The Mikvah Year

The book comes to Rabbi Shlomo Grossbard in a padded envelope with no note in it, which is its own kind of note.

The Mikvah Year, by Nadia Reff. Self published in November. Three hundred and eighty pages. It has sold something under a thousand copies and every woman in a certain category in this city has read it.

He reads it in one night at the kitchen table and finishes at 2:40 in the morning.

It is a novel. It says so on the copyright page. A woman comes out of a bad life in Phoenix at thirty one and decides to become a Jew, and it takes her six years, and she does not make it.

Three of the men in it he knows.

He knows the first by a phrase. The rabbi in the book tells her that a convert has no family and that the family she has is the obstacle, and that until she can go a full year without calling her mother she is not ready. Grossbard has heard a living man say that sentence at a conference in Sherman Oaks in 2016 and has heard him say it as though it were Torah.

He knows the second by the arrangement. The rabbi in the book puts her in an apartment. He pays part of the rent out of a discretionary fund and tells her it is a scholarship and tells her not to mention it to the office. She stops working. She helps him with his correspondence. She is in the country on a tourist visa that lapses in month nine.

He knows the third by the car. Everything in that chapter happens in a car after ten at night, driving, because a car with two people in it moving through Los Angeles is not a room and does not have a door and cannot be walked out of.

He does not recognize the fourth one, and lies in bed at four in the morning working on it, and that is the worst part of the night, because it means there are four.

None of this is news to him. He wants that on the record with himself before he does anything.

He has known since 1998. He knew before he had a pulpit. Every rabbi in Los Angeles who has been here longer than a decade and has been paying any attention at all knows a version of it, and the men who run conversions know the most detailed version, and the reason is that they talk to each other.

Here is what a beit din for conversion has in front of it. A woman, usually alone, usually not from here, frequently from a bad home or a bad marriage or a bad decade, who wants something she cannot get anywhere else and can only get from the men in that room. There is no appeal. There is no deadline. There is no published standard. A dayan can tell her she is not ready and give no reason, for a year, for three years, and no one on earth can make him say why. She cannot go across town, because the men across town take his calls. Her family thinks she has lost her mind and she has stopped calling them anyway, because somebody told her to.

That is the most concentrated unaccountable power a man can hold in Jewish communal life and it is held over the most isolated person in the building.

Grossbard has said this out loud to exactly two people in twenty seven years and both of them were women he was warning.

He starts making calls on Monday.

The first is to a dayan he has known for twenty years and respects, and the conversation lasts nine minutes.

“Is there a complainant.”

“There’s a novel.”

“Shlomo.”

“There are four women in this book and at least three of them exist.”

“Is there a complainant.”

“No.”

“Then there is nothing in front of me. There is no case. There is no file. There is no procedure that begins with a rabbi calling me about a paperback.” The old man’s voice is not unkind. “Bring me a woman who will sit in a room and say it and I will convene. I have never refused to convene.”

“You know none of them will sit in that room.”

“I know.”

“You know why.”

“Yes,” the dayan says. “I have known why for a long time. Bring me a woman.”

The second call is to a colleague his own age, a serious man who runs a serious shul, and this one takes an hour and Grossbard drives to his house to do it.

The colleague agrees with every word. He names one of the same men without being prompted. He tells a story from 2013 that Grossbard has never heard and will never repeat.

“So sign something.”

“No.”

“Yoni.”

“I have four children in day school and a mortgage on a house the shul holds title to, and the president of my board davens with that man’s brother in law.” He does not look away when he says it. “I’m telling you what I am. I’m not going to dress it up for you.”

“That’s the most honest thing anybody’s said to me this month.”

“It doesn’t help you.”

“No.”

The third call is to the umbrella body, which responds within eleven days by proposing a working group on best practices in conversion oversight, and the proposed working group has seven members, and one of them is the man from the car.

At the end of two weeks he has learned the shape of the thing and it is the shape he knew it would be. Nobody is protecting anybody out of loyalty. There is no conspiracy in that room. It is simpler and worse. Half the men who could act have something of their own, and the half who have nothing have children in schools that the first half fund, and every one of them believes, correctly, that a public fight would cost him more than it would cost the men he was fighting.

Marla Feig, who is eighty two, says the sentence to him at the January board meeting.

“They won’t move for you, Shlomo.”

“Some of them agree with me.”

“All of them agree with you.” She has her purse in her lap. “You’ve stood on a bimah for twenty years telling this city that every man in it is running a play and nobody is clean and everybody has a rate card. You made it impossible to be shocked. Now you need shock.”

He sits with that for a second.

“Yes,” he says.

“You built the room you’re standing in.”

“I know what I built.”

Adina Reiss comes to the office on a Thursday afternoon in February and closes the door, which she has never done.

She converted four years ago. She is in the Wednesday class and the Thursday class and she asks the hardest question in the room once a month, and Grossbard sent her, in 2021, to a beit din he had used for fifteen years.

She tells him what happened in the eight months before her mikvah. She tells it in order and she does not cry and she stops twice.

It is not the worst version. It is the ordinary version. A hand, a suggestion, a comment about her clothes, a comment about her body, an offer of private study at night, a delay of six months after she said no, and a second man in the same building who told her the first man was difficult and that he could speed things along.

She finished. She has never told anyone. She has sat forty feet from Grossbard every Wednesday for four years.

“Why didn’t you tell me.”

“Because you sent me there,” she says. “And because you’d have done something, and if you did something I don’t get to be Jewish.”

Grossbard puts both hands on the desk and does not say anything for a while, which is not a thing he does.

“What do you want,” he says. “Whatever it is, that’s what happens. You say the word and I go to the dayan tomorrow morning and we convene and I sit next to you the whole time. You say a different word and I never mention this again as long as I live.”

“I want to finish the mesechta,” Adina says. “That’s what I want. I’ve wanted it for two years and I’m not giving it up for those men.”

“Then that’s the answer and I’ll never raise it again.”

“You’ll want to.”

“I’ll want to every day.”

Here is what he does, because it is what is left.

He stops sending anybody anywhere. Every candidate the Barn sponsors goes to one beit din whose three members he has known for thirty years and can vouch for with his own name, and when that beit din is slow, which it is, the candidates wait, and when they ask him why they cannot use the faster one in the Valley he tells them the truth in his office with the door open.

He puts a woman in the process. Every candidate meets first with Shira Belfer, who drives in from Hancock Park twice a month for no money, and no candidate ever sits alone in a room with any man in this building including Grossbard, and the door stays open, and the appointments are on a calendar the office keeps.

And at the first meeting he says a thing out loud, in words, to each woman, which is the part that nobody else in this city will do.

He gets frozen out inside a year. Two conversions he sponsors get questioned in Israel on the grounds that the sponsoring rabbi has become unreliable, and one woman has to redo eleven months of work, and she is the one who pays for what he did, which is how it goes and which he does not tell her.

He keeps a notebook in the desk drawer with names in it and it will never be published and it is not for publication. About nine times a year somebody calls him, a rabbi in Denver, a woman in Toronto, a mother in Encino whose daughter has started studying with somebody, and asks him what he knows about a particular man, and he tells them, on the phone, on the record, with his name attached, and he has been told twice by a lawyer that this is unwise.

In April a woman named Kaila Devine comes in for a first meeting. Thirty four, from Reno, works in veterinary imaging, and she has been at this for seven months with a man in the Valley and has come to Grossbard because somebody told her to.

Shira Belfer sits in. The door is open.

“Before anything else,” Grossbard says. “Some rules, and they’re mine, and you can go somewhere else if you don’t want them. You never meet a rabbi alone. Not in an office with the door shut, not in his home, not in a car, not after dark, not at a hotel, not ever, and that includes me and this door stays open. Nobody in this process tells you to stop calling your mother. Nobody in this process gets you an apartment. Nobody in this process employs you. Nobody touches you. Nobody comments on your body or your clothing except Shira, who will tell you what to wear because that’s her job.”

Kaila Devine writes none of it down.

“And here’s my cell phone. It’s on at night. If anything happens that you have to think about afterward, you call me that night, not the next week, and I will believe you, and I’ll say that part again so you have it. I will believe you.”

She sits there for a moment.

“Why are you telling me this.”

“Because a woman I know went through it and sat in my class for four years without telling me,” Grossbard says. “I’d like those four years back. I can’t have them.”

She takes the number and puts it in her phone.

After she goes, Shira Belfer stays to write up the file, and Grossbard walks out to the lot and stands there a while, and then he goes back in, because the Thursday class starts at nine and Adina Reiss is eleven pages from the end of the mesechta.

Posted in R. Shlomo Grossbard | Comments Off on The Mikvah Year

The Chesed Fund

Rabbi Shlomo Grossbard finds out at a kiddush in October, from one sentence, said by a woman who does not know she is saying anything.

Chava Perlmutter, seventy nine, widow of a pharmacist, tells him she asked Shmulie for eight thousand dollars out of her deposit in August for her granddaughter’s wedding, and it took six weeks, and Shmulie was so apologetic about it, and she wants Grossbard to know that she is not complaining, because that man is a saint.

Grossbard says something warm and moves on to the next person and finishes the kiddush and shakes ninety hands.

He knows. He has known for about four seconds and he will spend the next nine days confirming it.

Shmuel Berkovits, sixty seven, has run the Chesed Fund out of the back room of a print shop on Robertson since 1993. He does not draw a salary. He buried his wife in 2018 and did not miss a Sunday. He has lent to something over four hundred families in this neighborhood. Tuition gaps, medical bills, a first month and a deposit for a woman leaving a marriage, funeral costs, a man’s payroll on a Thursday when a client paid late. No interest, because that is the whole point of the thing, and no paperwork worth the name, and no bank in California would have written one of those loans.

He also takes deposits. That is how it works. A man with money sitting idle gives Shmulie forty thousand dollars because Shmulie will do more good with it than a savings account will, and the man understands he can have it back when he needs it. There is no agreement. There is no statement. There is no auditor and no examiner and no insurance and no capital requirement, and in California the state regulators treat the whole category as religious charity and stay a hundred yards away from it.

Grossbard has known every structural feature of this for thirty years. He has never once said them out loud from the bimah, because the day he does, half the good in this neighborhood stops moving.

Six weeks to get eight thousand dollars out of a fund that has never taken longer than a day.

He goes to see Berkovits on a Tuesday night.

The back room has a card table, two folding chairs, a four-drawer file cabinet, and a shoebox. The book is index cards. Green for loans out, white for deposits in, and a spiral ledger that Berkovits keeps in a hand Grossbard cannot read.

“Shmulie.”

“Rabbi.”

“How much is the hole.”

Berkovits sits down. He does not ask what hole. That is the first thing.

They go through it for two hours and forty minutes. Deposits standing at about four million one. Loans outstanding that are collectible, maybe one million six, and Grossbard makes him mark every card he has doubts about and the doubtful pile is bigger than the good one. Six hundred thousand in the account. And then the rest of it, which since 2017 has gone into a friend’s real estate deals at nine and eleven and fourteen percent, because a man who lends at zero and takes deposits at zero has to find the spread somewhere, and the deals were fine for six years and stopped being fine in 2023.

The hole is a little under one point nine million dollars.

“When did it start.”

“I don’t know.”

“Shmulie.”

“I’m telling you the truth. There’s no day. Nobody woke me up one morning.” He puts both hands flat on the card table. “Somebody needed forty for a wedding and it was sitting there. Then the Fein girl needed a deposit and Yudel Rosen’s payroll was three weeks out and the money was doing nothing in an account. Then Ari showed me his numbers and it was eleven percent and I thought, I could lend twice as much.”

“And in August, to pay Chava Perlmutter, you used somebody else’s deposit.”

“I used the Kleins’ deposit.”

“You know what that is.”

“I know what that is.”

Berkovits looks at the file cabinet.

“Do you know what I’ve done out of this room,” he says. “Thirty two years. Four hundred and six families. I put nine kids through YULA that nobody knows about. I paid for two funerals. There’s a woman living in Sherman Oaks with her children right now because I had eleven thousand dollars in a drawer on a Sunday night in 2011 and no bank on earth would have given it to her.”

Grossbard lets him say all of it.

“Am I a thief,” Berkovits says.

“You will be on Monday if you take another deposit.”

They sit with that.

“So don’t take another one,” Grossbard says. “Starting tonight. Not one dollar, not from anybody, not if a man begs you. Every card comes to me. And you don’t speak to anyone about this until I tell you to, including your son.”

Grossbard drives home and sits in the driveway for a while.

The arithmetic is not complicated and he runs it four or five times looking for a door.

If the depositors find out, they come at once, because that is what depositors do, and the fund pays out six hundred thousand to whoever gets there first and the rest of them get nothing. If it goes to the United States Attorney, a receiver gets appointed at four hundred dollars an hour billed against an estate consisting of a house in Beverlywood with a mortgage on it, a Toyota, and a room full of index cards. If it goes to a beth din, the beth din can compel testimony from observant Jews and can rule on liability and cannot subpoena a bank, cannot conduct a forensic accounting, and cannot make one point nine million dollars appear.

There is one door and it costs one point nine million dollars.

Adina Reiss comes to the office on Thursday, because he has told her, because she is the only person he tells things to before he has decided them.

“You go to the U.S. Attorney,” she says.

“And then what.”

“Then it isn’t your call anymore. That’s the entire point of the U.S. Attorney.”

