National Scholar Updates

Introduction

In what way are humans and animals distinct? Throughout history, arguments have been made on various grounds including: reason, emotional capacity, language, moral intuition, freedom of will, physical capabilities, and the ability to create sustainable social systems. If humans are created in the image of God,[i] then there must be something unique about our essence.[ii] However, with time, each of the above proposals for human uniqueness has been exposed to have flaws. For example, a human without the ability to speak or hear certainly is not lacking in his or her definitional or moral status as human, nor is one who is missing a limb or has a lower-than-average I.Q. Additionally, more and more research has shown that many other species have a sophisticated capacity for communication, reasoning, deliberation, emotional life, the moral enterprise, and perhaps even self-consciousness within limits. It is now a well-known fact that humans share 98 percent of our genetic makeup with chimpanzees.

Most convincing perhaps is the suggestion that humans have unique responsibilities. Viktor Frankl, the great Holocaust survivor and psychoanalyst, suggested that “Being human means being conscious and being responsible.” This can be read normatively rather than descriptively, that we are not inherently different but have a higher moral calling to responsibility.

What makes humans most similar to God? What makes us most distinct from animals? The answer to these questions will help us to understand our fundamental relationship to all three (the divine, our fellow humans, and the animal world).

Human Responsibility to Creation

In the Creation story, humans are commanded to rule over all creatures.[iii] This can and should be seen as both a mandate to elevate human existence as well as to care for other creatures dependent on human mercy. We are empowered to emulate God, who is “good to all, and whose mercy is upon all works” (Psalms 145:9). The Rambam explains that the human subjugation of the animal world is descriptive, rather than prescriptive. That is to say, we allow ourselves to subjugate creatures—but we are not obligated to do so.[iv] The Rambam explains further that animals have their own teleological purpose—that they are created for their own sake. 

Rav Soloveitchik taught that we are imbued with a capacity and imperative for “majesty and humility.” The Rav charges us to see our human limitations in a world that God creates and controls, while also fully embracing our unique human capacities and responsibilities that we, as humans, have been created to exercise and fulfill.

The great fourteenth-century Jewish French philosopher Ibn Caspi explains (on Deuteronomy 22:6) that animals are “ke-Ilu avoteinu,” that they are like our forefathers since they preceded us in creation and are similar to us in substance. This is a pre-Darwinian notion of evolution, which claims that humans have not only a moral but also a sacred responsibility to show compassion to God’s sentient creatures. By the nature of their sentient capacity (although animals have duties as well according to the Torah; see Genesis 1:22), humans clearly have unique obligations and responsibilities that animals do not. We can now pose the question: Are the rights of animals comparable to the rights of humans?

Philosophical Construct of “Rights”

Rights are normative principles often understood as entitlements or freedoms. By being human, one might suggest that one has the right to pursue self-interest and happiness. The origin, and even validity, of these rights has been a matter of great debate. Rights are granted to humans based upon a social contract, or, according to some, upon an inherent dignity bestowed by God. Can these philosophical foundations allow for the extension of these same rights to non-humans?

In many ancient societies, animals were perceived through a purely anthropocentric lens as mere tools to human fulfillment, a means to our ends. According to this mindset, non-human beings do not have their own telos, but are merely instrumental. Even by the time of the Enlightenment, some still argued for the strongest bifurcation between humans and animals. In the seventeenth century, during the Enlightenment, Descartes argued that animals lack souls, minds, and reason, based on his suppositions of animal consciousness and epistemic capacity.[v]

The first piece of legislation prohibiting animal cruelty did not emerge in an English-speaking society until 1635 in Ireland. Introduced by Richard Ryder, it forbade the ripping of wool off of sheep and tails off of horses.[vi] In 1641, the first legal code was passed in North America to protect domesticated animals from cruel treatment. Many cultures at this time still engaged in forms of animal torture for entertainment such as cock fighting and throwing, bull baiting and running, and dog fighting.

            Centuries later, sports consisting of animal cruelty have unfortunately not gone extinct. In fact, with the advent of new production technologies, the disregard for the welfare of the animal kingdom, many have argued, is greater than ever before. At the same time, the animal rights movement has emerged in the past few decades to view animals as sentient beings that not only deserve human compassion but that have a right to exist and thrive. Martha Nussbaum has called this the “neo-Aristotelian capabilities approach.”[vii] She suggests that all beings that have a capacity (to exist, to learn, to be free, etc.) have the right to fulfill that capacity as long as its fulfillment does not harm another.

There are two primary approaches to the issue of animal rights—the utilitarian approach and the rights approach. Peter Singer, a bioethicist at Princeton, a utilitarian philosopher, and the author of Animal Liberation, has argued for decades that vegetarianism is a moral imperative due to our knowledge of animal suffering. Singer has called modern meat production to be cruel and damaging to the ecosystem. A human desire for light pleasure does not allow for gross afflictions and death of animals. The pleasure does not match the pain.

Tom Regan and Gary Francione represent the rights based approach. Regan suggests that animals are “subjects-of-life” and thus have a right to life and the same moral rights as humans. Francione argues for the rights of animals to be free from ownership. The Torah takes a different approach from both of these two philosophical schools of thought.

Jewish Animal Rights and Concomitant Human Virtues

The Torah articulates a myriad of animal rights and ties them together with mitzvoth (opportunities for the cultivation of Jewish virtues). The Torah grants the right of rest on the Sabbath not only to humans, but to animals as well (see Exodus 20:10). To put the Torah’s incredible command of rest for animals into perspective, until the end of the nineteenth century, employees in the United States were still expected to work seven-day work weeks. Additionally, the Torah teaches that, during the week, an owner must be conscious of how his or her animals are being employed. One may not plow with an ox and mule harnessed together since both animals, being of unequal size and strength, will suffer (Deuteronomy 22:10). Perhaps most famously, the case of shiluakh haKan (the mitzvah to send away the mother bird before taking the chick) creates the imperative to concern oneself with the emotional state of animals as well as their physical state.[viii] Also out of concern for an animal’s emotional well-being, one may not slaughter an animal along with its young (see Leviticus 22:28).

The Rambam argues that there is no difference between the pain that humans feel and that which animals feel in this regard; between the love that a human mother feels for her child and the love that an animal mother feels for her young.[ix] When one encounters two animals and one is crouching under its burden and the other is unburdened because the owner needs someone to help him load it, he is obligated to first unload the burdened animal because of the commandment to prevent suffering to animals. The Gemara in Baba Metsia 32 teaches us that avoiding the suffering of animals is a biblical law that pushes off rabbinic law.[x] The Rambam teaches us here of the importance of animal welfare via a radical suggestion that the suffering of the animal takes precedence, at times, over the burden of a fellow human being!

            In one teshuva, Rav Moshe Feinstein rules that for “those who produce veal, there is definitely the prohibition of tsa’ar ba’alei hayyim.” In the same teshuva, he argues that “It is forbidden to cause pain to an animal to feed it food from which it derives no benefit, and that causes it pain in the process of eating, and that also brings about diseases, and they suffer from the diseases.  Because it was for the sake of this benefit, that they can deceive people and it is forbidden from the perspective of tsa’ar ba’alei hayyim, on a biblical level, because for the sake of such purposes it is not permitted for people to cause suffering to animals.”[xi]

After all, we learn from the Shulhan Arukh that “if an animal has been fattened with forbidden foods, it is permitted. However, if it has been fattened exclusively for its entire life with forbidden foods, it is forbidden.”[xii]

The Talmud (Berakhot 40a) teaches us that one must indeed make personal sacrifices for the welfare of animals. One of the best known instances of animal protection is that one may not eat until having fed one’s animals. This is not only Jewish law but it is also interpreted as the epitome of Jewish virtue. In fact, the Midrash states that Moshe was chosen as the leader and prophet for the Israelite people because of his consideration for animals. It is not only the prophets who are so often portrayed as compassionate shepherds; this is also a popular way of personifying God: “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want” (Psalms 23:1). One may not treat one’s animal merely as property to be sold as one wishes. Rather, we are told that one may not sell one’s animal to a non-virtuous person out of fear for how they will treat that animal.[xiii] The Gemara (Baba Metsia 85a) explains that the great Rabbi Yehuda HaNassi, the redactor of the Mishnah, experienced years of suffering because of one act of cruelty shown to an animal when he ruled that it should be killed because that was the purpose of its creation. It was not until he showed significant mercy to animals that he was cured of his painful ailments.

The rabbis (in Eruvin 100b) even went so far as to suggest that animals themselves have moral attributes that we can directly learn from. “If the Torah had not been given, we could have learned modesty from the cat, honesty from the ant, chastity from the dove, and good manners from the rooster, who first coaxes then mates.” Natural law, and animals, can be great teachers of virtue.

The halakhot of kosher slaughtering can help to ensure that animals are treated more humanely. Those laws concerning the separation of milk and meat, Rav Ephraim Lunchitz suggests, are designed to limit meat intake and cultivate a spiritual awareness of how one consumes animal products. [xiv] Interestingly, while there are special blessings designated for bread, wine, fruit, and vegetables, there is no special blessing reserved for the consumption of meat. Could a blessing be made if we were truly spiritually conscious of what we were consuming: “haMotzi basar min haHai?”

