Honor a non-Jew/intermarried Jew for community needs

שו"ת אגרות משה יורה דעה חלק ב סימן קיז

ובדבר שהיהודים רוצים לעשות בענקעט לכבוד נכרי באיזה אולם כדי שיבואו בשבילו הרבה אורחים ויתנדבו בשבילו עבור הדבר מצוה, אין לומר שהוא דבר איסור ממש, שמצד ביבש קצירה שאיתא בב"ב דף י' כיון שמה שיתקבץ לצדקה על ידו הרי כוונתו אינו למצוה אלא לכבוד שאין בזה זכות ומצוה כל כך. ואם בשביל טעם חלול השם שצריכין להנכרי דאיתא ברש"י סנהדרין דף כ"ו וטעם זה נפסק להלכה /יו"ד/ בסימן רנ"ד סעיף א' כדאיתא בט"ז וש"ך ס"ק א' עיי"ש, שהכוונה שהוא בזיון להיהודים שגם זה נחשב חלול השם, הרי אם אי אפשר לחיות בצדקה של ישראל ואינו יכול ליטלה מהנכרי בצנעא ה"ז מותר כדאיתא בסנהדרין ובש"ע שם, וא"כ הרי אפשר שהגבאים ומנהלים מוסד המצוה לא יכלו להשיג ההכרחיות עבור המצוה מצדקה של ישראל שלכן אין לאסור אם האמת כן. אבל בכל אופן הוא ענין מכוער שאין להגבאים ומנהלים של מוסד מצוה לעשות זה אף שאין בזה איסור ממש ויטריחו להשתדל להשיג כל הצורך מיהודים החייבים בהמצוה.

ובאם צריכים לעשות בענקעט לאיזה נכרי שעשה טובה לבני העיר להכרת טובה על מה שעשה להם מכבר ולא למטרת אספת כספים לצדקה הוא דבר המותר ממש.
==============
שו"ת אגרות משה אורח חיים חלק ב סימן נא

הנה בדבר רופא יהודי מהמפורסמים שבמדינה שרבים צריכים לו להיות בהתקרבות אתו והוא איש בעל מדות רחמים וצדקה באופן גדול וגם עושה הרבה טובות לעניני הקהלה, אבל הוא נשוי נכרית ומטעם זה אין מכבדין אותו בביהכ"נ בשום כבוד והרופא רואה בזה התרחקות מהקהל ומדוכא מאד מזה ולכן רוצים כתר"ה וראשי העיר לכבדו לפעמים בפתיחת וסגירת הארון וכדומה. וגם הוסיף כתר"ה להעיר שמצד הקפדתו על אנשי העיר ברור שרק כל זמן שאמו הזקנה שהיא שומרת תורה בחיים עושה מה שעושה לטובת הקהל אף שמקפיד עליהם ואחר חייה יתרחק מן הקהל ויהיה הפסד גדול להקהל בכלל וליחידים בפרט ורוצה כתר"ה לידע דעתי בזה. ולכן אף שגם מזה צריך להתרחק אף מחנופה כזו, שהוא כשמשבחו יותר ממה שהוא ראוי, כי לשבחו במה שהוא ראוי באמת ודאי ליכא איסור דרק בעכו"ם נאמר לאו דלא תחנם לא תתן להם חן בע"ז דף כ' אבל בישראל אף בעוברי עבירה ליכא איסור זה אבל לשבחו ביותר יש להתרחק, ואולי יש גם איסור בדבר לא רק מצד מדבר שקר תרחק אלא גם מצד חנופה, דמצד שקר כיון שהוא לכוונת שלום אין לאסור כהא דכתובות דף י"ז, וא"כ גם לכבדו בפתיחת וסגירת ארון שאין בזה ענין שקר נמי אולי יש איזה איסור מצד חנופה. אבל כיון שאין איסורו ברור ויותר נוטה שאין בזה איסור אלא מעלה טובה הוא להתרחק אף מחנופה כזו יש להקל אם רואה כתר"ה וראשי העיר אשר יש צורך גדול להקהל ולאנשי העיר שיכבדו אותו באיזה דבר בביהכ"נ כהא דפתיחת וסגירת הארון וכדומה. אבל לקריאה בתורה אין להתיר מטעם שכתבתי לעיל.
==============
שו"ת אגרות משה אורח חיים חלק ג סימן כא

בענין לכבד כופרין בקריאה לתורה ובשאר כיבודי ביהכ"נ בשעת הצורך ד' אלול תשכ"ה. מע"כ ידידי הרה"ג מהר"ר יצחק ווערבין שליט"א.

