In a 1978 speech that was considered a transformation in Jewish thinking, Rabbi Alexander Schindler, the then-leader of the Reform movement, said conversion of non-Jewish spouses should be the community's goal. The American Jewish Committee optimistically estimated the new emphasis would bring one of every three non- Jewish spouses to Judaism.
Instead, the conversion rate plummeted as acceptance of interfaith marriage grew. Jewish parents, rabbis and synagogue members stopped suggesting it for fear of appearing insensitive. Now, with around one-third of Jews in mixed marriages, less than 20 percent of interfaith unions are leading to conversion.
Resistance remains strong to this day.
Many Jewish professionals who work with intermarried couples say that suggesting conversion will insult the non-Jewish spouses and drive them away. The community should be focused on making the family feel welcome first, outreach workers say.
"You need to change the culture of synagogues to get this going. You need to develop a game plan where one can even ask those questions," about conversion, said Rabbi Charles Simon, executive director of the Federation of Jewish Men's Clubs, which trains lay people and conservative rabbis to work with couples in mixed marriages. "Now, the most common phrase you hear when you walk into a synagogue is, 'You're sitting in my seat.'"
Another obstacle is Jewish distaste for anything that resembles proselytizing, since Jews have so often been the target of those campaigns.
"That, in turn, has made it more complicated for Jews to turn around and say, 'It's really OK for us to proselytize others,"' said Jack Wertheimer, professor of American Jewish history at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York. "So, what Jews have preached is, 'Don't proselytize ours, and we won't proselytize yours.'"
That silence has created the false impression that Judaism does not accept converts -- a misperception rooted partly


Rabbis ease conversion rules
Alexandra Alter Knight Ridder Newspapers

Abraham was a late-in-life convert. Moses married an Ethiopian gentile who some say later joined the Jewish faith. More than 3,500 years later, intermarriage and conversion remain hotly contested issues within Judaism.
Yet nearly 50 percent of married Jews today are wedded to someone of a different faith.
Faced with that reality, American Jewish leaders have delicately sidestepped a centuries-old prohibition against proselytizing and launched new efforts to convert non-Jewish spouses.
Leaders of the Reform and Conservative movements outlined initiatives to unmix mixed marriages at denominationwide conventions last year. Now even Orthodox rabbis, the staunchest opponents of interfaith marriage, are exploring ways to encourage conversions.
Recently, 130 Orthodox rabbis from five continents gathered at the Westin Diplomat Resort in Hollywood, Fla., to outline new approaches to interfaith marriages and conversion. The meeting -- sponsored by the New York group Eternal Jewish Family -- provoked groundbreaking discussions among Jewish legal scholars on how to simplify the long and involved Orthodox conversion process, participants said.
"When there's an intermarriage, the Torah considers it to be a serious violation of Jewish law," said Rabbi Leib Tropper, who heads Eternal Jewish Family's program to "streamline" conversion for members of interfaith couples. "We want to remedy a problem. At the same time, we don't want to compromise on standards."
Tropper and other Orthodox rabbis say they hope to ease some restrictions on conversions, including a mandatory waiting period of a year or more. According to Jewish law, a rabbi is supposed to turn away a potential convert three times before even considering the request. But some Orthodox rabbis are now softening their position.
Jewish leaders from more liberal sects say they've urged outreach to interfaith families for years.
Rabbi Terry Bookman of Temple Beth Am, a Reform synagogue in Pinecrest, Fla., says he has been encouraging conversions since he arrived at Beth Am 11 years ago -- a controversial stance in a religion that staunchly discourages evangelism.
"It wasn't always a very popular idea, but now the Reform movement is catching on," Bookman said. "The Jewish community needs to be more open about outreach to the unchurched."
The Orthodox community has been slow to embrace non-Jewish spouses. But Rabbi Chaim Shapiro, who heads Congregation Torah Ohr in Boca Raton, Fla., said Orthodox families have also grown more accepting when someone marries outside the faith.
"The attitude has been softened. At one time it was very harsh. You have cases where families went into mourning like it was the end of the world," Shapiro said. "I don't think it's quite as harsh anymore, maybe because we see so many intermarriages."
For Patty Shapiro, a Catholic who attends a Reform synagogue in southwest Miami, participating in her husband's faith doesn't mean she has to convert. While Shapiro says she would never consider changing her religion, she feels she has found a spiritual home in Bet Breira Congregation.
"I like the Jewish religion, but I'm not going to convert. That's who I am," said Shapiro, who, with her husband Seth Shapiro, has three sons. "I get out of going to synagogue what I get out of going to church."
Some say they worry conversion efforts will drive away two-faith couples like the Shapiros.
"I'm afraid they are trying to pander to the more conservative elements in the Jewish community who are still not welcoming of interfaith families," said Edmund Case, who founded Interfaith Family in 2002 to promote Jewish outreach in interfaith families. "The attitude ranges from ambivalent to profoundly negative."
Conservative and Orthodox rabbis still consider an interfaith marriage a violation of Jewish law and won't perform such marriages. Even many Reform rabbis will not conduct interfaith weddings.
"The organized Jewish community wants to see Jews marry other Jews. On the other hand, they also want to be inclusive," said Ira Sheskin, director of the Jewish Demography Project at the Center for Contemporary Judaic Studies at the University of Miami. "It's not an easy issue."