How far must we take these sensitivities? Some choose not to hunt, others to limit meat intake, while others refrain completely. How can the Torah guide us?

Vegetarianism and Halakha

Vegetarianism has been a growing trend in the American Jewish community for the past few decades as the Jewish community has become more educated about the detrimental effects meat production has upon human health, animal suffering, the environment, and global hunger. Well-known statistics demonstrate how much food in developing countries, later shipped to the United States, has gone to feeding cattle, rather than impoverished humans. This reality is due to the fact that cattle around the world consume an amount of food equal what 8.7 billion people need. Even further, cattle in the United States consume ten times the grain that Americans themselves eat.[xv]

Over 200 million Americans are eating enough food, much of which is grain-fed livestock that could feed over one billion people in developing countries.[xvi] Jean Mayer, a Harvard nutritionist, claims that 60 million hungry individuals could be fed if people reduced their meat intake by just 10 percent.[xvii] Exploring the details of these serious harms to human health, poverty, animal treatment and the planet are beyond the scope of this article. Our question here is: How do halakha and Jewish ethics look upon vegetarianism for those who feel a moral obligation to limit or cease their meat intake?

A Gemara (Sanhedrin 59b) frames the biblical history of vegetarianism quite succinctly: “Rav Yehudah stated in the name of Rav, ‘Adam was not permitted meat for purposes of eating as it is written, ‘for you it shall be for food and to all animals of the earth,’ [Genesis 1:29] but not animals of the earth for you. But when the sons of Noah came (God) permitted them (the animals of the earth) as it is said, ‘as the green grass I have given to you everything,’ [Genesis 9:3]” We can suggest that the biblical history of meat consumption experienced three distinct eras. In the Garden of Eden, humans did not consume animals (era 1). After the flood, God saw the violent and sinful nature of humans and permitted meat consumption as a concession (era 2). We then learn that meat was only permitted as a sacrifice to God and then ultimately it became permitted outside of sacrificial worship as well (era 3). These three eras mark an evolution from an ideal to a religious pragmatism. I would argue that with the advent of mass production and corporate factory farms that we have entered a fourth era, one that requires a new religious perspective on the consumption of meat (to be explored below). We now must ask whether shehita (ritual slaughter) in an age of mass production has lost its sanctity. Rabbi David Rosen, the former Chief Rabbi of Ireland, wrote[xviii] that “The current treatment of animals in the livestock trade definitely renders the consumption of meat halakhically unacceptable as the product of illegitimate means.” Rabbi Rosen argues that in theory kosher meat is perfectly kosher and acceptable to consume—but that in today’s system of mass abuse, it is no longer kosher, that is, no longer fit for consumption. He goes on to suggest that “In contemporary society, more than ever before, vegetarianism should be an imperative for Jews who seek to live in accordance with Judaism’s most sublime teachings.”

The Gemara (Pesahim 49b) declares that an ignoramus may not eat meat. The Maharsha explains that if one is not extremely knowledgeable and pious, too many mistakes can be made. The Rama (Teshuvot Rama 65) argued that an ignoramus is not well-versed in the laws of shehita (ritual slaughter). In addition to scrupulousness in kashruth, it seems that one would need to be a very ethically conscious person to truly appreciate what goes into meat production today. The Talmud (Kiddushin 56b) taught that a consumer is more culpable than producers in a certain sense. The demander of a certain product that harms (i.e., the consumer) is really the one responsible for the pain caused.

At least two Rishonim also view vegetarianism as a moral ideal. R. Yitzchak Abarbanel[xix] and R. Yosef Albo[xx] both suggest that it is a moral ideal since the slaughtering process can lead one to cultivate cruel character traits. In the early twentieth century, Rav Avraham Yitzchak HaCohen Kook argued for the eschatological ideal of vegetarianism.[xxi] Even though certain ideals won’t be fully actualized until the messianic era, Jewish theology instructs that the Jewish people must act in spiritual and moral ways that attempt to bring the messianic ideals to reality. The book of Isaiah in its prophesy for the messianic age (11:6, 8) famously teaches that even animals will be vegetarian: “The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid. And the lion, like the ox, shall eat straw.” The S’dei Hemed suggested, in a different vein, that refraining from wine and meat consumption can be a positive practice to expiate sin.[xxii]

It is important to note that with the Torah’s full permission to allow the consumption of kosher meat, it did not become an obligation to consume meat. Rather it grants permission for those who desire it. The Torah says “you say: ‘I will eat meat’ because your soul desires to eat meat; with all the desire of your soul may you eat meat” (Deuteronomy 12:20). Meat may be consumed when there is real desire—but there is not a need to consume it if there is not desire, and certainly one need not eat meat if one finds it repugnant (physically, morally, or spiritually). The Gemara (Hullin 84a) goes even further in explaining this Torah verse and states “A person should not eat meat unless he has a special craving for it.” Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, the Chief Rabbi of Efrat, has written that “The dietary laws are intended to teach us compassion and lead us gently to vegetarianism.”[xxiii] The sources show that one need not eat meat. The three valid positions are that it is: 1. Permissible to eat meat, 2. Permissible not to eat meat, 3. Ideal not to eat meat.[xxiv]

Stranger today still, within a very anthropocentric worldview, some have also argued that it is ideal to eat meat since animals were merely created for human purpose. This seems to be a very narrow view, and flies in the face of the interpreters of the Torah’s values and the bediavad (un-ideal) evolution to finally allow meat consumption. When animals were created in the beginning of the book of Genesis, it is clear from the text and commentaries that they were not created for human consumption.

A very peculiar Orthodox culture has evolved in certain segments of the Jewish community that sees the consumption of meat almost as a marker of frumkeit, and that any religiously observant individual should feel obliged to engage in a hedonistic consumption of meat and that any truly religious celebration must have meat, especially on Jewish holidays. This desire has taken priority in many communities over religious virtues and the spirituality of the joyous occasion.

Simhat Yom Tov?

Some have claimed that even if one chooses to be a vegetarian during the week, it is not permissible to refrain from meat on Jewish festivals since we are obligated in simha (joy) and “ein simha ela basar veYayyin” (there is no joy without meat and wine).

To treat this approach as conclusive is incorrect. Halakha takes the notion of simha (joy) very seriously and does not enforce practices that individuals do not find joyous. Furthermore, for many posekim, the consumption of meat as a fulfillment of the mitzvah to be joyous on holidays existed only in a historical context. The Gemara (Pesahim 109a) reads: “R. Judah ben Beteira declared, ‘During the time that the Temple existed there was no ‘rejoicing’ other than with meat as it is said, ‘and you shall slaughter peace-offerings and you shall eat there; and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God.’” R. Judah ben Beteira goes on to conclude “but now that the temple does not exist there is no rejoicing other than wine.” Another Gemara (Pesahim 71a; Baba Batra 60b) explains that the obligation to be joyous on festivals was not fulfilled through the consumption of meat but through the wearing of clean clothes and drinking of wine. Medieval Jewish legal authorities held that there is no longer any obligation to consume meat on festivals.[xxv] Some Rishonim go even further to argue that eating meat was not even an obligation in the times when the temple stood! [xxvi] Based upon these sources, the Bet Yosef questions those who suggested that one must eat meat on festivals.[xxvii] The Magen Avraham[xxviii] explains explicitly that there is no obligation to eat meat on festivals since the temple was destroyed. [xxix] Although there are posekim who require the eating of meat on festivals, there ample basis to refrain if one will not get enjoyment and spiritual satisfaction.

It is now time that those committed to halakha and living an ethically conscious life stand and courageously articulate their vegetarian convictions. At the Shabbat table, one may ask: “How can you forbid something that the Ribbono Shel Olam permitted?” or “How can you cast aspersions on our ancestors?, or “How can you possibly experience oneg and simhah on Shabbat and Yom Tov without cholent and brisket?” Halakhic vegetarians can and should proudly quote the Torah sources without feeling any shame for their ethical convictions.

Conclusion

After fleeing from Poland during Nazi persecutions, Nobel laureate Isaac Bashevis Singer argued that animal rights were the purest form of social justice, since animals are the most vulnerable of beings. Our moral response to factory farming is a test of how we respond to the cries of the voiceless and powerless in our world.

According to Jewish tradition, humans were imbued with a level of dignity that is not granted to animals. However, elevating humans to a unique existence with special rights and obligations does not preclude the possibility for some level of rights and obligations to exist for animals nor does it call into question humans as the pinnacle of existence. In the twenty-first-century nation-state, we must consider seeing sentient beings as holders of rights imbued by divine laws and confirmed by human law. It has become apparent that the new age of mass production in factory farms immensely violates tsa’ar ba’alei hayyim (the Torah prohibition against inflicting pain upon animals). One may no longer plead ignorance—only indifference. In addition to the cruelty of how these animals are caged, fed, tortured, and slaughtered, new findings have shown the detrimental effect that meat consumption has upon human health. Additionally, in a major recession where our charity is needed more than ever and as meat prices increase, this luxury of meat products may need to be the first thing to go from the shelves of a truly pious home. However, this is not an ascetic ideal. Alternative meat options are now more similar in taste to meat, accessible, and affordable than ever. In an age where vegetarianism must be viewed as a halakhic and Jewish ethical ideal, it must be considered as part of our pursuits in striving for truth, justice, peace, and holiness.  

The Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals, founded in 2007, offers a vision of Orthodox Judaism that is intellectually sound, spiritually compelling, and emotionally satisfying. Based on an unwavering commitment to the Torah tradition and to the Jewish people, it fosters an appreciation of legitimate diversity within Orthodoxy. It encourages responsible discussion of issues in Jewish law, philosophy, religious world-view, and communal policy. It sees Judaism as a world religion with a profound message for Jews, and for non-Jews as well. It seeks to apply the ancient wisdom of Judaism to the challenges of contemporary society.

Do you sense that Orthodox Jewish life is

***narrowing its intellectual horizons?

***adopting ever more extreme halakhic positions?

***encouraging undue conformity in dress, behavior and thought?

***fostering an authoritarian system that restricts creative and independent thinking?

***growing more insulated from non-Orthodox Jews and from society in general?

Do you think that Orthodox Jewish life should be

***intellectually alive, creative, inclusive?

***open to responsible discussion and diverse opinions?

***active in the general Jewish community, and in society as a whole?

***engaged in serious and sophisticated Jewish education for children and adults?

***committed to addressing the halakhic and philosophic problems of our times, drawing on the wisdom and experience of diverse Jewish communities throughout history?

If you agree that Orthodoxy can and should create a better intellectual and spiritual climate, the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals is here for you. The Institute works for an intellectually vibrant, compassionate and inclusive Orthodoxy. Together we can reclaim the grand religious world-view of Torah Judaism at its best.

***We have an active and informative website, jewishideas.org, reaching many thousands of readers throughout the world

***Our National Scholar has been giving classes, lectures and programs in many communities and on college campuses

***We have published 28 issues of our journal, Conversations, read by many thousands

***We have a University Network, through which we provide publications and guidance to students free of charge, and with Campus Fellows on campuses throughout North America

***Our weekly Angel for Shabbat column reaches thousands of readers worldwide

***We have distributed thousands of publications promoting a sensible and diverse Orthodoxy; our youtube channel: youtube.com/jewishideasorg has had over 50,000 visits

***We have launched programming and publication projects in Israel together with like-minded groups

***We are a vital resource for thousands of people seeking guidance on questions of halakha, religious worldview, communal policies, conversion to Judaism… and so much more!!!

As the Institute celebrates its 10^th anniversary, your support and partnership will enable the Institute to maintain and expand its work in the years ahead. We have come a long way in our first decade…but there is a long road still ahead. Thank you for being part of the Institute’s growing community of members, friends and supporters.

For the first time, American Psychoanalytic Association’s annual conference dedicated a panel to discussing the intersection of Orthodoxy and LGBT identity from a clinical standpoint. The panel addressed how mental health providers could approach counseling someone struggling with Orthodox Judaism and LGBT identity.

Entitled Symposium: Psychoanalytic Perspectives on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Jewish Identity, the panel opened with Dr. Alan Slomowitz noting that he and his colleagues are “concerned with theory and praxis.” He noted that as mental health professionals, “who each of us is in this room is, affects us in acknowledged and unacknowledged ways and [affects] how we respond to and work with our patients.”

To explain the societal elements at play in the Orthodox community, he quoted Rabbi Ari Segal, head of Shalhevet High School in Los Angeles who recently wrote [http://www.shalhevetboilingpoint.com/opinion/2016/09/14/the-biggest-challenge-to-emunah-of-our-time/] “the reconciliation of the Torah’s discussion of homosexuality represents the single most formidable religious challenge for our young people today.” He went on to explain to the audience, many of whom did not have in depth knowledge of Orthodoxy, that “Orthodox Judaism has many different strands.”

When Dr. Alison Feit took the microphone, she opened by saying “we stand and we speak about things in the world that have meaning…” We speak, she explained, so we can gain “if not the ability to fix a problem...to at least name it and make it visible with all its contours.” That is what she and Dr. Slomowitz have done in their clinical work.

Much of both of their talks were based on findings and observations laid out in their paper, “Does God Write Referrals? Orthodox Judaism and Homosexuality.”

Questions abound after Feit, Slomowitz, and the other two panelists, Rabbi Mark Dratch, and Dr. Mark Blechner finished presenting. Some people asked about their specific clients and patients, and others asked for general resources, in which case they were referred to the Jewish Queer Youth (JQY) and Eshel websites, which are the only two LGBT organizations serving the Orthodox community.

“It would be safe to say that this was the first session on the combination of Orthodoxy and LGBT issues,” explained Wylie Tene, the APA’s Director of Public Affairs, who was present at the symposium.

The panel was inspired by a similar event [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/24/orthodox-jews-gay-rights-conversion-therapy-conference hosted at Columbia University two years ago, in which the four of them presented the topic from a similar vantage point. That conference coincided with the height of the controversy around gay conversion therapy and JONAH [http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/196116/judge-orders-jonah-a-jewish-gay-conversion-therapy-group-to-shut-down] [http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/191819/new-jersey-jury-jonahs-gay-conversion-therapies-are-fraudulent] , a Jewish conversion therapy organization that has since been closed due to court order.

Orthodox Judaism has traditionally taken a strong stance against homosexuality, due to the biblical verse in Leviticus 18:22, which outlines the prohibition. The right wing rabbinic position is outlined in a document known as the Torah Declaration. Their stance denies the possibility of a gay identity altogether. It also states that “same-sex attraction can be modified and healed,” which is why these rabbinic figures still refer LGBT community members to conversion therapists-- even after it was proven to be fraudulent by a court of law in 2015. These rabbis – both ultra-Orthodox and modern Orthodox – will still not engage in any form of dialogue about the matter.

But in the last five years, and even more so in the last two years, many Orthodox rabbis have recognized the need for empathy and have started what will be a long and difficult conversation for them to figure out how to reconcile halakha and the reality on the ground.    The discourse no longer surrounds the question of is it possible to be gay and Orthodox, because facts on the ground-- the existence of Orthodox gay couples-- indicate that it is possible.

One such rabbi is Mark Dratch, the director of the Rabbinical Council of America, a leading body of Orthodox rabbis in the country, which boasts nearly 1,000 members.

Dratch, who spoke on the APA panel, had a marked shift in tone compared to how he spoke about the issue two years ago at Columbia University. Whereas in 2015 he was very up front and quotes a Hebrew verse meaning “I know that I don’t know,” and asking LGBT members of the audience to educate him, now he spoke with authority that there needs to be a communal push to be more inclusive. “Any rabbi that's worth his salt won't just deal with matters based on traditional Jewish text, although that is that starting point and that is the framework in which he is going to operate, but is going to by necessity understand the complexities and the details of the larger world,” he said, saying this needs to be taken account into LGBTQ issues as well. “A rabbi dealing with LGBTQ issues cannot operate in a vacuum.” This is a radical shift it dialogue, one of which has not been seen by a major Orthodox rabbi before.   

One of the most contentious religious issues to roil Israeli society ever since the creation of the State has been the role of women in national service in general and in the military in particular. Israel was one of the first states to draft women into the military; the government gave religious young women the option of entering national service.  Haredi authorities considered even national service as a most serious violation of halacha, indeed an outright sin. R. Avraham Yeshaya Karelitz, the undisputed leader Israel’s Ashkenazi Haredi community when the state was proclaimed (he is generally known by the title of his best known writings as Chazon Ish), was unequivocal in his opposition. He asserted that national service was the virtual equivalent of adultery, idolatry and murder, three sins which Jews are mandated to resist even at the cost of their lives (yehareg ve’al ya’avor).[1] Needless to say, military service was totally out of the question as well. Indeed, R. Zvi Pesach Frank, the head of Haredi Beit Din and Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem for 36 years until his passing in 1961, explicitly stated that the drafting of women into the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) was a gzerat shmad, a decree compelling Jews to abandon their faith for another.[2]  Such hyperbolic statements reflect the depth of opposition that the Haredi leadership[3]evinced toward the policy of drafting women into the military.

The starting point for R. Karelitz’ opposition, and that of his many colleagues and followers, was the Biblical verse that forbids a woman to wear a man’s implements: “A woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man.”[4] Onkelos, whose translation of the Torah from Hebrew to Aramaic was one of the few that were accepted by the rabbis of the Talmud, interpreted the passage to read, “a woman should not wear men’s armaments.” Similarly, the Talmudic sage R. Eliezer b. Yaakov asked, “How do we know that a woman should not go to war bearing arms? Scripture says, 'A woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man.'[5]

Of course, in Onkelos’ time, and that of R. Eliezer b. Yaakov, women did not join military forces or go to war.  As the Talmud pointed out, “it is the practice of man to wage war, not of woman to do so.”[6] Or again as R. Ile'a replied in the name of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon: “Scripture stated, ‘And replenish the earth, and subdue it;’  it is the nature of a man to conquer but it is not the nature of a woman to conquer.[7]”

Commentators in the more recent past expressed a similar viewpoint. Writing in the late nineteenth century, R. Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin, known by his acronym Netziv) focused on the inherent differences between the sexes:

Men and women are different both by nature and by custom [i.e. nurture]. It is impossible to change one’s nature in an instant, except through habit, which essentially creates a second nature. And the verse warned against… changing nature by virtue of having a woman bear a man’s equipment, that is, a woman by nature would be unable to carry a sword unless she trained herself to do so over time, and this, in turn would be preparation for her to circulate among men.[8]

R. Berlin did not even bother to note the terrible consequences that naturally would follow: he clearly thought they were self-evident.