הנה בדבר ראבייס של הרעפארמער וקאנסערוואטיוון שבאים לפעמים בשבת לביהכ"נ של יהודים כשרים אם רשאין לקרותם לתורה. הוא דבר פשוט שבקריאה לתורה הוא אסור בעצם דהא קה"ת צריך ברכה לפניה ולאחריה וברכתם אינו כלום ואין לענות אמן אחריה, עיין בספרי אגרות משה או"ח ח"ב סימן נ' ונ"א מטעם דכיון שהם כופרים הוי הזכרת השם אצלו רק כדברים בעלמא דהויא כברכה בלא שם ומלכות כלל, וממילא אף שהבעל קריאה קורא וממנו שומעין הקהל, מ"מ הא יהיה זה כמו בלא ברכה, וגרע מקודם שתיקנו שיברך כל אחד ואחד דהא כבר נסתלק חשיבות ברכה של הראשון משאר הפסוקים אחרי שכבר בירך אחר קריאתו ברכה דלאחריה. אבל אף לשאר כבודי קדושה דבביהכ"נ כהגבה /כהגבהה/ וגלילה והוצאה והכנסה ופתיחת וסגירת הארון אף שאין בהן איסור בעצם שאין בהן ברכה, אבל אין לכבד לכופרים בעניני קדושה שכופרים בהם, ויש בזה איסור חניפה ממילא כיון שאין ראוי לכבדם בדברים כאלו כדכתבתי בסימן נ"א. ולכן אם אין צורך גדול אסור לכבדם גם בכבודים אלו, אבל אם הוא לצורך גדול שיש לחוש שיבא לידי מחלוקת בעיר ויש לחוש להפסד צדקה יש להתיר בשאר כבודים ולא לקראם לתורה מטעם שכתבתי.

ולקרא לתורה לאלו שאינם שומרי תורה ליכא איסור בעצם מכיון שמאמינים בהשי"ת ובתורתו ורק עוברין לתיאבון וצריך לענות אחר ברכתו אמן, אבל ודאי לא יפה עושים הקורין אותן לתורה מצד שאין לכבד עוברי עבירה וצריך למנוע מזה רק כשאיכא צורך בזה כגון יא"צ שיש לחוש למחלוקת וכדומה אבל לאלו הראבייס שהם כופרין ממש ומומרין להכעיס ומסיתים ומדיחים אין ברכתם כלום ואסור בעצם לקראם לתורה כדלעיל.

Child abuse - David Mandel of Ohel / Jewish Observer

Child Molestation in the Jewish Community: Overblown or Understated

By: David Mandel (Published in the September 2007 issue of The Jewish Observer)

Abstract: A more open dialogue on the issue of child molestation is a key to prevention. It is not stranger danger; child molestation most commonly occurs by a person known to the child. By having a dialogue with your children on personal safety we can help prevent the victimization of children. By removing the shame and stigma associated with victimization, children, adolescents and adults will not be as fearful to report and to seek support. Perpetrators may be less likely to offend children knowing their community will not tolerate their behavior.

Child molestation in the Orthodox Jewish community is not a new phenomenon. This problem, as other social ills, has existed for generations and centuries. The problem of men (and some women) inappropriately touching children, young boys and girls was sufficiently recognized by our great sages. They addressed it in several responsa (Minchas Chinuch, Mitzvah 209). The issue of drug usage has also been commented on, Rav speaking to his son Chiya (Arvei Pesachim 113a). Is our community responding to this problem? The answer, in these past years, has been a resounding yes. Is it enough? NO! There is still so much to do.