“Here’s what happens. Receiver gets appointed. Bills the estate into the ground. Chava Perlmutter gets nineteen cents on the dollar in 2032 if she lives. Shmulie goes in at sixty seven and comes out at seventy four or doesn’t come out. And four hundred families in this neighborhood never see another gemach as long as they live, from him or from anybody, because nobody in Los Angeles is going to run one after that.”

“And your way.”

“My way, every depositor gets a hundred cents on the dollar inside sixty days, the fund closes, and one man walks.”

“That’s the part I can’t do.”

“I know,” Grossbard says. “That makes you the better person and me the one handling it.”

She sits there.

“People are going to say you did it for mesirah. That you wouldn’t inform.”

“Then let’s be clear with each other so at least one other person in this city knows. I would call the FBI on Shmuel Berkovits tomorrow morning and eat lunch afterward. I’ve got no problem with it and I hold by the poskim who say report and I’ve said so from the bimah twice. I’m not doing it because of the arithmetic. Not because of a teshuvah. And I’d like that on the record, because half this neighborhood is about to hand me credit I did not earn.”

He gets three noes.

The first is a man who says he would need to see something in writing, which is a no. The second is a man who says he will do four hundred thousand if others come in, which is a no. The third calls his lawyer before he calls Grossbard back and the lawyer uses the phrase aiding a concealment, which is a no with a bill attached.

The fourth is Farhad Kashani, fifty eight, who goes by Fred, who builds and holds industrial property from Vernon out to Rialto, and who has never been a member of the Barn and never will be, and whose family davens at a Persian shul in Beverly Hills where his father has a seat with a plaque on it.

Grossbard has met him three times in nine years.

They sit in Kashani’s office on Olympic with the door closed.

“How much.”

“One point nine.”

“For Berkovits.”

“For the depositors.”

“Same thing.”

“No,” Grossbard says. “One of those two I care about.”

Kashani takes a while.

“There’s a dinner on the twelfth at the Montage,” he says. “Ilan Yaghoubi is raising a fund. Second one. I want you at the table.”

“To say what.”

“Nothing. Eat the fish. It’s kosher, I checked with your office.”

Grossbard sits back.

“You want a photograph.”

“I want a photograph.”

“Say the rest of it. I’d rather we both hear it.”

“You want me to say it out loud,” Kashani says. “Fine. Every Persian man in that room knows who you are. You’re the rabbi who took the pop star’s money and wouldn’t let her in the class. Half of them can’t stand you and all of them believe you. You sit at that table for two hours and eat a piece of fish and say nothing to anybody about any fund, and forty men in that room decide Ilan is a serious person. That’s what I’m buying. I’m paying one million nine hundred thousand dollars for it. It’s more than it’s worth.”

“Is Yaghoubi clean.”

“As far as I know.”

“That’s not an answer.”

“It’s the only answer anyone has ever had about anybody,” Kashani says. “You’ve been giving that answer for thirty years. Every man you ever shook hands with at a kiddush in front of somebody else got that answer.”

Grossbard has nothing for that.

“Why are you doing it,” he says. “You could tell me to go to hell and I’d have no complaint.”

Kashani opens a drawer and closes it again without taking anything out.

“In 1996 my mother needed eight thousand dollars and my father was too proud and I was twenty eight and had nothing. Somebody sent her to a man in the back of a print shop on Robertson. He gave her the money in an envelope in about nine minutes and he never told one person. Not one, in thirty years. I found out in 2019 because she told me on her deathbed.”

He shrugs.

“So,” he says. “You want the check or not.”

Grossbard asks for the money to come as an unrestricted gift to the Chesed Fund with no conditions of any kind stated anywhere in writing, and Kashani says of course, and both of them understand what that document is for, and Grossbard asks for it anyway.

It takes fifty one days.

Every depositor gets a hundred cents on the dollar. The letter that goes out says the fund is closing after thirty two years because its founder is retiring and no successor structure is in place, which is true in every particular and is a lie.

Chava Perlmutter gets a cashier’s check for a hundred and eighty one thousand two hundred dollars, which is everything she has, and she comes to the print shop to collect it in person, and she takes Shmuel Berkovits’s hand in both of hers and tells him he is a saint and that this neighborhood will never see another one.

Grossbard is standing four feet away. He watches Berkovits take it.

The Journal runs three hundred words in February under community services. Beloved Free Loan Fund Closes After Three Decades. There is a photograph of the print shop and a quote from Berkovits about how the community’s needs have changed. Nobody calls Grossbard and Grossbard does not call anybody.

By spring there is no gemach on the Westside that will lend above thirty thousand dollars, and a woman leaving a marriage in April cannot get first and last on an apartment in Palms in under three weeks, and she goes to a shul on Pico that sends her to a shul in the Valley that sends her to a lender at fourteen percent.

Two men at the Barn tell Grossbard to his face that he should have found a way to keep it open. One of them says it at a kiddush with people listening. Grossbard says he tried, which is the second lie, and takes a piece of herring.

He goes to the Montage on the twelfth.

The fish is sea bass and it is kosher and it is very good. He is at table four with Kashani on his left and a dermatologist on his right and Ilan Yaghoubi two seats down, forty one years old, well spoken, three questions in and Grossbard has learned nothing about him at all. Grossbard says nothing about any fund to any person. He talks for most of an hour to an eighty year old woman across the table about her husband’s family in Hamadan and she is the best conversation he has had in a month.

A photographer works the room between the salad and the entree.

The picture runs the following Thursday on page eleven of the community paper, under the fold, five men at a round table with the water glasses in front of them.

Second from left, the caption says. Rabbi Shlomo Grossbard of the Barn.

Posted in R. Shlomo Grossbard | Comments Off on The Chesed Fund

The Thursday Class

The first email comes to the office from an assistant in New York and Devorah at the front desk deletes it as a scam.

The second comes nine days later from a manager, with a phone number, and Devorah walks it back to Rabbi Shlomo Grossbard’s office and stands there while he reads it.

Roxane is sixty four. One name for forty one years, nine number ones, three reinventions, a Vatican denunciation in 1989, and a hip replacement she has never confirmed. Her husband is Teodor Wick, forty one, a Danish director with two films nobody saw and one everybody did. Neither of them is Jewish. She has been photographed in a red string twice, in 2004 and 2011, and has said in an interview that she got taken by a place on Robertson that charged her forty thousand dollars for what turned out to be a subscription.

She heard about the Thursday class from Dahlia Ravitch, who sat in the last row of the Barn one Shabbos in March and has told four people about it since.

The Thursday class meets at nine at night in the room behind the coat racks. Nine men and two women. Six years running. Two of those years went to Tomer Devorah and they are now in the third gate of Nefesh HaChaim and moving at about a page a month. Barry Teitelbaum is in it. Adina Reiss is in it and has been for four years and asks the hardest question of any night about once a month. Nobody has ever recorded it. Nobody has ever written about it. It has a reputation anyway, which is how these things go.

Grossbard does not teach the material the way it gets taught in Los Angeles. He opens most years by saying that ninety percent of what is sold under the name in this city is decoration, that the light bulbs and the water bottles and the strings are a business, and that the actual literature is a technical vocabulary for the interior of a person, written by men who were terrified of it, and that anybody looking for a mood should go somewhere else and be happier.

The manager’s email offers to fly him anywhere. It offers a private class at the house in Bel Air, weekly, at a number the manager describes as not an issue.

Grossbard calls the number himself on a Tuesday, which tells you something.

He gets Roxane. She is direct and funny and better read than he expects and she does not do the thing where a famous person is charming at you. She asks four questions about Nefesh HaChaim, two of which are good.

“So can I come.”

“No.”

There is a pause on the line.

“Can I ask why.”

“You can, and I’d rather do it in a room than on a phone. Come to the parsha class. Wednesdays, seven thirty, ninety people, your husband too. Anybody can come to that one. And then when you’ve come a few times we’ll sit down and I’ll tell you the real answer, and if you decide I’m a bigot you’ll be in good company.”

She comes the following Wednesday.

The board finds out in six days.

Josh Adelman calls it the single largest institutional opportunity in the history of the shul. A member of the finance committee uses the word footprint. Two people separately float the idea of a documentary. The kiruv outfit in Jerusalem sends Grossbard a warm letter for the first time in three years suggesting a joint program.

Marla Feig, eighty one, says one sentence at the November meeting.

“He’s not going to do it, and none of you have been paying attention for twenty years.”

The refusal gets out in January and it gets out wrong.

A gossip site runs it as the rabbi who threw out a pop star. The rabbi in Teaneck writes that Grossbard has finally found a boundary and that it took a woman with a Vatican denunciation to locate it. A columnist in New York writes eight hundred words about Jewish exclusivity and quotes a professor at a divinity school who has never met anybody involved. Adina Reiss gets asked about it at work by two people who do not know she is in the class.

Grossbard says nothing publicly for five weeks.

In February Roxane’s foundation gives six hundred thousand dollars to the building fund.

He takes it. He thanks her by name from the bimah on a Shabbos morning in front of six hundred people and states the amount out loud, which the development chair has begged him not to do, and says that the money will replace the roof over the west wall and the HVAC and that anyone who wants to see the invoices can come to the office.

At the kiddush a man asks him how he can take her money and keep her out of the class.

“Because they’re two different transactions and I’m the only man in this building who knows the difference,” Grossbard says, and takes a piece of herring.

They sit down in March in his office. Just the two of them. Wick waits in the car and reads.

“All right,” she says. “The real answer.”

“There’s a traditional answer first and I’ll give it to you fast because it isn’t mine. You’re supposed to be forty, married, and full of shas and poskim before anybody lets you near this. I don’t hold by that. I’ve got a woman in there who’s thirty six and knows more than three of the men.”

“So it’s that I’m not Jewish.”

“That’s part of it and it isn’t the part that decides it.” He turns his chair. “Here’s what decides it. That class is eleven people who have been keeping this practice their whole adult lives and arguing with each other for six years. The material is a commentary. It doesn’t stand up by itself. It’s a set of notes on what happens inside a person who davens three times a day for thirty years and it means almost nothing to somebody who doesn’t. That’s the first thing.

“The second thing is that if you walk through that door on a Thursday night, my class stops existing that night and never comes back. Not because you’d do anything. Because nine men who’ve been fighting about a page a month for six years will spend the hour being interesting. Barry Teitelbaum will make a joke he’s been saving since 1991. Everybody will listen to themselves talk. I’ll do it too, and I’ll be the worst one, and I’ll know I’m doing it and I won’t be able to stop.”

Roxane sits back.

“I’ve been doing that to rooms since I was twenty two,” she says.

“I know you have.”

“Nobody’s ever told me. Forty years. People change and I watch them change and I’ve never once had a person say the sentence out loud.”

“Now you have.”

She looks out the window for a while. There is a parking structure out the window.

“So what do I get.”

“You get ten minutes right now for free and then you’re going to be annoyed with me, because the ten minutes is most of it.”

He takes Nefesh HaChaim off the shelf and does not open it.

“Before anything, there was only Him, and there was no room for a world. Not no space. No room. So He contracted. He withdrew from a point inside Himself, and the withdrawal made a vacancy, and everything that exists got made inside the vacancy. That’s tzimtzum. Every serious thing I know about people is in it.

“You cannot make room for another person by adding. There is no amount of adding that does it. A father who wants his son to become somebody has to get smaller in the house, and most men can’t, so they fill it and call the filling love and then wonder why the boy comes out flat. A man who marries and keeps all of himself ends up with a wife who works for him. A teacher who is brilliant every single week produces students who can quote him.

“And the withdrawal has to be real. That’s the part nobody wants. It isn’t a way of appearing modest. You have to take yourself out of a place you were occupying and not go back in for it, and it feels like dying, because a piece of you does die in there, and that is the price of another person existing.

“Then the second half, which is the reason the book is honest. The vacancy He made is a place where He isn’t. That’s where everything goes wrong. Every broken thing in the world is in the room He left. He knew that when He did it. He did it anyway.”

Roxane does not say anything for a long moment.

“Okay,” she says.

“That’s the class.”

“That’s the class.”

“There’s four hundred more pages and they’re all footnotes to that.”

She comes to the parsha class on Wednesdays for a year and two months. Ninety people in the room and by the fourth week nobody turns around. She sits on the left side, sixth row, next to a retired pharmacist named Yaffa who does not know who she is and who has become her friend. Wick comes about half the time and takes notes on paper.

She asks maybe nine questions in fourteen months. Two of them are the best question asked that night.

In May she stops him in the parking lot after class.

“Can I ask you something.”

“Yes.”

“The tzimtzum. The getting smaller.” She has her keys in her hand. “Do you do it?”

“No.”

“Why not?”

Grossbard stands there in the lot with the light over the door buzzing.

“I don’t know what’s under there,” he says.

She nods and gets in the car and drives out onto Pico, and he stands there a while longer before he goes back in to lock up.

Posted in R. Shlomo Grossbard | Comments Off on The Thursday Class

The Bird Streets

Rabbi Shlomo Grossbard goes to the party in the dead orthodontist’s suit with a liter of water in a canvas bag on the passenger seat.

Gideon Sonnenfeld’s novel has been optioned. A producer named Alec Ravitch holds the rights and a director attached for nine weeks and a house off Doheny with a view of the whole basin from Century City to the towers downtown, and he is throwing a dinner for forty on a Thursday in June, and Sonnenfeld has asked Grossbard to come, and Grossbard said yes before Sonnenfeld finished the sentence.