The early twentieth century, R. Baruch Halevi Epstein observed in his popular commentary Torah Temimah, “War and conquest are carried out by means of armaments, and since women do not engage in such matters, these implements are meant solely for men.” His observation remained valid until well into the past century. Indeed, it precisely because this view was universally held by Jews and non-Jews alike that the Greek myth of the Amazons, and centuries later, the saga of Joan of Arc, never ceased to capture the popular imagination.

The fact that non-Jews did not conscript women into their armies was cited by R. Eliezer Waldenberg asserted in a lengthy essay in his volume entitled “The Laws of the State” (Hilchot Medina). As he put it after arguing the case from Biblical references,

 We learn from all of the foregoing that it is both a Biblical injunction and a matter of societal      practice conducted and accepted from the beginning of time by the kings of the Nations that women are exempted from the obligation to participate in warfare, whatever its purpose, and is not even obliged to guard installations since her honor is purely focused on the management and sustenance of her household, and it is in this she prides herself.[9]

R. Waldenberg wrote these words in the early 1950s, when the State of Israel was virtually alone in drafting women into the military. He was basing himself on the writings of previous Torah leaders, for whom not only was a woman bearing arms a practice that the “nations” frowned upon, but for whom the notion of a Jewish military was as remote as that of a Jewish state. The laws relating to military matters were laws for Messiah’s times; Maimonides, alone among the greatest of the codifiers, chose to include these laws in his classic compendium, Yad Hahazaka.

Women in Contemporary Armed Forces

Today’s situation is truly different. The State of Israel is a reality that was unimaginable to halachists writing before the 1940s, and indeed, virtually until May 1948. As for women in the military, they now not only serve in the armed forces of most countries, but also serve in combat. The United States enables women to serve in land, air, sea and undersea combat units; since Jewish women, and some number of Orthodox Jewish women, are also serving in the American armed forces, they too are in a position to serve in combat units, indeed they may well be assigned to them.

 Women also have risen to achieve the highest ranks within the US armed forces.  General Lori Robinson, United States Air Force, currently serves as Commander of the Northern Command. Her four-star rank is the highest than can be achieved in peacetime. Admiral Michelle Howard, United States Navy, also a four-star, is commander of US Naval Forces Europe and Africa, and previously served as the four-star Vice Chief of Naval Operations.  The first American female four-star general was Ann Dunwoody, who in 2008 was named commander of the Army Materiel Command, the unit that equips, outfits, and arms U.S. soldiers. While the Material Command is a supporting command, both General Robinson and Admiral Howard are commanding combat forces.  No American Jewish woman has as yet risen to such lofty heights, but Jewish women are serving in the chain of command; indeed, all Jewish graduates of the military academies, like their non-Jewish counterparts, immediately join the active forces as junior officers.

America is certainly not the only military power whose senior commanding officers are females, nor whose women serve in combat roles. Valerie Andre was France’s first three star general; prior to her appointment in 1981, she had served as a combat search and rescue helicopter pilot.  Admiral Anne Cullere became France’s first three-star admiral in 2015; she previously had commanded French maritime forces in the Pacific . Other states that currently have women serving in combat roles include Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden. Clearly, the argument that “societal practice conducted and accepted from the beginning of time by the kings of the Nations that women are exempted from the obligation to participate in warfare,” no longer is valid.

The Dangers of Fraternization

There is, of course, a second reason why the rabbis forbade, and Haredi rabbis continue to forbid, women to serve in the military: their long-standing concern regarding the mixing of the sexes.  In this view, women have but one mission in life, to procreate, and they should not engage in activities that are certain to lead them to illicit sexual behavior. Thus, the twelfth century Spanish Biblical commentator Abraham ibn Ezra asserted that “a woman was only created to procreate and if she were to join men in war she would alight on the path of adultery.”[10] The thirteenth century scholar R. Hezekiah b. Manoah, better known as Hizkuni proffered a similar opinion in almost identical language:  a woman should never bear arms because “doing so is disgraceful and licentious. For that reason,” he continued, “Yael [the heroine of the Book of Judges] used neither sword nor spear but a sledgehammer and stake to crush [the Midianite general] Sisera’s brain …a woman was created only to procreate and if she goes off to war she will accustom herself to harlotry.”[11]  R. Bahya b. Asher, better known as Rabbeinu Behaye (1255-1340), likewise interpreted the passage forbidding a woman to wear a man’s equipment as an explicit ban on a woman going to war “which will be a cause of harlotry.”[12]

Basing himself of the writings of Ibn Ezra, as well as on Hizkuni, R. Waldenberg extended the prohibition on a woman bearing arms to service in the military even if she did not bear arms at all.  He derived this view from the fact that the medievalists were concerned about a woman being susceptible to harlotry, which could result either from her own inclination, or through seduction by her male counterparts. R. Waldenberg therefore concluded that “the prohibition promulgated by the geniuses and giants of Torah that it drafting women in a military framework of any kind violates a major prohibition, and any law that will be passed by those…who do not heed the Torah will not be binding on the Jewish nation that is bound by its belief, tradition and lifestyle by the Torah.”[13]

R. Zvi Pesach Frank likewise opposed women’s service in the Israeli military on the grounds that it fostered licentiousness. He made it clear that interpreting Talmudic rulings one way or the other was irrelevant because, as he put it,

we see the bitter consequences of drafting girls, for the majority of them were corrupted by their service in the military and the majority of parents [of these girls] ended up in tears seeing their daughters absorbed by apostasy…what is the point of discussing a girl’s entering the military when the matter is clear that the outcome will be her rejection of any element of Judaism and she will be as impure as one guilty of illicit relations.[14]

 R. Ovadia Yosef, whose support for the State of Israel was beyond doubt,[15] nevertheless opposed women’s service in the Israel Defense Forces. For example, in the course of discussing whether one could testify in court under oath that a girl was religious and therefore exempt from military service, he observed that doing so “is certainly a great and good deed (mitzva rabba) and one should not be too self-righteous so as not to testify.”[16] Another leading Sephardi rabbi, R. Haim David Halevy, the former Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv and like R. Yosef, a moderate on many halachic issues, unequivocally opposed the notion of women bearing arms in a military context, though he permitted them both to train and bear arms for domestic self-defense purposes.[17]

Most recently, Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, son of R. Ovadia, has reasserted his, and the Chief Rabbinate’s, opposition to women serving in combat roles, or indeed any military role, or even undertaking national service. As he has stated, “it is the ruling of all the great rabbis of the generations, including Israel’s chief rabbis, the position of the Chief Rabbinate—it has always been their position that girls must not enlist in the army…there are female pilots, all sorts of stuff. Is that the way of the Torah?! That’s not the way of the Torah.” Like rabbis of previous generations, he too is deeply concerned about female modesty, stating that “women who went [to war]…didn’t wear uniforms and pants and the likes, of course not. They went in modesty, in purity.”[18]

Is Milhemet Mitzvah the Great Exception?

Despite the prohibition on a woman bearing arms, the rabbis appear to have identified one exception to the principle that a woman should not engage in warfare. This was the case of a milhmet mitzvah, a mandated war. In such a case, the Mishna states: “In obligatory wars all go forth, even a bridegroom from his chamber and a bride from her canopy.[19]” Maimonides asserted that defending Israel from an adversary (ezrat Yisrael miyad tzar) qualified as a mandatory war,[20] and therefore, women were called upon to participate in its operations.[21] R. Moshe di Trani (known as Mabi”t), whose published a volume that listed the sources and/or rationales for Maimonides’ rulings, quoted his statement verbatim, with no additional comment, clearly indicating that he supported Maimonides’ position.[22]

Maimonides did not provide sources for his rulings, but he appears to have derived his position from a discussion in the Talmud Yerushalmi explaining the circumstances under which the Mishna asserted that all were called into battle. The Yerushalmi differentiated between a defensive war that involved repelling an attack on the Jewish homeland, and a preemptive operation to prevent such an attack. It was in the case of the former type of conflict that Maimonides issued his ruling, as his employment of the phrase ezrat Yisrael min hatzar haba eleihem (defending Israel from an enemy that was attacking them) clearly attests.[23]

R. David ibn Zimra, the seventeenth century leader of Egyptian Jewry known by his acronym RadVaZ, and one of the foremost decisors of his or any era, explained that Maimonides was referring to what the military in our times terms “service support.” As he put it,” the provision of water and food for their husbands,” with the term “husbands” referring generically to menfolk. Importantly, he cited as the basis for his assertion not a Biblical or Talmudic passage but rather the practice of his time among non-Jewish armies.  He noted: “this is the custom today among the Arabs.”[24]

While at first glance it would appear that RadVaz was writing about women supporting their husbands and no one else, later rabbis, ranging from the nineteenth century Talmudic commentator, R. Shmuel Shtrashun to R. Shmuel Vozner, revered in the Haredi world as one of its leading contemporary decisors, interpreted his statement to mean that women could support all soldiers, not just their husbands.[25]

R. Israel Lifschitz (1782-1860) went further than RadVaz by expanding the range of support permissible to females. Acknowledging that “a woman is not a warrior” he then stated “she can emerge [i.e. even from her wedding canopy] to provide food and fix roads.”[26] And he added that she could do so in both h a mandatory war against Amalek and one against the Seven Nations.   It is noteworthy that neither he, nor RadVaz stated that women could not provide support under fire. In other words, a woman’s role in combat service support could extend what in modern terms would be combat engineering, a task that in American forces is carried out both by a variety of Army battalions as well as by Navy Seabees (Construction Brigades) and the Air Force’s RED HORSE (Rapid Engineer Deployable Heavy Operational Squadron Engineer) squadrons.