Our Roshei Hayeshiva have publicly addressed the issue. In September 2000 at a forum titled “Let’s Talk About What Never Happened, But It Did”, Harav Shmuel Kamenetsky shlita, stated “such an evening brings this issue out from under the rug, and people who need help should seek it from a Rav, a psychologist or a psychiatrist”. Harav Pam z”tl, at the same forum on the issue of depression, spoke of bochurim who believed they sinned based on what they may have learned in divrei mussar, “Don’t let the past linger and paralyze you, don’t feel worthless”. The Rosh Hayeshiva was speaking to victims of molestation who have suffered, who have been burdened, who feel it was their fault. Thousands of tapes of this forum and of a subsequent forum in November 2001 have been disseminated by OHEL.

HaRav Avrohom Chaim Levin, Shlita, Rosh Hayeshiva of Telz Chicago, addressing several hundred principals at a Torah U’Mesorah convention in May 2002 on the issue of child molestation stated, “there is no more room under the carpet”. And most recently at Torah U’Mesorah’s convention in May 2007, HaRav Levin encouraged every yeshiva, day school and high school to address and respond to this issue.

In September 2003, Torah U’ Mesorah, the National Council of Hebrew Day Schools, under the signature of leading Roshei Hayeshivas issued standards and guidelines on prevention and response to child molestation. On the issue of mesirah, reporting, it states “such action may include, under appropriate circumstances, reporting to the civil authorities when the principal determines that there is reason to believe that inappropriate activity has in fact occurred, insofar as halacha and secular law require such reporting”. Professor Aaron Twerksi, Dean of Hofstra Law School, and OHEL were instrumental in working with the Roshei Hayeshivas of Torah U’Mesorah in preparing these guidelines.

Prevention of unwanted touch means parents speaking to their children. Children are unprepared and don’t know how to respond to these terrible acts which go way beyond the boundaries of yichud. Prevention involves yeshivas and day schools providing information and education, parents and teachers becoming more alert to red flags, and Rabonim addressing the issue in shuls. An educated, informed communal response by parents, educators, and Rabonim – three primary sources of information and learning for children at an early age – would lead to fewer children being hurt. Equally important, it could lessen the shame and stigma associated with being a victim of child molestation, which remains the primary reason for underreporting.

This is all not limited to a one-time conversation. A parent knows their child best, what and how many words to use – V’higadita l’vincha bayom hahu. Rabbi Yehoshua Fishman, Executive Vice President of Torah U’Mesorah, notes the primary responsibility for teaching children these personal issues lies with the parents. Rabbi Shlomo Wolbe z”tl, in Planting and Building: Raising a Jewish Child, describes how the Chofetz Chayim z”tl spoke with his sons at age fifteen (Feldheim Publishers 1999, pg 67). As Rav Pam z”tl said, there was only one Chofetz Chayim. It is up to every parent to determine at what age to speak with their child and how often to reinforce this message. Dr. Susan Schulman, a pediatrician in Brooklyn, describes prevention as speaking to your child about good and bad touch at a very early age, then again when they begin school, then again when they go on a bus, then again when they go to camp, then again when they go to a sleep-away Yeshiva. Hillel Sternstein, Coordinator of OHEL’s RESPECT Program on abuse, describes it as teachable moments.

Ninety percent of children who are molested know their abuser. Parents cannot speak about “stranger danger” with their young children and expect them to understand this also means not becoming a victim at the hands of a relative, neighbor or rebbe. This lies at the heart of the complexity of child molestation, being hurt by a person a young child or teenager knows, trusts, loves or admires.

Several yeshivas that wanted to hold seminars on safety and prevention from unwanted touch were reluctant to do so lest they be perceived as engaging in sex education or worse, stigmatizing themselves as a school with a problem.

Professional staff in OHEL’s school-based mental health program and in other well regarded organizations, such as Debbie Fox of Jewish Family Services in Los Angeles who developed a prevention model, provide this information to students, faculty and parents in dignified, professional, age appropriate ways and in lashon nekia (clean language). Yes, it is true that some children may be hearing concepts and words they don’t yet fully comprehend, that by engaging them at an early age we may be opening a door to more information than we would like. On the other hand, one can posit it is better for the child to learn in a structured, safe environment where they can ask questions and know they can turn to parents, a rebbe, morot or teachers to ask questions. This is a much better option than “learning on the street”. [...]