Two valets work the street with clipboards. The one who takes the car is a young man named Arturo who says good evening rabbi, because the yarmulke is right there, black suede, and Grossbard says good evening and asks how many cars he has done tonight, and Arturo says thirty one, and it is nine minutes past seven.

Inside, the glass wall stands open and the pool runs to the edge, and past it the city has started to come on.

He takes the bottle out of the bag and carries it. He does not set it down all night.

A woman in her fifties in a black jumpsuit reaches him in the first four minutes. She runs marketing at a streamer and she has decided in advance that he is about to be uncomfortable.

“I hope you’re not offended by any of this.”

“By what.”

She waves at the room.

“It’s a beautiful house,” Grossbard says. “Whose is the Diebenkorn.”

She has to go find out. She comes back nine minutes later with the answer, which is that it belongs to Ravitch’s second wife and hangs here under an arrangement, and they talk about that for twenty minutes and she does not apologize again.

He eats nothing. He drinks his own water.

A young actress named Simone, twenty six, up for the part of the gabbai’s daughter, comes at him with real questions and a notebook open on her phone. He answers all of them. When she asks what the gabbai’s daughter would have worn to a wedding in 1994 he tells her he has no idea and gives her the number of a woman at the Barn who does. He does not flirt and he does not teach, and afterward she tells two people he is the least strange religious man she has ever met.

At 7:50 Alec Ravitch finds him by the kitchen island and apologizes about the food.

“I should have gotten a kosher caterer. Gideon told me not to bother and I listened to him and I’ve been sick about it for a week.”

“He was right.”

“You’re not eating anything.”

“I’m not eating anything.”

“Is there something we can do.”

“There is,” Grossbard says. “You can stop talking about it inside ten seconds and never raise it again, and I’ll have the best night of my month.”

Ravitch laughs and stops. He tells his wife later it was the smoothest thing anybody did to him all year.

Somebody’s cousin asks whether it’s a fast day.

“No. I just don’t eat here.”

“Is that a religious thing?”

“Yes.”

“Cool,” the cousin says, and that is the end of it.

He reads the room the way he reads a kiddush, because it is the same room. Twenty minutes in he could draw it. The director between projects with three people around him, two of whom are there because the third one is. The executive of about thirty four who has survived a regime change by nine days and whose laugh comes half a beat early all night. The first wife who still gets invited and has been seated at the far end on purpose and knows it. The lawyer everyone uses, who talks to no one for more than ninety seconds and touches every person in the house. And Sonnenfeld, the reason for the evening, backed into the corner by the pool and unable to get out.

Nothing here that isn’t at a bar mitzvah on Pico. Better lighting. Same arithmetic.

At dinner they put him between the marketing woman and a man named Sol Bregman, seventy eight, three Emmys in the eighties, buried his wife in 2019, who decides over the soup that he is going to get somewhere with the rabbi.

“I don’t believe any of it.”

“Neither do half my members.”

“I mean I’ve read it. The whole thing, a decent translation, cover to cover, two years ago. It’s a mess. A jealous character who drowns everybody and can’t take criticism.”

“That’s a fair reading of about a third of it.”

“So how do you do it.”

“The arguments are bad,” Grossbard says. “I want that on the table first so we don’t lose an hour. I’ve read the arguments for God, the good ones and most of the bad ones, and they don’t work. Aquinas doesn’t work. The fine tuning thing doesn’t work. If you came at me with the arguments I’d take your side and I’d run it better than you’re running it.”

Bregman puts down his fork.

“Then what.”

“I don’t believe in Him on Tuesdays.”

The table laughs, six people, and the marketing woman writes it down.

Bregman does not laugh. He waits.

“You want the other answer.”

“I’ve got nowhere to be.”

“Four minutes.”

“What?”

“Four minutes of certainty in fifty nine years. Total. Cumulative. Ninety seconds of it at my father’s kevurah and the rest spread out over some mornings.” He turns the bottle a quarter turn on the tablecloth. “I built the entire thing on those four minutes and I’d do it again tomorrow. That’s the answer. It doesn’t sell and I don’t sell it. From the bimah I give them a better answer that I believe less.”

Bregman looks at him a long moment.

“That’s the first honest thing anyone has said to me in this house.”

“Wait till you hear the second one.”

They talk until the plates go and the party has moved outside without them.

Around ten he ends up at the pool with Ravitch’s wife, Dahlia, forty seven, who has kept the house between them all night and has now run out of house.

Ocean Parkway. Beis Yaakov through eleventh grade. Her father has not taken her calls since 2006 and her mother calls on Thursdays from a phone in the basement.

She tells him this in about ninety seconds, flat, the way you say a thing you have said before.

“So,” she says. “Go ahead.”

“Go ahead what.”

“You people always have the speech.”

“I don’t have a speech. I have one question if you want it and you can say no.”

“What’s the question.”

“Does your mother know about the Diebenkorn.”

Dahlia Ravitch laughs until she has to put a hand on the coping.

They talk twenty five minutes and she does most of it. He asks about her father twice and lets it go both times. He does not mention a shul. He does not mention Shabbos. He does not give her a card, and at the end she says, so you’re not going to try, and he says no, and she says why not, and he says because you’d say yes to be polite and then you’d have to avoid me for a year, and I’d rather keep the twenty five minutes.

The car comes at 11:50. A hundred and four total, Arturo says. He is nineteen and takes two classes at Santa Monica College.

Grossbard drives home on Sunset with the windows down.

He gets in at 12:35, hangs the jacket on the chair, and stands at the counter eating corn flakes with a banana cut into them, the first thing he has eaten since two in the afternoon.

Dina comes in in her robe.

“How was it.”

“I had a great time.”

“You always do,” she says, and takes a flake out of the bowl and eats it and goes back to bed.

Dahlia Ravitch comes to the Barn on a Shabbos in March. She sits in the last row of the women’s section with her coat on and leaves eight minutes before the end.

He does not see her. Nobody does.

Posted in R. Shlomo Grossbard | Comments Off on The Bird Streets

The List

The first complaint reaches Rabbi Shlomo Grossbard by phone on a Sunday in February from a man who runs a kashrus agency and who wants him to know that the Malik boy has gone too far.

Ezra Malik is nineteen. He has an agent, a manager, a lawyer his father made him get, and four million people who watch him do other people. He did the kashrus man in October, four minutes, the walk, the clipboard, the way he says the word standards, and it ran everywhere, and eleven mashgichim in three states have been doing the walk at each other ever since.

“He grew up in your shul,” the man says.

“He did.”

“So you can talk to him.”

“I can talk to anybody.”

“Rabbi.”

“I hear you,” Grossbard says, which is what he says.

The second complaint comes from a day school head. The third from a matchmaker in Hancock Park with a following. The fourth from a philanthropist in Beverly Hills who has given the Barn nothing and whose foundation gives eleven million a year to things Grossbard cares about. The fifth arrives on the letterhead of a rabbinical council with nine signatures, one of them from a man who ate at Grossbard’s table in 2019.

By April there have been thirty one. Two lawyers have sent letters. A donor has moved a gift to a different shul and told two people why. Somebody has called Ezra’s agent and mentioned a boycott and the agent has told Ezra, and Ezra, who is nineteen, has started asking his father whether this can hurt his sister.

Grossbard sees the whole thing at once, and what he sees is 2011.

There were forty people writing about this world in 2005. Blogs, most of them anonymous, some of them very good, one or two of them the only honest account anybody had of how the institutions ran. By 2011 there were none. Not one of them was sued. Nobody won a judgment. Nobody got an injunction. They got phone calls. They got a call placed to an employer. They got a father in law taken to lunch. They got a daughter’s shidduch that fell apart in the third week with no reason offered by anyone. Every one of them stopped, and every one of them told you he had gotten busy.

Josh Adelman wants a statement.

“Say we don’t control him,” Adelman says. “Say the Barn has no editorial relationship with a private individual. Say we support open expression.”

“No.”

“Why no.”

“Because it’s a lie, and because it’s the lie they want,” Grossbard says. “The minute I say we support open expression, every one of these people gets to ask me why I support open expression about them and not about the eleven things I killed last year. And I killed eleven things last year, Josh. I pulled a youth minyan skit in November. I told the sisterhood newsletter to take out a paragraph about a divorce. I told Barry Teitelbaum to sit down twice. There is no open forum here. There has never been an open forum here or anywhere else. There’s a set of lines and we enforce them all week long and we don’t write them down, and not writing them down is what lets every macher in Los Angeles come to me one at a time and ask me to move one.”

Marla Feig, who is eighty now and comes to every board meeting, says, “So write them down.”

“Yes,” Grossbard says.

He goes home and takes a book off the shelf that he has never admitted owning.

He bought The Purpose Driven Church in 1998 at a Barnes and Noble in Woodland Hills because he was thirty one years old and had ninety families and no idea what he was doing. Rick Warren (b. 1954) is a Baptist pastor in Orange County who wrote it in 1995 and who wrote The Purpose Driven Life in 2002 and sold enough of them to fund a small country. Grossbard’s copy is annotated in three colors. The thing he took from it in 1998, and has used every year since without attribution, is that a crowd is not a congregation and a congregation is not a membership, and that people behave differently the moment you ask them to sign something.

He calls Ezra in on a Tuesday.

“You’re going to hate the first half of this.”

“Okay.”

“One rule. You don’t do members of this shul. Anybody who holds a membership at the Barn is off the table for as long as they hold it. Everybody else in the Jewish world is a free country and I will never call you about any of them again as long as I live.”

Ezra sits back.

“You’re leashing me.”

“I’m arming you.”

“You’re telling me who I can’t do.”

“I’m telling you who you can,” Grossbard says. “Right now you can’t do anybody, because you’re nineteen and there are four hundred people in this city who can hurt your father’s business and your sister’s shidduch and none of them have to put their name on anything. Starting Friday, a man who wants you to leave him alone has to join a shul, in writing, with a check, at two thousand dollars a year, and I publish the list of members every year in the annual report like every shul in America. He has to buy it and everybody gets to see him buy it.”

Ezra thinks about it for a while. He is nineteen and he thinks about it for a long time, which is one of the reasons he is good.

“They’ll all join.”

“Most of them.”

“That’s a protection racket.”

“That’s a membership organization,” Grossbard says. “The difference is that I’m telling you what it is. Nobody told the forty guys in 2009 what it was. They just got quiet one at a time and thought it was happening only to them.”

The rush starts the second week of May.

The kashrus man joins and tells the office his wife has cousins in the neighborhood. The matchmaker joins and asks whether there is a level above the two thousand and is told there is not. The day school head joins and asks for a receipt for the tuition committee, which the office cannot provide, and joins anyway. The editor of the Journal joins, and writes an editorial three weeks later about the vitality of institutional affiliation in Los Angeles, and does not mention it.

The director of the kiruv outfit in Jerusalem that put Grossbard’s face on a cracked graphic in 2024 joins as an out of town affiliate, a category Grossbard invents on a Thursday afternoon and prices at two thousand dollars.

The philanthropist joins. His assistant calls to ask whether the membership can be in the name of the foundation and is told it cannot.

Membership runs from three hundred and ninety units in April to six hundred and eleven by October. Four hundred and forty two thousand dollars in new dues. Attendance does not move. The same eleven hundred people come on Yom Kippur. Adelman starts calling the difference the phantom shul and stops when it is pointed out that the phantom shul paid for the roof and the air conditioning.

Every Friday at noon Grossbard emails Ezra Malik the updated membership list. No message in the body. Just the list.

Ezra’s editor prints it out and tapes it to the wall.

In September a man named Nathan Sperber, sixty two, who joined in the second week of the rush and who has never been inside the building, is discovered to have been running Sperber Capital for nine years on money from later investors paid out to earlier ones. Eleven families at the Barn have money with him. Two of them have all of it.

Ezra calls at 7:40 in the morning.

“He’s on the list.”

“He’s on the list.”

“I have forty minutes on him. I have him at the Hilton in 2022 telling a room of retirees that he doesn’t take fees from Jews.”

“He’s on the list, Ezra.”

“You’re going to let a two thousand dollar membership cover a man who took the Fishbein’s retirement.”

“I didn’t say that.”

Grossbard calls Sperber in on Thursday. Sperber comes with a lawyer and Grossbard says the lawyer can sit in the hallway or the meeting doesn’t happen, and the lawyer sits in the hallway.

“Your membership is terminated as of this morning. The office will refund you nine hundred and sixteen dollars, which is the prorated balance, and there’s a check on the desk.”

“You can’t do that.”

“Article nine. The rabbi may terminate a membership for conduct injurious to the congregation, and the determination is his alone and is not appealable.” Grossbard slides the check across. “I wrote article nine in November. I wrote it for a Thursday like this one.”

“You built the whole thing to sell protection and now you’re pulling mine.”

“Yes.”

Sperber stares at him.

“At least say something about it,” he says. “At least tell me it’s about the Fishbeins.”

“It’s about the Fishbeins,” Grossbard says. “And it’s also that I want every other man on that list to spend tonight rereading article nine. Take the check.”

Ezra runs the forty minutes on the second of October. It does four million in a day. The Hilton footage is in it. A reporter at a business paper in New York watches it, makes three calls, and files in November, and the receiver is appointed in March, and the Fishbeins get back about a third, which is a third more than they had.

Nobody thanks Grossbard, because most of the room has decided he is the man who protects the mockery, and the rest have decided he is the man who allows it.