Whether Israel’s wars are indeed mandatory has been the subject of controversy since the founding of the State, and begin with varying interpretation of the aggadic assertion that prior to the exile Jewish people swore not to attempt to retake the land of Israel by force of arms and not to rebel against the nations of the world.[27] The logic behind this aggada was unimpeachable at the time. The first vow derived from the reality that the Roman Emperor Hadrian had utterly crushed the Bar Kochba rebellion of 132-135 CE which had constituted the second armed uprising against Rome in less than a century. While the earlier rebellion in 70 CE had resulted in the destruction of the Temple, the Bar Kochba revolt resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of Jewish lives and the utter destruction of Jerusalem. The failed uprising of the North African Jewish Diaspora against Rome (115-17) during the reign of Trajan, Hadrian’s predecessor, clearly prompted the second vow. The issue that confronted rabbinic leaders with the emergence of the Zionist movement and the prospective creation of a Jewish state was whether the vows still applied under radically different international political circumstances.

Those rabbis who supported the State’s creation and the War of Independence that followed immediately thereafter offered arguments along the lines of those that  the logic that R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin offered in an article that appeared many years later. R. Zevin marshalled several arguments to support his assertion that the two oaths no longer were in force and indeed, may never have been. He pointed out that according to some authorities, the oaths actually were administered to unborn souls to whom they would apply at some future time. R. Zevin noted that such oaths had no halachic validity. Moreover, even if the oaths actually applied in a real sense, the Balfour Declaration, and the vote of the United Nations indicated that the nations of the world accepted the State’s creation and therefore no rebellion was involved. Finally, since the Talmud also records that the nations vowed not to oppress the Jews excessively, an oath which the Holocaust clearly violated, the oaths imposed on Israel no longer were binding.[28]

In addition to the aforementioned arguments, there was the reality that the War of Independence was a defensive war, that fit neatly into Maimonides’ category of ezrat Yisrael miyad tzar as indeed were those of 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973, as well as the 2006 war against Hezbollah and the various incursions into Gaza in response to rocket attacks on Israeli territory. All of these wars and operations have been what Richard Haass has called “wars of necessity” and therefore mandatory.[29] It is in this light that R. Nahum Rabinovitch has written, “In our current situation where enemies threaten us from every direction…there is no greater milhemet mitzvah, for it is the essence of rescuing Israel from an adversary.”[30]

On the other hand, Haredi rabbis who were ambivalent about the State because of its secular leadership, and even some more modern, but halachically conservative rabbis, have been far more circumspect about designating Israel’s wars as mandatory, while the most extreme of that group, notably R. Yoel Teitelbaum, the Satmar Rebbe, actually saw such wars as the work of the devil.[31]

Female Military Service in Israel’s Mandatory Wars

Even those rabbis who view Israel’s wars as mandatory do not agree among themselves regarding the role, if any, of women in the military.

As noted above, RadVaz accepted that women could support men in battle with food and other provisions. R. Yitzhak Yosef appears to have adopted that position in a very literal manner, when he has stated that the only tasks women could carry out in support of –but not as part of—the IDF, are cooking and laundering.[32]  There is, however, an alternative interpretation of RadVaz’ dictum.

Nowadays, the activities that RadVaz permitted are termed combat service support, which, in the United States is often shared between unarmed contractors and uniformed military who may be armed.[33] The range of combat service support activities has, not surprisingly, markedly expanded since the sixteenth century, when RadVaz articulated his views. It applies both at home and in the combat theater, and includes materiel and supply chain management, maintenance, transportation, health services, all of which are geared to enable air and ground forces to accomplish their missions in combat. Beyond these roles are the piloting of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which can take place literally thousands of miles from the combat theatre. While not strictly speaking combat support, much less service support, such operations involve a degree of safety that is at least equal to, if not greater, than in-theatre combat service support activities. Moreover, non-military agencies also fly what are popularly known as drones; is it simply a matter, then, of wearing a uniform? In any event, it is arguable that, according to RadVaz, at a minimum, women could serve as combat service support contractors, and perhaps even in military service support units, since they would probably only carry small arms for self-defense, which, as noted, R. Haim Yosef Halevy would permit.

The anonymous author of Sefer HaHinuch wrote that women were commanded to participate in military operations against the Seven Nations indigenous to the Land of Israel; these operations were mandated by the commandment to eliminate all vestiges of these Nations.[34] On the other hand, when addressing h the commandment to destroy Amalek—another archetype of a mandatory war— he seemed to discount the Mishnaic statement regarding the role of women in such a conflict, writing that it was solely the province of males, “for it is for them to prosecute a war and revenge against the enemy, and not for women.”[35]

The nineteenth-century commentator R. Yosef Babad, author of Minhat Hinuch, the authoritative commentary on the thirteenth century Sefer Hahinuch noted that whereas the Hinuch limited to men the conduct of warfare against Amalek, he included women in another milhemet mitzva, namely the war against the Seven Nations.[36] R. Babad therefore concluded that the Hinuch’s limitation in the case of Amalek was not a prohibition per se, but simply a description of usual practice.[37]

R. Yehuda Hertz Henkin goes beyond R. Halevy in permitting women to bear arms, as in his opinion arms are no longer unique to men. At a minimum, they can do so bediavad (that is, having borne arms, they can continue to do so—and once they have been drafted into the army they are certainly in a bediavad circumstance, as they must follow orders. Though he accepts the reality of women serving in the IDF, he prefers that they not do so and he certainly sees no obligation that they do so. He asserts that the Maimonidean formulation of ezrat Yisrael miyad tzor does not ipso facto mean going to war; one can “help Israel in the face of an enemy” in ways other than by conducting military operations, and, by extension, one need not serve in the military in order to “help Israel.”[38]

R. Yehuda Shaviv does not challenge the generally held notion that ezrat Yisrael miyad tzor is subsumed under the category of milhement mitzva. He also accepts that women can have some roles in the military; indeed, he does not seem to insist that they only do so bediavad. Like RadVaz, he emphasizes logistics support. But he conditions his acquiescence on women being separated from men in the course of their duties.[39] In practical terms, this would mean that women would serve in units segregated by sex, such as the Women’s Army Corps and the Navy’s Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service, or Waves that the United States organized during World War II. Such units no longer exist in fully modern militaries. In his view, therefore, women’s service in integrated units cannot be reconciled with the religious prohibitions on relations between the sexes. Therefore, it is difficult to see how R. Shaviv would permit women to perform even medical support, though in peacetime Orthodox women do so alongside men on a daily basis in Israel’s hospitals.

Contrary to R. Yitzhak Yosef’s assertion, noted above, that the Chief Rabbinate opposed any form of women’s military service, Rabbis Isaac Herzog and Isaac Nissim both permitted women to serve in the religious units of the Nahal brigade, the unique combat unit that David Ben Gurion created in 1948 that combined part-time military service with agricultural activities to support newly founded kibbutzim.[40] R. Isser Unterman went even further, permitting women to serve in regular units, as long as they kept their religious traditions.[41]

R. Shlomo Goren likewise took a fully permissive position on this issue. In his volume of responsa on military matters published while Chief Rabbi of the Israel Defense Forces, R. Goren devoted an entire section to the female soldier’s religious obligations on Shabbat.[42] For example, he addressed the question of a female soldier lighting candles for Shabbat. When questions such as this one were posed to him, he could easily have replied that a woman should seek to leave the military as soon as possible. Instead, he dealt with the questions at hand; in the case of Shabbat candles he replied that a woman could light them while serving, and that either a man or a woman could do so on behalf of entire units if they were assembled in dining facilities.[43]

Finally, R. Shemariah Menashe Adler devoted an entire volume of his multi-volume work Mar’eh Cohen to make the case that female service in the military was not optional but rather mandatory, and that arguments about nature of the war in question were beside the point. As Marc Shapiro has written:

[R. Adler’s] fundamental point is…If the wars in Israel are to be considered milhemet reshut then there is no difference between men and women; both are forbidden to join the army. On the other hand, if the wars are in the category of milhemet mitzvah, all are obligated to fight. This is a commandment which cannot be annulled simply because of the fear of immodest behavior.”[44]

On the other hand, there are those who would make the case that there is no role for a woman in the military even in a mandatory war. Drawing upon the language of the Sefer HaHinuch in the context of the war with Amalek R. Waldenberg asserted that not only were women not required to participate in a milhemet mitzva, they were absolutely forbidden to do so. He based his opinion not on the prohibition on women carrying arms but, in alignment with R. Frank, to the need to “distance our holy nation from promiscuity.”[45]

R. Yehuda Gershuni also worried about licentiousness, but not on the part of the woman. Reflecting a view that has long been widespread in the Haredi community, he argued that a woman herself would not give in to temptation, or even be tempted. Instead, by circulating among her male counterparts, she would instill a spirit of licentiousness in them. Therefore, better than a woman not serve in the military than that she cause others to sin.[46] As noted above, however, it is questionable whether speculations about human nature that have never been demonstrated scientifically can override an obligation imposed by the Torah.