Priorities - Child abuse vs Music

JPost reports:

Two items recently crossed my desk. The first was an article that appeared in The Jerusalem Post written by Matthew Wagner entitled "Haredim move to silence 'treif' music". It was about a movement to ban musicians who produce or perform any music which the Guardians of Sanctity and Education deem inappropriate. Musicians playing such music would be banned from playing in wedding halls, their CDs would be banned and their concerts disallowed.

The other item was a breaking news piece from JTA indicating that Rabbi Benzion Twerski had resigned from a task force in formation being brought together to deal with sexual abuse in the Orthodox community. New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind, also an Orthodox Jew, is establishing the task force to deal with this scourge. Twerski resigned because of the many threats against him and his family made by several individuals from his community.

When taken together these two items suggest such a profound and disturbing conflict regarding the current goals of the Orthodox world, of which I am a member. If music is so important, is not the emotional welfare of members of the community even more so? How can music be a threat and abuse not be? While some may argue that this is not the message to be learned, that the insular community is seeking ways to deal with the sexual abuse problem discreetly, it is clearly not so when someone as prominent and discreet as Twerski can be so horrifically threatened. But, he is not the only one to receive threats. Apparently so have musicians. The canceling of a recent concert is evidence of this.

IN MY work I too have received threats, most recently for suggesting that the rigid shidduch approach to dating seems not to be working. What this approach has accomplished in recent years is to increase rigidity and unrealistic demands for a spouse; rates of domestic violence are increasing and so are the divorce rates.

There seems to be little balance left in the Orthodox world. There is no allowance made for harmless pleasure and those who abuse are given a free pass. Those who attempt to stand up are threatened.[...]

To suggest that the decisions of a few vocal individuals make are the only correct approach and allow them to steer us away from doing what must be done is simply illogical. Every society has its ills. So does ours. We must find productive ways to deal with these ills if we are to survive.

The writer, a fellow of the American Psychological Association, is the founder and director of the Adult Developmental Center in Hewlett, New York. His most recent book, The Shidduch Crisis: Causes and Cures, is published by Urim Publications.

Anusim V - Halachic basis of rabbinical involvement!?

Besides the disappointing discussion with Rabbi Manny Vinas I & II, I have had an exchange of emails with another rabbi who is actively involved with Anusim. He contacted me to complain about my critical attitude to Anusim on this blog. I asked him simply to explain the halachic basis of his activities. His response was that he had forty pages of justifications. I then asked to see his sources and this is his response.

1. baleiv

2.bamoach

3..banu-our outreach

How sad!

Sperm Donations & Age of marriage / Tzohar

Bartley Kulp wrote:

Rabbi Eidenson,

this article from ynet is a few weeks old but I thought that it would provide fress fodder for discussion on both halachic and social grounds. Here is the link;

Tzohar rabbis say ‘no’ to sperm donations to single women

“A woman who decides to have a baby out of wedlock by means of a sperm donation is unbelievably cruel,” said Rabbi Nachum Rabinowitz, head of the Ma’ale Adumim Hesder Yeshiva and one of the most senior halachic authorities in the Religious Zionism movement.

In an unprecedented attack on this phenomenon, Rabbi Rabinowitz added that “bringing an orphaned child into the world is an unimaginable act.

“Whoever plans on having a baby like this by choice, just in order to fulfill her needs as a mother, has exceeded all evil and cruelty. A woman like this is not fit to be a mother for any human creature.”

The rabbi made this statement at the yearly summer conference of the Tzohar Rabbinical Organization, which took place Wednesday night in Jerusalem.

Rabbi Rabinowitz, along with Chief Ramat Gan Rabbi and Tzohar President Rabbi Yaakov Ariel and the head of the Har Etzion Yeshiva Dr. Aharon Lichtenstein, were asked to discuss the issue of “family, generation gaps and the modern world, in the conference’s closing session.”