He says the true thing once, in December, to a room of forty at the annual meeting, and it goes past them like weather.

“I want this in the minutes. I am the censor here. I made myself the censor in May. Before May there were four hundred people in this city who could quietly ruin a nineteen year old and not one of them had to sign anything. Now there is one man who decides, and it’s me, and you can see me, and you know my address, and you have my email, and article nine has my name on it. That is an improvement. It is not freedom. There is no such thing available and there never was. The only question in front of a community is who does the deciding and whether you can find him.”

The minutes record that the rabbi discussed membership policy.

The rabbi in Teaneck writes eleven hundred words in January on the corruption of a pulpit that sells indulgences and names it a shanda four times. He does not join. He says so in the piece. He says a man of conviction pays for his convictions.

Ezra does him in February. Six minutes. The cadence, the pause before the word shanda, the way he holds a paperback with two fingers. It is the best thing Ezra has ever made and it is not cruel, which is what makes it unsurvivable.

The Friday list goes out at noon on March 14.

Ezra reads it in his car outside the studio on Fairfax, the way he reads it every week, scrolling with his thumb down the new names at the bottom, and he stops.

He calls his editor.

“Take him off the wall.”

Posted in R. Shlomo Grossbard | Comments Off on The List

Tuesday

Rabbi Shlomo Grossbard made the Tuesday rule in 2011, out loud, at the kitchen table, in front of one witness.

No shul. No phone. No hospital unless somebody is dying, and dying counts, and sick does not. No learning. No God.

Dina said at the time that a man who has to declare a day off does not have one. He told her it was in section two. It is not in section two.

He wakes at 6:40 without the alarm, which he has done every day for thirty one years, and lies there while she gets up and dresses and makes coffee. She teaches fourth grade and leaves at 7:10. He hears the car go.

The house at 7:15 is very quiet.

The imaging place on Roxbury takes him at 8:15. Stress echo, ordered in April by a doctor who does not go to shul anywhere, rescheduled twice by Grossbard, and he has told no one about it, including his wife, including the office, and he has scheduled it on a Tuesday for that reason.

The intake woman asks him to spell Grossbard. She asks his occupation and he says clergy and she types six letters.

The tech is a young man named Devin with a beard trimmed to the millimeter, and he puts the leads on and explains the treadmill and Grossbard says, “So this is the part where we find out whether the community gets what it wants,” and Devin says, “Sir, if you feel chest pressure or dizziness you tell me right away.”

It dies. There is nothing in the room to catch it.

He walks eleven minutes at increasing grade with wires on his chest while a stranger watches a monitor and says nothing to him at all. Somebody will call in about a week.

At 9:50 he is in the parking structure with his shirt buttoned wrong and eleven hours in front of him.

He drives. That is what he does with the first part of it. He goes down Olympic to Bundy and up to Sunset and out toward the ocean and back, and the city on a Tuesday morning belongs to gardeners and pool men and delivery drivers and women in workout clothes walking dogs the size of cats. The light before eleven is the good light. Nobody in any of these cars knows a rabbi.

He goes to the 11:10 at the theater on Pico, some picture about a submarine, and there are nine people in the room, and he sleeps from about the twenty minute mark to the seventy minute mark and wakes up during a scene where two men are yelling at each other in the dark and never learns what the argument is about. He stays to the end anyway. He would like to say he stayed out of respect for the craft.

At the Glattmart on Pico at 1:40 a woman by the melons looks at him twice and says, “Are you the rabbi from the video?”

“No,” Grossbard says.

She apologizes. She says he looks exactly like him.

“I get that,” he says.

He stands in the parking lot afterward for a while with the bag in his hand. Thirty years and that is the first time.

He eats at the counter of the place on Beverly at two in the afternoon. Tuna, rye, coleslaw, pickle. He tries something on the waitress about the price of the coleslaw and she says the coleslaw comes with it, which is the correct answer and the end of the exchange.

At 2:40 he drives to Detroit Street.

The shtiebel is still there. It is a converted duplex with a ramp somebody built badly in the nineties and a sign in Hebrew and English and a security camera that has never worked. His father walked in that door at nine at night for thirty nine years, four nights out of five, and Sunday mornings at seven, and came home at eleven and sat in the yellow chair.

There is a minyan there on weekdays. It has let out. Four old men stand on the sidewalk in the sun the way old men do, at the exact distance from the door where a conversation can go another twenty minutes, and one of them is telling the others something with both hands.

Grossbard parks across the street and turns off the engine.

He knows two of those men. Neither of them would know him. They are eighty five years old and they have no phones and they do not read the Journal and they have never heard of any of it.

He watches them for eleven minutes. Then he starts the car and goes.

He does not go in and there is no reason he can give.

At four he turns the phone on in the driveway. Sixty one emails. A vendor about the fire inspection. Three about the bar mitzvah calendar. Josh Adelman about a term sheet Grossbard has no opinion about. A man in Toronto who has written to him every Tuesday since 2019 about the Documentary Hypothesis and who does not know it is his day off.

Nothing has happened. Nobody has died. Nobody needs him and the machine is running without him and it will run without him tomorrow too.

He turns the phone off and sits in the driveway.

Dina gets home at 4:30 on Tuesdays and turns around at five to take her sister to the eye doctor in Encino, and the house at 5:20 is very quiet again.

He goes to the shelf and takes down his father’s Mishnayos with the cracked spine.

He sits in the good chair by the window with the light going and opens to where he left off in his mother’s room in April, and he starts, out loud, in the singsong.

Eleven minutes.

It dies at eleven minutes. He hears his own voice in a room with nobody in it and the sound goes flat and he loses the thread of the argument twice and then a third time, and he sits there with his thumb on the page.

In his mother’s room he did eighteen minutes without effort and could have done ninety. One old woman with a candy in her cheek and a crossword in her lap, and the whole thing held.

He closes the book. He does not make a note of this. He does not compose the sentence about it, and the not composing takes work.

At 7:50 he drives to a shul on Pico he has never been inside, a Persian congregation with a daf yomi at eight in a side room with a water cooler and eleven chairs.

Six men. The maggid shiur is a jeweler named Nasser who has been giving it for four years.

Grossbard sits in the back and says nothing.

Nasser is not very good. He is prepared, which is more than most, and he is warm, and he mangles a Rashi at the twelve minute mark in a way that turns the whole sugya around backward, and none of the six men notices, and they go on for another thirty five minutes on a foundation that is upside down.

Grossbard sits on his hands.

It is the hardest work he does all day and there is no one in the room who knows he is doing it.

At the end Nasser says the kaddish and a man of about eighty next to Grossbard takes a tin of mints out of his jacket, opens it, and holds it out without looking over.

Grossbard takes one.

“Thank you,” he says.

The man nods and puts the tin away.

He is home at 9:35. Dina is at the table with the crossword folded in eighths.

“How was your Tuesday.”

“Fine.”

She looks up. He hangs the jacket on the chair and goes to get a glass of water and that is the whole report.

The imaging place calls Thursday afternoon. Everything is normal for a man his age. They want him back in a year.

He never mentions it to anybody, which is the hardest thing he does that week

Posted in R. Shlomo Grossbard | Comments Off on Tuesday

What Might Survival Cost For Israel & Jews?

Some Jewish thinkers refuses the consolation of clean hands. They ask what a people has to do to live, and it accepts that some of the answers will be ugly. The strand runs from Rambam on siege through Rav Shaul Yisraeli (1909-1995) on reprisal to Asa Kasher (b. 1940) on asymmetric war to the settlement yeshivot that publish arguments most Jews find unbearable.
At least four different intellectual acts get filed under the same heading, and they carry different weight, different evidence standards, and wildly different status returns.
There is descriptive realism, which claims to report how the enemy thinks without recommending anything. There is tragic necessity, which admits the act is wrong and argues it must be done anyway. There is doctrinal hardening, which revises the rules so the hard act becomes permitted rather than excused. And there is halakhic permission, which locates the act inside a system of divine law where the moral cost disappears into the category.

The Kedar case

On July 1, 2014, days after the bodies of Gilad Shaar, Naftali Fraenkel, and Eyal Yifrah were found, Mordechai Kedar appeared on Israel Radio‘s Hakol Diburim to discuss deterring Hamas. He said the only thing that could deter a suicide bomber is knowing that if caught, his sister or his mother would be raped. He added that it sounds bad, and that this is the Middle East. When the interviewer said Israel could not take such steps, Kedar answered that he was not talking about what Israel should do, that he was talking about facts, and that this alone would bring the man home to preserve his sister's honor.
Bar-Ilan issued a joint statement with him saying he did not call for fighting terror by any except legal and moral means, that he used hyperbole to illustrate that suicide bombers cannot be deterred, and that his words contained no recommendation to commit such acts. Kedar wrote afterward that he opposes sexual violence in every circumstance. He kept his post. He kept his forty-five-day North American speaking tour, and no organization canceled him. He said the denunciations raised his profile.
Kedar is a Bar-Ilan Arabist with twenty-five years in military intelligence and a research fellowship at the Begin-Sadat Center. He is not a crank on the subject of Arabic political language, which was his dissertation.
The move Kedar made is the signature move of descriptive realism: I report, I do not prescribe. That move is legitimate in principle. An analyst who explains why a rival society responds to shame rather than to threats of imprisonment is doing his job, and a field that punishes such description makes itself useless.
The move also has two failure points, and Kedar hit both.
The first is that his claim was not a description of anything. He was not reporting an observed practice. He was asserting a counterfactual about what would deter, which is a claim about what Israel should permit its enemies to believe. That is a recommendation wearing a lab coat. The distance between “this would work” and “we should do this” is one sentence, and the speaker leaves that sentence for someone else to write.
The second is that the empirical claim was never tested and cannot easily be tested. It flatters the speaker by making a horrifying method sound like the price of clear sight. Hard talk that costs the speaker nothing and cannot be checked is not realism. It is a performance of realism, and the market for it is large.

The serious version

The strongest hard doctrine produced by Israeli scholarship came from Kasher and Amos Yadlin (b. 1951).
In 2005 they published “Assassination and Preventive Killing,” an essay on assassination within the framework of fighting terror. Kasher is professor of professional ethics and philosophy of practice at Tel Aviv University and an academic adviser to the IDF; Yadlin was a major general who later headed military intelligence.
A state fighting in territory it does not control may prioritize its own combatants over enemy noncombatants. That inverts a settled assumption of the war convention, and it does so with an argument rather than a slogan. The state's first duty runs to its own citizens, soldiers included. Soldiers are citizens in uniform. A doctrine that spends their lives to protect the civilians of a party that deliberately embeds itself among civilians rewards the embedding.
Avishai Margalit (b. 1939) and Michael Walzer (b. 1935) answered in The New York Review of Books in May 2009, noting that Amos Harel had argued in Haaretz that February that these guidelines governed IDF conduct in the Gaza fighting. Their objection was that if the lives of our soldiers take priority over their civilians, they asked, why could our soldiers not use those civilians as shields?
Shlomo Avineri (1933-2023) entered the exchange from a third direction, arguing that Walzer and Margalit were obfuscating, that no army owes enemy civilians the care it owes its own population, and noting the exchange between Kasher and Yadlin and Moshe Halbertal and Avi Sagi in Yediot Ahronot on April 10 of that year. Critics in Israel gave the new doctrine a nickname: license to kill.
Daniel Statman at Haifa has defended targeted killing on similar ground with more philosophical care. Yitzhak Benbaji at Tel Aviv works the contractarian foundations of the war convention. These men are doing hard work without hard talk, which is why almost nobody outside philosophy has heard of them.

Halbertal holds both ends

Moshe Halbertal helped write the IDF code of ethics. He also wrote a long critique of the Goldstone Report that defends Israeli conduct against what he considered a false standard while conceding failures. He argues against Kasher and Yadlin on the priority question and argues against Israel's foreign critics on proportionality. He accepts that asymmetric urban war generates situations where every available choice is wrong and insists that the wrongness stays wrong.
That is tragic necessity in its adult form. The act may be required. The requirement does not launder it. A man who does the necessary thing has still done the thing, and the residue is his to carry.
This position has the highest intellectual standing in the field and produces the fewest disciples. Randall Collins predicts that. Young men do not organize around a teacher whose message is that they will be guilty either way.

The halakhic line

In 1953 and 1954, Rav Shaul Yisraeli published “Takrit Kibiyah le-or ha-halakhah” in Ha-Torah ve-ha-Medinah, later expanded as chapter sixteen of Amud HaYemini. The occasion was the Qibya raid, an Israeli reprisal on a Jordanian-held village after months of cross-border killing, culminating in the murder of a mother and her two children in Yehud. Dozens of civilians died at Qibya and much of the village was destroyed.
Yisraeli composed the essay to justify the operation, arguing it was a battle in an ongoing war of revenge against hostile neighbors and sanctioned by halakhah. His position was controversial because it endorsed violence against civilians in wartime and because halakhah appeared to contain no precedent for wars of revenge. He constructed a new category, milhemet nakamah.
He also drew a line. Even inside that category, targeting civilians from the outset stays forbidden. He accepted collateral death without affirming total war.
Yeshayahu Leibowitz (1903-1994) wrote “After Qibiyeh,” the more famous response and the one every educated Jew has heard of. Gerald Blidstein judged Yisraeli's the more important of the two, measured by influence over time, because Yisraeli introduced most of the halakhic tools still used to argue about hostile civilian populations.
The essay that condemns is remembered. The essay that permits is used.
Rav Yisraeli was a dayan on the rabbinical high court and later rosh yeshiva at Merkaz HaRav. He was the establishment, doing the establishment's hardest work, and the tradition of source-driven argument about civilian risk that now runs through Religious Zionist responses to Gaza descends from him.