 R. Shlomo Min Hahar concluded that women could not serve in any military capacity, including combat service support. He offered two justifications for his position. Expanding the argument that others had made before him, he focused on licentiousness during combat, since the same impulses that led a man to kill would also lead to lust.[47] He also offered a second reason: that the Biblical injunction against permitting the fearful to engage in combat would eliminate any females from doing so. Since the majority of women would be fearful, one could ignore the minority who are not.[48] The facts do not support this latter case however: American females have been wounded and killed in battle, yet they continue to volunteer for military service. Since females can avoid military service in the IDF, should they choose to do so, those who serve are essentially volunteers. And there is absolutely no evidence that the majority of women who volunteer fear entering a combat zone, or engaging in combat operations.

Because he was writing in 1983, before the spread of UAVs to many states (and even non-state actors such as Hezbollah), R. Min Hahar did not address the question of a woman. But it would appear that he also would not permit women operating on a base far from the combat zone. Although his argument about females fearing to engage in battle would not be relevant in this case, presumably, he would still be concerned about improper fraternization on base.

R. Avigdor Nebenzahl, rabbi of the Jewish Quarter in the Old City, also rejected the idea of any form of military service for women, even in the context of a “war of necessity.” In his view, women never participated in a milhemet mitzva.[49] Therefore the type of service is irrelevant. He too did not address the issue of “piloting” drones, but his unequivocal opposition to any role for women in the military would seem to indicate that he would make no distinction between service in-theater or out of it.

For those who would accept that a woman can both bear arms and serve in the military, at least in the context of fighting in a defensive or mandatory war—which R. Rabinovitch and others would characterize as a sad but permanent and ongoing condition for the State of Israel for the foreseeable future—there arises the question of whether a woman could command other troops, specifically male troops. Avihud Shvartz has posited that women could only command other women. For him, the issue of fraternization of the sexes is the paramount concern when considering the role of women in the military.[50]

It is arguable, however, that if the basis for determining the role of women in the military is that of what other nations do, per RadVaz, a case could be made that women could indeed assume command of male troops, for, as noted, in many countries today, women not only serve, but are senior military commanders. Certainly, if one is prepared to accept that women can serve in a combat service support role, functioning in a manner that hardly differs, if it differs at all, from that of civilian contractors, it is difficult to see how their command of men in military units would be any different from their assuming management positions in a contractors performing an identical mission.

The Evolving Nature of both Military Operations and the Treatment of Women in the Military

As in many cases where contemporary developments pose particular conundrums for halachot that were promulgated in different times and under different circumstances, decisors and rabbinic legislators are far from in agreement. In the meantime, both the nature of military operations continues to evolve, and with it the role of humans in those operations. The interface between man and machine has yet to be fully consummated: the Department of Defense has only recently launched an initiative that seeks to exploit and expand upon the nature of that interface. The role of the female soldier, sailor and airman, already increasingly integrated into her military unit and service, will also continue to evolve alongside the changing nature of warfare. Indeed, the United States has taken major steps to ensure that “fraternization”—which initially had prompted the enraged outbursts from Hazon Ish and others, is also being reduced, and, when it has taken place, is being dealt with severely under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Moreover, no officer is exempt from punishment for violating the code, no matter how high his or her rank.

There is no denying that fraternization was a major issue that the IDF chose to ignore for decades. The IDF has in recent years taken a much harder line in this matter as well. In part its stance is due to anger among the female troops that the IDF was not responsive to their own concerns about being violated by men. Perhaps, too, the increased presence of Haredi men in the IDF, as well as the growing number of Orthodox women serving in the Israeli military, has been a factor as well. In any event, as in the United States, fraternization is no longer as common or as widespread in the IDF as it once was.

America’s wars are, of course, fundamentally different from those of Israel, since the latter, as a Jewish State, is ideally meant to function according to halacha. Still, as R. Herschel Shachter has written, other nations “are only justified in waging wars that are parallel in nature to what would be considered milchemet mitzvah for the Jewish nation. It appears that milchemet mitzvah refers not only to wars of self-defense, but also to wars in defense of one’s country.”[51] Therefore, while it is clearly not the case that wars in which America engages are milhemet mitzvah, it is also arguable that since American military operations are designed to protect its citizens, including its Jewish citizens, it may be possible to stretch the definition of ezrat Yisrael miyad tzor to include such operations as well. After all, many American Jewish congregations, including modern Orthodox ones, pray for the welfare of America’s troops precisely because they are fighting to protect all Americans, among them Jewish Americans. This argument has even more force given the fact that the threats against which America is fighting today are terrorists and other non-state actors who target not only Americans in general, but Jews in particular, and, for that , matter the State of Israel as well.

It is doubtful that the ongoing changes in both the means by which war is fought, and the treatment of women in the military, will have the slightest effect on many Haredi decisors. Their opinions regarding the intermingling of the sexes has hardened in recent years; and neither the evolution of combat operations, nor any regulations adopted either by non-Jewish militaries, or the IDF, will convince them to moderate their views. On the other hand, these changes may further moderate the views of those decisors who have chosen to address in constructive manner the issues of female membership in the military; the military occupational specialties (MOS) they might assume; and the commands to which they could ascend, whether in Israel, the United States, or other freedom-loving democracies.

To our members and friends,

We are in the middle of a very exciting semester of classes with the Institute. Here is a brief schedule of upcoming classes and events:

On Shabbat March 10-11, I will be the scholar-in-residence at the Edmond J. Safra Synagogue in Manhattan (11 East 63^rd Street, between Fifth and Madison Avenue). Free and open to the public.

On Shabbat March 31-April 1, I will be the scholar-in-residence at Congregation Emek Beracha, in Palo Alto, California (4102 El Camino Real). Free and open to the public.

On three Mondays, March 20, 27, and April 3 (1:00pm-2:15pm), I will be teaching a three-part series on the Haggadah at Lamdeinu Teaneck (950 Queen Anne Road, at Congregation Beth Aaron). For registration information, go to http://www.lamdeinu.org/.

My weekly course in Navigating Nach: A Survey of the Prophets, continues with sessions on Esther, Lamentations, and Kohelet on March 8, 15, 22. Wednesdays from 7:00-8:00pm, at Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun, 125 East 85^th Street (between Park and Lexington Avenue).

Previous lectures from this series are on our website, jewishideas.org, at Online Learning.

The course is taught at a high scholarly level but is accessible to people of all levels of Jewish learning. Newcomers always welcome. Free and open to the public.
 

Conversations 27: Increasing Peace Through Balanced Torah Study

It is gratifying to have published a collection of essays discussing some of the underlying ideology we promote through our work at the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals. We have been distributing this special issue of Conversations, free of charge, to communities and schools where I teach. We also had a book reception at Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun in Manhattan on February 15 to celebrate its publication.

Thank you to the sponsors of this volume: S. Daniel Abraham, Joshua Angel, the Bengualid Family Foundation, Marco Dilaurenti, the Levy Family Foundation, Alan and Kathleen Shamoon, Ronald and Adele Tauber, and the Sephardic Publication Foundation. Their generous support enables our Institute to spread its vision to people and communities across America and beyond.

Radio Broadcast on my new commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

Rabbi Harlan Wechler hosted me on his radio show, “Rabbi Wechsler Teaches,” on SiriusXM. We discussed my new commentary, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi: Prophecy in an Age of Uncertainty (Maggid Press).

You can listen to the broadcast on SiriusXM channel 109 Sunday, March 5, 8:00 pm (or at 4:00 am) Eastern Standard Time. Starting Sunday night, it will be available on demand on the SiriusXM app and wel player at siriusxm.com/player.

Citi Field Lecture with the Orthodox Union now online:

On January 15, I presented at the “Torah in the City” program at Citi Field hosted by the Orthodox Union. Nearly 1500 people were in attendance at this remarkable day of learning. They have posted videos of all the lectures at https://www.ou.org/convention/shiur/.

Teacher Training

I am teaching a ten-part series to the Honors Rabbinical Students at Yeshiva University, on Teaching Bible in Synagogues. The goal is to expose students to some of the challenges and opportunities in synagogue education, and to bring traditional Bible study to a contemporary, educated audience. 

I also have been working with the Bible faculty at the Community Hebrew Academy of Toronto (CHAT) on developing a new curriculum that integrates traditional and contemporary scholarship in a manner that is relevant and meaningful to High School students.

As always, I am grateful to our members and supporters who enable us to carry out our educational programs, teacher trainings, campus lectures, and publications to disseminate our Institute’s vision far and wide.