Rabbi Ariel joined his predecessors and claimed that encouraging birth without marriage to begin with, grants legitimacy to late spinsterhood.

“You can’t help one person on account of another,” said the rabbi. “There is no such thing as a single-parent family, just like there is no square that is a circle. A family consists of a father, mother, and children.”

Last year, Ynet reported on Petah Tikva Hesder Yeshiva Rabbi Yuval Sherlow’s ruling that allowed single women 37 and older to bring children into the world and claimed that the child’s welfare should not be considered.

In light of the public stir caused by this ruling, Rabbi Sherlow committed to consult with his rabbi friends before announcing similar rulings in the future.

What is ideal marrying age?
During the panel on Thursday, the rabbis were asked what the ideal age is to get married. Rabbi Rabinowitz claimed that young people today reach puberty very early and emotional maturity arrives late, “when 20-year old boys are still childish.”

Despite the opposing trends, the rabbi thinks that people should wed in their early twenties even if they lack a profession and income since, “at the ages of 23 and 24 it is hard for a young man to find his match and he remains stuck in bachelorhood.”

The rabbi clarified, however, that a couple should not get married if one of the two are under 20 years of age.

As for postponing the first pregnancy, the rabbi said that every young couple needs to have a child, except for rare cases, and he is convinced that this “matures” the parents. He added that “postponing a first birth for an unlimited amount of time is a severe mistake.”

Rabbi Ariel claimed that nowadays it is difficult for a person to stand on their own two feet economically until the age of 30, since a profession must be attained throughout many years.

“In the past, we went to study at the age of 14, and matriculation exams ensured an income,” he said. “Today, even a Bachelor’s degree is not enough, and if you don’t have a Master’s and training, you will not be accepted to work.”

Despite the situation he described, the rabbi agrees that the perfect time to get married is in a person’s early twenties. He also called upon the next government to economically support young people in school and housing, so that they will be able to have children. “Our whole population needs to enlist to this and not only find good matchmakers.”

Rabbi Lichtenstein disagreed with Rabbi Ariel and claimed that “at the age of 21, there is no emotional maturity and there are identity questions.”

According to him, “Many people don’t know who or what they are in order to know who their partner is.” He refused to specify the ideal age to get married since “it is not possible to speak in generalizations."

Chabad - Dealing with meshichistem?

Guest Post:LazerA's comment to "Chabad - Never prayed toward picture of Rebbe?":

...sigh...

Ok, Reb Jacob. Let's take a step back.

Beneath all the rancor, it appears that you have two substantive criticisms of what I have said. I will attempt to summarize and respond to each:

1) You cited a group of Lubavitcher roshei yeshiva who had "banned" meshichism within their yeshivos. I said I was pleased to hear this and asked if they had made any public statements to that effect. You took very strong exception to this, saying that it is not their responsibility to make public proclamations. Your point is well taken. Not every rosh yeshiva sees himself in the role of a manhig who has a responsibility to the general community. While, obviously, some must take on this role, others see their primary responsibility to be teaching their talmidim. This is a valid position.

Being that this is so, may I ask if you could give us any details on exactly what their ban of meshichism within their yeshivos entails? Are the talmidim actually taught that believing the LLR is moshiach is wrong?

2) You had stated, "The meshichistim are likely not kofrim at all, simply misguided idiots, for the most part, and it will die out on it's own." To which I had responded, "Any clear eyed observer can see that this is not true. Just read the essay I cited above!"

You took strong exception to this, saying that we see no evidence that major poskim have declared the meshichisten as kofrim. Again, your point is valid. My response was unclear. When I said that your statement was not true, I was not referring to the first half of your sentence, "The meshichistim are likely not kofrim at all", but to the last, that the meshichist movement "will die out on it's own." I apologize for the lack of precision.

I do not recall ever saying that the meshichisten are kofrim. In fact, I am inclined to believe that, by and large, they are not. In my opinion, people throw around the terms "kofer" and apikorus" far too liberally.

That being said, the meshichisten are clearly not a minor phenomenom that will go away on its own. They are a growing group that is making rapid inroads in the mainstream Chabad community. In fact, by now, it is quite possible that the meshichisten actually are the mainstream.