Where the floor gives way

In 2009 the Od Yosef Chai yeshiva in Yitzhar published Torat HaMelech by Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur, a 230-page halakhic compendium on when a Jew may kill a non-Jew. Among its claims: that the prohibition on murder as stated in the Decalogue governs a Jew killing a Jew, and that the children of Israel's enemies may be killed on the reasoning that they will grow up to harm us. Yitzchak Ginsburgh and Dov Lior (b. 1933) endorsed it. Yehuda Bauer (1926-2024) called the book a mortal danger to the Jewish people.
Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein closed the investigation in May 2012 for want of evidence supporting an indictment for incitement to racism and violence. He found the racist content severe and the grounds for conviction absent, because the incitement statute exempts religious study. The High Court later ordered him to explain why the authors and endorsers had not been charged. The court said it was hard to doubt the racist approach of the authors. All four rabbis drew state salaries at a state-funded yeshiva.
A liberal state gave the most extreme halakhic argument in circulation a legal shelter that no secular argument of comparable content could obtain. Kedar needed a university to defend him. Shapira needed only the category of Torah study.
Ginsburgh's network is the one place in the Jewish world where willingness to say the unbearable is fully institutionalized, with yeshivot, publishing, communities, music, and disciples. He has the school. He does not have access to the general attention space, and he does not want it. His circle produces elaborators rather than falsifiers, which is what a school with a protected premise produces.

The diaspora register

Ruth Wisse (b. 1936) made the argument in a different key in Jews and Power. Jewish political weakness was converted over centuries into a moral achievement, and that conversion left Jews unfit for the exercise of power once they had it. Her target is the sentiment that treats powerlessness as innocence. She paid at Harvard in social standing and gained a devoted readership on the right.
Walzer invented the modern doctrine of supreme emergency in Just and Unjust Wars, the argument that a community facing annihilation may cross a line it may not otherwise cross, and he built it around the Blitz. Then he spent decades refusing to grant Israel that license in situations Israelis considered qualifying. A man may hold both. Whether he can hold both without special pleading is the question his critics keep asking.

Four tests

The genre is full of men who mistake brutality for candor. Some tests separate them.
Does the argument specify a floor? Yisraeli forbade targeting civilians at the outset. Kasher and Yadlin bound their priority claim to territory outside state control. Torat HaMelech has no floor, which is why it is not serious halakhah even where it cites real sources.
Does the speaker carry a cost, or only assign one? Halbertal's position costs him. Kedar's cost him nothing and paid a dividend.
Is the empirical claim checkable? Deterrence claims are the most abused in the genre because they can be asserted forever and tested never.
Would the argument survive publication in full, in context, to a hostile audience?

What the status economy rewards

Hard talk in the media market pays well, costs little, and produces no disciples. Hard doctrine inside the Israeli academy buys real institutional influence, real reputational damage abroad, and a handful of students. Hard halakhah inside a settlement yeshiva enjoys total legal and communal protection, generates genuine disciples, and forfeits any claim on the wider conversation. Tragic realism earns the highest respect from serious people and builds nothing.
The more responsible the position, the fewer the followers. Collins would say that a school needs an enemy it can defeat, and tragedy offers no victory to organize around. So the men who think most carefully about what survival might cost are the men least able to reproduce themselves, and the men least careful are the ones with yeshivot.
Since October 7 the stakes on this have risen. Religious rhetoric about Amalek, once an internal idiom, has been quoted back to Israel in international legal proceedings. That is the modern condition for every one of these arguments. Nothing stays in the beit midrash. A halakhic category invented for a border reprisal in 1953 now gets read by lawyers in The Hague.
If the hard thing is true, it should be sayable in the open, in full, with the limits attached and the cost admitted.

Posted in Anti-Gentilism, Anti-Semitism, Israel | Comments Off on What Might Survival Cost For Israel & Jews?

If Mearsheimer Is Right

In his 2018 book, The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities, John J. Mearsheimer wrote:

My view is that we are profoundly social beings from the start to the finish of our lives and that individualism is of secondary importance… Liberalism downplays the social nature of human beings to the point of almost ignoring it, instead treating people largely as atomistic actors… Political liberalism… is an ideology that is individualistic at its core and assigns great importance to the concept of inalienable rights. This concern for rights is the basis of its universalism—everyone on the planet has the same inherent set of rights—and this is what motivates liberal states to pursue ambitious foreign policies. The public and scholarly discourse about liberalism since World War II has placed enormous emphasis on what are commonly called human rights. This is true all around the world, not just in the West. “Human rights,” Samuel Moyn notes, “have come to define the most elevated aspirations of both social movements and political entities—state and interstate. They evoke hope and provoke action.”
[Humans] do not operate as lone wolves but are born into social groups or societies that shape their identities well before they can assert their individualism. Moreover, individuals usually develop strong attachments to their group and are sometimes willing to make great sacrifices for their fellow members. Humans are often said to be tribal at their core. The main reason for our social nature is that the best way for a person to survive is to be embedded in a society and to cooperate with fellow members rather than act alone… Despite its elevated ranking, reason is the least important of the three ways we determine our preferences. It certainly is less important than socialization. The main reason socialization matters so much is that humans have a long childhood in which they are protected and nurtured by their families and the surrounding society, and meanwhile exposed to intense socialization. At the same time, they are only beginning to develop their critical faculties, so they are not equipped to think for themselves. By the time an individual reaches the point where his reasoning skills are well developed, his family and society have already imposed an enormous value infusion on him. Moreover, that individual is born with innate sentiments that also strongly influence how he thinks about the world around him. All of this means that people have limited choice in formulating a moral code, because so much of their thinking about right and wrong comes from inborn attitudes and socialization…

If Mearsheimer is right, then the entire edifice of liberal political theory, liberal journalism, liberal education, liberal foreign policy, and liberal institutional self-understanding rests on a fundamental mistake about what humans are.

Men are social before they are anything else. Survival runs through the group. Reason ranks third behind innate sentiment and socialization, and it arrives late, after a long childhood during which the family and the surrounding society have already performed an enormous value infusion. A man has limited choice in formulating a moral code because most of his sense of right and wrong was installed before he could evaluate anything.

Grant all of it. What happens to Torah?

The first thing that happens is that most of the field’s prestige projects lose their footing. The second thing is that the value of Torah study goes up.

Analytic Jewish philosophy takes the hardest hit. The project of testing revelation, chosenness, and divine command as propositions under contemporary scrutiny assumes that a man can reason his way to or from a religious commitment. Mearsheimer’s anthropology says reason is the weakest of the three engines and the last to arrive. The Orthodox philosopher who follows the argument wherever it leads has, in the overwhelming majority of cases, already been formed to arrive where he arrives. The record supports this. The circle around the Association for the Philosophy of Judaism has produced sophisticated argument and almost no defections. Under Mearsheimer’s account that is what you expect from a group of men socialized into a tradition, working with the third-ranked instrument, on questions whose answers their formation settled decades earlier.

The moral critique of Torah loses its standing next. If moral knowledge comes from inborn sentiment and socialization, then the modern intuitions that indict Torah on slavery, Amalek, gender hierarchy, and the treatment of gentiles are products of a particular formation. Postwar Western liberal formation, to be exact, and Mearsheimer’s whole book is an argument that this formation mistook itself for a discovery about all human beings everywhere. Samuel Moyn (b. 1972), whom Mearsheimer quotes on how human rights came to define the highest aspirations of movements and states, has spent a career showing how recent that vocabulary is.

So the question “can Torah be morally wrong” becomes a question about whose sentiments are doing the judging and what installed them.

The traditionalist wins nothing here. His intuitions are also installed. Mearsheimer’s anthropology does not adjudicate between moral codes.

The authority problem dissolves. The deepest question in the field, as we mapped it, is how a historically produced text acquires transcendent authority. That question assumes obedience requires a warrant. Mearsheimer says obedience never worked that way for anybody. Men obey because the people who raised them obeyed and because the group they need in order to live expects it. Benjamin Sommer’s model of revelation and Ethan Tucker’s account of obligation are elegant answers to a question that only becomes urgent for people already loose enough from their formation to ask it. The question is a symptom rather than a problem.

That also explains the secular failure. The earlier map said the secular world has no persuasive theory of command without a commander. On this frame, nobody ever had a theory of command. Secular batei midrash produce readers rather than obligated men because they supply text without supplying the childhood, the endogamy, the calendar, the sanctions, and the burial society. The missing thing is density of formation.

One figure moves to the center under this frame.

Moshe Koppel argues that halakhah works like a first language. A native speaker knows what sounds right before he can state the rule. Communities, practices, intuitions, and exemplars carry the tradition, and codes and ideologies come second. That is Mearsheimer’s value infusion during a long childhood, restated in halakhic terms by a man who arrived at it independently.

Koppel becomes the most important living theorist of Torah if Mearsheimer is right. Not Lebens, who reasons. Not Sommer, who models. Koppel, who describes how transmission happens.

Rav Shagar rises for a different reason. He built a religious language for men whose formation had cracked and who could not repair it by argument. That is the correct response to a partial socialization failure. You cannot reason a deracinated man back into a tradition. You can give him a way to stand inside practice without the certainty he lost. Yishai Mevorach’s theology of absence is the same instrument in a harsher key.

And the Haredim rise, which is the finding nobody in the liberal or Modern Orthodox world wants. Near-total socialization density. Low individualism. High sacrifice for the group. Thin rational apologetics. Enormous demographic success. Modern Orthodoxy invested in synthesis and rational defense and does worse. Liberal Judaism maximized individual autonomy and does worst. Under Mearsheimer’s anthropology that ordering is precisely what the model predicts, and the model was not built to flatter anyone.

Mearsheimer explains group survival through security, territory, and state power. Jews survived close to two millennia without any of the three. No army, no borders, no sovereign. On a strict realist account that should not happen.

What did the work was Torah. A portable, textual, ritually saturated formation system that reproduced a people across dispersion, hostile hosts, and repeated destruction. It maintained endogamy, a calendar, a legal order, a language, and a lifelong labor that consumed the intelligence of the group’s ablest men. It is the only known technology for maintaining tribal cohesion without territory over that span.

That reframes Shaul Magid’s exile argument. Strip the theology and it becomes a sociological claim: diaspora forced the development of a formation system so strong it did not need a state, and sovereignty introduced a substitute that might weaken the original. You need not accept his politics to see that the empirical question is real and open.

If Mearsheimer is right, the value of studying Torah is that Torah is the most tested continuously operating socialization system on earth.

The old list of live questions was theological. This one is not.

What is the minimum density required to transmit? Which components are essential and which are ornamental? Endogamy, a distinct language, a full calendar, real sanctions on exit, a text demanding lifetime labor, immersion coextensive with childhood. Hadar is running one version of this experiment. Chabad another. Bnei Brak a third. Nobody compares them with any rigor.

Can a community that teaches its children the critical account of the text still produce adults who obey? This is the real version of the revelation question. Not whether revelation survives criticism as a proposition, but whether formation survives criticism as a practice. TheTorah.com is the natural test case and the results are not in. This question is more consequential than anything in the analytic literature and almost nobody is asking it, because asking it requires treating one’s own community as a subject of study.

What does Torah know about relations between groups once universalism stops being the default? The tradition thought about Jews and gentiles for three thousand years without liberal assumptions. Noahide law, ger toshav, the resident alien, the laws of war, the obligations owed to those outside the covenant. Under liberal assumptions this material reads as an embarrassment to be minimized. Under Mearsheimer’s assumptions it becomes a developed body of thought about how a particular people manages real obligations to outsiders without pretending outsiders are insiders. The liberal frame makes the material look reactionary. The nationalist frame treats it as ammunition. Neither reads it. This is the largest unworked seam in the field.

What restrains a people when restraint cannot come from universal rights? Mearsheimer removes the external check. His own answer to what limits a nationalist state is prudence and the balance of power. Torah limits are internal, ancient, and binding on men who do not care what The Hague thinks. Rav Shaul Yisraeli’s floor. Rambam on siege. Bal tashchit. The prohibition on wanton destruction. A serious account of internal restraint under conditions where nobody can enforce it from outside would be a contribution to political theory. No one has written it.

Mearsheimer explains why men believe. He does not establish that what they believe is false. God either spoke at Sinai or He did not, and no amount of sociology settles it. Lebens and Segal’s enterprise survives as a small, honest undertaking for the handful of men whose temperament requires it. It stops being the center of the field and becomes one room in it.

You were formed by something before you could evaluate anything. You will be run by that formation whether you inspect it or not. Studying Torah is the only available way to get any purchase on the operating system you are already running, because it is the system, laid out for examination, by men who spent their lives on it.

It binds you to the living people who study it. The study is itself the transmission. What we described earlier as interaction ritual is Mearsheimer’s socialization watched at close range, and a man who studies with a chavruta twice a week is not gathering information. He is being made.

It gives you a moral vocabulary with three thousand years of stress testing rather than seventy years of rights talk. Selection is not proof. A code that has survived that long has been selected for something, and fitness is evidence even where it is not truth.