Rabbi Hayyim Angel

National Scholar

Let me begin by saying how the "ideal Modern Orthodox rabbi" [IMOR] is similar to all other Orthodox rabbis. He shares the belief in the divine nature of Torah, and the binding authority of halakha. He dedicates his life to studying and teaching Torah, and to bringing people to as high a level of religious knowledge and observance as possible.

Yet the IMOR differs in outlook and approach from other types of Orthodox rabbis. He is characterized by the following qualities:

INTELLECTUAL VIBRANCY: While being steeped in traditional rabbinic learning, the IMOR is aware of contributions from modern scholarship. He is interested in the intellectual currents of the time. He reads widely and seeks to learn in a spirit of intellectual curiosity. He brings the wisdom of Torah to the challenges of our time, and the insights of modernity to the study of Torah.

COMPASSION: The IMOR lives and teaches Judaism in the spirit of compassion and kindness. He is sympathetic and tries to be non-judgmental. His goal is to try to understand others, to work with them lovingly and respectfully, and help each person achieve his/her highest level of religiosity. He sees himself as a helper and a guide, not as an authoritarian autocrat. He follows the example of Aaron the High Priest, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving his fellow human beings and drawing them closer to Torah. His method will be characterized by kindness and thoughtfulness. He does not demand or seek honor; he does not demand or seek authority. Rather, he wins the hearts of others through his genuine piety and his deep concern for their welfare.

INCLUSIVENESS: The IMOR loves all Jews and wants his community to reflect the spirit of inclusiveness. All Jews are welcome, regardless of their level of religious knowledge and observance. All Jews have a spiritual home in the Modern Orthodox synagogue. The IMOR seeks to work together in harmony with all members of the community, and to bring people to respect each other and see each other as partners in the Jewish community. The IMOR strives to solve interpersonal conflicts in his community, and seeks to have his community function with shared ideals and shared commitment.

RESPECT: The IMOR must be characterized by genuine respect for those with whom he works. He must be attuned to their spiritual needs, their personal problems, their material concerns. He must show respect to his community--men and women, young and old, rich and poor, religiously observant and not so religiously observant. He wins respect not by demanding it, but by earning it through his genuine respect of others.

COMMITMENT TO ISRAEL: The IMOR sees the State of Israel not only as a political state, but as a reflection of God's providence over the Jewish People. Whereas some Orthodox groups grant no or little religious value to the State of Israel, the IMOR places great value on the religious significance of the Jewish State. He encourages his community to support Israel in every way, to visit, to have their children study there, and even to make aliyah.

PARTICIPATION IN THE GENERAL COMMUNITY: The IMOR participates actively and enthusiastically in the work of the general Jewish community, Orthodox and non-Orthodox, in the belief that we are all part of one people and share a common destiny. All Jews need to work together in a spirit of shared destiny, even if we differ with each other on religious matters. Likewise, the IMOR sees value in working together with non-Jewish individuals and groups on projects for the betterment of society.

The Ideal Modern Orthodox Rabbi believes that the Jewish people exists by virtue of our Torah and our religious traditions, and that Jews are happiest and most fulfilled when they conduct their lives according to our Torah. His duty is to bring the word of Torah to the Jewish public in such a manner that more and more Jews will want to study and observe Torah. "Rabbinic scholars increase peace in the world". That is the goal and the challenge of the IMOR.

In this age of worldwide insecurity, we generally find people rushing for safety by moving more to the far left or right both politically and religiously. The rise of radical Islam marked by violent behavior such as bombings and beheadings, the threat of a nuclear Iran and even the chaotic state surrounding the recent election of the United States’ President are but a few examples of the fear factor gripping the world today.     This fear generates in many, a form of regression and denial, of not seeing the reality of one’s behavior as well as the behavior of the group to which he/she belongs.  In psychological terms, this means that there is a tendency to return to earlier childlike behavior that belies the age and stages of adulthood. There is a tendency to wish to be protected by a parental type authority figure or a charismatic leader. There is even a willingness to assume a childlike role by accepting dependence upon this authority figure. Compliance and conformity become the norms of group behavior to ensure approval of the paternal authority figure. Similarity of outer dress is often adopted as a sign of identification with these group norms. In this way, the illusion of safety can be secured by sacrificing one’s autonomy and independence.

 Dr. Sigmund Freud, a century ago, characterized this mentality in his “Essay on Group Psychology” (1921-Standard Edition). He discusses how the group ego (identity), and the powerful need of the individual for the love and acceptance of its leadership, can bypass one’s superego (conscience) and lead to blind allegiance (shades of the coming Nazi era). This is translated to mean that anything that goes wrong is blamed on the outside, the “other”. In our era, Isis blames the infidels, Iran blames Israel, and religious enclaves blame decadent secular influences, such as the Internet, TV, Movies, Newspapers, etc.…. This leads to greater insularity and isolation since all that is good resides within the group and all that is bad is outside. There is no need to look inside the group to deal with internal issues or to assume any responsibility for making change in one’s own behavior.

This form of regression and denial has permeated the ethos of both the secular and religious worlds. There are sometimes boisterous civil rights demonstrations that are focused solely on blaming others (whites, police,  etc.) instead of looking internally to deal with the basic causes of their rage. Unfortunately, their leadership does not raise that same strong voice to help rebuild and improve their communities, such as forming patrols to combat gangs and drugs, providing classes for single mothers on how to raise their children, etc. So much organization time and effort is expended to fight the “outside”, but they neglect to look internally to their own failings. Repair cannot be done by the outside community for them.  It must come from their own leadership who know how best to help the community repair itself, and who have the responsibility to protectthem. The battle must be fought against the enemies within as well as without.

Another example of this regression where adult responsibility is avoided is the worldwide escalation of anti-Semitism. The word itself is a misnomer, because it avoids looking internally at its real causes. It is more accurately a negative derivative of sibling rivalry/envy, stemming from feelings of deprivation, helplessness, inferiority and greed. It is especially prevalent when economic conditions worsen. Jews (the eternal scapegoat) who have struggled to become financially successful are then blamed as the cause of their inadequacies. To overcome this disparity, to “even the playing field”, the easiest way is to demean and destroy the “other”.  Indeed, if they can shift the blame to the other, they do not have to be reminded of their disadvantaged state. They then begin to coalesce with other like-minded individuals and groups. Strengthened by the power of “group think” and by charismatic leadership, they now feel empowered because they have a virtuous mission. In this way, the need to look at their own failures is avoided, and they no longer have the responsibility to change. This is how regression is acted out via the age-old canard called anti-Semitism.

These developments in the secular world are not without their counterparts in Jewish religious life. Being identified with the Orthodox community, I will focus on this theme as it relates to this branch of Judaism. We are witnessing a similar form of psychological regression within the ranks of right-wing Orthodoxy, specifically among some ultra-Chasidic and Charedi groups. The “modus operandi” is basically the same as discussed above, that is to avoid dealing with internal issues (introspection) by denial and blaming others. In this case the “others” are a reference to the corroding influences emanating from the secular world such as the Internet, TV, Movies, Newspapers, etc.… To counter these influences, a number of regressive/repressive measures have been adopted. For example, discouraging the importance of secular education, women being seated in the back of public buses and being discouraged from driving cars, etc.… The aim of these and other such measures is to produce greater insularity by separation from the outer world. Unfortunately, they also serve as a screen to block action on a number of internal issues, such as the escalating divorce rate among young marrieds, increasing evidence of child sexual abuse, poverty, an educational system in need of revision, increasing unemployment, etc.   

From a psychological perspective, this regressive/repressive environment stymies individual autonomy, creativity and freedom of action. These are replaced by conformity and dependence, which then become the norms of group behavior. Conformity is readily recognized by their uniformity of dress. Whereas this dress code is condoned in the name of “tzniyus” (modesty), the need of the individual for some self-expression is suppressed in this controlled environment. The reassuring Yiddish words of the paternal Rebbe “Gott vet helfen” (God will help) does not always overcome the reality of this regressive mindset, nor reverse the mounting numbers of those opting out of these closed enclaves. The exact numbers of these defections are difficult to come by, because they are hidden from public view. But it is well-known that the numbers have risen to the point where those who leave these communities have organized themselves into groups. One such group numbering in the hundreds is “Footsteps”. The main purpose of this organization is to help former Chasidim integrate into the secular world. These are the more intrepid ones.  There are others who are afraid to break from their Chasidic roots, but rebel in a less conspicuous manner. They act out by resorting to the ancient art of rationalization. This consists of drawing a split between rituals and ethics. They are focused on observing those mitzvot between man and God e.g. Sabbath and holiday rituals, daily prayer, Torah study, etc.…, but are lax when it comes to ethics in conducting their personal business affairs. The Anglo Jewish press have carried many examples of the latter.