Their beliefs may not yet come to kefira, but their beliefs are nevertheless fundamentally wrong and dangerous. Beliefs need not be kefira to be harmful.

I also believe that it is clear that many major poskim agree with this assessment. A widely discussed article in Mishpacha magazine quoted three such poskim (R' Miller, R' Heineman, and R' Belsky) on the issue of the meshichistim. (See here)

R' Miller said that the belief that the LLR is moshiach is "definitely assur" and that he would not accept such a person as a rav or shochet. He believes that the movement will die out. (I don't share his confidence.) He also says that it is important for the meshichisten to know of the "vehement" oppostion to these beliefs by other chareidim.

Rav Heineman said that the belief that the LLR is moshiach is "a distortion" and "not the truth." His recommended strategy to the meshichist campaign is to ignore it.

Rav Belsky says that he disgrees, presumably with the mild approach endorsed by Rav Heineman, though this is not clear. He clearly sees the meshichist problem to be rooted in the relationship that Lubavitchers had with their late rebbe. He says that the entire approach "has no place in Yiddishkeit."

So, are my statements really so far out? Given their public statements, I don't believe that any of these poskim would disagree with the substance of my remarks. (Rav Heineman would probably prefer that I didn't make them.)

I hope this has cleared up some of your confusion.

As for the bulk of your comment, it is truly impressive when someone can insert so many insults into one comment. (BTW, you should look up the word 'vindictive', you are not using it correctly.)

I can honestly say that I do not hate Lubavitch, not even the open meshichisten. I am, however, gravely worried about what will happen to them. As I have said previously, I honestly believe we are on the verge of losing a significant part of the Torah community.

Anusim IV - Customs are proof of being Jewish?

Even Ezer Garcia's comment to "Anusim II - Demand recognition and acceptance":

Recipients and Publicity,

How many xtians bury the nail clippings? My mother told me that the proper way is to burn it, but burying the clippings will suffice. When I told an Orthodox Rabbi this, he asked me why we did not flush it down the toilet, he said that this will eventually will reach the sea and this is equivalent to burning it. I asked my mother about this and she said that we could not do that because we had a septic tank. Now, I do not know what do you do with you nail clippings, and what is your level of observance, but my family was able to keep this traditions as well as many others that no one can learn by reading the Tanach. Is this an islamic tradition? I know is not xtian. That is why all this claims need to be considered on a case by case basis. I know that this is difficult for you to understand and I do not have a scientific response for you to explain why we observed this traditions after so many years (The Inquisition officially ended in 1834). I had an Orthodox conversion many years ago, because I wanted to erase any doubt, but I will still claim Anusim descent. I do not expect you to believe me and much less to try to understand, but I thank you for your responses. I also want to express my gratitude to Daas Torah for allowing me to be part of this discussion. Adio keridos amigos.

Chabad - Telethon raises $8 million for charity

VIN reports:

Chasidic choir \'Shirah\' singing at the telethonHolywood, CA - With heartfelt appeals and joyful performances from a diverse group of celebrity guests, the 2008 Chabad “To Life” Telethon generated more than $8 million for the charity.

“We are so deeply humbled and inspired by the amazing generosity shown by our community,” said Rabbi Boruch S. Cunin, Director of West Coast Chabad. “Especially in these tough economic times, more and more people are turning to Chabad for help — and thanks to the incredible kindness of our wonderful partners, we can continue our vital mission to serve those in need.”

The 28th annual telethon, a live, six-hour broadcast was hosted once again by actor/comedian Elon Gold, who was joined this year by two new co-hosts, actress Leslie Grossman and young piano prodigy Ethan Bortnick.

Longtime supporter Jon Voight led an impressive line-up of award-winning film and TV stars, including Martin Landau, James Cromwell, Camryn Manheim, Mimi Rogers, JoBeth Williams, and Tom Arnold. Actors Shoreh Aghdashloo and Jonathan Ahdout from the film “House of Sand and Fog” also made live appearances, along with actors Kellie Martin and Merrin Dungey. Pre-taped messages came in from Larry King, Jackie Mason, Howie Mandel, Regis Philbin and other celebrities.