If socialization determines moral code and reason is weak, then a preference for uncomfortable truth is socialized. The man who prizes candor over consolation belongs to a small subculture that rewards candor, and he is doing coalition work for it while believing he has escaped coalition work.

The reply is in Mearsheimer’s own conduct. He wrote a book of arguments against the primacy of argument. He must believe reason moves men at the margin, or the writing makes no sense. The margin is small and it is where every intellectual life happens. Torah study, done with your eyes open, is margin work performed inside an engine that runs on something else.

Posted in Torah | Comments Off on If Mearsheimer Is Right

Forty Thousand

Rabbi Shlomo Grossbard first hears the name in the checkout line at the market on Pico, from a woman who has been at the Barn eleven years and who puts her hand on his forearm to tell him that her daughter has started going to a young rabbi in Culver City and that he is a beautiful person.

“Beautiful,” Grossbard says.

“You should meet him. You’d love him.”

“I’d eat him.”

“Rabbi.”

By November he has heard the name forty times.

Rabbi Yoni Belfer, thirty four, Teaneck by way of the Gush, six foot two, runs the loop at Cheviot Hills four mornings a week, and has a full head of hair that he does not appear to know about. He and his wife Shira started Ahavas Reim in a storefront on Washington between a pilates studio and a shop that sells CBD chews for dogs. Sixty families now. Young ones, priced out of Pico, pushing strollers eleven blocks each way because there is nowhere closer.

He takes forty thousand dollars a year. He mentions this only when asked, and he is asked constantly.

He cried on the second day of Rosh Hashanah in front of two hundred people, in the middle of his own drasha, about his grandfather, and he did not apologize for it or turn it into a joke, and the room loved him. Nobody at the Barn has ever seen Grossbard’s face do anything he did not schedule.

The rabbi in Teaneck publishes a piece in December called The Rabbi We Deserve. It does not name Grossbard once and it is about nothing else. He was Belfer’s rabbi growing up. He has found his weapon and he intends to use it for a decade.

Belfer emails Grossbard the day it runs. Subject line: I’m sorry. Body: I didn’t know he was writing that, I asked him to take it down, he won’t, and I wanted you to hear it from me. Grossbard reads it twice and forwards it to nobody, which for him is an act of enormous restraint.

Belfer comes to the Wednesday class in January and sits in the back with his coat on.

Grossbard is doing the first mishnah in Kiddushin, and he has the room where he wants it, and at the end Belfer raises his hand and asks a question that is earnest and about half a question. Barry Teitelbaum turns around in his chair to watch what happens next.

What happens next is that Grossbard takes the question seriously for four minutes, finds the good version of it, gives Belfer the credit for the good version, and waves off two better questions from the front row to stay with it.

Adina Reiss writes one word on her legal pad and underlines it.

They go for coffee afterward at the place on Robertson that stays open, and Grossbard runs the bit at him for twenty minutes, because he cannot help it and because he wants to see what the kid does with it. Section two. The rate card. The forty thousand is a salary, Yoni, it gets paid in being the man who takes forty thousand, and every person who tells you they admire it has just made a deposit.

Belfer stirs his coffee.

“You sat with Bernie Klausner for nine nights,” he says.

“They pay me.”

“Okay,” Belfer says.

Grossbard waits for the rest. There is no rest. Belfer drinks his coffee and asks about the eruv, because Culver City doesn’t have one and he is about to spend four years getting one, and he wants to know who at the city Grossbard called.

Nobody has ever done that. Everyone argues. Thirty years of people arguing, and this one says okay and moves on, and Grossbard drives home on Robertson at eleven at night having decided that he likes him, which is inconvenient.

The Journal runs the piece in February. Two Rabbis, Two Los Angeleses. A photograph of Belfer in a folding chair in the storefront holding one of his kids, and a photograph of Grossbard at the bimah with his mouth open. Ezra Malik, seventeen, starts doing Belfer along with Grossbard, and the Belfer is warm and gentle and outperforms the Grossbard, and Ezra’s agent tells him to lean into the Belfer.

At the federation panel in March they put the two of them on a stage with a moderator from a think tank, and four hundred people buy tickets, and every one of them has come to watch Grossbard eat him.

He could do it in a sentence. He has the sentence by the eleven minute mark, when Belfer says something about learning for its own sake with three holes in it, and the sentence would be the funniest thing said in Los Angeles that year, and half that room would tell the story for twenty years.

He sets him up instead. He asks about the strollers on Washington. He gets Belfer talking about a family with a son in a wheelchair who moved from Beverlywood so they could walk to a shul on the flat, and Belfer tells it without weeping and without performing, and by the end of it four hundred people have forgotten there was supposed to be a fight.

Marla Feig finds Grossbard by the coat check.

“You had him.”

“I had him.”

“Why.”

“I liked what he said about the wheelchair.”

“That’s not a reason.”

“No,” Grossbard says. “It isn’t.”

Belfer calls the house in June. Not the office. The house, at nine at night, which is how Grossbard knows.

They meet at the Coffee Bean on Pico at 6:30 in the morning because that is when Belfer is up. Grossbard has not been awake at 6:30 without a levaya in four years.

Beth Yeshurun in Hancock Park has offered Belfer the pulpit. Four hundred families, old money, older building, a shul that has buried three rabbis and outlived two more. A hundred and sixty five thousand plus the house on Detroit Street. They want an answer in three weeks.

“Shira’s due in October,” Belfer says. “The landlord on Berryman is selling. Four kids, forty thousand dollars, and my father in law has paid the day school tuition for two years and calls it a gift.”

“How much of it does he tell people.”

“All of it,” Belfer says, and looks at the table.

Grossbard lets it sit.

“So take it.”

“I built Ahavas Reim out of nothing. Sixty families. Eleven of them moved to Culver City because I told them to. I told the Kaufmans to buy on Berryman, in my kitchen, to their faces.” He turns his cup around. “I stood up on Rosh Hashanah and said things about what a shul is, and two hundred people heard me say it. If I go to Hancock Park for money, every one of those things becomes something I said before I got a better offer.”

“Correct.”

“So tell me what to do.”

“You want me to tell you what to do.”

“I want the truth,” Belfer says. “You’re the only man in this city who gives it. That’s why I’m sitting here at six thirty in the morning.”

Grossbard looks at him a long time.

Here is the truth, and it takes eleven seconds. The forty thousand is the best asset the kid owns and he does not know he owns it. Every dollar he leaves on the table comes back at four to one in the coin he spends, which is being the rabbi who leaves it. He has built a following out of a renunciation he believes is not a strategy, and the belief is what makes it work, because a man performing humility gets found out in ten months and Belfer has never performed anything in his life. He should take the money and stop pricing his soul in a currency his children cannot eat. And by fifty, if he stays, he will hate those sixty families for what they let him do to his own kids, and he will not know that is what he feels, and it will come out sideways at his wife.

A minute. It would take a minute to say.

It would also take the man apart, because what comes out the other end of that minute is a rabbi who knows he has been running a play, and Belfer running a play he can see is worth nothing to anyone, starting with the wheelchair family on Washington, who are getting the real article this morning for free.

“Yoni. Look at me.”

“I’m looking at you.”

“Ahavas Reim doesn’t need you anymore. Nobody’s told you that. You built it and it’s built. Sixty families who walk eleven blocks will walk eleven blocks whether you stand there or not, and if you stay ten more years the only thing that changes is that they get used to you.” He leans in. “Beth Yeshurun has four hundred families and three dead rabbis and nobody home. Nobody. They’ve run on a building and a cantor since 2009. Four hundred people sitting in the dark in a beautiful room on Detroit Street. That’s your wheelchair family. There’s four hundred of them and they’ve been waiting seventeen years.”

Belfer stares at him.

“You think I should go for them.”

“I think you’re the only man in this city who’d go for them.”

Belfer puts both hands over his face. When he takes them down his eyes are wet and he does not apologize.

“Okay,” he says. “Okay.”

Grossbard drives to the Barn and sits in the lot six or seven minutes before he goes in.

Dina asks that night how the coffee went.

“I lied to a rabbi.”

“Which part was the lie.”

“None of the parts. Every sentence was true.” He hangs up his jacket. “The arrangement was the lie.”

“Did it help him?”

“It’ll hold for about fifteen years.”

“Then it’s fine,” Dina says, and goes back to the crossword.

Belfer takes Beth Yeshurun in July. He tells Ahavas Reim from the bimah on a Shabbos morning in a storefront on Washington with the air conditioning failing, and he says that a community that can only exist while he stands in the middle of it was never a community, and that there are four hundred people on Detroit Street who have sat in the dark since 2009, and he says it the way he says everything, like a man who has never had a second thought in his life.

Grossbard stands at the back by the door and listens to his own argument come out of a better looking man’s mouth and watches two hundred people receive it as revelation.

The rabbi in Teaneck writes that Belfer has been called to a greater vineyard. Ezra Malik does the drasha that night and it goes to two million, and Belfer’s version becomes the version, and it will be quoted at Belfer’s funeral.

He is very good at Beth Yeshurun. Better than anyone expected, better than Grossbard expected, and Grossbard expected a great deal.

Three years in, at a bar mitzvah kiddush in the social hall on Detroit Street, Rabbi Yoni Belfer tells four hundred people that nobody in the room does one single thing for free, himself first, and gets a big laugh.

He does not know where he got it.

Posted in R. Shlomo Grossbard | Comments Off on Forty Thousand

Vox Day

He works out of an unfinished apartment in an industrial park.
The village is Cressier, in the canton of Fribourg, about twenty minutes from Murten, and the building has bare concrete where the floors should be. In one room there is a gym. In another there are cardboard boxes of leather stamped Made in Korea. Down in the basement, an employee feeds printed book blocks into a binding machine and burns the cover designs on with a laser. The company binds about fifteen hundred books a month, the owner says, and next year he wants ten times that.
The owner is Theodore Robert Beale (b. August 21, 1968), who writes as Vox Day. In December 2025 a reporter and a photographer from the Swiss public broadcaster's international service came to see him, because his blog draws better than half a million visits a month, mostly American, and because a term he invented on that blog in 2010 has since become a genre of TikTok video for boys who have never heard of him. The reporter asked about the label most often attached to him. Beale said the label was the wrong one. “I reject the Enlightenment,” he told him, and offered that as the correct grounds for objection.
A few hundred meters away stands the other property he owns in the village, a château of pale stone with frescoed salons and a large garden, listed by the Confederation as a cultural asset of national importance. When he bought it, the tabloid Blick announced that an American had turned a Swiss castle into a neo-Nazi stronghold. What has actually happened there since is that the municipal library held a bilingual story night for local families.
Both facts belong in the same paragraph. Keeping them there is the difficulty of writing about him.

Minnesota money

Robert Beale founded Comtrol Corporation, a Maple Grove computer hardware firm, and ran it as chairman and chief executive. He lived in North Oaks. He was a leader in his church and worked as a youth minister. In 1988 he served as Minnesota campaign manager for Pat Robertson (1930-2023), the television evangelist, during Robertson's run for the Republican presidential nomination. There were four sons.
That is the world Theodore Beale grew up in: Twin Cities technology money, evangelical Protestantism, Republican Party organizing done from a suburb with private roads. He went to Bucknell and graduated in 1990, having taken economics and East Asian studies. Both stuck. He has spent thirty years making large economic forecasts and thinking about civilizations as durable units rather than as collections of interchangeable people.
His father's arc ran the other way, and ran late. In the 1990s Robert Beale developed a theory that he did not owe federal income tax. Between 2000 and 2004 he routed some $5.6 million of Comtrol compensation through an entity called Chayil, a Hebrew word meaning strength or valor, and reported none of it. He forged a certificate releasing an IRS lien on his Florida house and filed it with the Collier County clerk, who believed it. Indicted in 2006, he failed to appear on the morning of trial and stayed gone fourteen months. During that time he moved $100,000 inside a Swiss bank in Comtrol's name, wired $50,000 to Florida, and tried and failed to move $700,000 more. He used the same cell phone for eleven months and called his family with it. His ex-wife called the police. Agents took him in an Office Depot parking lot in Orlando on November 1, 2007, without incident.
Sitting in county jail at sixty-four, in an orange jumpsuit, he told a Star Tribune reporter that using the one phone had been a really dumb mistake. His wife had divorced him and taken the assets. One of his other sons had removed him from the company. He was convicted on all seven counts on April 30, 2008, and drew eleven years and two months, with more added for a scheme to have the federal judge arrested by the provost marshal of his own common-law court. The Eighth Circuit affirmed in 2009, observing that his views on the constitutional order were not mistakes about what the law is but disagreements about what it should be.
The crimes are the father's. His son was thirty-eight, living in Europe, and had nothing to do with any of it. But two habits of mind pass down the line intact: the conviction that the governing institutions are illegitimate, and the practice of building a private structure to route around them.