These types of deviations and defections can be averted by changing this mindset from insularity and regression to greater introspection and constructive action on the part of their leadership. In more “open” Chasidic/Charedi/Yeshivish groups this is indeed happening. An example of how this is being done is the popular TV series in Israel featuring a Chasidic family coping with a variety of issues within their setting. It has drawn not only religious viewers, but also many secular Israelis. In so doing there is developing a greater understanding and appreciation of their way of life within Israeli society. There are also Chasidic women who are producers and directors of movies that are acceptable within the parameters of Orthodox life. The Internet, Movies and TV are not, therefore, in and of themselves corrosive influences to be avoided or condemned.  On the contrary, they can play a very positive role in portraying the beauty and sanctity of Chasidic life. In these more open right-wing groups the emphasis is less upon control and more on promoting individual growth and autonomy. Control and autonomy are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Despite efforts at further segregating women discussed above, how refreshing it is to see these evidences of Chasidic women being in the forefront of conveying a positive image of their way of life to the rest of Jewry. It is to the credit of those Chasidic rebbes and Charedi leadership who do not feel threatened when women assume leadership positions within their ranks. These are cogent examples of how it is possible within right-wing Orthodoxy to look internally to find creative solutions instead of blaming others and withdrawing from society.

In the more liberal wing of Orthodoxy often referred to as “modern”, we see a less extreme regressive/denial tendency, but the mechanism of avoiding the responsibility of addressing festering internal issues still remains. The main difference between them is greater public exposure and lesser degree of rigidity rather than kind. Because this is a more open branch of Orthodoxy their issues have surfaced in the secular press, thanks largely to bloggers. They are related to the same issues as in right-wing Orthodoxy which are now being characterized as “sliding to the right”. For example, regarding the issue of the separation of sexes, there is a growing trend within modern Orthodoxy to extend this beyond its previous limits. The “Mechitzah” (Partition) which was used exclusively at religious services, has made its appearance on the dance floor at weddings. Today the separation of the sexes is extended to the wedding ceremony itself. Other examples of this slide to the right can be seen in a variety of non-religious functions, such as separate seating at lectures, Synagogue dinners, Shabbat Kiddush, etc. Even in synagogue programing and scheduling of classes, there is increasing attention to gender separation. This is occurring within “centrist” Orthodoxy which has always prided itself on being the more inclusive branch of traditional Judaism.

Contrast this development with the remarkable rise of women’s Torah scholarship as well as their professionalism in secular fields and you have what amounts to a “happy problem” growing within modern Orthodoxy. It centers around providing leadership opportunities within Orthodox religious life commensurate with women’s education and talent. Due in part to a failure of leadership of the organized Orthodox rabbinate, as well as to the vacuum created by the passing of Harav Joseph B. Soloveichik Z”I whose stature and strong voice are sorely missed, the voices of this potential leadership pool are now beginning to be heard. Women appear to be less afraid to speak out and are subtly beginning to fill this vacuum. They are also less embroiled in establishment political infighting which often retards needed action and decision making. In Israel, they have banded together and assumed positions of leadership unparalleled in Jewish history. Unlike in America it has become commonplace to see Orthodox women in the highest echelons of religious life serving as “Dayanot” and “Toanot” (judges and advocates) especially in legal matters affecting women, such as marriage and divorce, “Taharat Mishpachah” (ritual purity) etc.… In a landmark decision, the prominent Religious Zionist Ramban Synagogue in Jerusalem appointed a woman, Karmit Feintuch, to serve as Rabbanit alongside its respected Rabbi Benny Lau. While this may be the first female communal leader to be so named, the way was paved years ago, thanks to the outspoken voice and leadership of Rabbi Shlomo Riskin as well as others who had the courage to look inward to develop creative means to serve the religious leadership aspirations of talented knowledgeable women instead of the usual blaming of the Israeli religious establishment for its regressive stance. In America with the notable exception of Rabbi Avi Weiss, there has been relative silence from the organized modern Orthodox rabbinate on women’s issues. The women themselves have united to determine its course of action led first by the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance (JOFA) then by Edah, and others that have since sprung up. There are continuing signs that positive action can be taken such as Semichah (Ordination) of women in addition to more rabbinic positions opening up for Orthodox women.

Meeting the religious leadership needs of modern Orthodox women is however only one of several other internal issues. For example, it is well-known that the number of divorces has escalated among young modern Orthodox married couples (as was pointed out above among the right-wing Orthodox). To address this particular issue, it is first necessary to obtain figures on the extent of this problem. In turning to the local or national rabbinic bodies for statistics on this important issue, one is “stonewalled” with excuses, such as “we do not have the funds for this type of research”, etc.   In the secular world involving huge samples of the American population, annual reports on the divorce rate are readily available. Why is it so difficult in a comparatively small sample of American Jewry to obtain such basic information as the divorce rate? Other internal issues that need to be addressed are increased drug use among teenagers, child sexual abuse, concern for those opting out of the movement, as well as meeting the needs of many “Baalei Teshuvah” (penitents) entering the fold etc. In general, this whole issue of modern Orthodoxy’s “slide to the right” needs to be seriously confronted by our leadership. The “Chumros” (stringencies) being instituted by the right-wing are creating a kind of mindset that is pulling the more liberal-minded Orthodox in their direction. This needs to be resisted and requires a more vigorous response.

This critique in no way diminishes the positive action undertaken by the modern Orthodox rabbinate on certain issues that deserve commendation. For example, the recent action taken by the RCA (Rabbinical Council of America) to publicly endorse reporting directly to police, suspicion of child sexual abuse instead of to the local “Beth Din” (Rabbinic court). They also encourage the community not to be afraid of violating the Halachic ban on “Lashon Hara” (evil talk) often used to cover up the disclosure of embarrassing issues within its ranks. Nevertheless, resistance to publicly airing of internal issues remains.  This is most likely due to an attitude of complacency derived from the remarkable growth of its “Yeshivas” which has lulled our leadership into a “status quo” mode. This is however a mode of regression and denial of dealing with those issues that need to be addressed. It also creates a false sense of safety which inhibits introspection and much needed action.

In the related field of psychology, this stalemate stance is reminiscent of the patient in therapy who begins to explore the origins of his/her presenting difficulties. The initial exploration leads to the early impact of parental failures. Some patients hang on to the mistaken notion that “they” (the parents)” made me this way”. This type of patient will be arrested (stuck) at an early stage of development. If the patient with the help of the therapist can reach a point of recognizing that he/she has the inner resources and strength to move on to further develop themselves instead of continuing to blame the parents, then growth can proceed. The patient can then actualize his/herself as an independent individual capable of choosing one's own lifestyle. This is the road to maturity. Introspection has been the force for growth and change.

This therapeutic model is the antithesis of what we see today. People escape responsibility by giving up a sense of self by letting others determine their fate even on important moral and ethical matters. They are willing to find safety in groups that are arrested and do not sponsor personal growth. A benign leader helps develop the individual as well as the group, unlike the power-seeking charismatic leader who may not consider the best interests of the individual in order to provide an illusion of safety that people long for. The tell-tale conclusion is that one can determine by the amount of autonomy or lack thereof, whether the leader is acting in the best interests of the group or is using it as a method of keeping the group controlled.

This is the challenge in modern Orthodoxy today. We are seeing dramatic positive changes relating to women’s leadership that augur well for the future. These positive developments run counter to the regressive trend (slide to the right) we are seeing in Orthodoxy today. It remains to be seen whether further introspection will develop the type of leadership not only to deal with internal issues, but with its place in the broader troubling world we live in today.

Please join us to celebrate

the 10th Anniversary of

Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals

Monday May 8, 2017 Colbeh, New York City

Honored Speaker Senator Joe Lieberman

Jews are the most warmly regarded religious group in America, according to a new survey by the Pew Research Center.

The survey, which was released Wednesday, found that Americans generally express more positive feelings toward various religious groups than they did three years ago.

As they did the first time the survey was taken in 2014, Jews topped the survey, in which respondents rank various religious groups on a “feeling thermometer.” On the scale of 1 to 100, 1 is the coldest and 100 the warmest; 50 means they have neither positive nor negative feelings.

Shalom u’vracha to all of our friends and members.

This year has been record breaking for our University Network and Campus Fellowships Program. We are currently on 21 campuses from UCLA to New York University. We have have international fellows at McGill and University of Toronto in Canada, and for the first time in England at Oxford University.

We are off to a great start this semester on our campuses. Our fellows are leading groups tackling various issues in Modern Orthodoxy.

Here are some of our highlights. Many of our students are leading conversations around immigration and refugees. In Binghampton Marc Generowicz and Sara Pincus are leading a discussion about Activism for Aleppo. At Muhlenberg College, Emily Goldberg will be discussing Immigration and Refugees. Other fellows are also making Orthodox Judaism relevant by examining pressing issues through a Torah lense. Samuel Hamermesh at Johns Hopkins, will be looking at LGBT issues. In January, Nicole Mashian and Daniel Levine, at UCLA, looked at what it means to have privilege as a Jewish person. Ari Barbalat, of the University of Toronto, will be doing an event called, “Where is God in Acts of Genocide?”

New York University, Stern College and Baruch College have invited Rabbi Hayyim Angel, our National Scholar, for a downtown New York City lecture. And with thanks to the Rabbi Arthur A. Jacobovitz Institute, Brandeis will be hosting Rabbi Avi Weiss in March. Students will also focus on the Philosophy of Halakha at Rutgers, Being Jewish Outside of Israel at Drexel and The Relationship with Truth, Law, and Authority at Harvard.

Our University Network continues to grow, reaching out to students all over the world. If you are a student, you can join the network for free by simply signing up on our website. Information and registration can be found on our homepage at jewishideas.org

We thank you for your continued support of our students and their efforts.