Telethon Co-Chairmen Jerry Weintraub and Marshall Grossman greeted on-air guests and helped spread the word about Chabad’s grass-roots activities — from its nonsectarian Drug Treatment Center to its senior citizens outreach programs and the Friendship Circle, which serves children with special needs.

Religious thinking & reality - Why Moshe didn't believe G-d?

I think the following is a useful guide to religious thinking and its actual relationship - sometimes tenuous connection - to reality. It describes why Moshe only got upset and broke the Tablets when he actually saw the Jews sin with the Calf and not when G-d told him that they were sinning. In other words why wasn't what G-d said as real as the evidence of his own eyes.

Akeidas Yitzchok(53:9-10): And Yehoshua heard – I think that even though that Moshe had no doubt that the sin of the Calf was very great because it involved idolatry, nevertheless he assumed that it was not to be understood literally and that a physical calf had not been created. He assumed that they had merely wanted to make the calf but had not actually done so and that this desire was being described as an actuality. That is because thoughts and intentions in these very serious sins are considered as if it were done. This principle is found in Shabbos (56b) which says that the Biblical statement that Shlomo built altars for idolatry for his wives was not literally true - but only that he was ready to makes these altars - but had not actually made them.

Alternatively he thought that the Jews had done something disgusting which was described allegorically as a golden calf. This type of upgrading of the seriousness of the description is found concerning Bilah where Reuven is described as having sexual relations with her (Bereishis 35:22) – when in fact he had merely moved her bed. Furthermore Moshe might have thought that even if they had literally made the Calf and were worshipping it - not everyone was participating. We find this concerning Yehoshua where it was said that the people sinned when in fact it was a single individual. And even if it were true that all of them sinned perhaps they had already repented or some of them were chastising the others. Perhaps these types of thoughts were the reason that Moshe didn’t break the Tablets - until he came to the camp and saw that what G‑d had said was literally true. Furthermore it is really not a question as to why he reacted stronger when he saw them than when he only heard about it. That is because it is an inherent human characteristic that a person is more strongly aroused by what he sees than what he hears about – even if what he hears is unquestionably true.

Jerusalem - More secular Jews will Improve it?

Haaretz reported:

The main recommendation of a program to rehabilitate Jerusalem is to increase the number of educated and employed Jewish residents in the capital by 100,000 by the year 2020. The program's planning stages are nearing completion. The plan will also recommend that the resources necessary to accomplish this goal be diverted from those provided to the ultra-Orthodox community.

The plan, known as Vision for Jerusalem, is being formulated by a large group of experts and public figures. It is sponsored by the Jerusalem Foundation and the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies.

Vision for Jerusalem will be presented as a rescue mission for the city at the United Jewish Communities General Assembly, which will convene in Jerusalem in two months.

The plan is based on the forecast that unless the capital's demographics undergo a drastic change, in 12 years the ultra-Orthodox population will constitute some 44 percent of Jerusalem's Jewish population (today it stands at approximately one-third). As a result, the rate of the Jewish population's participation in the city's labor force is expected to decline to only 43.3 percent. This trend has been on the rise in recent years, and has meant an increasing burden on the ever-diminishing working sector of the city's population to fund services for the entire population. As a result, economically better-off residents have been leaving the capital, moving elsewhere.

The group of experts, headed by the economist Professor Gur Ofer, recommends making Jerusalem more attractive to moderate Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews and encouraging these sectors by providing tax breaks and benefits. These incentives would not be made available to the entire population, only those in the labor force, which means they would not be extended to the ultra-Orthodox.

The program proposes basing the capital's development on a massive expansion of higher education in the city by significantly increasing the activities of the Hebrew University and Hadassah Medical Center, hi-tech industry and concomitant services.

The planners believe the program could increase the city's workforce by about 70,000 by 2020. To meet the needs of the target population, the plan proposes the construction of approximately 25,000 apartments within and near the present city limits. It also proposes renewing the city center and improving access to it, raising the level of education and upgrading Jerusalem's cultural offerings. [..]