Silicon Jesus

In 1987 Beale played keyboards in a Minneapolis cover band called NoBoys. At a club called The Underground he met Paul Sebastien, born Paul Skrowaczewski, whose father Stanisław Skrowaczewski (1923-2017) had conducted the Minnesota Orchestra for a decade. They started a duo, added the drummer Michael Larson and the engineer Daniel Lenz, and called it Psykosonik. They recorded in Sebastien's apartment and played First Avenue, the 7th Street Entry, and Prince's Glam Slam.
The record deal came through Wax Trax!, the Chicago industrial label, distributed by TVT. The 1993 debut carried tracks titled “Welcome to My Mind,” “Silicon Jesus,” “Teknojihad,” and “I Am God.” The music was cyberpunk techno with pop hooks, arriving in the same season as Nirvana and Green Day. They had four singles reach the Billboard dance club top forty, took a rotation on MTV, played Lollapalooza, and put a song into a Super Nintendo game. A second album, Unlearn, came in 1995. Beale left after 1994.
He was twenty-five and had already learned the lesson he would spend the rest of his life applying: an artifact made by four people in an apartment could reach a national chart without anyone's permission.
In 1993 he and Andrew Lunstad founded a Minnesota game studio, Fenris Wolf. Beale designed and produced Rebel Moon and Rebel Moon Rising, first-person shooters about lunar colonists fighting a United Nations authority. GT Interactive published them. Development of a third game, Rebel Moon Revolution, ended in February 1999 in litigation: Fenris Wolf sued for $1.7 million alleging breach of contract, GT answered that the developer had missed the ninth milestone and had been offered a path to fix it. The studio closed that year. Beale told GameSpot he was already talking to other publishers.
Then he and Lunstad made The War in Heaven, a Christian game about angels and demons, and Beale turned the same material into his first novel.

Eleven years at WorldNetDaily

The column began shortly after September 11 and ran until the end of 2012. WorldNetDaily billed him as a Christian libertarian, and for a decade that description held. He wrote against the Patriot Act, against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, against the Federal Reserve, against the Republican leadership, against free trade, gun control, feminism, and the expanding federal bureaucracy. Two books came out of the period: The Irrational Atheist (2008), which took apart the arguments of Richard Dawkins (b. 1941), Sam Harris (b. 1967), and Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011), and The Return of the Great Depression (2009), which predicted a long global contraction that did not arrive on schedule.
Read the libertarian columns now and the later material is already sitting inside them. In a 2006 piece he quoted Ephesians on the struggle against principalities and powers in the heavenly realms. His farewell column in December 2012 dropped the political register entirely: Satan and his minions rule this fallen world, he wrote, and told readers to place their trust in Christ rather than in governments, guns, or gold. The “Clown World” vocabulary he adopted years later was a harder version of a position he had held the whole time.
In 2009 he also designed a computer mouse. It had eighteen buttons, an analog thumbstick, 512K of onboard memory, and support for sixty-three application profiles. It shipped first as the OpenOfficeMouse and then, in black, as the WarMouse Meta, at about eighty dollars. The company's press release quoted its lead designer, Theodore Beale, on the reaction: three emails had produced three million website hits over a weekend, and nobody believed an eighteen-button mouse could be anything other than a joke. “It's real, it's brutal,” he said. Reviewers found it the most advanced mouse they had ever seen and close to unusable. Early buyers had to be sent replacements. By 2012 it was gone.
The object is a fair portrait of the maker. Take a standard interface that two hundred million people accept without thinking. Refuse the standard. Replace it with something the user controls completely, at the cost of everything the standard was doing for him.

The tweet

In 2013 Beale ran for president of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America against Steven Gould (b. 1955), to succeed John Scalzi (b. 1969). He lost roughly ninety to ten.
That June, at the Continuum convention in Melbourne, N. K. Jemisin (b. 1972) gave the guest of honor speech. She mentioned that about a tenth of the SFWA membership had voted for a man she described as a self-declared misogynist, racist, and antisemite, and argued that silence around such people is a form of enabling them. She did not name him.
Beale answered on his blog. He called Jemisin an “ignorant half-savage,” argued that Black Americans were less civilized than white Americans, and wrote that self-defense laws exist so that whites can defend their lives and property from people like her. In the surrounding exchanges he called the editor Teresa Nielsen Hayden (b. 1956) a fat frog. Then he pushed a link to the post through @SFWAauthors, the organization's promotional Twitter feed, which members could use to promote their own work.
The feed was the hinge. Writers had spent years complaining about him and getting nowhere, because a private blog is a private blog. Using the association's own channel to broadcast the post converted a matter of opinion into a matter of governance. Within hours, members were writing to their regional directors demanding expulsion. SFWA deleted the tweet, appointed an investigator, took his written response, consulted counsel and past presidents, and on August 13, 2013 the board voted unanimously to remove him. Gould's letter cited the Massachusetts bylaws. The board's public statement never named him. Beale named himself, published both the report and his reply, and signed off by saying he would find the wherewithal to soldier on somehow.
Two readings of that month have coexisted ever since without touching. In one, a professional association enforced a minimal rule: do not use the organization's platform to attack a member in racial terms. In the other, an ideological body expelled a dissident and proved that reform from within was impossible. Beale did not choose between them. He chose the second and monetized it.

Spokane

Larry Correia (b. 1977) started Sad Puppies in 2013 on a narrower complaint: that the Hugo Awards had drifted toward fiction admired by a small literary circle and away from books people buy. Brad Torgersen (b. 1974) ran the third campaign in 2015.
Beale launched Rabid Puppies on February 2, 2015, one day after the Sad Puppies list appeared. The lists overlapped. His differed in two respects. It included Castalia House titles and his own name, and it came with an instruction: nominate them exactly as they are.
It worked. Puppy picks took most of the ballot, several categories entirely. What followed was the largest mobilization in the history of the World Science Fiction Society. Nearly six thousand of the eligible members voted, up from about thirty-six hundred the year before.
The convention was Sasquan, in Spokane, the third week of August. Wildfire smoke sat over eastern Washington so thickly that attendees coughed their way between panel rooms and some gave up and went back to their hotels. Saturday morning the wind shifted and the sky cleared. That evening at the INB Performing Arts Center, David Gerrold (b. 1944) and Tananarive Due (b. 1966) hosted the ceremony. Five times they opened an envelope and read No Award. Before 1977 the members had done that five times in the entire history of the prize. The two hosts moved through those categories fast and looked uncomfortable doing it. The audience, spread across three large rooms, cheered every one.
Beale watched from Switzerland and declared victory. His opponents had preferred to burn the award rather than let outsiders win it, he wrote, which proved his account of them. The other side counted the ballots and saw a voluntary association refusing a slate by a margin of better than five to one.
Both are true and neither is the useful part. The useful part is that the Hugos are an election, and the Puppies ran an experiment on its rules. Anyone could nominate for the price of a supporting membership. The nominating stage used plurality counting across a very long list of eligible works, which meant a few hundred coordinated ballots could sweep a category that ordinarily fragmented across dozens of titles. The final stage used instant-runoff with a No Award option, which meant a large majority could annihilate anything the minority had put through. Beale found the first weakness with real precision and had no answer to the second.
The Business Meeting responded like an electoral reform commission. It passed E Pluribus Hugo, a single divisible vote with least popular elimination, which splits each nominator's ballot among his picks so that bloc voting buys less; and 5-and-6, which lets each member nominate five works while six become finalists. Both were ratified in 2016 and took effect in 2017. Beale ran another slate in 2016 and placed sixty-one picks on the ballot, then shifted to bullet voting once the algorithm arrived, which held him to one finalist per category, most of them below No Award. By 2017 all eighteen categories produced winners.
Science fiction fandom, arguing at a hotel business meeting for two summers, adopted a proportional nomination method that political scientists rarely see implemented anywhere. That belongs in the literature on voting systems and it is almost never cited there.
Gamergate ran alongside all of this and enlarged the field. Beale supported it early, wrote about its tactics, and went to a gathering in Paris in the summer of 2015, where a French reporter found among the attendees a Belgian in his thirties who had traveled specifically to discuss socio-sexual theory with him and had no interest in video games whatsoever. Gamergate did not create Rabid Puppies. It supplied the demonstration that diffuse online anger could be pointed at an institution and held there.

The doctrine and the firm

Castalia House began in 2014. It publishes military science fiction and fantasy, political polemic, translations, and reissued classics, and it gave Beale control of selection, editing, pricing, the customer list, and eventually the physical binding. Arkhaven Comics extended it into illustrated work. The Castalia Library and the smaller Libraria sell subscriptions to leather-bound editions.
SJWs Always Lie (2015) and SJWs Always Double Down (2017) supplied the operating manual. The argument: ideological activists enter an institution, learn its procedural language, convert professional norms into political tests, isolate dissenters, and end up controlling hiring and membership. The advice is tactical. Document everything. Never apologize under pressure, because the apology is the evidence. Never concede in the hope of being spared. Remove them before they remove you.
The books sold because a large number of people had watched some version of that happen and had never seen it described in operational terms. They also built a closed loop. Criticism of Beale becomes evidence that the critic is part of the capture. Commercial failure becomes sabotage. Rejection by any professional body confirms the body is compromised. The framework teaches its readers to notice a real pattern and simultaneously destroys their ability to distinguish it from ordinary quality control, ordinary market indifference, or ordinary personal dislike.
Infogalactic applied the same move to knowledge. Launched in October 2016 as a fork of Wikipedia's content on Wikipedia's own software, it invited users to revise articles under different sourcing standards. It never came near Wikipedia's scale, and by the mid-2020s Beale was writing that the way forward was machine generation rather than editors. The principle it embodied outlasted the site. When he decides an institution cannot be reformed, he copies it and walks.
Alt-Hero, launched in October 2017, showed how well the audience could be converted. Kickstarter declined the project. It ran instead on Freestartr, a crowdfunding platform built for material other services would not host, and closed at about $245,000 from a stated 2,190 backers, roughly ten times its goal. Chuck Dixon (b. 1954), co-creator of Bane and one of the most prolific writers in the history of American comics, signed on. Journalists at NPR's Reveal later noted that the pledge pattern was unusual, with many anonymous contributions in very large increments, on a private platform with no public accounting. Nobody outside the operation can confirm the figures. That is true of nearly every number Beale's companies publish.

Sigma

Around 2010 and 2011 he took the alpha and beta division that circulated in men's online forums, called it overly simplistic, and expanded it into a socio-sexual hierarchy with six ranks: alpha, beta, delta, gamma, omega, and sigma. The sigma was the man with an alpha's capacities who declines to compete inside the hierarchy at all.
The taxonomy is not a validated model of personality and does not pretend to derive from one. Its force is mythic and autobiographical. It converts exclusion into election. A man who has been thrown out of an organization is not below the hierarchy; he is outside and above it.
The term escaped. It moved through masculinity forums, then to TikTok, where it lodged among boys born after it was coined, most of whom could not name its author. A literary scholar who studies him, Jordan S. Carroll, whose Speculative Whiteness: Science Fiction and the Alt-Right devotes attention to the Puppies, writes that Beale will be remembered, if at all, as a blogger and for that one word. In 2026 Beale published Sigma Game: The Complete Socio-Sexual Hierarchy, marketing it as an observational model based on a testable hypothesis about male behavior.

Seventy-two arbitrations

Unauthorized.tv opened in 2018 as a subscription video platform for performers who expected to be removed from the large ones. Its central figure became Owen Benjamin (b. May 24, 1980), a comedian who had opened for major acts and appeared with Christina Ricci in a 2009 film, and who was banned from YouTube and other services in 2019 after a run of antisemitic, racist, and anti-gay material. He still streams there, and Beale still appears on the streams.
The Patreon episode is the most instructive thing Beale ever attached his name to, and the least understood.
Patreon removed Benjamin in October 2019. Benjamin filed a JAMS arbitration seeking $3.5 million. Then seventy-two of his supporters filed their own individual arbitrations, claiming that Patreon had interfered with the economic relationship between them and the creator they funded. Patreon's terms of service required arbitration, barred class actions, and put the filing fees on the company. Under California practice those fees run to roughly ten thousand dollars per claimant and cannot be recovered even if the company prevails.
Patreon changed its terms on January 1, 2020, and then sued all seventy-two claimants in San Francisco Superior Court as a group, seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the arbitrations it had itself required. The claimants retained Marc Randazza. On July 29, 2020, in Patreon, Inc. v. Ayure, the court denied the injunction. Having to spend money to arbitrate is not irreparable harm, the judge wrote, and questions about whether the claims are arbitrable belong to the arbitrators.
Beale promoted the campaign and read the docket entries aloud to his audience. In his telling this became a landmark. It was not. There is no California appellate decision called Patreon v. Hyde, he was not among the seventy-two named defendants, and the ruling decided one motion at one stage. What is true is more interesting than the legend. Between 2019 and 2022, mass arbitration became a recognized instrument: thousands of individual claims filed at once against a company that wrote the arbitration clause precisely to prevent aggregation, with the fee structure doing the work a class action used to do. The Georgetown Law Journal published the first systematic study of it in 2022. Uber, DoorDash, Amazon, and Intuit have all been on the receiving end. A comedian's fans and a science fiction publisher in Switzerland were among the earliest people in the country to fire that weapon, and the legal literature does not know they exist.
The method is the same one he used on the Hugos. Read the rules the institution wrote for its own protection. Assemble people the institution assumes will stay isolated. Make compliance more expensive than accommodation. Never appeal to anyone's conscience.

Q

Beale did not receive his worldview from QAnon. He fitted QAnon into a worldview he already had.
The commercial expression was Alt-Hero: Q, written by Dixon and published by Arkhaven starting in 2018. The first arc was titled “Where We Go One,” from the movement's slogan. Arkhaven's marketing called QAnon an extraordinary global phenomenon and sold the series as ordinary heroes against global corruption and evil.
The commentary was more direct. In 2020 he wrote that Q was telling more truth than the major media and technology companies. He affirmed a globalist conspiracy he described as anti-Christian, anti-Western, anti-American, and anti-Trump, and accepted the claims that parts of the network preyed on children and held Luciferian commitments.
When the arrests did not come, he kept the cosmology and dropped the timetable. He began using “hopium” for reports promising imminent exposure, including reports he had once amplified. What survived is darker than “trust the plan.” In the later writing there are no benevolent insiders quietly winning. There is a fallen order under hostile spiritual authority, and no earthly faction to root for. He wrote in July 2025 that there are no good guys, in Clown World or in the rebel faction against it.

A million dollars

Rebel's Run was to be a live-action film built on an Arkhaven character. Viral Films Media raised more than a million dollars through equity crowdfunding, much of it from small investors who had backed the comics, sold on the promise of an alternative to corporate entertainment.
Beale could not get conventional film financing, for reasons no one disputes. He went instead to a Utah company called Ohana Capital Financial, whose advertised slogan was banking the unbankable. Its founder, James Wolfgramm (b. 1978), of Spanish Fork, presented himself on social media as a cryptocurrency multimillionaire. Federal prosecutors later alleged that the sports cars, the suitcase of cash, and the wallet screenshots were images lifted from other people's accounts; that a mining machine displayed in his office was connected to a monitor playing a recorded loop; and that in November 2020 a film company wired a million dollars into an Ohana account, where it was used to cover an earlier client's shortfall on a personal protective equipment deal. In September 2022 a grand jury in the District of Utah charged Wolfgramm, Bitex LLC, and Ohana with seven felony counts, five of wire fraud and two of money laundering. He pleaded not guilty.
The film was never made. Beale told his backers he did not expect the money to come back.
Read the record and the conclusion is that he and his investors were victims of an alleged fraud. Read it again and there is a second finding that sits alongside the first. The Ohana pitch depended on the mark's belief that the ordinary financial system was closed to him for political reasons. That belief was accurate. Every safeguard that a normal escrow arrangement, a normal bank, a normal completion bond, or a normal entertainment attorney would have supplied had been replaced by ideological solidarity and personal confidence.
Independence and competence are separate goods. Distrusting a bank does not make an alternative lender trustworthy. Discovering that the gatekeepers exclude you does not tell you which of the people who welcome you are honest.

Cressier

He has lived in Switzerland since 2005, first in Vaud, then in Fribourg. He praises direct democracy, cantonal sovereignty, and Swiss reluctance to defer to Brussels, and criticized the government for adopting EU sanctions against Russia. He has passed the required language examinations and says he intends to apply for citizenship.
The château he bought in Cressier belonged for many years to Gonzague de Reynold (1880-1970), the Fribourg writer, admirer of the authoritarian regimes of the 1930s, and a principal figure in Swiss spiritual defense during the war. Whether Beale knew that when he bought it, the coincidence is exact enough that Swiss journalists reached for it immediately.
Swiss reporting in 2022 assembled a list of his public statements. A 2015 interview in which he put the genetic propensity of Black Americans toward violence at five hundred times that of white Americans. A tweet, since inaccessible, arguing that a society which cannot persuade women to marry and bear children must compel them or die. A 2017 post, after the Manchester bombing, pairing a photograph of Anders Behring Breivik with the caption “Saint Breivik, pray for us.” Beale declined to answer the paper's questions, threatened a criminal defamation complaint, and reprinted the article on his blog under that heading.
Point fourteen of “What the Alt Right Is,” which he published in August 2016, states that the movement believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children. That is the Fourteen Words with the wording adjusted. He rejects the term white supremacist and argues that he cannot be one, since he claims Native American and Mexican ancestry and identified himself to SFWA as Hispanic. Both things are on the record. Readers can weigh them without help.
On Gab, where about thirty-five thousand people follow him behind a login, he is blunter. Asked in 2024 why he avoided naming a particular group, he replied that he avoided no words at all, that the Jews his interlocutor was obsessed with were the tools of the global satanists of Clown World, and that those satanists were themselves servants of older inhuman evils. Read that back to him in an interview and he does not flinch or retract. He says that if you are a Christian you believe in the supernatural, that George Soros and Hillary Clinton are likewise instruments, and that his picture owes nothing to the Protocols and everything to the passage in which Satan offers Jesus the kingdoms of the world and Jesus does not dispute that they are his to offer.
He also says he feels more at home in Black culture than among most people in Switzerland, and that the African men he plays football with could not care less what he writes.
His publishing house sponsors Dorking Wanderers, an English football club in Surrey.

What he built

He is not a major novelist. His economic forecasts have not held up. He did not capture the Hugo Awards, and the institution he attacked answered him with a rule change that worked. The film never got made. The mouse was discontinued. The encyclopedia never mattered.
What he has is stock. He owns intellectual property, imprints, mailing lists, subscription relationships, a video archive, and a bindery with the leather in the next room. That is why he outlasted the alt-right figures who were far more famous in 2017. Their careers were leases: on Trump, on Twitter, on YouTube, on cable bookings, on donors, on access to Republican offices. Every one of those leases was terminable, and most were terminated. His was not, because there was no landlord.
The American academics who study him read him as a discourse: as fan resentment, as reactionary nostalgia, as speculative whiteness. That literature is careful and it is looking at the wrong object. The thing he did that almost nobody on the political right did in that decade was build firms. Small ones, opaque ones, several of them bad ones, but firms, with production capacity and recurring revenue and a customer file he controls. The people who mock the eighteen-button mouse and the failed film are counting the products. The product was never the point. The capacity to make products without asking anyone was the point.
The bill for that comes in a single line, and it is the same line every time. The structure that lets him publish whatever he wants is a structure with no one in it who can tell him he is wrong. His readers are trained to hear criticism as attack and failure as sabotage. So the doctrine that correctly predicted how institutions expel people also guaranteed that when a man with fake photographs of sports cars offered to bank the unbankable, there was nobody in the room whose job was to say no.
He is an entrepreneur of secession. He begins from the position that the institutions are held by enemies and cannot be argued with, and he proceeds by forking, duplicating, withdrawing, and rebuilding. QAnon was not his source. It was a mythology compatible enough to publish. The Hugos were not his target. They were a proof of concept, and it worked well enough that a volunteer business meeting in Spokane rewrote its voting algorithm to stop him.

Notes

Opening scene, Cressier, the bindery, the interview quotes. Benjamin von Wyl and Vera Leysinger, “Far-right US blogger reaches hundreds of thousands from Switzerland,” SWI swissinfo.ch, December 9, 2025 — This is the single richest scene source and the only recent on-the-record interview. Everything I used about the unfinished flat, the gym, the Korean leather, the laser engraver, 1,500 books a month and the tenfold expansion plan, the half-million monthly visits (Similarweb), the 35,000 Gab followers and the Gab exchange, the citizenship plan, the football teammates, the Dorking Wanderers sponsorship, and the “I reject the Enlightenment” line comes from here. Fuller versions of his quotes on women’s suffrage, on the Protocols, and on Soros and Clinton are in that piece.

Château de Cressier, the Blick headline, the library story night, Gonzague de Reynold. Same swissinfo piece; also the original Tribune de Genève / 24 Heures reporting, summarized here and here — The de Reynold connection is from the Tribune de Genève.

Robert Beale. Randy Furst, “Ex-CEO regrets ‘mission’ to take on IRS,” Star Tribune, December 30, 2007 (the jail interview, the cell phone, the Office Depot arrest). United States v. Beale, 574 F.3d 512 (8th Cir. 2009) (the Chayil arrangement, the $5.6 million, the forged lien release, the Swiss transfers while a fugitive, the “misunderstanding versus disagreement” line). Sentencing: https://www.presspubs.com/shoreview/news/9-12-former-north-oaks-resident-sentenced-for-tax-fraud/article_d8dd7f27-57c1-5140-8d70-e2fbf779ca60.html.

Psykosonik. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psykosonik and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Sebastien (The Underground, First Avenue, 7th Street Entry, Glam Slam, Wax Trax!/TVT, four dance-chart top forties, Beale’s departure after 1994). Track listing: Discogs. Skrowaczewski paternity is on the Sebastien pages. A good period-flavored write-up: https://cdm.link/the-trippy-rave-y-90s-project-who-scored-mortal-kombat-and-marathon/

Fenris Wolf and GT Interactive. https://www.mobygames.com/company/1081/fenris-wolf-ltd/trivia/ (the February 1999 suit, $1.7 million, the ninth-milestone defense) and GameSpot, “GT Yanks Rebel Moon.”

WorldNetDaily. Column archive at wnd.com. The farewell column, “11 years of failure,” December 2012, has the Satan line. “In, but not of,” April 17, 2006, has the Ephesians passage.

WarMouse. Engadget, December 14, 2009, carries the full press release with the Beale quote: https://www.engadget.com/2009-12-14-warmouse-meta-openofficemouse-has-a-new-name-same-18-buttons.html — Review: https://www.engadget.com/2010/05/03/warmouse-meta-review/ — The replacement-units detail and the 2012 endpoint come from Camestros Felapton’s write-up, which is hostile but factual on the timeline.

SFWA and Jemisin. Jemisin’s Continuum speech and the reaction: https://amalelmohtar.com/calling-for-the-expulsion-of-theodore-beale-from-sfwa/ (this has the fullest quotation of the offending post, including the self-defense-laws sentence). SFWA board statement, August 13, 2013 — Gould’s letter as posted by Beale, via Locus: https://locusmag.com/2013/08/beale-expelled-from-sfwa/ — The detail that Beale identified himself to SFWA as Hispanic is from Cora Buhlert’s contemporaneous post; he published the PDFs.

The Puppies and the 2015 ceremony. Official results and No Award categories — Turnout (5,950 of 11,635 eligible, up from 3,587): https://www.npr.org/2015/08/26/434644645/how-the-sad-puppies-won-by-losing (also the source for the hosts’ visible discomfort and the audience cheering across three rooms). Wildfire smoke and the clear Saturday: https://www.yesmagazine.org/social-justice/2015/08/28/sci-fi-fandom-declares-victory-after-sad-and-rabid-puppies-hugo-awardsWired‘s contemporaneous account has the “nominate them precisely as they are” instruction and the February 2, 2015 launch date.

E Pluribus Hugo and 5-and-6. Official explanation of the algorithmhttps://electowiki.org/wiki/E_Pluribus_Hugo — Outcomes in 2016 and 2017, including the sixty-one 2016 finalists and the shift to bullet voting: https://fancyclopedia.org/wiki/Sad_Puppies and https://file770.com/will-e-pluribus-hugo-survive-re-ratification/ — If you want to push the voting-systems argument further, EPH is formally a single divisible vote with least popular elimination, and there’s a small technical literature on SDV-LPE.

Gamergate in Paris. Le Monde, July 2015, “A la rencontre du Gamergate.” The Belgian attendee who came only to discuss socio-sexual theory is in that piece.

Alt-Hero numbers. Beale’s own press release ($245,000, 2,190 backers, 978 percent of goal) reproduced at http://foxonnews.blogspot.com/2017/10/althero-press-release.html — The NPR Reveal skepticism about pledge patterns on Freestartr is quoted at https://camestrosfelapton.wordpress.com/2018/10/13/is-vox-day-crowd-funding-himself/ — Nobody has audited any of it, which is why I said so in the text.

Patreon mass arbitration. Order denying the preliminary injunction, July 29, 2020, in Patreon, Inc. v. Paul Michael Ayure et al., San Francisco Superior Court No. CGC-20-584586. PDF: https://s9503.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/29.07.2020-Denial-of-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf — Coverage: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/owen-benjamin-patreon-lawsuit/ and https://reclaimthenet.org/final-ruling-patreon-owen-benjamin-injunction-denied — For the scholarly hook: J. Maria Glover, “Mass Arbitration,” 74 Stanford Law Review (2022), the first systematic study, with a taxonomy of outcomes. Beale’s own post on the ruling: https://voxday.net/2020/07/30/patreon-denied-preliminary-injunction/

QAnon and Alt-Hero: Q. Arkhaven/Amazon marketing copy for Alt-Hero: Q Volume 1. His 2020 posts are on Vox Popoli; “We ARE being lied to,” September 12, 2020, is one. “There are No Good Guys,” July 18, 2025, is the source for the later position: https://voxday.net/2025/07/18/there-are-no-good-guys/

Rebel’s Run and Wolfgramm. DOJ press release, September 22, 2022Earlier charging documents including the November 2020 million-dollar film-company wireDaily Beast originalCamestros Felapton tracked the SEC filings and the escrow language I could not confirm the disposition of United States v. Wolfgramm, 2:22-cr-00002 (D. Utah).

“Saint Breivik, pray for us.” This appears in the 2022 Tribune de Genève / 24 Heures investigation, which Beale reprinted in full on his blog under the title “A Portrait in Criminal Defamation,” June 1, 2022 — It was also noted by bloggers contemporaneously in May 2017. Beale threatened a defamation complaint over the article.

“What the Alt Right Is,” point 14. Primary source, Vox Popoli, August 24, 2016. Max Dosser (Vanderbilt) and Jordan S. Carroll are the two academics quoted in the swissinfo piece; Carroll’s Speculative Whiteness: Science Fiction and the Alt-Right is open access at https://manifold.umn.edu/read/speculative-whiteness and Dosser’s dissertation is Nostalgic Futures.

Posted in Vox Day | Comments Off on Vox Day